Cases Succesion 9th Batch

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896 March 29, 1974
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, Administrator of the Testate Estate of

Charles Newton Hodges (Sp. Proc. No. 1672 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo), petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE VENICIO ESCOLIN, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo,
Branch II, and AVELINA A. MAGNO, respondents.
G.R. Nos. L-27936 & L-27937 March 29, 1974
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE LINNIE JANE HODGES (Sp. Proc. No. 1307). TESTATE
ESTATE OF THE LATE CHARLES NEWTON HODGES (Sp. Proc. No. 1672). PHILIPPINE
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, administrator-appellant,
vs.
LORENZO CARLES, JOSE PABLICO, ALFREDO CATEDRAL, SALVADOR GUZMAN,
BELCESAR CAUSING, FLORENIA BARRIDO, PURIFICACION CORONADO, GRACIANO
LUCERO, ARITEO THOMAS JAMIR, MELQUIADES BATISANAN, PEPITO IYULORES,
ESPERIDION PARTISALA, WINIFREDO ESPADA, ROSARIO ALINGASA, ADELFA
PREMAYLON, SANTIAGO PACAONSIS, and AVELINA A. MAGNO, the last as Administratrix in
Sp. Proc. No. 1307, appellees, WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC., movant-
appellee.
San Juan, Africa, Gonzales and San Agustin for Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank.
Manglapus Law Office, Antonio Law Office and Rizal R. Quimpo for private respondents and
appellees Avelina A. Magno, etc., et al.
BARREDO, J.:p
Certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction; certiorari to "declare all acts of the respondent
court in the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges (Sp. Proc. No. 1307 of the Court of First Instance
of Iloilo) subsequent to the order of December 14, 1957 as null and void for having been issued
without jurisdiction"; prohibition to enjoin the respondent court from allowing, tolerating, sanctioning,
or abetting private respondent Avelina A. Magno to perform or do any acts of administration, such as
those enumerated in the petition, and from exercising any authority or power as Regular
Administratrix of above-named Testate Estate, by entertaining manifestations, motion and pleadings
filed by her and acting on them, and also to enjoin said court from allowing said private respondent
to interfere, meddle or take part in any manner in the administration of the Testate Estate of Charles
Newton Hodges (Sp. Proc. No. 1672 of the same court and branch); with prayer for preliminary
injunction, which was issued by this Court on August 8, 1967 upon a bond of P5,000; the petition
being particularly directed against the orders of the respondent court of October 12, 1966 denying
petitioner's motion of April 22, 1966 and its order of July 18, 1967 denying the motion for
reconsideration of said order.
Related to and involving basically the same main issue as the foregoing petition, thirty-three (33)
appeals from different orders of the same respondent court approving or otherwise sanctioning the
acts of administration of the respondent Magno on behalf of the testate Estate of Mrs. Hodges.
THE FACTS
On May 23, 1957, Linnie Jane Hodges died in Iloilo City leaving a will executed on November 22,
1952 pertinently providing as follows:
FIRST: I direct that all my just debts and funeral expenses be first paid out of my
estate.
SECOND: I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my
estate, both personal and real, wherever situated, or located, to my beloved
husband, Charles Newton Hodges, to have and to hold unto him, my said husband,
during his natural lifetime.
THIRD: I desire, direct and provide that my husband, Charles Newton Hodges, shall
have the right to manage, control, use and enjoy said estate during his lifetime, and
he is hereby given the right to make any changes in the physical properties of said
estate, by sale or any part thereof which he may think best, and the purchase of any
other or additional property as he may think best; to execute conveyances with or
without general or special warranty, conveying in fee simple or for any other term or
time, any property which he may deem proper to dispose of; to lease any of the real
property for oil, gas and/or other minerals, and all such deeds or leases shall pass
the absolute fee simple title to the interest so conveyed in such property as he may
elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate shall belong to him,
and he is further authorized to use any part of the principal of said estate as he may
need or desire. It is provided herein, however, that he shall not sell or otherwise
dispose of any of the improved property now owned by us located at, in or near the
City of Lubbock, Texas, but he shall have the full right to lease, manage and enjoy
the same during his lifetime, above provided. He shall have the right to subdivide any
farm land and sell lots therein. and may sell unimproved town lots.
FOURTH: At the death of my said husband, Charles Newton Hodges, I give, devise
and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and
personal, wherever situated or located, to be equally divided among my brothers and
sisters, share and share alike, namely:
Esta Higdon, Emma Howell, Leonard Higdon, Roy Higdon, Saddie Rascoe, Era
Roman and Nimroy Higdon.
FIFTH: In case of the death of any of my brothers and/or sisters named in item
Fourth, above, prior to the death of my husband, Charles Newton Hodges, then it is
my will and bequest that the heirs of such deceased brother or sister shall take jointly
the share which would have gone to such brother or sister had she or he survived.
SIXTH: I nominate and appoint my said husband, Charles Newton Hodges, to be
executor of this, my last will and testament, and direct that no bond or other security
be required of him as such executor.
SEVENTH: It is my will and bequest that no action be had in the probate court, in the
administration of my estate, other than that necessary to prove and record this will
and to return an inventory and appraisement of my estate and list of claims. (Pp. 2-4,
Petition.)
This will was subsequently probated in aforementioned Special Proceedings No. 1307 of respondent
court on June 28, 1957, with the widower Charles Newton Hodges being appointed as Executor,
pursuant to the provisions thereof.
Previously, on May 27, 1957, the said widower (hereafter to be referred to as Hodges) had been
appointed Special Administrator, in which capacity he filed a motion on the same date as follows:
URGENT EX-PARTE MOTION TO ALLOW OR AUTHORIZE PETITIONER TO

CONTINUE THE BUSINESS IN WHICH HE WAS ENGAGED AND TO PERFORM
ACTS WHICH HE HAD BEEN DOING WHILE DECEASED WAS LIVING
Come petitioner in the above-entitled special proceedings, thru his undersigned attorneys, to the
Hon. Court, most respectfully states:
1. — That Linnie Jane Hodges died leaving her last will and testament, a copy of
which is attached to the petition for probate of the same.
2. — That in said last will and testament herein petitioner Charles Newton Hodges is
directed to have the right to manage, control use and enjoy the estate of deceased
Linnie Jane Hodges, in the same way, a provision was placed in paragraph two, the
following: "I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my
estate, to my beloved husband, Charles Newton Hodges, to have and (to) hold unto
him, my said husband, during his natural lifetime."
3. — That during the lifetime of Linnie Jane Hodges, herein petitioner was engaged
in the business of buying and selling personal and real properties, and do such acts
which petitioner may think best.
4. — That deceased Linnie Jane Hodges died leaving no descendants or

ascendants, except brothers and sisters and herein petitioner as executor surviving
spouse, to inherit the properties of the decedent.
5. — That the present motion is submitted in order not to paralyze the business of
petitioner and the deceased, especially in the purchase and sale of properties. That
proper accounting will be had also in all these transactions.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that, petitioner C. N. Hodges (Charles

Newton Hodges) be allowed or authorized to continue the business in which he was
engaged and to perform acts which he had been doing while deceased Linnie Jane
Hodges was living.
City of Iloilo, May 27, 1957. (Annex "D", Petition.)

which the respondent court immediately granted in the following order:
It appearing in the urgent ex-parte motion filed by petitioner C. N. Hodges, that the
business in which said petitioner and the deceased were engaged will be paralyzed,
unless and until the Executor is named and appointed by the Court, the said
petitioner is allowed or authorized to continue the business in which he was engaged
and to perform acts which he had been doing while the deceased was living.
SO ORDERED.
City of Iloilo May 27, 1957. (Annex "E", Petition.)
Under date of December 11, 1957, Hodges filed as such Executor another motion thus:
MOTION TO APPROVE ALL SALES, CONVEYANCES, LEASES, MORTGAGES

THAT THE EXECUTOR HAD MADE FURTHER AND SUBSEQUENT
TRANSACTIONS WHICH THE EXECUTOR MAY DO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
LAST WISH OF THE DECEASED LINNIE JANE HODGES.
Comes the Executor in the above-entitled proceedings, thru his undersigned

attorney, to the Hon. Court, most respectfully states:
1. — That according to the last will and testament of the deceased Linnie Jane
Hodges, the executor as the surviving spouse and legatee named in the will of the
deceased; has the right to dispose of all the properties left by the deceased, portion
of which is quoted as follows:
Second: I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my
estate, both personal and real, wherever situated, or located, to my beloved
husband, Charles Newton Hodges, to have and to hold unto him, my said husband,
during his natural lifetime.
Third: I desire, direct and provide that my husband, Charles Newton Hodges, shall
have the right to manage, control, use and enjoy said estate during his lifetime, and
he is hereby given the right to make any changes in the physical properties of said
estate, by sale or any part thereof which he may think best, and the purchase of any
other or additional property as he may think best; to execute conveyances with or
without general or special warranty, conveying in fee simple or for any other term or
time, any property which he may deem proper to dispose of; to lease any of the real
property for oil, gas and/or other minerals, and all such deeds or leases shall pass
the absolute fee simple title to the interest so conveyed in such property as he may
elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate shall belong to him,
and he is further authorized to use any part of the principal of said estate as he may
need or desire. ...
2. — That herein Executor, is not only part owner of the properties left as conjugal,
but also, the successor to all the properties left by the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges.
That during the lifetime of herein Executor, as Legatee has the right to sell, convey,
lease or dispose of the properties in the Philippines. That inasmuch as C.N. Hodges
was and is engaged in the buy and sell of real and personal properties, even before
the death of Linnie Jane Hodges, a motion to authorize said C.N. Hodges was filed in
Court, to allow him to continue in the business of buy and sell, which motion was
favorably granted by the Honorable Court.
3. — That since the death of Linnie Jane Hodges, Mr. C.N. Hodges had been buying
and selling real and personal properties, in accordance with the wishes of the late
Linnie Jane Hodges.
4. — That the Register of Deeds for Iloilo, had required of late the herein Executor to
have all the sales, leases, conveyances or mortgages made by him, approved by the
Hon. Court.
5. — That it is respectfully requested, all the sales, conveyances leases and

mortgages executed by the Executor, be approved by the Hon. Court. and
subsequent sales conveyances, leases and mortgages in compliances with the
wishes of the late Linnie Jane Hodges, and within the scope of the terms of the last
will and testament, also be approved;
6. — That the Executor is under obligation to submit his yearly accounts, and the
properties conveyed can also be accounted for, especially the amounts received.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that, all the sales, conveyances, leases,
and mortgages executed by the Executor, be approved by the Hon. Court, and also
the subsequent sales, conveyances, leases, and mortgages in consonance with the
wishes of the deceased contained in her last will and testament, be with authorization
and approval of the Hon. Court.
City of Iloilo, December 11, 1967.
(Annex "G", Petition.)
which again was promptly granted by the respondent court on December 14, 1957 as follows:
ORDER
As prayed for by Attorney Gellada, counsel for the Executor for the reasons stated in
his motion dated December 11, 1957, which the Court considers well taken all the
sales, conveyances, leases and mortgages of all properties left by the deceased
Linnie Jane Hodges executed by the Executor Charles N. Hodges are hereby
APPROVED. The said Executor is further authorized to execute subsequent sales,
conveyances, leases and mortgages of the properties left by the said deceased
Linnie Jane Hodges in consonance with the wishes conveyed in the last will and
testament of the latter.
So ordered.
Iloilo City. December 14, 1957.
(Annex "H", Petition.)
On April 14, 1959, in submitting his first statement of account as Executor for approval, Hodges
alleged:
Pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of Court, herein executor of the deceased,
renders the following account of his administration covering the period from January
1, 1958 to December 31, 1958, which account may be found in detail in the individual
income tax return filed for the estate of deceased Linnie Jane Hodges, to wit:
That a certified public accountant has examined the statement of net worth of the
estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, the assets and liabilities, as well as the income and
expenses, copy of which is hereto attached and made integral part of this statement
of account as Annex "A".
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully prayed that, the statement of

net worth of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, the assets and liabilities, income and
expenses as shown in the individual income tax return for the estate of the deceased
and marked as Annex "A", be approved by the Honorable Court, as substantial
compliance with the requirements of the Rules of Court.
That no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of examining the
herein accounts be given notice, as herein executor is the only devisee or legatee of
the deceased, in accordance with the last will and testament already probated by the
Honorable court.
City of Iloilo April 14, 1959.
(Annex "I", Petition.)
The respondent court approved this statement of account on April 21, 1959 in its order worded thus:
Upon petition of Atty. Gellada, in representation of the Executor, the statement of net
worth of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, assets and liabilities, income and
expenses as shown in the individual income tax return for the estate of the deceased
and marked as Annex "A" is approved.
SO ORDERED.
City of Iloilo April 21, 1959.
(Annex "J", Petition.)
His accounts for the periods January 1, 1959 to December 31, 1959 and January 1, 1960 to
December 31, 1960 were submitted likewise accompanied by allegations identical mutatis
mutandis to those of April 14, 1959, quoted above; and the respective orders approving the same,
dated July 30, 1960 and May 2, 1961, were substantially identical to the above-quoted order of April
21, 1959. In connection with the statements of account just mentioned, the following assertions
related thereto made by respondent-appellee Magno in her brief do not appear from all indications
discernible in the record to be disputable:
Under date of April 14, 1959, C.N. Hodges filed his first "Account by the Executor" of
the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. In the "Statement of Networth of Mr. C.N. Hodges
and the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges" as of December 31, 1958 annexed thereto,
C.N. Hodges reported that the combined conjugal estate earned a net income of
P328,402.62, divided evenly between him and the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges.
Pursuant to this, he filed an "individual income tax return" for calendar year 1958 on
the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges reporting, under oath, the said estate as having
earned income of P164,201.31, exactly one-half of the net income of his combined
personal assets and that of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. (p. 91, Appellee's
Brief.)
xxx xxx xxx
Under date of July 21, 1960, C.N. Hodges filed his second "Annual Statement of
Account by the Executor" of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. In the "Statement of
Networth of Mr. C.N. Hodges and the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges" as of December
31, 1959 annexed thereto, C.N. Hodges reported that the combined conjugal estate
earned a net income of P270,623.32, divided evenly between him and the estate of
Linnie Jane Hodges. Pursuant to this, he filed an "individual income tax return" for
calendar year 1959 on the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges reporting, under oath, the
said estate as having earned income of P135,311.66, exactly one-half of the net
income of his combined personal assets and that of the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges. (pp. 91-92. Appellee's Brief.)
xxx xxx xxx
Under date of April 20, 1961, C.N. Hodges filed his third "Annual Statement of
Account by the Executor for the Year 1960" of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. In
the "Statement of Net Worth of Mr. C.N. Hodges and the Estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges" as of December 31, 1960 annexed thereto, C.N. Hodges reported that the
combined conjugal estate earned a net income of P314,857.94, divided evenly
between him and the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. Pursuant to this, he filed an
"individual income tax return" for calendar year 1960 on the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges reporting, under oath, the said estate as having earned income of
P157,428.97, exactly one-half of the net income of his combined personal assets and
that of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. (Pp. 92-93, Appellee's Brief.)
Likewise the following:
In the petition for probate that he (Hodges) filed, he listed the seven brothers and
sisters of Linnie Jane as her "heirs" (see p. 2, Green ROA). The order of the court
admitting the will to probate unfortunately omitted one of the heirs, Roy Higdon (see
p. 14, Green ROA). Immediately, C.N. Hodges filed a verified motion to have Roy
Higdon's name included as an heir, stating that he wanted to straighten the records
"in order the heirs of deceased Roy Higdon may not think or believe they were
omitted, and that they were really and are interested in the estate of deceased Linnie
Jane Hodges. .
As an executor, he was bound to file tax returns for the estate he was administering
under American law. He did file such as estate tax return on August 8, 1958. In
Schedule "M" of such return, he answered "Yes" to the question as to whether he
was contemplating "renouncing the will". On the question as to what property
interests passed to him as the surviving spouse, he answered:
"None, except for purposes of administering the Estate, paying debts,

taxes and other legal charges. It is the intention of the surviving
husband of deceased to distribute the remaining property and
interests of the deceased in their Community estate to the devisees
and legatees named in the will when the debts, liabilities, taxes and
expenses of administration are finally determined and paid."
Again, on August 9, 1962, barely four months before his death, he executed an
"affidavit" wherein he ratified and confirmed all that he stated in Schedule "M" of his
estate tax returns as to his having renounced what was given him by his wife's will.1
As appointed executor, C.N. Hodges filed an "Inventory" dated May 12, 1958. He
listed all the assets of his conjugal partnership with Linnie Jane Hodges on a
separate balance sheet and then stated expressly that her estate which has come
into his possession as executor was "one-half of all the items" listed in said balance
sheet. (Pp. 89-90, Appellee's Brief.)
Parenthetically, it may be stated, at this juncture, that We are taking pains to quote wholly or at least,
extensively from some of the pleadings and orders whenever We feel that it is necessary to do so for
a more comprehensive and clearer view of the important and decisive issues raised by the parties
and a more accurate appraisal of their respective positions in regard thereto.
The records of these cases do not show that anything else was done in the above-mentioned
Special Proceedings No. 1307 until December 26, 1962, when on account of the death of Hodges
the day before, the same lawyer, Atty. Leon P. Gellada, who had been previously acting as counsel
for Hodges in his capacity as Executor of his wife's estate, and as such had filed the aforequoted
motions and manifestations, filed the following:
URGENT EX-PARTE MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A

SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX
COMES the undersigned attorney for the Executor in the above-entitled proceedings,
to the Honorable Court, most respectfully states:
1. That in accordance with the Last Will and Testament of Linnie Jane Hodges
(deceased), her husband, Charles Newton Hodges was to act as Executor, and in
fact, in an order issued by this Hon. Court dated June 28, 1957, the said Charles
Newton Hodges was appointed Executor and had performed the duties as such.
2. That last December 22, 1962, the said Charles Newton Hodges was stricken ill,
and brought to the Iloilo Mission Hospital for treatment, but unfortunately, he died on
December 25, 1962, as shown by a copy of the death certificate hereto attached and
marked as Annex "A".
3. That in accordance with the provisions of the last will and testament of Linnie Jane
Hodges, whatever real and personal properties that may remain at the death of her
husband Charles Newton Hodges, the said properties shall be equally divided among
their heirs. That there are real and personal properties left by Charles Newton
Hodges, which need to be administered and taken care of.
4. That the estate of deceased Linnie Jane Hodges, as well as that of Charles
Newton Hodges, have not as yet been determined or ascertained, and there is
necessity for the appointment of a general administrator to liquidate and distribute
the residue of the estate to the heirs and legatees of both spouses. That in
accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 75 of the Rules of Court, the
conjugal partnership of Linnie Jane Hodges and Charles Newton Hodges shall be
liquidated in the testate proceedings of the wife.
5. That the undersigned counsel, has perfect personal knowledge of the existence of
the last will and testament of Charles Newton Hodges, with similar provisions as that
contained in the last will and testament of Linnie Jane Hodges. However, said last
will and testament of Charles Newton Hodges is kept inside the vault or iron safe in
his office, and will be presented in due time before this honorable Court.
6. That in the meantime, it is imperative and indispensable that, an Administratrix be

appointed for the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and a Special Administratrix for the
estate of Charles Newton Hodges, to perform the duties required by law, to
administer, collect, and take charge of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate
of both spouses, Charles Newton Hodges and Linnie Jane Hodges, as provided for
in Section 1 and 2, Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
7. That there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration, because

the last will and testament of deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, is still kept in his
safe or vault, and in the meantime, unless an administratrix (and,) at the same time,
a Special Administratrix is appointed, the estate of both spouses are in danger of
being lost, damaged or go to waste.
8. That the most trusted employee of both spouses Linnie Jane Hodges and C.N.
Hodges, who had been employed for around thirty (30) years, in the person of Miss
Avelina Magno, (should) be appointed Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges and at the same time Special Administratrix of the estate of Charles Newton
Hodges. That the said Miss Avelina Magno is of legal age, a resident of the
Philippines, the most fit, competent, trustworthy and well-qualified person to serve
the duties of Administratrix and Special Administratrix and is willing to act as such.
9. That Miss Avelina Magno is also willing to file bond in such sum which the Hon.
Court believes reasonable.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that, Miss
AVELINA A. MAGNO be immediately appointed Administratrix of the estate of Linnie
Jane Hodges and as Special Administratrix of the estate of Charles Newton Hodges,
with powers and duties provided for by law. That the Honorable Court fix the
reasonable bond of P1,000.00 to be filed by Avelina A. Magno.
(Annex "O", Petition.)
which respondent court readily acted on in its order of even date thus: .
For the reasons alleged in the Urgent Ex-parte Motion filed by counsel for the
Executor dated December 25, 1962, which the Court finds meritorious, Miss
AVELINA A. MAGNO, is hereby appointed Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges and as Special Administratrix of the estate of Charles Newton Hodges, in the
latter case, because the last will of said Charles Newton Hodges is still kept in his
vault or iron safe and that the real and personal properties of both spouses may be
lost, damaged or go to waste, unless a Special Administratrix is appointed.
Miss Avelina A. Magno is required to file bond in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND
PESOS (P5,000.00), and after having done so, let letters of Administration be issued
to her." (Annex "P", Petition.)
On December 29, 1962, however, upon urgent ex-parte petition of respondent

Magno herself, thru Atty. Gellada, Harold, R. Davies, "a representative of the heirs of
deceased Charles Newton Hodges (who had) arrived from the United States of
America to help in the administration of the estate of said deceased" was appointed
as Co-Special Administrator of the estate of Hodges, (pp. 29-33, Yellow - Record on
Appeal) only to be replaced as such co-special administrator on January 22, 1963 by
Joe Hodges, who, according to the motion of the same attorney, is "the nephew of
the deceased (who had) arrived from the United States with instructions from the
other heirs of the deceased to administer the properties or estate of Charles Newton
Hodges in the Philippines, (Pp. 47-50, id.)
Meanwhile, under date of January 9, 1963, the same Atty. Gellada filed in Special Proceedings 1672
a petition for the probate of the will of Hodges,2 with a prayer for the issuance of letters of
administration to the same Joe Hodges, albeit the motion was followed on February 22, 1963 by a
separate one asking that Atty. Fernando Mirasol be appointed as his co-administrator. On the same
date this latter motion was filed, the court issued the corresponding order of probate and letters of
administration to Joe Hodges and Atty. Mirasol, as prayed for.
At this juncture, again, it may also be explained that just as, in her will, Mrs. Hodges bequeathed her
whole estate to her husband "to have and to hold unto him, my said husband, during his natural
lifetime", she, at the same time or in like manner, provided that "at the death of my said husband — I
give devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal,
wherever situated or located, to be equally divided among my brothers and sisters, share and share
alike —". Accordingly, it became incumbent upon Hodges, as executor of his wife's will, to duly
liquidate the conjugal partnership, half of which constituted her estate, in order that upon the
eventuality of his death, "the rest, residue and remainder" thereof could be determined and
correspondingly distributed or divided among her brothers and sisters. And it was precisely because
no such liquidation was done, furthermore, there is the issue of whether the distribution of her estate
should be governed by the laws of the Philippines or those of Texas, of which State she was a
national, and, what is more, as already stated, Hodges made official and sworn statements or
manifestations indicating that as far as he was concerned no "property interests passed to him as
surviving spouse — "except for purposes of administering the estate, paying debts, taxes and other
legal charges" and it was the intention of the surviving husband of the deceased to distribute the
remaining property and interests of the deceased in their Community Estate to the devisees and
legatees named in the will when the debts, liabilities, taxes and expenses of administration are finally
determined and paid", that the incidents and controversies now before Us for resolution arose. As
may be observed, the situation that ensued upon the death of Hodges became rather unusual and
so, quite understandably, the lower court's actuations presently under review are apparently wanting
in consistency and seemingly lack proper orientation.
Thus, We cannot discern clearly from the record before Us the precise perspective from which the
trial court proceeded in issuing its questioned orders. And, regretably, none of the lengthy briefs
submitted by the parties is of valuable assistance in clearing up the matter.
To begin with, We gather from the two records on appeal filed by petitioner, as appellant in the
appealed cases, one with green cover and the other with a yellow cover, that at the outset, a sort of
modus operandi had been agreed upon by the parties under which the respective administrators of
the two estates were supposed to act conjointly, but since no copy of the said agreement can be
found in the record before Us, We have no way of knowing when exactly such agreement was
entered into and under what specific terms. And while reference is made to said modus operandi in
the order of September 11, 1964, on pages 205-206 of the Green Record on Appeal, reading thus:
The present incident is to hear the side of administratrix, Miss Avelina A. Magno, in
answer to the charges contained in the motion filed by Atty. Cesar Tirol on
September 3, 1964. In answer to the said charges, Miss Avelina A. Magno, through
her counsel, Atty. Rizal Quimpo, filed a written manifestation.
After reading the manifestation here of Atty. Quimpo, for and in behalf of the
administratrix, Miss Avelina A. Magno, the Court finds that everything that happened
before September 3, 1964, which was resolved on September 8, 1964, to the
satisfaction of parties, was simply due to a misunderstanding between the
representative of the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank and Miss Magno
and in order to restore the harmonious relations between the parties, the Court
ordered the parties to remain in status quo as to their modus operandi before
September 1, 1964, until after the Court can have a meeting with all the parties and
their counsels on October 3, as formerly agreed upon between counsels, Attys.
Ozaeta, Gibbs and Ozaeta, Attys. Tirol and Tirol and Atty. Rizal Quimpo.
In the meantime, the prayers of Atty. Quimpo as stated in his manifestation shall not
be resolved by this Court until October 3, 1964.
SO ORDERED.
there is nothing in the record indicating whatever happened to it afterwards, except that again,
reference thereto was made in the appealed order of October 27, 1965, on pages 292-295 of the
Green Record on Appeal, as follows:
On record is an urgent motion to allow PCIB to open all doors and locks in the
Hodges Office at 206-208 Guanco Street, Iloilo City, to take immediate and exclusive
possession thereof and to place its own locks and keys for security purposes of the
PCIB dated October 27, 1965 thru Atty. Cesar Tirol. It is alleged in said urgent
motion that Administratrix Magno of the testate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges refused
to open the Hodges Office at 206-208 Guanco Street, Iloilo City where PCIB holds
office and therefore PCIB is suffering great moral damage and prejudice as a result
of said act. It is prayed that an order be issued authorizing it (PCIB) to open all doors
and locks in the said office, to take immediate and exclusive possession thereof and
place thereon its own locks and keys for security purposes; instructing the clerk of
court or any available deputy to witness and supervise the opening of all doors and
locks and taking possession of the PCIB.
A written opposition has been filed by Administratrix Magno of even date (Oct. 27)
thru counsel Rizal Quimpo stating therein that she was compelled to close the office
for the reason that the PCIB failed to comply with the order of this Court signed by
Judge Anacleto I. Bellosillo dated September 11, 1964 to the effect that both estates
should remain in status quo to their modus operandi as of September 1, 1964.
To arrive at a happy solution of the dispute and in order not to interrupt the operation
of the office of both estates, the Court aside from the reasons stated in the urgent
motion and opposition heard the verbal arguments of Atty. Cesar Tirol for the PCIB
and Atty. Rizal Quimpo for Administratix Magno.
After due consideration, the Court hereby orders Magno to open all doors and locks
in the Hodges Office at 206-208 Guanco Street, Iloilo City in the presence of the
PCIB or its duly authorized representative and deputy clerk of court Albis of this
branch not later than 7:30 tomorrow morning October 28, 1965 in order that the office
of said estates could operate for business.
Pursuant to the order of this Court thru Judge Bellosillo dated September 11, 1964, it
is hereby ordered:
(a) That all cash collections should be deposited in the joint account of the estates of
Linnie Jane Hodges and estates of C.N. Hodges;
(b) That whatever cash collections that had been deposited in the account of either of
the estates should be withdrawn and since then deposited in the joint account of the
estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and the estate of C.N. Hodges;
(c) That the PCIB should countersign the check in the amount of P250 in favor of
Administratrix Avelina A. Magno as her compensation as administratrix of the Linnie
Jane Hodges estate chargeable to the testate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges only;
(d) That Administratrix Magno is hereby directed to allow the PCIB to inspect
whatever records, documents and papers she may have in her possession in the
same manner that Administrator PCIB is also directed to allow Administratrix Magno
to inspect whatever records, documents and papers it may have in its possession;
(e) That the accountant of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges shall have access to all
records of the transactions of both estates for the protection of the estate of Linnie
Jane Hodges; and in like manner the accountant or any authorized representative of
the estate of C.N. Hodges shall have access to the records of transactions of the
Linnie Jane Hodges estate for the protection of the estate of C.N. Hodges.
Once the estates' office shall have been opened by Administratrix Magno in the
presence of the PCIB or its duly authorized representative and deputy clerk Albis or
his duly authorized representative, both estates or any of the estates should not
close it without previous consent and authority from this court.
SO ORDERED.
As may be noted, in this order, the respondent court required that all collections from the properties
in the name of Hodges should be deposited in a joint account of the two estates, which indicates that
seemingly the so-called modus operandi was no longer operative, but again there is nothing to show
when this situation started.
Likewise, in paragraph 3 of the petitioner's motion of September 14, 1964, on pages 188-201 of the
Green Record on Appeal, (also found on pp. 83-91 of the Yellow Record on Appeal) it is alleged
that:
3. On January 24, 1964 virtually all of the heirs of C.N. Hodges, Joe Hodges and
Fernando P. Mirasol acting as the two co-administrators of the estate of C.N.
Hodges, Avelina A. Magno acting as the administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges and Messrs. William Brown and Ardell Young acting for all of the Higdon
family who claim to be the sole beneficiaries of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and
various legal counsel representing the aforementioned parties entered into an
amicable agreement, which was approved by this Honorable Court, wherein the
parties thereto agreed that certain sums of money were to be paid in settlement of
different claims against the two estates and that the assets (to the extent they
existed) of both estates would be administered jointly by the PCIB as administrator of
the estate of C.N. Hodges and Avelina A. Magno as administratrix of the estate of
Linnie Jane Hodges, subject, however, to the aforesaid October 5, 1963 Motion,
namely, the PCIB's claim to exclusive possession and ownership of one hundred
percent (100%) (or, in the alternative, seventy-five percent (75%) of all assets owned
by C.N. Hodges or Linnie Jane Hodges situated in the Philippines. On February 1,
1964 (pp. 934-935, CFI Rec., S.P. No. 1672) this Honorable Court amended its order
of January 24, 1964 but in no way changed its recognition of the afore-described
basic demand by the PCIB as administrator of the estate of C.N. Hodges to one
hundred percent (100%) of the assets claimed by both estates.
but no copy of the mentioned agreement of joint administration of the two estates exists in the
record, and so, We are not informed as to what exactly are the terms of the same which could be
relevant in the resolution of the issues herein.
On the other hand, the appealed order of November 3, 1965, on pages 313-320 of the Green
Record on Appeal, authorized payment by respondent Magno of, inter alia, her own fees as
administratrix, the attorney's fees of her lawyers, etc., as follows:
Administratrix Magno thru Attys. Raul S. Manglapus and Rizal. R. Quimpo filed a
Manifestation and Urgent Motion dated June 10, 1964 asking for the approval of the
Agreement dated June 6, 1964 which Agreement is for the purpose of retaining their
services to protect and defend the interest of the said Administratrix in these
proceedings and the same has been signed by and bears the express conformity of
the attorney-in-fact of the late Linnie Jane Hodges, Mr. James L. Sullivan. It is further
prayed that the Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges be
directed to pay the retailers fee of said lawyers, said fees made chargeable as
expenses for the administration of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges (pp. 1641-1642,
Vol. V, Sp. 1307).
An opposition has been filed by the Administrator PCIB thru Atty. Herminio Ozaeta
dated July 11, 1964, on the ground that payment of the retainers fee of Attys.
Manglapus and Quimpo as prayed for in said Manifestation and Urgent Motion is
prejudicial to the 100% claim of the estate of C. N. Hodges; employment of Attys.
Manglapus and Quimpo is premature and/or unnecessary; Attys. Quimpo and
Manglapus are representing conflicting interests and the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges should be closed and terminated (pp. 1679-1684, Vol, V, Sp. 1307).
Atty. Leon P. Gellada filed a memorandum dated July 28, 1964 asking that the
Manifestation and Urgent Motion filed by Attys. Manglapus and Quimpo be denied
because no evidence has been presented in support thereof. Atty. Manglapus filed a
reply to the opposition of counsel for the Administrator of the C. N. Hodges estate
wherein it is claimed that expenses of administration include reasonable counsel or
attorney's fees for services to the executor or administrator. As a matter of fact the
fee agreement dated February 27, 1964 between the PCIB and the law firm of
Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta as its counsel (Pp. 1280-1284, Vol. V, Sp. 1307) which
stipulates the fees for said law firm has been approved by the Court in its order dated
March 31, 1964. If payment of the fees of the lawyers for the administratrix of the
estate of Linnie Jane Hodges will cause prejudice to the estate of C. N. Hodges, in
like manner the very agreement which provides for the payment of attorney's fees to
the counsel for the PCIB will also be prejudicial to the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges
(pp. 1801-1814, Vol. V, Sp. 1307).
Atty. Herminio Ozaeta filed a rejoinder dated August 10, 1964 to the reply to the
opposition to the Manifestation and Urgent Motion alleging principally that the estates
of Linnie Jane Hodges and C. N. Hodges are not similarly situated for the reason that
C. N. Hodges is an heir of Linnie Jane Hodges whereas the latter is not an heir of the
former for the reason that Linnie Jane Hodges predeceased C. N. Hodges (pp. 1839-
1848, Vol. V, Sp. 1307); that Attys. Manglapus and Quimpo formally entered their
appearance in behalf of Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges on June
10, 1964 (pp. 1639-1640, Vol. V, Sp. 1307).
Atty. Manglapus filed a manifestation dated December 18, 1964 stating therein that
Judge Bellosillo issued an order requiring the parties to submit memorandum in
support of their respective contentions. It is prayed in this manifestation that the
Manifestation and Urgent Motion dated June 10, 1964 be resolved (pp. 6435-6439,
Vol. VII, Sp. 1307).
Atty. Roman Mabanta, Jr. for the PCIB filed a counter- manifestation dated January
5, 1965 asking that after the consideration by the court of all allegations and
arguments and pleadings of the PCIB in connection therewith (1) said manifestation
and urgent motion of Attys. Manglapus and Quimpo be denied (pp. 6442-6453, Vol.
VII, Sp. 1307). Judge Querubin issued an order dated January 4, 1965 approving the
motion dated June 10, 1964 of the attorneys for the administratrix of the estate of
Linnie Jane Hodges and agreement annexed to said motion. The said order further
states: "The Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges is authorized to issue
or sign whatever check or checks may be necessary for the above purpose and the
administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges is ordered to countersign the same. (pp.
6518-6523, Vol VII, Sp. 1307).
Atty. Roman Mabanta, Jr. for the PCIB filed a manifestation and motion dated
January 13, 1965 asking that the order of January 4, 1965 which was issued by
Judge Querubin be declared null and void and to enjoin the clerk of court and the
administratrix and administrator in these special proceedings from all proceedings
and action to enforce or comply with the provision of the aforesaid order of January
4, 1965. In support of said manifestation and motion it is alleged that the order of
January 4, 1965 is null and void because the said order was never delivered to the
deputy clerk Albis of Branch V (the sala of Judge Querubin) and the alleged order
was found in the drawer of the late Judge Querubin in his office when said drawer
was opened on January 13, 1965 after the death of Judge Querubin by Perfecto
Querubin, Jr., the son of the judge and in the presence of Executive Judge Rovira
and deputy clerk Albis (Sec. 1, Rule 36, New Civil Code) (Pp. 6600-6606, Vol. VIII,
Sp. 1307).
Atty. Roman Mabanta, Jr. for the PCIB filed a motion for reconsideration dated
February 23, 1965 asking that the order dated January 4, 1964 be reversed on the
ground that:
1. Attorneys retained must render services to the estate not to the personal heir;
2. If services are rendered to both, fees should be pro-rated between them;
3. Attorneys retained should not represent conflicting interests; to the prejudice of the
other heirs not represented by said attorneys;
4. Fees must be commensurate to the actual services rendered to the estate;
5. There must be assets in the estate to pay for said fees (Pp. 6625-6636, Vol. VIII,
Sp. 1307).
Atty. Quimpo for Administratrix Magno of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges filed a
motion to submit dated July 15, 1965 asking that the manifestation and urgent motion
dated June 10, 1964 filed by Attys. Manglapus and Quimpo and other incidents
directly appertaining thereto be considered submitted for consideration and approval
(pp. 6759-6765, Vol. VIII, Sp. 1307).
Considering the arguments and reasons in support to the pleadings of both the
Administratrix and the PCIB, and of Atty. Gellada, hereinbefore mentioned, the Court
believes that the order of January 4, 1965 is null and void for the reason that the said
order has not been filed with deputy clerk Albis of this court (Branch V) during the
lifetime of Judge Querubin who signed the said order. However, the said
manifestation and urgent motion dated June 10, 1964 is being treated and
considered in this instant order. It is worthy to note that in the motion dated January
24, 1964 (Pp. 1149- 1163, Vol. V, Sp. 1307) which has been filed by Atty. Gellada
and his associates and Atty. Gibbs and other lawyers in addition to the stipulated
fees for actual services rendered. However, the fee agreement dated February 27,
1964, between the Administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges and Atty. Gibbs which
provides for retainer fee of P4,000 monthly in addition to specific fees for actual
appearances, reimbursement for expenditures and contingent fees has also been
approved by the Court and said lawyers have already been paid. (pp. 1273-1279,
Vol. V, Sp. Proc. 1307 pp. 1372-1373, Vol. V, Sp. Proc. 1307).
WHEREFORE, the order dated January 4, 1965 is hereby declared null and void.
The manifestation and motion dated June 10, 1964 which was filed by the attorneys
for the administratrix of the testate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges is granted and the
agreement annexed thereto is hereby approved.
The administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges is hereby directed to be

needed to implement the approval of the agreement annexed to the motion and the
administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges is directed to countersign the said check
or checks as the case may be.
SO ORDERED.
thereby implying somehow that the court assumed the existence of independent but simultaneous
administrations.
Be that as it may, again, it appears that on August 6, 1965, the court, acting on a motion of petitioner
for the approval of deeds of sale executed by it as administrator of the estate of Hodges, issued the
following order, also on appeal herein:
Acting upon the motion for approval of deeds of sale for registered land of the PCIB,
Administrator of the Testate Estate of C. N. Hodges in Sp. Proc. 1672 (Vol. VII, pp.
2244-2245), dated July 16, 1965, filed by Atty. Cesar T. Tirol in representation of the
law firms of Ozaeta, Gibbs and Ozaeta and Tirol and Tirol and the opposition thereto
of Atty. Rizal R. Quimpo (Vol. VIII, pp. 6811-6813) dated July 22, 1965 and
considering the allegations and reasons therein stated, the court believes that the
deeds of sale should be signed jointly by the PCIB, Administrator of the Testate
Estate of C. N. Hodges and Avelina A. Magno, Administratrix of the Testate Estate of
Linnie Jane Hodges and to this effect the PCIB should take the necessary steps so
that Administratrix Avelina A. Magno could sign the deeds of sale.
SO ORDERED. (p. 248, Green Record on Appeal.)
Notably this order required that even the deeds executed by petitioner, as administrator of the Estate
of Hodges, involving properties registered in his name, should be co-signed by respondent
Magno.3 And this was not an isolated instance.
In her brief as appellee, respondent Magno states:
After the lower court had authorized appellee Avelina A. Magno to execute final
deeds of sale pursuant to contracts to sell executed by C. N. Hodges on February
20, 1963 (pp. 45-46, Green ROA), motions for the approval of final deeds of sale
(signed by appellee Avelina A. Magno and the administrator of the estate of C. N.
Hodges, first Joe Hodges, then Atty. Fernando Mirasol and later the appellant) were
approved by the lower court upon petition of appellee Magno's counsel, Atty. Leon P.
Gellada, on the basis of section 8 of Rule 89 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Subsequently, the appellant, after it had taken over the bulk of the assets of the two
estates, started presenting these motions itself. The first such attempt was a "Motion
for Approval of Deeds of Sale for Registered Land and Cancellations of Mortgages"
dated July 21, 1964 filed by Atty. Cesar T. Tirol, counsel for the appellant, thereto
annexing two (2) final deeds of sale and two (2) cancellations of mortgages signed
by appellee Avelina A. Magno and D. R. Paulino, Assistant Vice-President and
Manager of the appellant (CFI Record, Sp. Proc. No. 1307, Vol. V, pp. 1694-1701).
This motion was approved by the lower court on July 27, 1964. It was followed by
another motion dated August 4, 1964 for the approval of one final deed of sale again
signed by appellee Avelina A. Magno and D. R. Paulino (CFI Record, Sp. Proc. No.
1307. Vol. V, pp. 1825-1828), which was again approved by the lower court on
August 7, 1964. The gates having been opened, a flood ensued: the appellant
subsequently filed similar motions for the approval of a multitude of deeds of sales
and cancellations of mortgages signed by both the appellee Avelina A. Magno and
the appellant.
A random check of the records of Special Proceeding No. 1307 alone will show Atty.
Cesar T. Tirol as having presented for court approval deeds of sale of real properties
signed by both appellee Avelina A. Magno and D. R. Paulino in the following
numbers: (a) motion dated September 21, 1964 — 6 deeds of sale; (b) motion dated
November 4, 1964 — 1 deed of sale; (c) motion dated December 1, 1964 — 4 deeds
of sale; (d) motion dated February 3, 1965 — 8 deeds of sale; (f) motion dated May
7, 1965 — 9 deeds of sale. In view of the very extensive landholdings of the Hodges
spouses and the many motions filed concerning deeds of sale of real properties
executed by C. N. Hodges the lower court has had to constitute special separate
expedientes in Special Proceedings Nos. 1307 and 1672 to include mere motions for
the approval of deeds of sale of the conjugal properties of the Hodges spouses.
As an example, from among the very many, under date of February 3, 1965, Atty.
Cesar T. Tirol, as counsel for the appellant, filed "Motion for Approval of Deeds of
Sale for Registered Land and Cancellations of Mortgages" (CFI Record, Sp. Proc.
No. 1307, Vol. VIII, pp. 6570-6596) the allegations of which read:
"1. In his lifetime, the late C. N. Hodges executed "Contracts to Sell" real property,
and the prospective buyers under said contracts have already paid the price and
complied with the terms and conditions thereof;
"2. In the course of administration of both estates, mortgage debtors have already
paid their debts secured by chattel mortgages in favor of the late C. N. Hodges, and
are now entitled to release therefrom;
"3. There are attached hereto documents executed jointly by the Administratrix in Sp.
Proc. No. 1307 and the Administrator in Sp. Proc. No. 1672, consisting of deeds of
sale in favor —
Fernando Cano, Bacolod City, Occ. Negros

Fe Magbanua, Iloilo City
Policarpio M. Pareno, La Paz, Iloilo City
Rosario T. Libre, Jaro, Iloilo City
Federico B. Torres, Iloilo City
Reynaldo T. Lataquin, La Paz, Iloilo City
Anatolio T. Viray, Iloilo City
Benjamin Rolando, Jaro, Iloilo City
and cancellations of mortgages in favor of —
Pablo Manzano, Oton, Iloilo

Ricardo M. Diana, Dao, San Jose, Antique
Simplicio Tingson, Iloilo City
Amado Magbanua, Pototan, Iloilo
Roselia M. Baes, Bolo, Roxas City
William Bayani, Rizal Estanzuela, Iloilo City
Elpidio Villarete, Molo, Iloilo City
Norma T. Ruiz, Jaro, Iloilo City
"4. That the approval of the aforesaid documents will not reduce the
assets of the estates so as to prevent any creditor from receiving his
full debt or diminish his dividend."
And the prayer of this motion is indeed very revealing:
"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, under Rule 89, Section 8 of the Rules
of Court, this honorable court approve the aforesaid deeds of sale and cancellations
of mortgages." (Pp. 113-117, Appellee's Brief.)
None of these assertions is denied in Petitioner's reply brief.

Further indicating lack of concrete perspective or orientation on the part of the respondent court and
its hesitancy to clear up matters promptly, in its other appealed order of November 23, 1965, on
pages 334-335 of the Green Record on Appeal, said respondent court allowed the movant Ricardo
Salas, President of appellee Western Institute of Technology (successor of Panay Educational
Institutions, Inc.), one of the parties with whom Hodges had contracts that are in question in the
appeals herein, to pay petitioner, as Administrator of the estate of Hodges and/or respondent
Magno, as Administrator of the estate of Mrs. Hodges, thus:
Considering that in both cases there is as yet no judicial declaration of heirs nor
distribution of properties to whomsoever are entitled thereto, the Court believes that
payment to both the administrator of the testate estate of C. N. Hodges and the
administratrix of the testate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges or to either one of the two
estates is proper and legal.
WHEREFORE, movant Ricardo T. Salas can pay to both estates or either of them.
SO ORDERED.
(Pp. 334-335, Green Record on Appeal.)
On the other hand, as stated earlier, there were instances when respondent Magno was given
authority to act alone. For instance, in the other appealed order of December 19, 1964, on page 221
of the Green Record on Appeal, the respondent court approved payments made by her of overtime
pay to some employees of the court who had helped in gathering and preparing copies of parts of
the records in both estates as follows:
Considering that the expenses subject of the motion to approve payment of overtime
pay dated December 10, 1964, are reasonable and are believed by this Court to be a
proper charge of administration chargeable to the testate estate of the late Linnie
Jane Hodges, the said expenses are hereby APPROVED and to be charged against
the testate estate of the late Linnie Jane Hodges. The administrator of the testate
estate of the late Charles Newton Hodges is hereby ordered to countersign the check
or checks necessary to pay the said overtime pay as shown by the bills marked
Annex "A", "B" and "C" of the motion.
SO ORDERED.
(Pp. 221-222, Green Record on Appeal.)
Likewise, the respondent court approved deeds of sale executed by respondent Magno alone, as
Administratrix of the estate of Mrs. Hodges, covering properties in the name of Hodges, pursuant to
"contracts to sell" executed by Hodges, irrespective of whether they were executed by him before or
after the death of his wife. The orders of this nature which are also on appeal herein are the
following:
1. Order of March 30, 1966, on p. 137 of the Green Record on Appeal, approving the deed of sale
executed by respondent Magno in favor of appellee Lorenzo Carles on February 24, 1966, pursuant
to a "contract to sell" signed by Hodges on June 17, 1958, after the death of his wife, which contract
petitioner claims was cancelled by it for failure of Carles to pay the installments due on January 7,
1965.
2. Order of April 5, 1966, on pp. 139-140, id., approving the deed of sale executed by respondent
Magno in favor of appellee Salvador Guzman on February 28, 1966 pursuant to a "contract to sell"
signed by Hodges on September 13, 1960, after the death of his wife, which contract petitioner
claims it cancelled on March 3, 1965 in view of failure of said appellee to pay the installments on
time.
Magno in favor of appellee Purificacion Coronado on March 28, 1966 pursuant to a "contract to sell"
signed by Hodges on August 14, 1961, after the death of his wife.
Magno in favor of appellee Florenia Barrido on March 28, 1966, pursuant to a "contract to sell"
signed by Hodges on February 21, 1958, after the death of his wife.
5. Order of June 7, 1966, on pp. 184-185, id., approving the deed of sale executed by respondent
Magno in favor of appellee Belcezar Causing on May 2, 1966, pursuant to a "contract to sell" signed
by Hodges on February 10, 1959, after the death of his wife.
Magno in favor of appellee Artheo Thomas Jamir on June 3, 1966, pursuant to a "contract to sell"
signed by Hodges on May 26, 1961, after the death of his wife.
Magno in favor of appellees Graciano Lucero and Melquiades Batisanan on June 6 and June 3,
1966, respectively, pursuant to "contracts to sell" signed by Hodges on June 9, 1959 and November
27, 1961, respectively, after the death of his wife.
8. Order of December 2, 1966, on pp. 303-304, id., approving the deed of sale executed by
respondent Magno in favor of appellees Espiridion Partisala, Winifredo Espada and Rosario
Alingasa on September 6, 1966, August 17, 1966 and August 3, 1966, respectively, pursuant to
"contracts to sell" signed by Hodges on April 20, 1960, April 18, 1960 and August 25, 1958,
respectively, that is, after the death of his wife.
Magno in favor of appellee Alfredo Catedral on March 2, 1966, pursuant to a "contract to sell" signed
by Hodges on May 29, 1954, before the death of his wife, which contract petitioner claims it had
cancelled on February 16, 1966 for failure of appellee Catedral to pay the installments due on time.
Magno in favor of appellee Jose Pablico on March 7, 1966, pursuant to a "contract to sell" signed by
Hodges on March 7, 1950, after the death of his wife, which contract petitioner claims it had
cancelled on June 29, 1960, for failure of appellee Pablico to pay the installments due on time.
11. Order of December 2, 1966, on pp. 303-304, id., insofar as it approved the deed of sale
executed by respondent Magno in favor of appellee Pepito Iyulores on September 6, 1966, pursuant
to a "contract to sell" signed by Hodges on February 5, 1951, before the death of his wife.
12. Order of January 3, 1967, on pp. 335-336, id., approving three deeds of sale executed by
respondent Magno, one in favor of appellees Santiago Pacaonsis and two in favor of appellee Adelfa
Premaylon on December 5, 1966 and November 3, 1966, respectively, pursuant to separate
"promises to sell" signed respectively by Hodges on May 26, 1955 and January 30, 1954, before the
death of his wife, and October 31, 1959, after her death.
In like manner, there were also instances when respondent court approved deeds of sale executed
by petitioner alone and without the concurrence of respondent Magno, and such approvals have not
been the subject of any appeal. No less than petitioner points this out on pages 149-150 of its brief
as appellant thus:
The points of fact and law pertaining to the two abovecited assignments of error have
already been discussed previously. In the first abovecited error, the order alluded to
was general, and as already explained before, it was, as admitted by the lower court
itself, superseded by the particular orders approving specific final deeds of sale
executed by the appellee, Avelina A. Magno, which are subject of this appeal, as well
as the particular orders approving specific final deeds of sale executed by the
appellant, Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, which were never appealed by
the appellee, Avelina A. Magno, nor by any party for that matter, and which are now
therefore final.
Now, simultaneously with the foregoing incidents, others of more fundamental and all embracing
significance developed. On October 5, 1963, over the signature of Atty. Allison J. Gibbs in
representation of the law firm of Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta, as counsel for the co-administrators Joe
Hodges and Fernando P. Mirasol, the following self-explanatory motion was filed:
URGENT MOTION FOR AN ACCOUNTING AND DELIVERY TO

ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF C. N. HODGES OF ALL
OF THE ASSETS OF THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF THE
DECEASED LINNIE JANE HODGES AND C N. HODGES EXISTING
AS OF MAY 23, 1957 PLUS ALL THE RENTS, EMOLUMENTS AND
INCOME THEREFROM.
COMES NOW the co-administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges, Joe Hodges,

through his undersigned attorneys in the above-entitled proceedings, and to this
Honorable Court respectfully alleges:
(1) On May 23, 1957 Linnie Jane Hodges died in Iloilo City.
(2) On June 28, 1957 this Honorable Court admitted to probate the Last Will and
Testament of the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges executed November 22, 1952 and
appointed C. N. Hodges as Executor of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges (pp. 24-25,
Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307).
(3) On July 1, 1957 this Honorable Court issued Letters Testamentary to C. N.

Hodges in the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges (p. 30, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307).
(4) On December 14, 1957 this Honorable Court, on the basis of the following
allegations in a Motion dated December 11, 1957 filed by Leon P. Gellada as
attorney for the executor C. N. Hodges:
"That herein Executor, (is) not only part owner of the properties left as
conjugal, but also, the successor to all the properties left by the
deceased Linnie Jane Hodges."
(p. 44, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307; emphasis supplied.)

issued the following order:
"As prayed for by Attorney Gellada, counsel for the Executory, for the
reasons stated in his motion dated December 11, 1957 which the
court considers well taken, all the sales, conveyances, leases and
mortgages of all properties left by the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges
are hereby APPROVED. The said executor is further authorized to
execute subsequent sales, conveyances, leases and mortgages of
the properties left by the said deceased Linnie Jane Hodges in
consonance with the wishes contained in the last will and testament
of the latter."
(p. 46, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307; emphasis supplied.)
(5) On April 21, 1959 this Honorable Court approved the inventory and accounting
submitted by C. N. Hodges through his counsel Leon P. Gellada on April 14, 1959
wherein he alleged among other things
"That no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of

examining the herein account, be given notice, as herein executor is
the only devisee or legatee of the deceased, in accordance with the
last will and testament already probated by the Honorable Court."
(pp. 77-78, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307; emphasis supplied.).
(6) On July 30, 1960 this Honorable Court approved the "Annual Statement of
Account" submitted by C. N. Hodges through his counsel Leon P. Gellada on July 21,
1960 wherein he alleged among other things:

examining the herein account, be given notice as herein executor is
the only devisee or legatee of the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges, in
accordance with the last will and testament of the deceased, already
probated by this Honorable Court."
(pp. 81-82. Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307; emphasis supplied.)
(7) On May 2, 1961 this Honorable court approved the "Annual Statement of Account
By The Executor for the Year 1960" submitted through Leon P. Gellada on April 20,
1961 wherein he alleged:
That no person interested in the Philippines be given notice, of the

time and place of examining the herein account, as herein Executor is
accordance with the last will and testament of the deceased, already
probated by this Honorable Court.
(pp. 90-91. Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307; emphasis supplied.)
(8) On December 25, 1962, C.N. Hodges died.

(9) On December 25, 1962, on the Urgent Ex-parte Motion of Leon P. Gellada filed
only in Special Proceeding No. 1307, this Honorable Court appointed Avelina A.
Magno
"Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and as Special Administratrix of

the estate of Charles Newton Hodges, in the latter case, because the last will of said
Charles Newton Hodges is still kept in his vault or iron safe and that the real and
personal properties of both spouses may be lost, damaged or go to waste, unless a
Special Administratrix is appointed."
(p. 100. Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307)
(10) On December 26, 1962 Letters of Administration were issued to Avelina Magno
pursuant to this Honorable Court's aforesaid Order of December 25, 1962
"With full authority to take possession of all the property of said

deceased in any province or provinces in which it may be situated
and to perform all other acts necessary for the preservation of said
property, said Administratrix and/or Special Administratrix having filed
a bond satisfactory to the Court."
(p. 102, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307)
(11) On January 22, 1963 this Honorable Court on petition of Leon P. Gellada of
January 21, 1963 issued Letters of Administration to:
(a) Avelina A. Magno as Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges;
(b) Avelina A. Magno as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Newton

Hodges; and
(c) Joe Hodges as Co-Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Newton

Hodges.
(p. 43, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307)
(12) On February 20, 1963 this Honorable Court on the basis of a motion filed by
Leon P. Gellada as legal counsel on February 16, 1963 for Avelina A. Magno acting
as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Newton Hodges (pp. 114-116, Sp. Proc.
1307) issued the following order:
"... se autoriza a aquella (Avelina A. Magno) a firmar escrituras de

venta definitiva de propiedades cubiertas por contratos para vender,
firmados, en vida, por el finado Charles Newton Hodges, cada vez
que el precio estipulado en cada contrato este totalmente pagado. Se
autoriza igualmente a la misma a firmar escrituras de cancelacion de
hipoteca tanto de bienes reales como personales cada vez que la
consideracion de cada hipoteca este totalmente pagada.
"Cada una de dichas escrituras que se otorguen debe ser sometida

para la aprobacion de este Juzgado."
(p. 117, Sp. Proc. 1307).
[Par 1 (c), Reply to Motion For Removal of Joe Hodges]
(13) On September l6, 1963 Leon P. Gellada, acting as attorney for Avelina A.
Magno as Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, alleges:
3. — That since January, 1963, both estates of Linnie Jane Hodges

and Charles Newton Hodges have been receiving in full, payments
for those "contracts to sell" entered into by C. N. Hodges during his
lifetime, and the purchasers have been demanding the execution of
definite deeds of sale in their favor.
4. — That hereto attached are thirteen (13) copies deeds of sale

executed by the Administratrix and by the co-administrator (Fernando
P. Mirasol) of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and Charles Newton
Hodges respectively, in compliance with the terms and conditions of
the respective "contracts to sell" executed by the parties thereto."
(14) The properties involved in the aforesaid motion of September 16, 1963 are all
registered in the name of the deceased C. N. Hodges.
(15) Avelina A. Magno, it is alleged on information and belief, has been advertising in
the newspaper in Iloilo thusly:
For Sale
Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and Charles Newton Hodges.
All Real Estate or Personal Property will be sold on First Come First Served Basis.
Avelina
A.
Magno
Admini
stratrix
(16) Avelina A. Magno, it is alleged on information and belief, has paid and still is
paying sums of money to sundry persons.
(17) Joe Hodges through the undersigned attorneys manifested during the hearings
before this Honorable Court on September 5 and 6, 1963 that the estate of C. N.
Hodges was claiming all of the assets belonging to the deceased spouses Linnie
Jane Hodges and C. N. Hodges situated in Philippines because of the aforesaid
election by C. N. Hodges wherein he claimed and took possession as sole owner of
all of said assets during the administration of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges on the
ground that he was the sole devisee and legatee under her Last Will and Testament.
(18) Avelina A. Magno has submitted no inventory and accounting of her

administration as Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and Special
Administratrix of the estate of C. N. Hodges. However, from manifestations made by
Avelina A. Magno and her legal counsel, Leon P. Gellada, there is no question she
will claim that at least fifty per cent (50%) of the conjugal assets of the deceased
spouses and the rents, emoluments and income therefrom belong to the Higdon
family who are named in paragraphs Fourth and Fifth of the Will of Linnie Jane
Hodges (p. 5, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, movant respectfully prays that this Honorable

Court, after due hearing, order:
(1) Avelina A. Magno to submit an inventory and accounting of all of the funds,
properties and assets of any character belonging to the deceased Linnie Jane
Hodges and C. N. Hodges which have come into her possession, with full details of
what she has done with them;
(2) Avelina A. Magno to turn over and deliver to the Administrator of the estate of C.
N. Hodges all of the funds, properties and assets of any character remaining in her
possession;
(3) Pending this Honorable Court's adjudication of the aforesaid issues, Avelina A.
Magno to stop, unless she first secures the conformity of Joe Hodges (or his duly
authorized representative, such as the undersigned attorneys) as the Co-
administrator and attorney-in-fact of a majority of the beneficiaries of the estate of C.
N. Hodges:
(a) Advertising the sale and the sale of the properties of the estates:
(b) Employing personnel and paying them any compensation.
(4) Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the
premises. (Annex "T", Petition.)
Almost a year thereafter, or on September 14, 1964, after the co-administrators Joe Hodges and
Fernando P. Mirasol were replaced by herein petitioner Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank
as sole administrator, pursuant to an agreement of all the heirs of Hodges approved by the court,
and because the above motion of October 5, 1963 had not yet been heard due to the absence from
the country of Atty. Gibbs, petitioner filed the following:
MANIFESTATION AND MOTION, INCLUDING MOTION TO SET

FOR HEARING AND RESOLVE "URGENT MOTION FOR AN
ACCOUNTING AND DELIVERY TO ADMINISTRATORS OF THE
ESTATE OF C. N. HODGES OF ALL THE ASSETS OF THE
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF THE DECEASED LINNIE JANE
HODGES AND C. N. HODGES EXISTING AS OF MAY 23, 1957
PLUS ALL OF THE RENTS, EMOLUMENTS AND INCOME
THEREFROM OF OCTOBER 5, 1963.
COMES NOW Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (hereinafter referred to as

PCIB), the administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges, deceased, in Special
Proceedings No. 1672, through its undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court
respectfully alleges that:
1. On October 5, 1963, Joe Hodges acting as the co-administrator of the estate of C.
N. Hodges filed, through the undersigned attorneys, an "Urgent Motion For An
Accounting and Delivery To Administrator of the Estate of C. N. Hodges of all Of The
Assets Of The Conjugal Partnership of The Deceased Linnie Jane Hodges and C. N.
Hodges Existing as Of May, 23, 1957 Plus All Of The Rents, Emoluments and
Income Therefrom" (pp. 536-542, CFI Rec. S. P. No. 1672).
2. On January 24, 1964 this Honorable Court, on the basis of an amicable agreement
entered into on January 23, 1964 by the two co-administrators of the estate of C. N.
Hodges and virtually all of the heirs of C. N. Hodges (p. 912, CFI Rec., S. P. No.
1672), resolved the dispute over who should act as administrator of the estate of C.
N. Hodges by appointing the PCIB as administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges
(pp. 905-906, CFI Rec. S. P. No. 1672) and issuing letters of administration to the
PCIB.
3. On January 24, 1964 virtually all of the heirs of C. N. Hodges, Joe Hodges and
Fernando P. Mirasol acting as the two co-administrators of the estate of C. N.
Hodges, Avelina A. Magno acting as the administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges, and Messrs. William Brown and Ardel Young Acting for all of the Higdon
family who claim to be the sole beneficiaries of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and
various legal counsel representing the aforenamed parties entered into an amicable
agreement, which was approved by this Honorable Court, wherein the parties thereto
agreed that certain sums of money were to be paid in settlement of different claims
against the two estates and that the assets (to the extent they existed)of both estates
would be administrated jointly by the PCIB as administrator of the estate of C. N.
Hodges and Avelina A. Magno as administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges,
subject, however, to the aforesaid October 5, 1963 Motion, namely, the PCIB's claim
to exclusive possession and ownership of one-hundred percent (10017,) (or, in the
alternative, seventy-five percent [75%] of all assets owned by C. N. Hodges or Linnie
Jane Hodges situated in the Philippines. On February 1, 1964 (pp. 934-935, CFI
Rec., S. P. No. 1672) this Honorable Court amended its order of January 24, 1964
but in no way changes its recognition of the aforedescribed basic demand by the
PCIB as administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges to one hundred percent (100%)
of the assets claimed by both estates.
4. On February 15, 1964 the PCIB filed a "Motion to Resolve" the aforesaid Motion of
October 5, 1963. This Honorable Court set for hearing on June 11, 1964 the Motion
of October 5, 1963.
5. On June 11, 1964, because the undersigned Allison J. Gibbs was absent in the
United States, this Honorable Court ordered the indefinite postponement of the
hearing of the Motion of October 5, 1963.
6. Since its appointment as administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges the PCIB has
not been able to properly carry out its duties and obligations as administrator of the
estate of C. N. Hodges because of the following acts, among others, of Avelina A.
Magno and those who claim to act for her as administratrix of the estate of Linnie
Jane Hodges:
(a) Avelina A. Magno illegally acts as if she is in exclusive control of

all of the assets in the Philippines of both estates including those
claimed by the estate of C. N. Hodges as evidenced in part by her
locking the premises at 206-208 Guanco Street, Iloilo City on August
31, 1964 and refusing to reopen same until ordered to do so by this
Honorable Court on September 7, 1964.
(b) Avelina A. Magno illegally acts as though she alone may decide
how the assets of the estate of C.N. Hodges should be administered,
who the PCIB shall employ and how much they may be paid as
evidenced in party by her refusal to sign checks issued by the PCIB
payable to the undersigned counsel pursuant to their fee agreement
approved by this Honorable Court in its order dated March 31, 1964.
(c) Avelina A. Magno illegally gives access to and turns over

possession of the records and assets of the estate of C.N. Hodges to
the attorney-in-fact of the Higdon Family, Mr. James L. Sullivan, as
evidenced in part by the cashing of his personal checks.
(d) Avelina A. Magno illegally refuses to execute checks prepared by

the PCIB drawn to pay expenses of the estate of C. N. Hodges as
evidenced in part by the check drawn to reimburse the PCIB's
advance of P48,445.50 to pay the 1964 income taxes reported due
and payable by the estate of C.N. Hodges.
7. Under and pursuant to the orders of this Honorable Court, particularly those of
January 24 and February 1, 1964, and the mandate contained in its Letters of
Administration issued on January 24, 1964 to the PCIB, it has
"full authority to take possession of all the property of

the deceased C. N. Hodges
"and to perform all other acts necessary for the preservation of said
property." (p. 914, CFI Rec., S.P. No. 1672.)
8. As administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges, the PCIB claims the right to the
immediate exclusive possession and control of all of the properties, accounts
receivables, court cases, bank accounts and other assets, including the documentary
records evidencing same, which existed in the Philippines on the date of C. N.
Hodges' death, December 25, 1962, and were in his possession and registered in his
name alone. The PCIB knows of no assets in the Philippines registered in the name
of Linnie Jane Hodges, the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, or, C. N. Hodges, Executor
of the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges on December 25, 1962. All of the assets of
which the PCIB has knowledge are either registered in the name of C. N. Hodges,
alone or were derived therefrom since his death on December 25, 1962.
9. The PCIB as the current administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges, deceased,

succeeded to all of the rights of the previously duly appointed administrators of the
estate of C. N. Hodges, to wit:
(a) On December 25, 1962, date of C. N. Hodges' death, this

Honorable Court appointed Miss Avelina A. Magno simultaneously
as:
(i) Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges (p. 102, CFI
Rec., S.P. No. 1307) to replace the deceased C. N. Hodges who on
May 28, 1957 was appointed Special Administrator (p. 13. CFI Rec.
S.P. No. 1307) and on July 1, 1957 Executor of the estate of Linnie
Jane Hodges (p. 30, CFI Rec., S. P. No. 1307).
(ii) Special Administratrix of the estate of C. N. Hodges (p. 102, CFI

Rec., S.P. No. 1307).
(b) On December 29, 1962 this Honorable Court appointed Harold K.

Davies as co-special administrator of the estate of C.N. Hodges along
with Avelina A. Magno (pp. 108-111, CFI Rec., S. P. No. 1307).
(c) On January 22, 1963, with the conformity of Avelina A. Magno,

Harold K. Davies resigned in favor of Joe Hodges (pp. 35-36, CFI
Rec., S.P. No. 1672) who thereupon was appointed on January 22,
1963 by this Honorable Court as special co-administrator of the
estate of C.N. Hodges (pp. 38-40 & 43, CFI Rec. S.P. No. 1672)
along with Miss Magno who at that time was still acting as special co-
administratrix of the estate of C. N. Hodges.
(d) On February 22, 1963, without objection on the part of Avelina A.

Magno, this Honorable Court appointed Joe Hodges and Fernando P.
Mirasol as co-administrators of the estate of C.N. Hodges (pp. 76-78,
81 & 85, CFI Rec., S.P. No. 1672).
10. Miss Avelina A. Magno, pursuant to the orders of this Honorable Court of
December 25, 1962, took possession of all Philippine Assets now claimed by the two
estates. Legally, Miss Magno could take possession of the assets registered in the
name of C. N. Hodges alone only in her capacity as Special Administratrix of the
Estate of C.N. Hodges. With the appointment by this Honorable Court on February
22, 1963 of Joe Hodges and Fernando P. Mirasol as the co-administrators of the
estate of C.N. Hodges, they legally were entitled to take over from Miss Magno the
full and exclusive possession of all of the assets of the estate of C.N. Hodges. With
the appointment on January 24, 1964 of the PCIB as the sole administrator of the
estate of C.N. Hodges in substitution of Joe Hodges and Fernando P. Mirasol, the
PCIB legally became the only party entitled to the sole and exclusive possession of
all of the assets of the estate of C. N. Hodges.
11. The PCIB's predecessors submitted their accounting and this Honorable Court
approved same, to wit:
(a) The accounting of Harold K. Davies dated January 18, 1963 (pp.
16-33, CFI Rec. S.P. No. 1672); which shows or its face the:
(i) Conformity of Avelina A. Magno acting as "Administratrix of the

Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and Special Administratrix of the Estate
of C. N. Hodges";
(ii) Conformity of Leslie Echols, a Texas lawyer acting for the heirs of
C.N. Hodges; and
(iii) Conformity of William Brown, a Texas lawyer acting for the
Higdon family who claim to be the only heirs of Linnie Jane Hodges
(pp. 18, 25-33, CFI Rec., S. P. No. 1672).
Note: This accounting was approved by this Honorable Court on January 22, 1963
(p. 34, CFI Rec., S. P. No. 1672).
(b) The accounting of Joe Hodges and Fernando P. Mirasol as of

January 23, 1964, filed February 24, 1964 (pp. 990-1000, CFI Rec.
S.P. No. 1672 and pp. 1806-1848, CFI Rec. S.P. No. 1307).
Note: This accounting was approved by this Honorable Court on March 3, 1964.
(c) The PCIB and its undersigned lawyers are aware of no report or
accounting submitted by Avelina A. Magno of her acts as
administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges or special
administratrix of the estate of C.N. Hodges, unless it is the accounting
of Harold K. Davies as special co-administrator of the estate of C.N.
Hodges dated January 18, 1963 to which Miss Magno manifested her
conformity (supra).
12. In the aforesaid agreement of January 24, 1964, Miss Avelina A. Magno agreed to receive
P10,000.00
"for her services as administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane

Hodges"
and in addition she agreed to be employed, starting February 1, 1964, at
"a monthly salary of P500.00 for her services as an employee of both

estates."
24 ems.
13. Under the aforesaid agreement of January 24, 1964 and the orders of this
Honorable Court of same date, the PCIB as administrator of the estate of C. N.
Hodges is entitled to the exclusive possession of all records, properties and assets in
the name of C. N. Hodges as of the date of his death on December 25, 1962 which
were in the possession of the deceased C. N. Hodges on that date and which then
passed to the possession of Miss Magno in her capacity as Special Co-Administratrix
of the estate of C. N. Hodges or the possession of Joe Hodges or Fernando P.
Mirasol as co-administrators of the estate of C. N. Hodges.
14. Because of Miss Magno's refusal to comply with the reasonable request of PCIB
concerning the assets of the estate of C. N. Hodges, the PCIB dismissed Miss
Magno as an employee of the estate of C. N. Hodges effective August 31, 1964. On
September 1, 1964 Miss Magno locked the premises at 206-208 Guanco Street and
denied the PCIB access thereto. Upon the Urgent Motion of the PCIB dated
September 3, 1964, this Honorable Court on September 7, 1964 ordered Miss
Magno to reopen the aforesaid premises at 206-208 Guanco Street and permit the
PCIB access thereto no later than September 8, 1964.
15. The PCIB pursuant to the aforesaid orders of this Honorable Court is again in
physical possession of all of the assets of the estate of C. N. Hodges. However, the
PCIB is not in exclusive control of the aforesaid records, properties and assets
because Miss Magno continues to assert the claims hereinabove outlined in
paragraph 6, continues to use her own locks to the doors of the aforesaid premises
at 206-208 Guanco Street, Iloilo City and continues to deny the PCIB its right to know
the combinations to the doors of the vault and safes situated within the premises at
206-208 Guanco Street despite the fact that said combinations were known to only
C. N. Hodges during his lifetime.
16. The Philippine estate and inheritance taxes assessed the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges were assessed and paid on the basis that C. N. Hodges is the sole
beneficiary of the assets of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges situated in the
Philippines. Avelina A. Magno and her legal counsel at no time have questioned the
validity of the aforesaid assessment and the payment of the corresponding Philippine
death taxes.
17. Nothing further remains to be done in the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges except to
resolve the aforesaid Motion of October 5, 1963 and grant the PCIB the exclusive
possession and control of all of the records, properties and assets of the estate of C.
N. Hodges.
18. Such assets as may have existed of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges were
ordered by this Honorable Court in special Proceedings No. 1307 to be turned over
and delivered to C. N. Hodges alone. He in fact took possession of them before his
death and asserted and exercised the right of exclusive ownership over the said
assets as the sole beneficiary of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the PCIB respectfully petitions that this

Honorable court:
(1) Set the Motion of October 5, 1963 for hearing at the earliest possible date with
notice to all interested parties;
(2) Order Avelina A. Magno to submit an inventory and accounting as Administratrix

of the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and Co-Administratrix of the Estate of C. N.
Hodges of all of the funds, properties and assets of any character belonging to the
deceased Linnie Jane Hodges and C. N. Hodges which have come into her
possession, with full details of what she has done with them;
(3) Order Avelina A. Magno to turn over and deliver to the PCIB as administrator of
the estate of C. N. Hodges all of the funds, properties and assets of any character
remaining in her possession;
(4) Pending this Honorable Court's adjudication of the aforesaid issues, order Avelina
A. Magno and her representatives to stop interferring with the administration of the
estate of C. N. Hodges by the PCIB and its duly authorized representatives;
(5) Enjoin Avelina A. Magno from working in the premises at 206-208 Guanco Street,
Iloilo City as an employee of the estate of C. N. Hodges and approve her dismissal
as such by the PCIB effective August 31, 1964;
(6) Enjoin James L. Sullivan, Attorneys Manglapus and Quimpo and others allegedly
representing Miss Magno from entering the premises at 206-208 Guanco Street,
Iloilo City or any other properties of C. N. Hodges without the express permission of
the PCIB;
(7) Order such other relief as this Honorable Court finds just and equitable in the
premises. (Annex "U" Petition.)
On January 8, 1965, petitioner also filed a motion for "Official Declaration of Heirs of Linnie Jane
Hodges Estate" alleging:
COMES NOW Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (hereinafter referred to as PCIB), as
administrator of the estate of the late C. N. Hodges, through the undersigned counsel, and to this
Honorable Court respectfully alleges that:
1. During their marriage, spouses Charles Newton Hodges and Linnie Jane Hodges,
American citizens originally from the State of Texas, U.S.A., acquired and
accumulated considerable assets and properties in the Philippines and in the States
of Texas and Oklahoma, United States of America. All said properties constituted
their conjugal estate.
2. Although Texas was the domicile of origin of the Hodges spouses, this Honorable
Court, in its orders dated March 31 and December 12, 1964 (CFI Record, Sp. Proc.
No. 1307, pp. ----; Sp. Proc. No. 1672, p. ----), conclusively found and categorically
ruled that said spouses had lived and worked for more than 50 years in Iloilo City and
had, therefore, acquired a domicile of choice in said city, which they retained until the
time of their respective deaths.
3. On November 22, 1952, Linnie Jane Hodges executed in the City of Iloilo her Last
Will and Testament, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "A". The bequests
in said will pertinent to the present issue are the second, third, and fourth provisions,
which we quote in full hereunder.
SECOND: I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and
remainder of my estate, both personal and real, wherever situated, or
located, to my husband, Charles Newton Hodges, to have and to hold
unto him, my said husband during his natural lifetime.
THIRD: I desire, direct and provide that my husband, Charles Newton

Hodges, shall have the right to manage, control, use and enjoy said
estate during his lifetime, and he is hereby given the right to make
any changes in the physical properties of said estate by sale of any
part thereof which he think best, and the purchase of any other or
additional property as he may think best; to execute conveyances
with or without general or special warranty, conveying in fee simple or
for any other term or time, any property which he may deem proper to
dispose of; to lease any of the real property for oil, gas and/or other
minerals, and all such deeds or leases shall pass the absolute fee
simple title to the interest so conveyed in such property as he may
elect to sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate shall
belong to him, and he is further authorized to use any part of the
principal of said estate as he may need or desire. It is provided
herein, however, that he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any of
the improved property now owned by us located at, in or near the City
of Lubbock, Texas, but he shall have the full right to lease, manage
and enjoy the same during his lifetime, as above provided. He shall
have the right to sub-divide any farmland and sell lots therein, and
may sell unimproved town lots.
FOURTH: At the death of my said husband, Charles Newton Hodges,

I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of
my estate both real and personal, wherever situated or located, to be
equally divided among my brothers and sisters, share and share
alike, namely:
"Esta Higdon, Emma Howell, Leonard Higdon, Roy Higdon, Sadie

Rascoe, Era Boman and Nimray Higdon."
4. On November 14, 1953, C. N. Hodges executed in the City of Iloilo his Last Will
and Testament, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "B ". In said Will, C. N.
Hodges designated his wife, Linnie Jane Hodges, as his beneficiary using the
identical language she used in the second and third provisos of her Will, supra.
5. On May 23, 1957 Linnie Jane Hodges died in Iloilo City, predeceasing her
husband by more than five (5) years. At the time of her death, she had no forced or
compulsory heir, except her husband, C. N. Hodges. She was survived also by
various brothers and sisters mentioned in her Will (supra), which, for convenience,
we shall refer to as the HIGDONS.
6. On June 28, 1957, this Honorable Court admitted to probate the Last Will and
Testament of the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges (Annex "A"), and appointed C. N.
Hodges as executor of her estate without bond. (CFI Record, Sp. Proc. No. 1307, pp.
24-25). On July 1, 1957, this Honorable Court issued letters testamentary to C. N.
Hodges in the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. (CFI Record, Sp. Proc. No. 1307, p.
30.)
7. The Will of Linnie Jane Hodges, with respect to the order of succession, the
amount of successional rights, and the intrinsic of its testamentary provisions, should
be governed by Philippine laws because:
(a) The testatrix, Linnie Jane Hodges, intended Philippine laws to

govern her Will;
(b) Article 16 of the Civil Code provides that "the national law of the
person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be
the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said
property may be found", shall prevail. However, the Conflict of Law of
Texas, which is the "national law" of the testatrix, Linnie Jane
Hodges, provide that the domiciliary law (Philippine law — see
paragraph 2, supra) should govern the testamentary dispositions and
successional rights over movables (personal properties), and the law
of the situs of the property (also Philippine law as to properties
located in the Philippines) with regards immovable (real properties).
Thus applying the "Renvoi Doctrine", as approved and applied by our
Supreme Court in the case of "In The Matter Of The Testate Estate of
Eduard E. Christensen", G.R. No.
L-16749, promulgated January 31, 1963, Philippine law should apply
to the Will of Linnie Jane Hodges and to the successional rights to
her estate insofar as her movable and immovable assets in the
Philippines are concerned. We shall not, at this stage, discuss what
law should govern the assets of Linnie Jane Hodges located in
Oklahoma and Texas, because the only assets in issue in this motion
are those within the jurisdiction of this motion Court in the two above-
captioned Special Proceedings.
8. Under Philippine and Texas law, the conjugal or community estate of spouses
shall, upon dissolution, be divided equally between them. Thus, upon the death of
Linnie Jane Hodges on May 23, 1957, one-half (1/2) of the entirety of the assets of
the Hodges spouses constituting their conjugal estate pertained automatically to
Charles Newton Hodges, not by way of inheritance, but in his own right as partner in
the conjugal partnership. The other one-half (1/2) portion of the conjugal estate
constituted the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. This is the only portion of the conjugal
estate capable of inheritance by her heirs.
9. This one-half (1/2) portion of the conjugal assets pertaining to Linnie Jane Hodges
cannot, under a clear and specific provision of her Will, be enhanced or increased by
income, earnings, rents, or emoluments accruing after her death on May 23, 1957.
Linnie Jane Hodges' Will provides that "all rents, emoluments and income from said
estate shall belong to him (C. N. Hodges) and he is further authorized to use any part
of the principal of said estate as he may need or desire." (Paragraph 3, Annex "A".)
Thus, by specific provision of Linnie Jane Hodges' Will, "all rents, emoluments and
income" must be credited to the one-half (1/2) portion of the conjugal estate
pertaining to C. N. Hodges. Clearly, therefore, the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges,
capable of inheritance by her heirs, consisted exclusively of no more than one-half
(1/2) of the conjugal estate, computed as of the time of her death on May 23, 1957.
10. Articles 900, 995 and 1001 of the New Civil Code provide that the surviving
spouse of a deceased leaving no ascendants or descendants is entitled, as a matter
of right and by way of irrevocable legitime, to at least one-half (1/2) of the estate of
the deceased, and no testamentary disposition by the deceased can legally and
validly affect this right of the surviving spouse. In fact, her husband is entitled to said
one-half (1/2) portion of her estate by way of legitime. (Article 886, Civil Code.)
Clearly, therefore, immediately upon the death of Linnie Jane Hodges, C. N. Hodges
was the owner of at least three-fourths (3/4) or seventy-five (75%) percent of all of
the conjugal assets of the spouses, (1/2 or 50% by way of conjugal partnership share
and 1/4 or 25% by way of inheritance and legitime) plus all "rents, emoluments and
income" accruing to said conjugal estate from the moment of Linnie Jane Hodges'
death (see paragraph 9, supra).
11. The late Linnie Jane Hodges designated her husband C.N. Hodges as her sole
and exclusive heir with full authority to do what he pleased, as exclusive heir and
owner of all the assets constituting her estate, except only with regards certain
properties "owned by us, located at, in or near the City of Lubbock, Texas". Thus,
even without relying on our laws of succession and legitime, which we have cited
above, C. N. Hodges, by specific testamentary designation of his wife, was entitled to
the entirely to his wife's estate in the Philippines.
12. Article 777 of the New Civil Code provides that "the rights of the successor are
transmitted from the death of the decedent". Thus, title to the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges was transmitted to C. N. Hodges immediately upon her death on May 23,
1957. For the convenience of this Honorable Court, we attached hereto as Annex "C"
a graph of how the conjugal estate of the spouses Hodges should be divided in
accordance with Philippine law and the Will of Linnie Jane Hodges.
13. In his capacity as sole heir and successor to the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges as
above-stated, C. N. Hodges, shortly after the death of Linnie Jane Hodges,
appropriated to himself the entirety of her estate. He operated all the assets,
engaged in business and performed all acts in connection with the entirety of the
conjugal estate, in his own name alone, just as he had been operating, engaging and
doing while the late Linnie Jane Hodges was still alive. Upon his death on December
25, 1962, therefore, all said conjugal assets were in his sole possession and control,
and registered in his name alone, not as executor, but as exclusive owner of all said
assets.
14. All these acts of C. N. Hodges were authorized and sanctioned expressly and
impliedly by various orders of this Honorable Court, as follows:
(a) In an Order dated May 27, 1957, this Honorable Court ruled that C. N. Hodges "is
allowed or authorized to continue the business in which he was engaged, and to
perform acts which he had been doing while the deceased was living." (CFI Record,
Sp. Proc. No. 1307, p. 11.)
(b) On December 14, 1957, this Honorable Court, on the basis of the following fact,
alleged in the verified Motion dated December 11, 1957 filed by Leon P. Gellada as
attorney for the executor C. N. Hodges:
That herein Executor, (is) not only part owner of the properties left as conjugal, but
also, the successor to all the properties left by the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges.'
(CFI Record, Sp. Proc. No. 1307, p. 44; emphasis supplied.)
issued the following order:
"As prayed for by Attorney Gellada, counsel for the Executor, for the reasons stated
in his motion dated December 11, 1957, which the Court considers well taken, all the
sales, conveyances, leases and mortgages of all the properties left by the deceased
Linnie Jane Hodges executed by the Executor, Charles Newton Hodges are hereby
APPROVED. The said Executor is further authorized to execute subsequent sales,
conveyances, leases and mortgages of the properties left by the said deceased
Linnie Jane Hodges in consonance with the wishes contained in the last will and
testament of the latter." (CFI Record. Sp. Proc. No. 1307, p. 46; emphasis supplied.)
24 ems
(c) On April 21, 1959, this Honorable Court approved the verified inventory and
accounting submitted by C. N. Hodges through his counsel Leon P. Gellada on April
14, 1959 wherein he alleged among other things,

examining the herein account, be given notice, as herein executor is
the only devisee or legatee of the deceased, in accordance with the
last will and testament already probated by the Honorable Court."
(CFI Record, Sp. Proc. No. 1307, pp. 77-78; emphasis supplied.)
(d) On July 20, 1960, this Honorable Court approved the verified "Annual Statement
of Account" submitted by C. N. Hodges through his counsel Leon P. Gellada on July
21, 1960 wherein he alleged, among other things.

examining the herein account, be given notice as herein executor is
accordance with the last will and testament ofthe deceased, already
probated by this Honorable Court." (CFI Record, Sp. Proc. No. 1307,
pp. 81-82; emphasis supplied.)
(e) On May 2, 1961, this Honorable Court approved the verified "Annual Statement of
Account By The Executor For the Year 1960" submitted through Leon P. Gellada on
April 20, 1961 wherein he alleged:
"That no person interested in the Philippines be given notice, ofthe time and place of
examining the herein account, as herein executor is the only devisee or legatee of
the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges, in accordance with the last will and testament
ofthe deceased, already probated by this Honorable Court." (CFI Record, Sp. Proc.
No. 1307, pp. 90-91; emphasis supplied.)
15. Since C. N. Hodges was the sole and exclusive heir of Linnie Jane Hodges, not
only by law, but in accordance with the dispositions of her will, there was, in fact, no
need to liquidate the conjugal estate of the spouses. The entirely of said conjugal
estate pertained to him exclusively, therefore this Honorable Court sanctioned and
authorized, as above-stated, C. N. Hodges to manage, operate and control all the
conjugal assets as owner.
16. By expressly authorizing C. N. Hodges to act as he did in connection with the

estate of his wife, this Honorable Court has (1) declared C. N. Hodges as the sole
heir of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, and (2) delivered and distributed her estate
to C. N. Hodges as sole heir in accordance with the terms and conditions of her Will.
Thus, although the "estate of Linnie Jane Hodges" still exists as a legal and juridical
personality, it had no assets or properties located in the Philippines registered in its
name whatsoever at the time of the death of C. N. Hodges on December 25, 1962.
17. The Will of Linnie Jane Hodges (Annex "A"), fourth paragraph, provides as
follows:
"At the death of my said husband, Charles Newton Hodges, I give,

devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my
estate both real and personal, wherever situated or located, to be
alike, namely:
"Esta Higdon, Emma Howell, Leonard Higdon, Roy

Higdon, Sadie Rascoe, Era Boman and Nimray
Higdon."
Because of the facts hereinabove set out there is no "rest, residue and remainder", at
least to the extent of the Philippine assets, which remains to vest in the HIGDONS,
assuming this proviso in Linnie Jane Hodges' Will is valid and binding against the
estate of C. N. Hodges.
18. Any claims by the HIGDONS under the above-quoted provision of Linnie Jane
Hodges' Will is without merit because said provision is void and invalid at least as to
the Philippine assets. It should not, in anyway, affect the rights of the estate of C. N.
Hodges or his heirs to the properties, which C. N. Hodges acquired by way of
inheritance from his wife Linnie Jane Hodges upon her death.
(a) In spite of the above-mentioned provision in the Will of Linnie

Jane Hodges, C. N. Hodges acquired, not merely a usufructuary
right, but absolute title and ownership to her estate. In a recent case
involving a very similar testamentary provision, the Supreme Court
held that the heir first designated acquired full ownership of the
property bequeathed by the will, not mere usufructuary rights.
(Consolacion Florentino de Crisologo, et al., vs. Manuel Singson, G.
R. No. L-13876, February 28, 1962.)
(b) Article 864, 872 and 886 of the New Civil Code clearly provide
that no charge, condition or substitution whatsoever upon the legitime
can be imposed by a testator. Thus, under the provisions of Articles
900, 995 and 1001 of the New Civil Code, the legitime of a surviving
spouse is 1/2 of the estate of the deceased spouse. Consequently,
the above-mentioned provision in the Will of Linnie Jane Hodges is
clearly invalid insofar as the legitime of C. N. Hodges was concerned,
which consisted of 1/2 of the 1/2 portion of the conjugal estate, or 1/4
of the entire conjugal estate of the deceased.
(c) There are generally only two kinds of substitution provided for and
authorized by our Civil Code (Articles 857-870), namely, (1) simple or
common substitution, sometimes referred to as vulgar substitution
(Article 859), and (2) fideicommissary substitution (Article 863). All
other substitutions are merely variations of these. The substitution
provided for by paragraph four of the Will of Linnie Jane Hodges is
not fideicommissary substitution, because there is clearly no
obligation on the part of C. N. Hodges as the first heir designated, to
preserve the properties for the substitute heirs. (Consolacion
Florentino de Crisologo et al. vs. Manuel Singson, G. R. No.
L-13876.) At most, it is a vulgar or simple substitution. However, in
order that a vulgar or simple substitution can be valid, three
alternative conditions must be present, namely, that the first
designated heir (1) should die before the testator; or (2) should not
wish to accept the inheritance; or (3) should be incapacitated to do
so. None of these conditions apply to C. N. Hodges, and, therefore,
the substitution provided for by the above-quoted provision of the Will
is not authorized by the Code, and, therefore, it is void. Manresa,
commenting on these kisses of substitution, meaningfully stated that:
"... cuando el testador instituyeun primer heredero, y por fallecimiento
de este nombra otro u otros, ha de entenderse que estas segundas
designaciones solo han de llegar a tener efectividad en el caso de
que el primer instituido muera antes que el testador, fuera o no esta
su verdadera intencion. ...". (6 Manresa, 7 a ed., pag. 175.) In other
words, when another heir is designated to inherit upon the death of a
first heir, the second designation can have effect only in case the first
instituted heir dies before the testator, whether or not that was the
true intention of said testator. Since C. N. Hodges did not die before
Linnie Jane Hodges, the provision for substitution contained in Linnie
Jane Hodges' Willis void.
(d) In view of the invalidity of the provision for substitution in the Will,
C. N. Hodges' inheritance to the entirety of the Linnie Jane Hodges
estate is irrevocable and final.
19. Be that as it may, at the time of C. N. Hodges' death, the entirety of the conjugal
estate appeared and was registered in him exclusively as owner. Thus, the
presumption is that all said assets constituted his estate. Therefore —
(a) If the HIGDONS wish to enforce their dubious rights as substituted heirs to 1/4 of
the conjugal estate (the other 1/4 is covered by the legitime of C. N. Hodges which
can not be affected by any testamentary disposition), their remedy, if any, is to file
their claim against the estate of C. N. Hodges, which should be entitled at the
present time to full custody and control of all the conjugal estate of the spouses.
(b) The present proceedings, in which two estates exist under separate
administration, where the administratrix of the Linnie Jane Hodges estate exercises
an officious right to object and intervene in matters affecting exclusively the C. N.
Hodges estate, is anomalous.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that after trial and reception of

evidence, this Honorable Court declare:
1. That the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges was and is composed exclusively of one-
half (1/2) share in the conjugal estate of the spouses Hodges, computed as of the
date of her death on May 23, 1957;
2. That the other half of the conjugal estate pertained exclusively to C. N. Hodges as
his share as partner in the conjugal partnership;
3. That all "rents, emoluments and income" of the conjugal estate accruing after
Linnie Jane Hodges' death pertains to C. N. Hodges;
4. That C. N. Hodges was the sole and exclusive heir of the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges;
5. That, therefore, the entire conjugal estate of the spouses located in the
Philippines, plus all the "rents, emoluments and income" above-mentioned, now
constitutes the estate of C. N. Hodges, capable of distribution to his heirs upon
termination of Special Proceedings No. 1672;
6. That PCIB, as administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges, is entitled to full and

exclusive custody, control and management of all said properties; and
7. That Avelina A. Magno, as administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, as
well as the HIGDONS, has no right to intervene or participate in the administration of
the C. N. Hodges estate.
PCIB further prays for such and other relief as may be deemed just and equitable in
the premises."
(Record, pp. 265-277)
Before all of these motions of petitioner could be resolved, however, on December 21, 1965, private
respondent Magno filed her own "Motion for the Official Declaration of Heirs of the Estate of Linnie
Jane Hodges" as follows:
COMES NOW the Administratrix of the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and, through
undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully states and
manifests:
1. That the spouses Charles Newton Hodges and Linnie Jane Hodges were
American citizens who died at the City of Iloilo after having amassed and
accumulated extensive properties in the Philippines;
2. That on November 22, 1952, Linnie Jane Hodges executed a last will and
testament (the original of this will now forms part of the records of these proceedings
as Exhibit "C" and appears as Sp. Proc. No. 1307, Folio I, pp. 17-18);
3. That on May 23, 1957, Linnie Jane Hodges died at the City of Iloilo at the time
survived by her husband, Charles Newton Hodges, and several relatives named in
her last will and testament;
4. That on June 28, 1957, a petition therefor having been priorly filed and duly heard,
this Honorable Court issued an order admitting to probate the last will and testament
of Linnie Jane Hodges (Sp. Proc. No. 1307, Folio I, pp. 24-25, 26-28);
5. That the required notice to creditors and to all others who may have any claims
against the decedent, Linnie Jane Hodges has already been printed, published and
posted (Sp. Proc. No. 1307, Folio I. pp. 34-40) and the reglamentary period for filing
such claims has long ago lapsed and expired without any claims having been
asserted against the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, approved by the
Administrator/Administratrix of the said estate, nor ratified by this Honorable Court;
6. That the last will and testament of Linnie Jane Hodges already admitted to probate
contains an institution of heirs in the following words:
"SECOND: I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and
remainder of my estate, both personal and real, wherever situated or
located, to my beloved husband, Charles Newton Hodges to have
and to hold unto him, my said husband, during his natural lifetime.
THIRD: I desire, direct and provide that my husband, Charles Newton

Hodges, shall have the right to manage, control, use and enjoy said
estate during his lifetime, and, he is hereby given the right to make
any changes in the physical properties of said estate, by sale of any
part thereof which he may think best, and the purchase of any other
or additional property as he may think best; to execute conveyances
with or without general or special warranty, conveying in fee simple or
for any other term or time, any property which he may deem proper to
dispose of; to lease any of the real property for oil, gas and/or other
minerals, and all such deeds or leases shall pass the absolute fee
simple title to the interest so conveyed in such property as he elect to
sell. All rents, emoluments and income from said estate shall belong
to him, and he is further authorized to use any part of the principal of
said estate as he may need or desire. It is provided herein, however,
that he shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any of the improved
property now owned by us located at, in or near the City of Lubbock
Texas, but he shall have the full right to lease, manage and enjoy the
same during his lifetime, above provided. He shall have the right to
subdivide any farm land and sell lots therein, and may sell
unimproved town lots.
FOURTH: At the death of my said husband, Charles Newton Hodges,

I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of
my estate, both real and personal, wherever situated or located, to be
alike, namely:
Esta Higdon, Emma Howell, Leonard Higdon, Roy Higdon, Sadie

Rascoe, Era Boman and Nimroy Higdon.
FIFTH: In case of the death of any of my brothers and/or sisters

named in item Fourth, above, prior to the death of my husband,
Charles Newton Hodges, then it is my will and bequest that the heirs
of such deceased brother or sister shall take jointly the share which
would have gone to such brother or sister had she or he survived."
7. That under the provisions of the last will and testament already above-quoted,
Linnie Jane Hodges gave a life-estate or a usufruct over all her estate to her
husband, Charles Newton Hodges, and a vested remainder-estate or the naked title
over the same estate to her relatives named therein;
8. That after the death of Linnie Jane Hodges and after the admission to probate of
her last will and testament, but during the lifetime of Charles Newton Hodges, the
said Charles Newton Hodges with full and complete knowledge of the life-estate or
usufruct conferred upon him by the will since he was then acting as Administrator of
the estate and later as Executor of the will of Linnie Jane Hodges, unequivocably and
clearly through oral and written declarations and sworn public statements,
renounced, disclaimed and repudiated his life-estate and usufruct over the estate of
Linnie Jane Hodges;
9. That, accordingly, the only heirs left to receive the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges
pursuant to her last will and testament, are her named brothers and sisters, or their
heirs, to wit: Esta Higdon, Emma Howell, Leonard Higdon, Aline Higdon and David
Higdon, the latter two being the wife and son respectively of the deceased Roy
Higdon, Sadie Rascoe Era Boman and Nimroy Higdon, all of legal ages, American
citizens, with residence at the State of Texas, United States of America;
10. That at the time of the death of Linnie Jane Hodges on May 23, 1957, she was
the co-owner (together with her husband Charles Newton Hodges) of an undivided
one-half interest in their conjugal properties existing as of that date, May 23, 1957,
which properties are now being administered sometimes jointly and sometimes
separately by the Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and/or the
Administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges but all of which are under the control and
supervision of this Honorable Court;
11. That because there was no separation or segregation of the interests of husband
and wife in the combined conjugal estate, as there has been no such separation or
segregation up to the present, both interests have continually earned exactly the
same amount of "rents, emoluments and income", the entire estate having been
continually devoted to the business of the spouses as if they were alive;
12. That the one-half interest of Linnie Jane Hodges in the combined conjugal estate
was earning "rents, emoluments and income" until her death on May 23, 1957, when
it ceased to be saddled with any more charges or expenditures which are purely
personal to her in nature, and her estate kept on earning such "rents, emoluments
and income" by virtue of their having been expressly renounced, disclaimed and
repudiated by Charles Newton Hodges to whom they were bequeathed for life under
the last will and testament of Linnie Jane Hodges;
13. That, on the other hand, the one-half interest of Charles Newton Hodges in the
combined conjugal estate existing as of May 23, 1957, while it may have earned
exactly the same amount of "rents, emoluments and income" as that of the share
pertaining to Linnie Jane Hodges, continued to be burdened by charges,
expenditures, and other dispositions which are purely personal to him in nature, until
the death of Charles Newton Hodges himself on December 25, 1962;
14. That of all the assets of the combined conjugal estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and
Charles Newton Hodges as they exist today, the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges is
clearly entitled to a portion more than fifty percent (50%) as compared to the portion
to which the estate of Charles Newton Hodges may be entitled, which portions can
be exactly determined by the following manner:
a. An inventory must be made of the assets of the combined conjugal

estate as they existed on the death of Linnie Jane Hodges on May
23, 1957 — one-half of these assets belong to the estate of Linnie
Jane Hodges;
b. An accounting must be made of the "rents, emoluments and

income" of all these assets — again one-half of these belong to the
estate of Linnie Jane Hodges;
c. Adjustments must be made, after making a deduction of charges,

disbursements and other dispositions made by Charles Newton
Hodges personally and for his own personal account from May 23,
1957 up to December 25, 1962, as well as other charges,
disbursements and other dispositions made for him and in his behalf
since December 25, 1962 up to the present;
15. That there remains no other matter for disposition now insofar as the estate of
Linnie Jane Hodges is concerned but to complete the liquidation of her estate,
segregate them from the conjugal estate, and distribute them to her heirs pursuant to
her last will and testament.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully moved and prayed that

this Honorable Court, after a hearing on the factual matters raised by this motion,
issue an order:
a. Declaring the following persons, to wit: Esta Higdon, Emma Howell, Leonard
Higdon, Aline Higdon, David Higdon, Sadie Rascoe, Era Boman and Nimroy Higdon,
as the sole heirs under the last will and testament of Linnie Jane Hodges and as the
only persons entitled to her estate;
b. Determining the exact value of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges in accordance
with the system enunciated in paragraph 14 of this motion;
c. After such determination ordering its segregation from the combined conjugal
estate and its delivery to the Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges for
distribution to the heirs to whom they properly belong and appertain.
(Green Record on Appeal, pp. 382-391)
whereupon, instead of further pressing on its motion of January 8, 1965 aforequoted, as it had been
doing before, petitioner withdrew the said motion and in addition to opposing the above motion of
respondent Magno, filed a motion on April 22, 1966 alleging in part that:
1. That it has received from the counsel for the administratrix of the supposed estate
of Linnie Jane Hodges a notice to set her "Motion for Official Declaration of Heirs of
the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges";
2. That before the aforesaid motion could be heard, there are matters pending before
this Honorable Court, such as:
a. The examination already ordered by this Honorable Court of

documents relating to the allegation of Avelina Magno that Charles
Newton Hodges "through ... written declarations and sworn public
statements, renounced, disclaimed and repudiated life-estate and
usufruct over the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges';
b. That "Urgent Motion for An Accounting and Delivery to the Estate

of C. N. Hodges of All the Assets of the Conjugal Partnership of the
Deceased Linnie Jane Hodges and C. N. Hodges Existing as of May
23, 1957 Plus All the Rents, Emoluments and Income Therefrom";
c. Various motions to resolve the aforesaid motion;

d. Manifestation of September 14, 1964, detailing acts of interference
of Avelina Magno under color of title as administratrix of the Estate of
Linnie Jane Hodges;
which are all prejudicial, and which involve no issues of fact, all facts involved therein
being matters of record, and therefore require only the resolution of questions of law;
3. That whatever claims any alleged heirs or other persons may have could be very
easily threshed out in the Testate Estate of Charles Newton Hodges;
4. That the maintenance of two separate estate proceedings and two administrators
only results in confusion and is unduly burdensome upon the Testate Estate of
Charles Newton Hodges, particularly because the bond filed by Avelina Magno is
grossly insufficient to answer for the funds and property which she has inofficiously
collected and held, as well as those which she continues to inofficiously collect
and hold;
5. That it is a matter of record that such state of affairs affects and inconveniences
not only the estate but also third-parties dealing with it;" (Annex "V", Petition.)
and then, after further reminding the court, by quoting them, of the relevant allegations of its earlier
motion of September 14, 1964, Annex U, prayed that:
1. Immediately order Avelina Magno to account for and deliver to the administrator of
the Estate of C. N. Hodges all the assets of the conjugal partnership of the deceased
Linnie Jane Hodges and C. N. Hodges, plus all the rents, emoluments and income
therefrom;
2. Pending the consideration of this motion, immediately order Avelina Magno to turn
over all her collections to the administrator Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank;
3. Declare the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges (Sp. Proc. No. 1307) closed;
4. Defer the hearing and consideration of the motion for declaration of heirs in the
Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges until the matters hereinabove set forth are
resolved.
(Prayer, Annex "V" of Petition.)
On October 12, 1966, as already indicated at the outset of this opinion, the respondent court denied
the foregoing motion, holding thus:
ORDER
On record is a motion (Vol. X, Sp. 1672, pp. 4379-4390) dated April 22, 1966 of
administrator PCIB praying that (1) Immediately order Avelina Magno to account for
and deliver to the administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges all assets of the
conjugal partnership of the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges and C. N. Hodges, plus all
the rents, emoluments and income therefrom; (2) Pending the consideration of this
motion, immediately order Avelina Magno to turn over all her collections to the
administrator PCIB; (3) Declare the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges (Sp. Proc.
No. 1307) closed; and (4) Defer the hearing and consideration of the motion for
declaration of heirs in the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges until the matters
hereinabove set forth are resolved.
This motion is predicated on the fact that there are matters pending before this court
such as (a) the examination already ordered by this Honorable Court of documents
relating to the allegation of Avelina Magno that Charles Newton Hodges thru written
declaration and sworn public statements renounced, disclaimed and repudiated his
life-estate and usufruct over the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges (b) the urgent motion
for accounting and delivery to the estate of C. N. Hodges of all the assets of the
conjugal partnership of the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges and C. N. Hodges existing
as of May 23, 1957 plus all the rents, emoluments and income therefrom; (c) various
motions to resolve the aforesaid motion; and (d) manifestation of September 14,
1964, detailing acts of interference of Avelina Magno under color of title as
administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges.
These matters, according to the instant motion, are all pre-judicial involving no issues
of facts and only require the resolution of question of law; that in the motion of
October 5, 1963 it is alleged that in a motion dated December 11, 1957 filed by Atty.
Leon Gellada as attorney for the executor C. N. Hodges, the said executor C. N.
Hodges is not only part owner of the properties left as conjugal but also the
successor to all the properties left by the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges.
Said motion of December 11, 1957 was approved by the Court in consonance with
the wishes contained in the last will and testament of Linnie Jane Hodges.
That on April 21, 1959 this Court approved the inventory and accounting submitted
by C. N. Hodges thru counsel Atty. Leon Gellada in a motion filed on April 14, 1959
stating therein that executor C. N. Hodges is the only devisee or legatee of Linnie
Jane Hodges in accordance with the last will and testament already probated by the
Court.
That on July 13, 1960 the Court approved the annual statement of accounts
submitted by the executor C. N. Hodges thru his counsel Atty. Gellada on July 21,
1960 wherein it is stated that the executor, C. N. Hodges is the only devisee or
legatee of the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges; that on May 2, 1961 the Court
approved the annual statement of accounts submitted by executor, C. N. Hodges for
the year 1960 which was submitted by Atty. Gellada on April 20, 1961 wherein it is
stated that executor Hodges is the only devisee or legatee of the deceased Linnie
Jane Hodges;
That during the hearing on September 5 and 6, 1963 the estate of C. N. Hodges
claimed all the assets belonging to the deceased spouses Linnie Jane Hodges and
C. N. Hodges situated in the Philippines; that administratrix Magno has executed
illegal acts to the prejudice of the testate estate of C. N. Hodges.
An opposition (Sp. 1672, Vol. X, pp. 4415-4421) dated April 27, 1966 of
administratrix Magno has been filed asking that the motion be denied for lack of merit
and that the motion for the official declaration of heirs of the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges be set for presentation and reception of evidence.
It is alleged in the aforesaid opposition that the examination of documents which are
in the possession of administratrix Magno can be made prior to the hearing of the
motion for the official declaration of heirs of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, during
said hearing.
That the matters raised in the PCIB's motion of October 5, 1963 (as well as the other
motion) dated September 14, 1964 have been consolidated for the purpose of
presentation and reception of evidence with the hearing on the determination of the
heirs of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. It is further alleged in the opposition that
the motion for the official declaration of heirs of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges is
the one that constitutes a prejudicial question to the motions dated October 5 and
September 14, 1964 because if said motion is found meritorious and granted by the
Court, the PCIB's motions of October 5, 1963 and September 14, 1964 will become
moot and academic since they are premised on the assumption and claim that the
only heir of Linnie Jane Hodges was C. N. Hodges.
That the PCIB and counsel are estopped from further questioning the determination
of heirs in the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges at this stage since it was PCIB as early
as January 8, 1965 which filed a motion for official declaration of heirs of Linnie Jane
Hodges that the claim of any heirs of Linnie Jane Hodges can be determined only in
the administration proceedings over the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and not that of
C. N. Hodges, since the heirs of Linnie Jane Hodges are claiming her estate and not
the estate of C. N. Hodges.
A reply (Sp. 1672, Vol. X, pp. 4436-4444) dated May 11, 1966 of the PCIB has been
filed alleging that the motion dated April 22, 1966 of the PCIB is not to seek
deferment of the hearing and consideration of the motion for official declaration of
heirs of Linnie Jane Hodges but to declare the testate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges
closed and for administratrix Magno to account for and deliver to the PCIB all assets
of the conjugal partnership of the deceased spouses which has come to her
possession plus all rents and income.
A rejoinder (Sp. 1672, Vol. X, pp. 4458-4462) of administratrix Magno dated May 19,
1966 has been filed alleging that the motion dated December 11, 1957 only sought
the approval of all conveyances made by C. N. Hodges and requested the Court
authority for all subsequent conveyances that will be executed by C. N. Hodges; that
the order dated December 14, 1957 only approved the conveyances made by C. N.
Hodges; that C. N. Hodges represented by counsel never made any claim in the
estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and never filed a motion to declare himself as the heir
of the said Linnie Jane Hodges despite the lapse of more than five (5) years after the
death of Linnie Jane Hodges; that it is further alleged in the rejoinder that there can
be no order of adjudication of the estate unless there has been a prior express
declaration of heirs and so far no declaration of heirs in the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges (Sp. 1307) has been made.
Considering the allegations and arguments in the motion and of the PCIB as well as
those in the opposition and rejoinder of administratrix Magno, the Court finds the
opposition and rejoinder to be well taken for the reason that so far there has been no
official declaration of heirs in the testate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and therefore
no disposition of her estate.
WHEREFORE, the motion of the PCIB dated April 22, 1966 is hereby DENIED.
(Annex "W", Petition)
In its motion dated November 24, 1966 for the reconsideration of this order, petitioner alleged inter
alia that:
It cannot be over-stressed that the motion of December 11, 1957 was based on the
fact that:
a. Under the last will and testament of the deceased, Linnie Jane
Hodges, the late Charles Newton Hodges was the sole heir instituted
insofar as her properties in the Philippines are concerned;
b. Said last will and testament vested upon the said late Charles
Newton Hodges rights over said properties which, in sum, spell
ownership, absolute and in fee simple;
c. Said late Charles Newton Hodges was, therefore, "not only part
owner of the properties left as conjugal, but also, the successor to all
the properties left by the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges.
Likewise, it cannot be over-stressed that the aforesaid motion was granted by this
Honorable Court "for the reasons stated" therein.
Again, the motion of December 11, 1957 prayed that not only "all the sales,
conveyances, leases, and mortgages executed by" the late Charles Newton Hodges,
but also all "the subsequent sales, conveyances, leases, and mortgages ..." be
approved and authorized. This Honorable Court, in its order of December 14, 1957,
"for the reasons stated" in the aforesaid motion, granted the same, and not only
approved all the sales, conveyances, leases and mortgages of all properties left by
the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges executed by the late Charles Newton Hodges, but
also authorized "all subsequent sales, conveyances, leases and mortgages of the
properties left by the said deceased Linnie Jane Hodges. (Annex "X", Petition)
and reiterated its fundamental pose that the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges had already been
factually, although not legally, closed with the virtual declaration of Hodges and adjudication to him,
as sole universal heir of all the properties of the estate of his wife, in the order of December 14,
1957, Annex G. Still unpersuaded, on July 18, 1967, respondent court denied said motion for
reconsideration and held that "the court believes that there is no justification why the order of
October 12, 1966 should be considered or modified", and, on July 19, 1967, the motion of
respondent Magno "for official declaration of heirs of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges", already
referred to above, was set for hearing.
In consequence of all these developments, the present petition was filed on August 1, 1967 (albeit
petitioner had to pay another docketing fee on August 9, 1967, since the orders in question were
issued in two separate testate estate proceedings, Nos. 1307 and 1672, in the court below).
Together with such petition, there are now pending before Us for resolution herein, appeals from the
following:
1. The order of December 19, 1964 authorizing payment by respondent Magno of

overtime pay, (pp. 221, Green Record on Appeal) together with the subsequent
orders of January 9, 1965, (pp. 231-232,id.) October 27, 1965, (pp. 227, id.) and
February 15, 1966 (pp. 455-456, id.) repeatedly denying motions for reconsideration
thereof.
2. The order of August 6, 1965 (pp. 248, id.) requiring that deeds executed by
petitioner to be co-signed by respondent Magno, as well as the order of October 27,
1965 (pp. 276-277) denying reconsideration.
3. The order of October 27, 1965 (pp. 292-295, id.) enjoining the deposit of all
collections in a joint account and the same order of February 15, 1966 mentioned in
No. 1 above which included the denial of the reconsideration of this order of October
27, 1965.
4. The order of November 3, 1965 (pp. 313-320, id.) directing the payment of
attorney's fees, fees of the respondent administratrix, etc. and the order of February
16, 1966 denying reconsideration thereof.
5. The order of November 23, 1965 (pp. 334-335, id.) allowing appellee Western
Institute of Technology to make payments to either one or both of the administrators
of the two estates as well as the order of March 7, 1966 (p. 462, id.) denying
reconsideration.
6. The various orders hereinabove earlier enumerated approving deeds of sale

executed by respondent Magno in favor of appellees Carles, Catedral, Pablito,
Guzman, Coronado, Barrido, Causing, Javier, Lucero and Batisanan, (see pp. 35 to
37 of this opinion), together with the two separate orders both dated December 2,
1966 (pp. 306-308, and pp. 308-309, Yellow Record on Appeal) denying
reconsideration of said approval.
7. The order of January 3, 1967, on pp. 335-336, Yellow Record on Appeal,

approving similar deeds of sale executed by respondent Magno, as those in No. 6, in
favor of appellees Pacaonsis and Premaylon, as to which no motion for
reconsideration was filed.
8. Lastly, the order of December 2, 1966, on pp. 305-306, Yellow Record on Appeal,
directing petitioner to surrender to appellees Lucero, Batisanan, Javier, Pablito,
Barrido, Catedral, Causing, Guzman, and Coronado, the certificates of title covering
the lands involved in the approved sales, as to which no motion for reconsideration
was filed either.
Strictly speaking, and considering that the above orders deal with different matters, just as they
affect distinctly different individuals or persons, as outlined by petitioner in its brief as appellant on
pp. 12-20 thereof, there are, therefore, thirty-three (33) appeals before Us, for which reason,
petitioner has to pay also thirty-one (31) more docket fees.
It is as well perhaps to state here as elsewhere in this opinion that in connection with these appeals,
petitioner has assigned a total of seventy-eight (LXXVIII) alleged errors, the respective discussions
and arguments under all of them covering also the fundamental issues raised in respect to the
petition for certiorari and prohibition, thus making it feasible and more practical for the Court to
dispose of all these cases together.4
The assignments of error read thus:
I to IV
THE ORDER COURT ERRED IN APPROVING THE FINAL DEEDS OF SALE IN
FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES, PEPITO G. IYULORES, ESPIRIDION PARTISALA,
WINIFREDO C. ESPADA AND ROSARIO ALINGASA, EXECUTED BY THE
APPELLEE, AVELINA A. MAGNO, COVERING PARCELS OF LAND OWNED BY
THE DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON HODGES, AND THE CONTRACTS TO
SELL COVERING WHICH WERE EXECUTED BY HIM DURING HIS LIFETIME.
V to VIII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPROVING THE DEEDS OF SALE IN FAVOR

OF THE APPELLEES, PEPITO G. IYULORES, ESPIRIDION PARTISALA,
WINIFREDO C. ESPADA AND ROSARIO ALINGASA, COVERING PARCELS OF
LAND FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER PAID IN FULL IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTS TO SELL.
IX to XII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP

OVER REAL PROPERTY OF THE APPELLEES, PEPITO G. IYULORES,
ESPIRIDION PARTISALA, WINIFREDO C. ESPADA AND ROSARIO ALINGASA,
WHILE ACTING AS A PROBATE COURT.
XIII to XV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPROVING THE FINAL DEEDS OF SALE IN

FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES ADELFA PREMAYLON (LOT NO. 102), SANTIAGO
PACAONSIS, AND ADELFA PREMAYLON (LOT NO. 104), EXECUTED BY THE
XVI to XVIII

OF THE APPELLEES ADELFA PREMAYLON (LOT NO. 102), SANTIAGO
PACAONSIS, AND ADELFA PREMAYLON (LOT NO. 104) COVERING PARCELS
OF LAND FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER PAID IN FULL IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTS TO SELL.
XIX to XXI

OVER REAL PROPERTY OF THE APPELLEES ADELFA PREMAYLON (LOT NO.
102), SANTIAGO PACAONSIS, AND ADELFA PREMAYLON (LOT NO. 104) WHILE
ACTING AS A PROBATE COURT.
XXII to XXV

FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES LORENZO CARLES, JOSE PABLICO, ALFREDO
CATEDRAL AND SALVADOR S. GUZMAN, EXECUTED BY THE APPELLEE,
AVELINA A. MAGNO, COVERING PARCELS OF LAND OWNED BY THE
DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON HODGES, AND THE CONTRACTS TO SELL
COVERING WHICH WERE EXECUTED BY HIM DURING HIS LIFETIME.
XXVI to XXIX
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPROVING THE FINAL DEED OF SALE

EXECUTED IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES, LORENZO CARLES, JOSE
PABLICO, ALFREDO CATEDRAL AND SALVADOR S. GUZMAN PURSUANT TO
CONTRACTS TO SPELL WHICH WERE CANCELLED AND RESCINDED.
XXX to XXXIV

OVER REAL PROPERTY OF THE LORENZO CARLES, JOSE PABLICO,
ALFREDO CATEDRAL AND SALVADOR S. GUZMAN, WHILE ACTING AS A
PROBATE COURT.
XXXV to XXXVI

FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES, FLORENIA BARRIDO AND PURIFICACION
CORONADO, EXECUTED BY THE APPELLEE, AVELINA A. MAGNO, COVERING
PARCELS OF LAND OWNED BY THE DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON
HODGES, AND THE CONTRACTS TO SELL COVERING WHICH WERE
EXECUTED BY HIM DURING HIS LIFETIME.
XXXVII to XXXVIII

OF THE APPELLEES, FLORENIA BARRIDO AND PURIFICACION CORONADO,
ALTHOUGH THEY WERE IN ARREARS IN THE PAYMENTS AGREED UPON IN
THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT TO SELL WHICH THEY EXECUTED WITH THE
DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON HODGES, IN THE AMOUNT OF P10,680.00 and
P4,428.90, RESPECTIVELY.
XXXIX to XL
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DEPRIVING THE DECEASED, CHARLES

NEWTON HODGES, OF THE CONTRACTUAL RIGHT, EXERCISED THROUGH
HIS ADMINISTRATOR, THE INSTANT APPELLANT, TO CANCEL THE
CONTRACTS TO SELL OF THE APPELLEES, FLORENIA BARRIDO AND
PURIFICACION CORONADO.
XLI to XLIII

FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES, GRACIANO LUCERO, ARITEO THOMAS JAMIR
AND MELQUIADES BATISANAN, EXECUTED BY THE APPELLEE, AVELINA A.
MAGNO, COVERING PARCELS OF LAND OWNED BY THE DECEASED,
CHARLES NEWTON HODGES, AND THE CONTRACTS TO SELL COVERING
WHICH WERE EXECUTED BY HIM DURING HIS LIFETIME.
XLIV to XLVI
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPROVING THE FINAL DEED OF SALE IN

FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES, GRACIANO LUCERO, ARITEO THOMAS JAMIR
AND MELQUIADES BATISANAN, PURSUANT TO CONTRACTS TO SELL
EXECUTED BY THEM WITH THE DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON HODGES,
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER COMPLIED
WITH.
XLVII to XLIX
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DEPRIVING THE DECEASED, CHARLES

NEWTON HODGES, OF HIS RIGHT, EXERCISED THROUGH HIS
ADMINISTRATION, THE INSTANT APPELLANT, TO CANCEL THE CONTRACTS
TO SELL OF THE APPELLEES, GRACIANO LUCERO, ARITEO THOMAS JAMIR
AND MELQUIADES BATISANAN, AND IN DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF THE
SAID APPELLEES OVER REAL PROPERTY WHILE ACTING AS A PROBATE
COURT.

FAVOR OF THE APPELLEE, BELCESAR CAUSING, EXECUTED BY THE
LI

OF THE APPELLEE, BELCESAR CAUSING, ALTHOUGH HE WAS IN ARREARS
IN THE PAYMENTS AGREED UPON IN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT TO SELL
WHICH HE EXECUTED WITH THE DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON HODGES,
IN THE AMOUNT OF P2,337.50.
LII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPROVING THE DEED OF SALE IN FAVOR OF

THE APPELLEE, BELCESAR CAUSING, ALTHOUGH THE SAME WAS NOT
EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF COURT.
LIII to LXI
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE APPELLANT, PHILIPPINE

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK TO SURRENDER THE OWNER'S
DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE OVER THE RESPECTIVE LOTS
COVERED BY THE DEEDS OF SALE EXECUTED BY THE APPELLEE, AVELINA
A. MAGNO, IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER APPELLEES, JOSE PABLICO, ALFREDO
CATEDRAL, SALVADOR S. GUZMAN, FLRENIA BARRIDO, PURIFICACION
CORONADO, BELCESAR CAUSING, ARITEO THOMAS JAMIR, MAXIMA
BATISANAN AND GRACIANO L. LUCERO.
LXII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RESOLVING THE MOTION OF THE APPELLEE,

WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DATED NOVEMBER 3, 1965,
WITHOUT ANY COPY THEREOF HAVING BEEN SERVED UPON THE
APPELLANT, PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK.
LXIII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HEARING AND CONSIDERING THE MOTION OF

THE APPELLEE, WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DATED NOVEMBER
3rd, 1965, ON NOVEMBER 23, 1965, WHEN THE NOTICE FOR THE HEARING
THEREOF WAS FOR NOVEMBER 20, 1965.
LXIV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE APPELLEE, WESTERN

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY A RELIEF OTHER THAN THAT PRAYED FOR IN
ITS MOTION, DATED NOVEMBER 3, 1965, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRAYER FOR
GENERAL RELIEF CONTAINED THEREIN.
LXV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPELLEE, WESTERN

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, TO CONTINUE PAYMENTS UPON A CONTRACT
TO SELL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF WHICH IT HAS FAILED TO
FULFILL.
LXVI
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF THE

APPELLEE, WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OVER THE REAL
PROPERTY SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONTRACT TO SELL IT EXECUTED
WITH THE DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON HODGES, WHILE ACTING AS A
PROBATE COURT.
LXVII
LOWER COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CONTINUATION OF PAYMENTS BY

THE APPELLEE, WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, UPON A CONTRACT
TO SELL EXECUTED BY IT AND THE DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON
HODGES, TO A PERSON OTHER THAN HIS LAWFULLY APPOINTED
ADMINISTRATOR.
LXVIII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF RETAINER'S
FEES FROM THE SUPPOSED ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, LINNIE JANE
HODGES, WHEN THERE IS NEITHER SUCH ESTATE NOR ASSETS THEREOF.
LXIX
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF RETAINER'S

FEES OF LAWYERS OF ALLEGED HEIRS TO THE SUPPOSED ESTATE OF THE
DECEASED, LINNIE JANE HODGES.
LXX
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IMPLEMENTING THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE HEIRS OF THE SUPPOSED ESTATE OF THE DECEASED,
LINNIE JANE HODGES, AND THEIR LAWYERS.
LXXI
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE PREMATURE DISTRIBUTION

OF ESTATE ASSETS TO ALLEGED HEIRS OR BENEFICIARIES THEREOF, BY
WAY OF RETAINER'S FEES.
LXXII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THAT ALL FINAL DEEDS OF SALE
EXECUTED PURSUANT TO CONTRACTS TO SELL ENTERED INTO BY THE
DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON HODGES, DURING HIS LIFETIME, BE SIGNED
JOINTLY BY THE APPELLEE, AVELINA A. MAGNO, AND THE APPELLANT,
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, AND NOT BY THE LATTER
ONLY AS THE LAWFULLY APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF HIS ESTATE.
LXXIII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF LEGAL

EXPENSES FROM THE SUPPOSED ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, LINNIE JANE
HODGES, WHEN THERE IS NEITHER SUCH ESTATE NOR ASSETS THEREOF.
LXXIV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF LEGAL

EXPENSES OF LAWYERS OF ALLEGED HEIRS TO THE SUPPOSED ESTATE
OF THE DECEASED, LINNIE JANE HODGES.
LXXV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE PREMATURE DISTRIBUTION

OF ESTATE ASSETS TO ALLEGED HEIRS OR BENEFICIARIES THEREOF, BY
WAY OF LEGAL EXPENSES.
LXXVI
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION TO THE PURPORTED ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE SUPPOSED
ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, LINNIE JANE HODGES, THE INSTANT APPELLEE,
AVELINA A. MAGNO, WHEN THERE IS NEITHER SUCH ESTATE NOR ASSETS
THEREOF.
LXXVII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THAT THE FUNDS OF THE

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON HODGES, BE
PLACED IN A JOINT ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, PHILIPPINE
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, AND THE APPELLEE, AVELINA A.
MAGNO, WHO IS A COMPLETE STRANGER TO THE AFORESAID ESTATE.
LXXVIII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THAT THE APPELLEE, AVELINA A.

MAGNO, BE GIVEN EQUAL ACCESS TO THE RECORDS OF THE TESTATE
ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, CHARLES NEWTON HODGES, WHEN SHE IS A
COMPLETE STRANGER TO THE AFORESAID ESTATE. (Pp. 73-83, Appellant's
Brief.)
To complete this rather elaborate, and unavoidably extended narration of the factual setting of these
cases, it may also be mentioned that an attempt was made by the heirs of Mrs. Hodges to have
respondent Magno removed as administratrix, with the proposed appointment of Benito J. Lopez in
her place, and that respondent court did actually order such proposed replacement, but the Court
declared the said order of respondent court violative of its injunction of August 8, 1967, hence
without force and effect (see Resolution of September 8, 1972 and February 1, 1973). Subsequently,
Atty. Efrain B. Trenas, one of the lawyers of said heirs, appeared no longer for the proposed
administrator Lopez but for the heirs themselves, and in a motion dated October 26, 1972 informed
the Court that a motion had been filed with respondent court for the removal of petitioner PCIB as
administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges in Special Proceedings 1672, which removal motion
alleged that 22.968149% of the share of C. N. Hodges had already been acquired by the heirs of
Mrs. Hodges from certain heirs of her husband. Further, in this connection, in the answer of PCIB to
the motion of respondent Magno to have it declared in contempt for disregarding the Court's
resolution of September 8, 1972 modifying the injunction of August 8, 1967, said petitioner annexed
thereto a joint manifestation and motion, appearing to have been filed with respondent court,
informing said court that in addition to the fact that 22% of the share of C. N. Hodges had already
been bought by the heirs of Mrs. Hodges, as already stated, certain other heirs of Hodges
representing 17.343750% of his estate were joining cause with the heirs of Mrs. Hodges as against
PCIB, thereby making somewhat precarious, if not possibly untenable, petitioners' continuation as
administrator of the Hodges estate.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES IN THE CERTIORARI AND

PROHIBITION CASES
As to the Alleged Tardiness

of the Present Appeals
The priority question raised by respondent Magno relates to the alleged tardiness of all the
aforementioned thirty-three appeals of PCIB. Considering, however, that these appeals revolve
around practically the same main issues and that it is admitted that some of them have been timely
taken, and, moreover, their final results hereinbelow to be stated and explained make it of no
consequence whether or not the orders concerned have become final by the lapsing of the
respective periods to appeal them, We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the timeliness of any
of said appeals.
II
The Propriety Here of Certiorari and

Prohibition instead of Appeal
The other preliminary point of the same respondent is alleged impropriety of the special civil action
of certiorari and prohibition in view of the existence of the remedy of appeal which it claims is proven
by the very appeals now before Us. Such contention fails to take into account that there is a
common thread among the basic issues involved in all these thirty-three appeals which, unless
resolved in one single proceeding, will inevitably cause the proliferation of more or less similar or
closely related incidents and consequent eventual appeals. If for this consideration alone, and
without taking account anymore of the unnecessary additional effort, expense and time which would
be involved in as many individual appeals as the number of such incidents, it is logical and proper to
hold, as We do hold, that the remedy of appeal is not adequate in the present cases. In determining
whether or not a special civil action of certiorari or prohibition may be resorted to in lieu of appeal, in
instances wherein lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion is alleged, it is not
enough that the remedy of appeal exists or is possible. It is indispensable that taking all the relevant
circumstances of the given case, appeal would better serve the interests of justice. Obviously, the
longer delay, augmented expense and trouble and unnecessary repetition of the same work
attendant to the present multiple appeals, which, after all, deal with practically the same basic issues
that can be more expeditiously resolved or determined in a single special civil action, make the
remedies of certiorari and prohibition, pursued by petitioner, preferable, for purposes of resolving the
common basic issues raised in all of them, despite the conceded availability of appeal. Besides, the
settling of such common fundamental issues would naturally minimize the areas of conflict between
the parties and render more simple the determination of the secondary issues in each of them.
Accordingly, respondent Magno's objection to the present remedy of certiorariand prohibition must
be overruled.
We come now to the errors assigned by petitioner-appellant, Philippine Commercial & Industrial
Bank, (PCIB, for short) in the petition as well as in its main brief as appellant.
III
On Whether or Not There is Still Any Part of the Testate

Estate Mrs. Hodges that may be Adjudicated to her brothers
and sisters as her estate, of which respondent Magno is the
unquestioned Administratrix in special Proceedings 1307.
In the petition, it is the position of PCIB that the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction or gravely
abused its discretion in further recognizing after December 14, 1957 the existence of the Testate
Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and in sanctioning purported acts of administration therein of
respondent Magno. Main ground for such posture is that by the aforequoted order of respondent
court of said date, Hodges was already allowed to assert and exercise all his rights as universal heir
of his wife pursuant to the provisions of her will, quoted earlier, hence, nothing else remains to be
done in Special Proceedings 1307 except to formally close it. In other words, the contention of PCIB
is that in view of said order, nothing more than a formal declaration of Hodges as sole and exclusive
heir of his wife and the consequent formal unqualified adjudication to him of all her estate remain to
be done to completely close Special Proceedings 1307, hence respondent Magno should be
considered as having ceased to be Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Mrs. Hodges since then.
After carefully going over the record, We feel constrained to hold that such pose is patently
untenable from whatever angle it is examined.
To start with, We cannot find anywhere in respondent Order of December 14, 1957 the sense being
read into it by PCIB. The tenor of said order bears no suggestion at all to such effect. The
declaration of heirs and distribution by the probate court of the estate of a decedent is its most
important function, and this Court is not disposed to encourage judges of probate proceedings to be
less than definite, plain and specific in making orders in such regard, if for no other reason than that
all parties concerned, like the heirs, the creditors, and most of all the government, the devisees and
legatees, should know with certainty what are and when their respective rights and obligations
ensuing from the inheritance or in relation thereto would begin or cease, as the case may be,
thereby avoiding precisely the legal complications and consequent litigations similar to those that
have developed unnecessarily in the present cases. While it is true that in instances wherein all the
parties interested in the estate of a deceased person have already actually distributed among
themselves their respective shares therein to the satisfaction of everyone concerned and no rights of
creditors or third parties are adversely affected, it would naturally be almost ministerial for the court
to issue the final order of declaration and distribution, still it is inconceivable that the special
proceeding instituted for the purpose may be considered terminated, the respective rights of all the
parties concerned be deemed definitely settled, and the executor or administrator thereof be
regarded as automatically discharged and relieved already of all functions and responsibilities
without the corresponding definite orders of the probate court to such effect.
Indeed, the law on the matter is specific, categorical and unequivocal. Section 1 of Rule 90 provides:
SECTION 1. When order for distribution of residue made. — When the debts, funeral
charges, and expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow and inheritance
tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance with law have been paid, the
court, on the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person interested in
the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the
persons entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which
each is entitled, and such persons may demand and recover their respective shares
from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his
possession. If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of
the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled
under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above mentioned
has been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them give a bond,
in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations
within such time as the court directs.
These provisions cannot mean anything less than that in order that a proceeding for the settlement
of the estate of a deceased may be deemed ready for final closure, (1) there should have been
issued already an order of distribution or assignment of the estate of the decedent among or to those
entitled thereto by will or by law, but (2) such order shall not be issued until after it is shown that the
"debts, funeral expenses, expenses of administration, allowances, taxes, etc. chargeable to the
estate" have been paid, which is but logical and proper. (3) Besides, such an order is usually issued
upon proper and specific application for the purpose of the interested party or parties, and not of the
court.
... it is only after, and not before, the payment of all debts, funeral charges, expenses
of administration, allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax shall have been
effected that the court should make a declaration of heirs or of such persons as are
entitled by law to the residue. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 2nd ed., Vol.
II, p. 397, citing Capistrano vs. Nadurata, 49 Phil., 726; Lopez vs. Lopez, 37 Off.
Gaz., 3091.) (JIMOGA-ON v. BELMONTE, 84 Phil. 545, 548) (p. 86, Appellee's Brief)
xxx xxx xxx
Under Section 753 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (corresponding to Section 1, Rule
90) what brings an intestate (or testate) proceeding to a close is the order of
distribution directing delivery of the residue to the persons entitled thereto after
paying the indebtedness, if any, left by the deceased. (Santiesteban vs.
Santiesteban, 68 Phil. 367, 370.)
In the cases at bar, We cannot discern from the voluminous and varied facts, pleadings and orders
before Us that the above indispensable prerequisites for the declaration of heirs and the adjudication
of the estate of Mrs. Hodges had already been complied with when the order of December 14, 1957
was issued. As already stated, We are not persuaded that the proceedings leading to the issuance
of said order, constituting barely of the motion of May 27, 1957, Annex D of the petition, the order of
even date, Annex E, and the motion of December 11, 1957, Annex H, all aforequoted, are what the
law contemplates. We cannot see in the order of December 14, 1957, so much relied upon by the
petitioner, anything more than an explicit approval of "all the sales, conveyances, leases and
mortgages of all the properties left by the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges executed by the Executor
Charles N. Hodges" (after the death of his wife and prior to the date of the motion), plus a general
advance authorization to enable said "Executor — to execute subsequent sales, conveyances,
leases and mortgages of the properties left the said deceased Linnie Jane Hodges in consonance
with wishes conveyed in the last will and testament of the latter", which, certainly, cannot amount to
the order of adjudication of the estate of the decedent to Hodges contemplated in the law. In fact, the
motion of December 11, 1957 on which the court predicated the order in question did not pray for
any such adjudication at all. What is more, although said motion did allege that "herein Executor
(Hodges) is not only part owner of the properties left as conjugal, but also, the successor to all the
properties left by the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges", it significantly added that "herein Executor, as
Legatee (sic), has the right to sell, convey, lease or dispose of the properties in the Philippines —
during his lifetime", thereby indicating that what said motion contemplated was nothing more than
either the enjoyment by Hodges of his rights under the particular portion of the dispositions of his
wife's will which were to be operative only during his lifetime or the use of his own share of the
conjugal estate, pending the termination of the proceedings. In other words, the authority referred to
in said motions and orders is in the nature of that contemplated either in Section 2 of Rule 109 which
permits, in appropriate cases, advance or partial implementation of the terms of a duly probated will
before final adjudication or distribution when the rights of third parties would not be adversely
affected thereby or in the established practice of allowing the surviving spouse to dispose of his own
share of he conjugal estate, pending its final liquidation, when it appears that no creditors of the
conjugal partnership would be prejudiced thereby, (see the Revised Rules of Court by Francisco,
Vol. V-B, 1970 ed. p. 887) albeit, from the tenor of said motions, We are more inclined to believe that
Hodges meant to refer to the former. In any event, We are fully persuaded that the quoted
allegations of said motions read together cannot be construed as a repudiation of the rights
unequivocally established in the will in favor of Mrs. Hodges' brothers and sisters to whatever have
not been disposed of by him up to his death.
Indeed, nowhere in the record does it appear that the trial court subsequently acted upon the
premise suggested by petitioner. On the contrary, on November 23, 1965, when the court resolved
the motion of appellee Western Institute of Technology by its order We have quoted earlier, it
categorically held that as of said date, November 23, 1965, "in both cases (Special Proceedings
1307 and 1672) there is as yet no judicial declaration of heirs nor distribution of properties to
whomsoever are entitled thereto." In this connection, it may be stated further against petitioner, by
way of some kind of estoppel, that in its own motion of January 8, 1965, already quoted in full on
pages 54-67 of this decision, it prayed inter alia that the court declare that "C. N. Hodges was the
sole and exclusive heir of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges", which it would not have done if it were
really convinced that the order of December 14, 1957 was already the order of adjudication and
distribution of her estate. That said motion was later withdrawn when Magno filed her own motion for
determination and adjudication of what should correspond to the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges
does not alter the indubitable implication of the prayer of the withdrawn motion.
It must be borne in mind that while it is true that Mrs. Hodges bequeathed her whole estate to her
husband and gave him what amounts to full powers of dominion over the same during his lifetime,
she imposed at the same time the condition that whatever should remain thereof upon his death
should go to her brothers and sisters. In effect, therefore, what was absolutely given to Hodges was
only so much of his wife's estate as he might possibly dispose of during his lifetime; hence, even
assuming that by the allegations in his motion, he did intend to adjudicate the whole estate to
himself, as suggested by petitioner, such unilateral act could not have affected or diminished in any
degree or manner the right of his brothers and sisters-in-law over what would remain thereof upon
his death, for surely, no one can rightly contend that the testamentary provision in question allowed
him to so adjudicate any part of the estate to himself as to prejudice them. In other words,
irrespective of whatever might have been Hodges' intention in his motions, as Executor, of May 27,
1957 and December 11, 1957, the trial court's orders granting said motions, even in the terms in
which they have been worded, could not have had the effect of an absolute and unconditional
adjudication unto Hodges of the whole estate of his wife. None of them could have deprived his
brothers and sisters-in-law of their rights under said will. And it may be added here that the fact that
no one appeared to oppose the motions in question may only be attributed, firstly, to the failure of
Hodges to send notices to any of them, as admitted in the motion itself, and, secondly, to the fact
that even if they had been notified, they could not have taken said motions to be for the final
distribution and adjudication of the estate, but merely for him to be able, pending such final
distribution and adjudication, to either exercise during his lifetime rights of dominion over his wife's
estate in accordance with the bequest in his favor, which, as already observed, may be allowed
under the broad terms of Section 2 of Rule 109, or make use of his own share of the conjugal estate.
In any event, We do not believe that the trial court could have acted in the sense pretended by
petitioner, not only because of the clear language of the will but also because none of the interested
parties had been duly notified of the motion and hearing thereof. Stated differently, if the orders of
May 27, 1957 and December 4, 1957 were really intended to be read in the sense contended by
petitioner, We would have no hesitancy in declaring them null and void.
Petitioner cites the case of Austria vs. Ventenilla, G. R. No. L-10018, September 19, 1956,
(unreported but a partial digest thereof appears in 99 Phil. 1069) in support of its insistence that with
the orders of May 27 and December 14, 1957, the closure of Mrs. Hodges' estate has become a
mere formality, inasmuch as said orders amounted to the order of adjudication and distribution
ordained by Section 1 of Rule 90. But the parallel attempted to be drawn between that case and the
present one does not hold. There the trial court had in fact issued a clear, distinct and express order
of adjudication and distribution more than twenty years before the other heirs of the deceased filed
their motion asking that the administratrix be removed, etc. As quoted in that decision, the order of
the lower court in that respect read as follows:
En orden a la mocion de la administradora, el juzgado la encuentra procedente bajo
la condicion de que no se hara entrega ni adjudicacion de los bienes a los herederos
antes de que estos presten la fianza correspondiente y de acuerdo con lo prescrito
en el Art. 754 del Codigo de Procedimientos: pues, en autos no aparece que hayan
sido nombrados comisionados de avaluo y reclamaciones. Dicha fianza podra ser
por un valor igual al de los bienes que correspondan a cada heredero segun el
testamento. Creo que no es obice para la terminacion del expediente el hecho de
que la administradora no ha presentado hasta ahora el inventario de los bienes;
pues, segun la ley, estan exentos de esta formalidad os administradores que son
legatarios del residuo o remanente de los bienes y hayan prestado fianza para
responder de las gestiones de su cargo, y aparece en el testamento que la
administradora Alejandra Austria reune dicha condicion.
POR TODO LO EXPUESTO, el juzgado declara, 1.o: no haber lugar a la mocion de

Ramon Ventenilla y otros; 2.o, declara asimismo que los unicos herederos del finado
Antonio Ventenilla son su esposa Alejandra Austria, Maria Ventenilla, hermana del
testador, y Ramon Ventenilla, Maria Ventenilla, Ramon Soriano, Eulalio Soriano,
Jose Soriano, Gabriela Ventenilla, Lorenzo Ventenilla, Felicitas Ventenilla, Eugenio
Ventenilla y Alejandra Ventenilla, en representacion de los difuntos Juan, Tomas,
Catalino y Froilan, hermanos del testador, declarando, ademas que la heredera
Alejandra Austria tiene derecho al remanente de todos los bienes dejados por el
finado, despues de deducir de ellos la porcion que corresponde a cada uno de sus
coherederos, conforme esta mandado en las clausulas 8.a, 9.a, 10.a, 11.a, 12.a y
13.a del testamento; 3.o, se aprueba el pago hecho por la administradora de los
gastos de la ultima enfermedad y funerales del testador, de la donacion hecha por el
testador a favor de la Escuela a Publica del Municipio de Mangatarem, y de las
misas en sufragio del alma del finado; 4.o, que una vez prestada la fianza
mencionada al principio de este auto, se haga la entrega y adjudicacion de los
bienes, conforme se dispone en el testamento y se acaba de declarar en este auto;
5.o, y, finalmente, que verificada la adjudicacion, se dara por terminada la
administracion, revelandole toda responsabilidad a la administradora, y cancelando
su fianza.
ASI SE ORDENA.
Undoubtedly, after the issuance of an order of such tenor, the closure of any proceedings for the
settlement of the estate of a deceased person cannot be but perfunctory.
In the case at bar, as already pointed out above, the two orders relied upon by petitioner do not
appear ex-facie to be of the same tenor and nature as the order just quoted, and, what is more, the
circumstances attendant to its issuance do not suggest that such was the intention of the court, for
nothing could have been more violative of the will of Mrs. Hodges.
Indeed, to infer from Hodges' said motions and from his statements of accounts for the years 1958,
1959 and 1960, A Annexes I, K and M, respectively, wherein he repeatedly claimed that "herein
executor (being) the only devisee or legatee of the deceased, in accordance with the last will and
testament already probated," there is "no (other) person interested in the Philippines of the time and
place of examining herein account to be given notice", an intent to adjudicate unto himself the whole
of his wife's estate in an absolute manner and without regard to the contingent interests of her
brothers and sisters, is to impute bad faith to him, an imputation which is not legally permissible,
much less warranted by the facts of record herein. Hodges knew or ought to have known that, legally
speaking, the terms of his wife's will did not give him such a right. Factually, there are enough
circumstances extant in the records of these cases indicating that he had no such intention to ignore
the rights of his co-heirs. In his very motions in question, Hodges alleged, thru counsel, that the
"deceased Linnie Jane Hodges died leaving no descendants and ascendants, except brothers and
sisters and herein petitioner, as surviving spouse, to inherit the properties of the decedent", and
even promised that "proper accounting will be had — in all these transactions" which he had
submitted for approval and authorization by the court, thereby implying that he was aware of his
responsibilities vis-a-vis his co-heirs. As alleged by respondent Magno in her brief as appellee:
Under date of April 14, 1959, C. N. Hodges filed his first "Account by the Executor" of
the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. In the "Statement of Networth of Mr. C. N. Hodges
and the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges" as of December 31, 1958 annexed thereto, C.
N. Hodges reported that the combined conjugal estate earned a net income of
P328,402.62, divided evenly between him and the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges.
Pursuant to this, he filed an "individual income tax return" for calendar year 1958 on
the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges reporting, under oath, the said estate as having
earned income of P164,201.31, exactly one-half of the net income of his combined
personal assets and that of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. (p. 91, Appellee's
Brief.)
Under date of July 21, 1960, C. N. Hodges filed his second "Annual Statement of
Account by the Executor" of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. In the "Statement of
Networth of Mr. C. N. Hodges and the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges" as of
December 31, 1959 annexed thereto, C. N. Hodges reported that the combined
conjugal estate earned a net income of P270,623.32, divided evenly between him
and the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. Pursuant to this, he filed an "individual income
tax return" for calendar year 1959 on the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges reporting,
under oath, the said estate as having earned income of P135,311.66, exactly one-
half of the net income of his combined personal assets and that of the estate of
Linnie Jane Hodges. (pp. 91-92, id.)
Under date of April 20, 1961, C. N. Hodges filed his third "Annual Statement of
Account by the Executor for the year 1960" of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. In
the "Statement of Net Worth of Mr. C. N. Hodges and the Estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges" as of December 31, 1960 annexed thereto, C. N. Hodges reported that the
combined conjugal estate earned a net income of P314,857.94, divided of Linnie
Jane Hodges. Pursuant to this, he filed an "individual evenly between him and the
estate income tax return" for calendar year 1960 on the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges
reporting, under oath, the said estate as having earned income of P157,428.97,
exactly one-half of the net income of his combined personal assets and that of the
estate of Linnie Jane Hodges. (pp. 92-93, id.)
In the petition for probate that he (Hodges) filed, he listed the seven brothers and
sisters of Linnie Jane as her "heirs" (see p. 2, Green ROA). The order of the court
admitting the will to probate unfortunately omitted one of the heirs, Roy Higdon (see
p. 14, Green ROA). Immediately, C. N. Hodges filed a verified motion to have Roy
Higdon's name included as an heir, stating that he wanted to straighten the records
"in order (that) the heirs of deceased Roy Higdon may not think or believe they were
omitted, and that they were really and are interested in the estate of deceased Linnie
Jane Hodges".
Thus, he recognized, if in his own way, the separate identity of his wife's estate from his own share
of the conjugal partnership up to the time of his death, more than five years after that of his wife. He
never considered the whole estate as a single one belonging exclusively to himself. The only
conclusion one can gather from this is that he could have been preparing the basis for the eventual
transmission of his wife's estate, or, at least, so much thereof as he would not have been able to
dispose of during his lifetime, to her brothers and sisters in accordance with her expressed desire,
as intimated in his tax return in the United States to be more extensively referred to anon. And
assuming that he did pay the corresponding estate and inheritance taxes in the Philippines on the
basis of his being sole heir, such payment is not necessarily inconsistent with his recognition of the
rights of his co-heirs. Without purporting to rule definitely on the matter in these proceedings, We
might say here that We are inclined to the view that under the peculiar provisions of his wife's will,
and for purposes of the applicable inheritance tax laws, Hodges had to be considered as her sole
heir, pending the actual transmission of the remaining portion of her estate to her other heirs, upon
the eventuality of his death, and whatever adjustment might be warranted should there be any such
remainder then is a matter that could well be taken care of by the internal revenue authorities in due
time.
It is to be noted that the lawyer, Atty. Leon P. Gellada, who signed the motions of May 27, 1957 and
December 11, 1957 and the aforementioned statements of account was the very same one who also
subsequently signed and filed the motion of December 26, 1962 for the appointment of respondent
Magno as "Administratrix of the Estate of Mrs. Linnie Jane Hodges" wherein it was alleged that "in
accordance with the provisions of the last will and testament of Linnie Jane Hodges, whatever real
properties that may remain at the death of her husband, Charles Newton Hodges, the said
properties shall be equally divided among their heirs." And it appearing that said attorney was
Hodges' lawyer as Executor of the estate of his wife, it stands to reason that his understanding of the
situation, implicit in his allegations just quoted, could somehow be reflective of Hodges' own
understanding thereof.
As a matter of fact, the allegations in the motion of the same Atty. Gellada dated July 1, 1957, a
"Request for Inclusion of the Name of Roy Higdon in the Order of the Court dated July 19, 1957,
etc.", reference to which is made in the above quotation from respondent Magno's brief, are over the
oath of Hodges himself, who verified the motion. Said allegations read:
1. — That the Hon. Court issued orders dated June 29, 1957, ordering the probate of
the will.
2. — That in said order of the Hon. Court, the relatives of the deceased Linnie Jane
Hodges were enumerated. However, in the petition as well as in the testimony of
Executor during the hearing, the name Roy Higdon was mentioned, but deceased. It
was unintentionally omitted the heirs of said Roy Higdon who are his wife Aline
Higdon and son David Higdon, all of age, and residents of Quinlan, Texas, U.S.A.
3. — That to straighten the records, and in order the heirs of deceased Roy Higdon
may not think or believe they were omitted, and that they were really and are
interested in the estate of deceased Linnie Jane Hodges, it is requested of the Hon.
Court to insert the names of Aline Higdon and David Higdon, wife and son of
deceased Roy Higdon in the said order of the Hon. Court dated June 29, 1957. (pars.
1 to 3, Annex 2 of Magno's Answer — Record, p. 260)
As can be seen, these italicized allegations indicate, more or less, the real attitude of Hodges in
regard to the testamentary dispositions of his wife.
In connection with this point of Hodges' intent, We note that there are documents, copies of which
are annexed to respondent Magno's answer, which purportedly contain Hodges' own solemn
declarations recognizing the right of his co-heirs, such as the alleged tax return he filed with the
United States Taxation authorities, identified as Schedule M, (Annex 4 of her answer) and his
supposed affidavit of renunciation, Annex 5. In said Schedule M, Hodges appears to have answered
the pertinent question thus:
2a. Had the surviving spouse the right to declare an election between (1) the
provisions made in his or her favor by the will and (11) dower, curtesy or a statutory
interest? (X) Yes ( ) No
2d. Does the surviving spouse contemplate renouncing the will and electing to take
dower, curtesy, or a statutory interest? (X) Yes ( ) No
3. According to the information and belief of the person or persons filing the return, is
any action described under question 1 designed or contemplated? ( ) Yes (X) No
(Annex 4, Answer — Record, p. 263)
and to have further stated under the item, "Description of property interests passing to surviving
spouse" the following:
None, except for purposes of administering the Estate, paying debts, taxes and other
legal charges. It is the intention of the surviving husband of deceased to distribute
the remaining property and interests of the deceased in their Community Estate to
the devisees and legatees named in the will when the debts, liabilities, taxes and
expenses of administration are finally determined and paid. (Annex 4, Answer —
Record, p. 263)
In addition, in the supposed affidavit of Hodges, Annex 5, it is stated:
I, C. N. Hodges, being duly sworn, on oath affirm that at the time the United States
Estate Tax Return was filed in the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges on August 8, 1958, I
renounced and disclaimed any and all right to receive the rents, emoluments and
income from said estate, as shown by the statement contained in Schedule M at
page 29 of said return, a copy of which schedule is attached to this affidavit and
made a part hereof.
The purpose of this affidavit is to ratify and confirm, and I do hereby ratify and
confirm, the declaration made in Schedule M of said return and hereby formally
disclaim and renounce any right on my part to receive any of the said rents,
emoluments and income from the estate of my deceased wife, Linnie Jane Hodges.
This affidavit is made to absolve me or my estate from any liability for the payment of
income taxes on income which has accrued to the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges
since the death of the said Linnie Jane Hodges on May 23, 1957. (Annex 5, Answer
— Record, p. 264)
Although it appears that said documents were not duly presented as evidence in the court below,
and We cannot, therefore, rely on them for the purpose of the present proceedings, still, We cannot
close our eyes to their existence in the record nor fail to note that their tenor jibes with Our
conclusion discussed above from the circumstances related to the orders of May 27 and December
14, 1957. 5 Somehow, these documents, considering they are supposed to be copies of their
originals found in the official files of the governments of the United States and of the Philippines,
serve to lessen any possible apprehension that Our conclusion from the other evidence of Hodges'
manifest intent vis-a-vis the rights of his co-heirs is without basis in fact.
Verily, with such eloquent manifestations of his good intentions towards the other heirs of his wife,
We find it very hard to believe that Hodges did ask the court and that the latter agreed that he be
declared her sole heir and that her whole estate be adjudicated to him without so much as just
annotating the contingent interest of her brothers and sisters in what would remain thereof upon his
demise. On the contrary, it seems to us more factual and fairer to assume that Hodges was well
aware of his position as executor of the will of his wife and, as such, had in mind the following
admonition made by the Court in Pamittan vs. Lasam, et al., 60 Phil., 908, at pp. 913-914:
Upon the death of Bernarda in September, 1908, said lands continued to be conjugal
property in the hands of the defendant Lasam. It is provided in article 1418 of the
Civil Code that upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership, an inventory shall
immediately be made and this court in construing this provision in connection with
section 685 of the Code of Civil Procedure (prior to its amendment by Act No. 3176
of November 24, 1924) has repeatedly held that in the event of the death of the wife,
the law imposes upon the husband the duty of liquidating the affairs of the
partnership without delay (desde luego) (Alfonso vs. Natividad, 6 Phil., 240; Prado
vs. Lagera, 7 Phil., 395; De la Rama vs. De la Rama, 7 Phil., 745; Enriquez vs.
Victoria, 10 Phil., 10; Amancio vs. Pardo, 13 Phil., 297; Rojas vs. Singson Tongson,
17 Phil., 476; Sochayseng vs. Trujillo, 31 Phil., 153; Molera vs. Molera, 40 Phil., 566;
Nable Jose vs. Nable Jose, 41 Phil., 713.)
In the last mentioned case this court quoted with approval the case of Leatherwood
vs. Arnold (66 Texas, 414, 416, 417), in which that court discussed the powers of the
surviving spouse in the administration of the community property. Attention was
called to the fact that the surviving husband, in the management of the conjugal
property after the death of the wife, was a trustee of unique character who is liable
for any fraud committed by him with relation to the property while he is charged with
its administration. In the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, he had wide powers
(as the law stood prior to Act No. 3176) and the high degree of trust reposed in him
stands out more clearly in view of the fact that he was the owner of a half interest in
his own right of the conjugal estate which he was charged to administer. He could
therefore no more acquire a title by prescription against those for whom he was
administering the conjugal estate than could a guardian against his ward or a judicial
administrator against the heirs of estate. Section 38 of Chapter III of the Code of Civil
Procedure, with relation to prescription, provides that "this chapter shall not apply ...
in the case of a continuing and subsisting trust." The surviving husband in the
administration and liquidation of the conjugal estate occupies the position of a trustee
of the highest order and is not permitted by the law to hold that estate or any portion
thereof adversely to those for whose benefit the law imposes upon him the duty of
administration and liquidation. No liquidation was ever made by Lasam — hence, the
conjugal property which came into his possession on the death of his wife in
September, 1908, still remains conjugal property, a continuing and subsisting trust.
He should have made a liquidation immediately (desde luego). He cannot now be
permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. One of the conditions of title by
prescription (section 41, Code of Civil Procedure) is possession "under a claim of title
exclusive of any other right". For a trustee to make such a claim would be a manifest
fraud.
And knowing thus his responsibilities in the premises, We are not convinced that Hodges arrogated
everything unto himself leaving nothing at all to be inherited by his wife's brothers and sisters.
PCIB insists, however, that to read the orders of May 27 and December 14, 1957, not as
adjudicatory, but merely as approving past and authorizing future dispositions made by Hodges in a
wholesale and general manner, would necessarily render the said orders void for being violative of
the provisions of Rule 89 governing the manner in which such dispositions may be made and how
the authority therefor and approval thereof by the probate court may be secured. If We sustained
such a view, the result would only be that the said orders should be declared ineffective either way
they are understood, considering We have already seen it is legally impossible to consider them as
adjudicatory. As a matter of fact, however, what surges immediately to the surface, relative to PCIB's
observations based on Rule 89, is that from such point of view, the supposed irregularity would
involve no more than some non-jurisdictional technicalities of procedure, which have for their evident
fundamental purpose the protection of parties interested in the estate, such as the heirs, its
creditors, particularly the government on account of the taxes due it; and since it is apparent here
that none of such parties are objecting to said orders or would be prejudiced by the unobservance by
the trial court of the procedure pointed out by PCIB, We find no legal inconvenience in nor
impediment to Our giving sanction to the blanket approval and authority contained in said orders.
This solution is definitely preferable in law and in equity, for to view said orders in the sense
suggested by PCIB would result in the deprivation of substantive rights to the brothers and sisters of
Mrs. Hodges, whereas reading them the other way will not cause any prejudice to anyone, and,
withal, will give peace of mind and stability of rights to the innocent parties who relied on them in
good faith, in the light of the peculiar pertinent provisions of the will of said decedent.
Now, the inventory submitted by Hodges on May 12, 1958 referred to the estate of his wife as
consisting of "One-half of all the items designated in the balance sheet, copy of which is hereto
attached and marked as "Annex A"." Although, regrettably, no copy of said Annex A appears in the
records before Us, We take judicial notice, on the basis of the undisputed facts in these cases, that
the same consists of considerable real and other personal kinds of properties. And since, according
to her will, her husband was to be the sole owner thereof during his lifetime, with full power and
authority to dispose of any of them, provided that should there be any remainder upon his death,
such remainder would go to her brothers and sisters, and furthermore, there is no pretension, much
less any proof that Hodges had in fact disposed of all of them, and, on the contrary, the indications
are rather to the effect that he had kept them more or less intact, it cannot truthfully be said that,
upon the death of Hodges, there was no more estate of Mrs. Hodges to speak of. It is Our
conclusion, therefore, that properties do exist which constitute such estate, hence Special
Proceedings 1307 should not yet be closed.
Neither is there basis for holding that respondent Magno has ceased to be the Administratrix in said
proceeding. There is no showing that she has ever been legally removed as such, the attempt to
replace her with Mr. Benito Lopez without authority from the Court having been expressly held
ineffective by Our resolution of September 8, 1972. Parenthetically, on this last point, PCIB itself is
very emphatic in stressing that it is not questioning said respondent's status as such administratrix.
Indeed, it is not clear that PCIB has any standing to raise any objection thereto, considering it is a
complete stranger insofar as the estate of Mrs. Hodges is concerned.
It is the contention of PCIB, however, that as things actually stood at the time of Hodges' death, their
conjugal partnership had not yet been liquidated and, inasmuch as the properties composing the
same were thus commingled pro indiviso and, consequently, the properties pertaining to the estate
of each of the spouses are not yet identifiable, it is PCIB alone, as administrator of the estate of
Hodges, who should administer everything, and all that respondent Magno can do for the time being
is to wait until the properties constituting the remaining estate of Mrs. Hodges have been duly
segregated and delivered to her for her own administration. Seemingly, PCIB would liken the Testate
Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges to a party having a claim of ownership to some properties included in
the inventory of an administrator of the estate of a decedent, (here that of Hodges) and who normally
has no right to take part in the proceedings pending the establishment of his right or title; for which
as a rule it is required that an ordinary action should be filed, since the probate court is without
jurisdiction to pass with finality on questions of title between the estate of the deceased, on the one
hand, and a third party or even an heir claiming adversely against the estate, on the other.
We do not find such contention sufficiently persuasive. As We see it, the situation obtaining herein
cannot be compared with the claim of a third party the basis of which is alien to the pending probate
proceedings. In the present cases what gave rise to the claim of PCIB of exclusive ownership by the
estate of Hodges over all the properties of the Hodges spouses, including the share of Mrs. Hodges
in the community properties, were the orders of the trial court issued in the course of the very
settlement proceedings themselves, more specifically, the orders of May 27 and December 14, 1957
so often mentioned above. In other words, the root of the issue of title between the parties is
something that the court itself has done in the exercise of its probate jurisdiction. And since in the
ultimate analysis, the question of whether or not all the properties herein involved pertain exclusively
to the estate of Hodges depends on the legal meaning and effect of said orders, the claim that
respondent court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide the said issue is incorrect. If it
was within the competence of the court to issue the root orders, why should it not be within its
authority to declare their true significance and intent, to the end that the parties may know whether
or not the estate of Mrs. Hodges had already been adjudicated by the court, upon the initiative of
Hodges, in his favor, to the exclusion of the other heirs of his wife instituted in her will?
At this point, it bears emphasis again that the main cause of all the present problems confronting the
courts and the parties in these cases was the failure of Hodges to secure, as executor of his wife's
estate, from May, 1957 up to the time of his death in December, 1962, a period of more than five
years, the final adjudication of her estate and the closure of the proceedings. The record is bare of
any showing that he ever exerted any effort towards the early settlement of said estate. While, on
the one hand, there are enough indications, as already discuss that he had intentions of leaving
intact her share of the conjugal properties so that it may pass wholly to his co-heirs upon his death,
pursuant to her will, on the other hand, by not terminating the proceedings, his interests in his own
half of the conjugal properties remained commingled pro-indiviso with those of his co-heirs in the
other half. Obviously, such a situation could not be conducive to ready ascertainment of the portion
of the inheritance that should appertain to his co-heirs upon his death. Having these considerations
in mind, it would be giving a premium for such procrastination and rather unfair to his co-heirs, if the
administrator of his estate were to be given exclusive administration of all the properties in question,
which would necessarily include the function of promptly liquidating the conjugal partnership, thereby
identifying and segregating without unnecessary loss of time which properties should be considered
as constituting the estate of Mrs. Hodges, the remainder of which her brothers and sisters are
supposed to inherit equally among themselves.
To be sure, an administrator is not supposed to represent the interests of any particular party and his
acts are deemed to be objectively for the protection of the rights of everybody concerned with the
estate of the decedent, and from this point of view, it maybe said that even if PCIB were to act alone,
there should be no fear of undue disadvantage to anyone. On the other hand, however, it is
evidently implicit in section 6 of Rule 78 fixing the priority among those to whom letters of
administration should be granted that the criterion in the selection of the administrator is not his
impartiality alone but, more importantly, the extent of his interest in the estate, so much so that the
one assumed to have greater interest is preferred to another who has less. Taking both of these
considerations into account, inasmuch as, according to Hodges' own inventory submitted by him as
Executor of the estate of his wife, practically all their properties were conjugal which means that the
spouses have equal shares therein, it is but logical that both estates should be administered jointly
by representatives of both, pending their segregation from each other. Particularly is such an
arrangement warranted because the actuations so far of PCIB evince a determined, albeit
groundless, intent to exclude the other heirs of Mrs. Hodges from their inheritance. Besides, to allow
PCIB, the administrator of his estate, to perform now what Hodges was duty bound to do as
executor is to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Section 2 of Rule 78 which expressly provides that
"The executor of an executor shall not, as such, administer the estate of the first testator." It goes
without saying that this provision refers also to the administrator of an executor like PCIB here.
We are not unmindful of the fact that under Section 2 of Rule 73, "When the marriage is dissolved by
the death of the husband or wife, the community property shall be inventoried, administered, and
liquidated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased
spouse. If both spouses have died, the conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or
intestate proceedings of either." Indeed, it is true that the last sentence of this provision allows or
permits the conjugal partnership of spouses who are both deceased to be settled or liquidated in the
testate or intestate proceedings of either, but precisely because said sentence allows or permits that
the liquidation be made in either proceeding, it is a matter of sound judicial discretion in which one it
should be made. After all, the former rule referring to the administrator of the husband's estate in
respect to such liquidation was done away with by Act 3176, the pertinent provisions of which are
now embodied in the rule just cited.
Thus, it can be seen that at the time of the death of Hodges, there was already the pending judicial
settlement proceeding of the estate of Mrs. Hodges, and, more importantly, that the former was the
executor of the latter's will who had, as such, failed for more than five years to see to it that the same
was terminated earliest, which was not difficult to do, since from ought that appears in the record,
there were no serious obstacles on the way, the estate not being indebted and there being no
immediate heirs other than Hodges himself. Such dilatory or indifferent attitude could only spell
possible prejudice of his co-heirs, whose rights to inheritance depend entirely on the existence of
any remainder of Mrs. Hodges' share in the community properties, and who are now faced with the
pose of PCIB that there is no such remainder. Had Hodges secured as early as possible the
settlement of his wife's estate, this problem would not arisen. All things considered, We are fully
convinced that the interests of justice will be better served by not permitting or allowing PCIB or any
administrator of the estate of Hodges exclusive administration of all the properties in question. We
are of the considered opinion and so hold that what would be just and proper is for both
administrators of the two estates to act conjointly until after said estates have been segregated from
each other.
At this juncture, it may be stated that we are not overlooking the fact that it is PCIB's contention that,
viewed as a substitution, the testamentary disposition in favor of Mrs. Hodges' brothers and sisters
may not be given effect. To a certain extent, this contention is correct. Indeed, legally speaking, Mrs.
Hodges' will provides neither for a simple or vulgar substitution under Article 859 of the Civil Code
nor for a fideicommissary substitution under Article 863 thereof. There is no vulgar substitution
therein because there is no provision for either (1) predecease of the testator by the designated heir
or (2) refusal or (3) incapacity of the latter to accept the inheritance, as required by Article 859; and
neither is there a fideicommissary substitution therein because no obligation is imposed thereby
upon Hodges to preserve the estate or any part thereof for anyone else. But from these premises, it
is not correct to jump to the conclusion, as PCIB does, that the testamentary dispositions in question
are therefore inoperative and invalid.
The error in PCIB's position lies simply in the fact that it views the said disposition exclusively in the
light of substitutions covered by the Civil Code section on that subject, (Section 3, Chapter 2, Title
IV, Book III) when it is obvious that substitution occurs only when another heir is appointed in a will
"so that he may enter into inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted," (Article 857, id.) and,
in the present case, no such possible default is contemplated. The brothers and sisters of Mrs.
Hodges are not substitutes for Hodges because, under her will, they are not to inherit what Hodges
cannot, would not or may not inherit, but what he would not dispose of from his inheritance; rather,
therefore, they are also heirs instituted simultaneously with Hodges, subject, however, to certain
conditions, partially resolutory insofar as Hodges was concerned and correspondingly suspensive
with reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law. It is partially resolutory, since it bequeaths unto
Hodges the whole of her estate to be owned and enjoyed by him as universal and sole heir with
absolute dominion over them6 only during his lifetime, which means that while he could completely
and absolutely dispose of any portion thereof inter vivos to anyone other than himself, he was not
free to do so mortis causa, and all his rights to what might remain upon his death would cease
entirely upon the occurrence of that contingency, inasmuch as the right of his brothers and sisters-in-
law to the inheritance, although vested already upon the death of Mrs. Hodges, would automatically
become operative upon the occurrence of the death of Hodges in the event of actual existence of
any remainder of her estate then.
Contrary to the view of respondent Magno, however, it was not the usufruct alone of her estate, as
contemplated in Article 869 of the Civil Code, that she bequeathed to Hodges during his lifetime, but
the full ownership thereof, although the same was to last also during his lifetime only, even as there
was no restriction whatsoever against his disposing or conveying the whole or any portion thereof to
anybody other than himself. The Court sees no legal impediment to this kind of institution, in this
jurisdiction or under Philippine law, except that it cannot apply to the legitime of Hodges as the
surviving spouse, consisting of one-half of the estate, considering that Mrs. Hodges had no surviving
ascendants nor descendants. (Arts. 872, 900, and 904, New Civil Code.)
But relative precisely to the question of how much of Mrs. Hodges' share of the conjugal partnership
properties may be considered as her estate, the parties are in disagreement as to how Article 16 of
the Civil Code7 should be applied. On the one hand, petitioner claims that inasmuch as Mrs. Hodges
was a resident of the Philippines at the time of her death, under said Article 16, construed in relation
to the pertinent laws of Texas and the principle of renvoi, what should be applied here should be the
rules of succession under the Civil Code of the Philippines, and, therefore, her estate could consist
of no more than one-fourth of the said conjugal properties, the other fourth being, as already
explained, the legitime of her husband (Art. 900, Civil Code) which she could not have disposed of
nor burdened with any condition (Art. 872, Civil Code). On the other hand, respondent Magno denies
that Mrs. Hodges died a resident of the Philippines, since allegedly she never changed nor intended
to change her original residence of birth in Texas, United States of America, and contends that,
anyway, regardless of the question of her residence, she being indisputably a citizen of Texas, under
said Article 16 of the Civil Code, the distribution of her estate is subject to the laws of said State
which, according to her, do not provide for any legitime, hence, the brothers and sisters of Mrs.
Hodges are entitled to the remainder of the whole of her share of the conjugal partnership properties
consisting of one-half thereof. Respondent Magno further maintains that, in any event, Hodges had
renounced his rights under the will in favor of his co-heirs, as allegedly proven by the documents
touching on the point already mentioned earlier, the genuineness and legal significance of which
petitioner seemingly questions. Besides, the parties are disagreed as to what the pertinent laws of
Texas provide. In the interest of settling the estates herein involved soonest, it would be best,
indeed, if these conflicting claims of the parties were determined in these proceedings. The Court
regrets, however, that it cannot do so, for the simple reason that neither the evidence submitted by
the parties in the court below nor their discussion, in their respective briefs and memoranda before
Us, of their respective contentions on the pertinent legal issues, of grave importance as they are,
appear to Us to be adequate enough to enable Us to render an intelligent comprehensive and just
resolution. For one thing, there is no clear and reliable proof of what in fact the possibly applicable
laws of Texas are. 7* Then also, the genuineness of documents relied upon by respondent Magno is
disputed. And there are a number of still other conceivable related issues which the parties may wish
to raise but which it is not proper to mention here. In Justice, therefore, to all the parties concerned,
these and all other relevant matters should first be threshed out fully in the trial court in the
proceedings hereafter to be held therein for the purpose of ascertaining and adjudicating and/or
distributing the estate of Mrs. Hodges to her heirs in accordance with her duly probated will.
To be more explicit, all that We can and do decide in connection with the petition for certiorari and
prohibition are: (1) that regardless of which corresponding laws are applied, whether of the
Philippines or of Texas, and taking for granted either of the respective contentions of the parties as
to provisions of the latter,8 and regardless also of whether or not it can be proven by competent
evidence that Hodges renounced his inheritance in any degree, it is easily and definitely discernible
from the inventory submitted by Hodges himself, as Executor of his wife's estate, that there are
properties which should constitute the estate of Mrs. Hodges and ought to be disposed of or
distributed among her heirs pursuant to her will in said Special Proceedings 1307; (2) that, more
specifically, inasmuch as the question of what are the pertinent laws of Texas applicable to the
situation herein is basically one of fact, and, considering that the sole difference in the positions of
the parties as to the effect of said laws has reference to the supposed legitime of Hodges — it being
the stand of PCIB that Hodges had such a legitime whereas Magno claims the negative - it is now
beyond controversy for all future purposes of these proceedings that whatever be the provisions
actually of the laws of Texas applicable hereto, the estate of Mrs. Hodges is at least, one-fourth of
the conjugal estate of the spouses; the existence and effects of foreign laws being questions of fact,
and it being the position now of PCIB that the estate of Mrs. Hodges, pursuant to the laws of Texas,
should only be one-fourth of the conjugal estate, such contention constitutes an admission of fact,
and consequently, it would be in estoppel in any further proceedings in these cases to claim that
said estate could be less, irrespective of what might be proven later to be actually the provisions of
the applicable laws of Texas; (3) that Special Proceedings 1307 for the settlement of the testate
estate of Mrs. Hodges cannot be closed at this stage and should proceed to its logical conclusion,
there having been no proper and legal adjudication or distribution yet of the estate therein involved;
and (4) that respondent Magno remains and continues to be the Administratrix therein. Hence,
nothing in the foregoing opinion is intended to resolve the issues which, as already stated, are not
properly before the Court now, namely, (1) whether or not Hodges had in fact and in law waived or
renounced his inheritance from Mrs. Hodges, in whole or in part, and (2) assuming there had been
no such waiver, whether or not, by the application of Article 16 of the Civil Code, and in the light of
what might be the applicable laws of Texas on the matter, the estate of Mrs. Hodges is more than
the one-fourth declared above. As a matter of fact, even our finding above about the existence of
properties constituting the estate of Mrs. Hodges rests largely on a general appraisal of the size and
extent of the conjugal partnership gathered from reference made thereto by both parties in their
briefs as well as in their pleadings included in the records on appeal, and it should accordingly yield,
as to which exactly those properties are, to the more concrete and specific evidence which the
parties are supposed to present in support of their respective positions in regard to the foregoing
main legal and factual issues. In the interest of justice, the parties should be allowed to present such
further evidence in relation to all these issues in a joint hearing of the two probate proceedings
herein involved. After all, the court a quo has not yet passed squarely on these issues, and it is best
for all concerned that it should do so in the first instance.
Relative to Our holding above that the estate of Mrs. Hodges cannot be less than the remainder of
one-fourth of the conjugal partnership properties, it may be mentioned here that during the
deliberations, the point was raised as to whether or not said holding might be inconsistent with Our
other ruling here also that, since there is no reliable evidence as to what are the applicable laws of
Texas, U.S.A. "with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights" that
may be willed by a testator which, under Article 16 of the Civil Code, are controlling in the instant
cases, in view of the undisputed Texan nationality of the deceased Mrs. Hodges, these cases should
be returned to the court a quo, so that the parties may prove what said law provides, it is premature
for Us to make any specific ruling now on either the validity of the testamentary dispositions herein
involved or the amount of inheritance to which the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges are entitled.
After nature reflection, We are of the considered view that, at this stage and in the state of the
records before Us, the feared inconsistency is more apparent than real. Withal, it no longer lies in
the lips of petitioner PCIB to make any claim that under the laws of Texas, the estate of Mrs. Hodges
could in any event be less than that We have fixed above.
It should be borne in mind that as above-indicated, the question of what are the laws of Texas
governing the matters herein issue is, in the first instance, one of fact, not of law. Elementary is the
rule that foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proven like any other fact in
dispute between the parties in any proceeding, with the rare exception in instances when the said
laws are already within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when they are well and generally
known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties
concerned do not claim otherwise. (5 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, p. 41, 1970 ed.)
In Fluemer vs. Hix, 54 Phil. 610, it was held:
It is the theory of the petitioner that the alleged will was executed in Elkins West Virginia, on
November 3, 1925, by Hix who had his residence in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of West
Virginia govern. To this end, there was submitted a copy of section 3868 of Acts 1882, c. 84 as
found in West Virginia Code, Annotated, by Hogg Charles E., vol. 2, 1914, p. 1960, and as certified
to by the Director of the National Library. But this was far from a compliance with the law. The laws
of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands
are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of the various States of the American Union.
Such laws must be proved as facts. (In re Estate of Johnson [1918], 39 Phil., 156.) Here the
requirements of the law were not met. There was no showing that the book from which an extract
was taken was printed or published under the authority of the State of West Virginia, as provided in
section 300 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor was the extract from the law attested by the
certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under the seal of the State of West Virginia, as
provided in section 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No evidence was introduced to show that the
extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will was executed."
No evidence of the nature thus suggested by the Court may be found in the records of the cases at
bar. Quite to the contrary, the parties herein have presented opposing versions in their respective
pleadings and memoranda regarding the matter. And even if We took into account that in Aznar vs.
Garcia, the Court did make reference to certain provisions regarding succession in the laws of
Texas, the disparity in the material dates of that case and the present ones would not permit Us to
indulge in the hazardous conjecture that said provisions have not been amended or changed in the
meantime.
On the other hand, in In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156, We held:
Upon the other point — as to whether the will was executed in conformity with the
statutes of the State of Illinois — we note that it does not affirmatively appear from
the transcription of the testimony adduced in the trial court that any witness was
examined with reference to the law of Illinois on the subject of the execution of will.
The trial judge no doubt was satisfied that the will was properly executed by
examining section 1874 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois, as exhibited in volume 3 of
Starr & Curtis's Annotated Illinois Statutes, 2nd ed., p. 426; and he may have
assumed that he could take judicial notice of the laws of Illinois under section 275 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. If so, he was in our opinion mistaken. That section
authorizes the courts here to take judicial notice, among other things, of the acts of
the legislative department of the United States. These words clearly have reference
to Acts of the Congress of the United States; and we would hesitate to hold that our
courts can, under this provision, take judicial notice of the multifarious laws of the
various American States. Nor do we think that any such authority can be derived
from the broader language, used in the same section, where it is said that our courts
may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge "similar" to those therein
enumerated. The proper rule we think is to require proof of the statutes of the States
of the American Union whenever their provisions are determinative of the issues in
any action litigated in the Philippine courts.
Nevertheless, even supposing that the trial court may have erred in taking judicial
notice of the law of Illinois on the point in question, such error is not now available to
the petitioner, first, because the petition does not state any fact from which it would
appear that the law of Illinois is different from what the court found, and, secondly,
because the assignment of error and argument for the appellant in this court raises
no question based on such supposed error. Though the trial court may have acted
upon pure conjecture as to the law prevailing in the State of Illinois, its judgment
could not be set aside, even upon application made within six months under section
113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless it should be made to appear affirmatively
that the conjecture was wrong. The petitioner, it is true, states in general terms that
the will in question is invalid and inadequate to pass real and personal property in the
State of Illinois, but this is merely a conclusion of law. The affidavits by which the
petition is accompanied contain no reference to the subject, and we are cited to no
authority in the appellant's brief which might tend to raise a doubt as to the
correctness of the conclusion of the trial court. It is very clear, therefore, that this
point cannot be urged as of serious moment.
It is implicit in the above ruling that when, with respect to certain aspects of the foreign laws
concerned, the parties in a given case do not have any controversy or are more or less in
agreement, the Court may take it for granted for the purposes of the particular case before it that the
said laws are as such virtual agreement indicates, without the need of requiring the presentation of
what otherwise would be the competent evidence on the point. Thus, in the instant cases wherein it
results from the respective contentions of both parties that even if the pertinent laws of Texas were
known and to be applied, the amount of the inheritance pertaining to the heirs of Mrs. Hodges is as
We have fixed above, the absence of evidence to the effect that, actually and in fact, under said
laws, it could be otherwise is of no longer of any consequence, unless the purpose is to show that it
could be more. In other words, since PCIB, the petitioner-appellant, concedes that upon application
of Article 16 of the Civil Code and the pertinent laws of Texas, the amount of the estate in
controversy is just as We have determined it to be, and respondent-appellee is only claiming, on her
part, that it could be more, PCIB may not now or later pretend differently.
To be more concrete, on pages 20-21 of its petition herein, dated July 31, 1967, PCIB states
categorically:
Inasmuch as Article 16 of the Civil Code provides that "intestate and testamentary
successions both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be
regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein
said property may be found", while the law of Texas (the Hodges spouses being
nationals of U.S.A., State of Texas), in its conflicts of law rules, provides that the
domiciliary law (in this case Philippine law) governs the testamentary dispositions
and successional rights over movables or personal properties, while the law of the
situs (in this case also Philippine law with respect to all Hodges properties located in
the Philippines), governs with respect to immovable properties, and applying
therefore the 'renvoi doctrine' as enunciated and applied by this Honorable Court in
the case of In re Estate of Christensen (G.R. No. L-16749, Jan. 31, 1963), there can
be no question that Philippine law governs the testamentary dispositions contained in
the Last Will and Testament of the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges, as well as the
successional rights to her estate, both with respect to movables, as well as to
immovables situated in the Philippines.
In its main brief dated February 26, 1968, PCIB asserts:

The law governing successional rights.
As recited above, there is no question that the deceased, Linnie Jane Hodges, was
an American citizen. There is also no question that she was a national of the State of
Texas, U.S.A. Again, there is likewise no question that she had her domicile of
choice in the City of Iloilo, Philippines, as this has already been pronounced by the
above-cited orders of the lower court, pronouncements which are by now res
adjudicata (par. [a], See. 49, Rule 39, Rules of Court; In re Estate of Johnson, 39
Phil. 156).
Article 16 of the Civil Code provides:
"Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where
it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found."
Thus the aforecited provision of the Civil Code points towards the national law of the
deceased, Linnie Jane Hodges, which is the law of Texas, as governing succession
"both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional
rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions ...". But the law of Texas,
in its conflicts of law rules, provides that the domiciliary law governs the testamentary
dispositions and successional rights over movables or personal property, while the
law of the situs governs with respect to immovable property. Such that with respect
to both movable property, as well as immovable property situated in the Philippines,
the law of Texas points to the law of the Philippines.
Applying, therefore, the so-called "renvoi doctrine", as enunciated and applied by this
Honorable Court in the case of "In re Christensen" (G.R. No. L-16749, Jan. 31,
1963), there can be no question that Philippine law governs the testamentary
provisions in the Last Will and Testament of the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges, as
well as the successional rights to her estate, both with respect to movables, as well
as immovables situated in the Philippines.
The subject of successional rights.
Under Philippine law, as it is under the law of Texas, the conjugal or community
property of the spouses, Charles Newton Hodges and Linnie Jane Hodges, upon the
death of the latter, is to be divided into two, one-half pertaining to each of the
spouses, as his or her own property. Thus, upon the death of Linnie Jane Hodges,
one-half of the conjugal partnership property immediately pertained to Charles
Newton Hodges as his own share, and not by virtue of any successional rights.
There can be no question about this.
Again, Philippine law, or more specifically, Article 900 of the Civil Code provides:
If the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be
entitled to one-half of the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse,
and the testator may freely dispose of the other half.
If the marriage between the surviving spouse and the testator was
solemnized in articulo mortis, and the testator died within three
months from the time of the marriage, the legitime of the surviving
spouse as the sole heir shall be one-third of the hereditary estate,
except when they have been living as husband and wife for more
than five years. In the latter case, the legitime of the surviving spouse
shall be that specified in the preceding paragraph.
This legitime of the surviving spouse cannot be burdened by a fideicommisary

substitution (Art. 864, Civil code), nor by any charge, condition, or substitution (Art,
872, Civil code). It is clear, therefore, that in addition to one-half of the conjugal
partnership property as his own conjugal share, Charles Newton Hodges was also
immediately entitled to one-half of the half conjugal share of the deceased, Linnie
Jane Hodges, or one-fourth of the entire conjugal property, as his legitime.
One-fourth of the conjugal property therefore remains at issue.
In the summary of its arguments in its memorandum dated April 30, 1968, the following appears:
Briefly, the position advanced by the petitioner is:
a. That the Hodges spouses were domiciled legally in the Philippines (pp. 19-20,
petition). This is now a matter of res adjudicata (p. 20, petition).
b. That under Philippine law, Texas law, and the renvoi doctrine, Philippine law
governs the successional rights over the properties left by the deceased, Linnie Jane
Hodges (pp. 20-21, petition).
c. That under Philippine as well as Texas law, one-half of the Hodges properties
pertains to the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges (p. 21, petition). This is not
questioned by the respondents.
d. That under Philippine law, the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, automatically
inherited one-half of the remaining one-half of the Hodges properties as his legitime
(p. 21, petition).
e. That the remaining 25% of the Hodges properties was inherited by the deceased,
Charles Newton Hodges, under the will of his deceased spouse (pp. 22-23, petition).
Upon the death of Charles Newton Hodges, the substitution 'provision of the will of
the deceased, Linnie Jane Hodges, did not operate because the same is void (pp.
23-25, petition).
f. That the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, asserted his sole ownership of the
Hodges properties and the probate court sanctioned such assertion (pp. 25-29,
petition). He in fact assumed such ownership and such was the status of the
properties as of the time of his death (pp. 29-34, petition).
Of similar tenor are the allegations of PCIB in some of its pleadings quoted in the earlier part of this
option.
On her part, it is respondent-appellee Magno's posture that under the laws of Texas, there is no
system of legitime, hence the estate of Mrs. Hodges should be one-half of all the conjugal
properties.
It is thus unquestionable that as far as PCIB is concerned, the application to these cases of Article
16 of the Civil Code in relation to the corresponding laws of Texas would result in that the Philippine
laws on succession should control. On that basis, as We have already explained above, the estate
of Mrs. Hodges is the remainder of one-fourth of the conjugal partnership properties, considering
that We have found that there is no legal impediment to the kind of disposition ordered by Mrs.
Hodges in her will in favor of her brothers and sisters and, further, that the contention of PCIB that
the same constitutes an inoperative testamentary substitution is untenable. As will be recalled,
PCIB's position that there is no such estate of Mrs. Hodges is predicated exclusively on two
propositions, namely: (1) that the provision in question in Mrs. Hodges' testament violates the rules
on substitution of heirs under the Civil Code and (2) that, in any event, by the orders of the trial court
of May 27, and December 14, 1957, the trial court had already finally and irrevocably adjudicated to
her husband the whole free portion of her estate to the exclusion of her brothers and sisters, both of
which poses, We have overruled. Nowhere in its pleadings, briefs and memoranda does PCIB
maintain that the application of the laws of Texas would result in the other heirs of Mrs. Hodges not
inheriting anything under her will. And since PCIB's representations in regard to the laws of Texas
virtually constitute admissions of fact which the other parties and the Court are being made to rely
and act upon, PCIB is "not permitted to contradict them or subsequently take a position contradictory
to or inconsistent with them." (5 Moran, id, p. 65, citing Cunanan vs. Amparo, 80 Phil. 227; Sta. Ana
vs. Maliwat, L-23023, Aug. 31, 1968, 24 SCRA 1018).
Accordingly, the only question that remains to be settled in the further proceedings hereby ordered
to be held in the court below is how much more than as fixed above is the estate of Mrs. Hodges,
and this would depend on (1) whether or not the applicable laws of Texas do provide in effect for
more, such as, when there is no legitime provided therein, and (2) whether or not Hodges has validly
waived his whole inheritance from Mrs. Hodges.
In the course of the deliberations, it was brought out by some members of the Court that to avoid or,
at least, minimize further protracted legal controversies between the respective heirs of the Hodges
spouses, it is imperative to elucidate on the possible consequences of dispositions made by Hodges
after the death of his wife from the mass of the unpartitioned estates without any express indication
in the pertinent documents as to whether his intention is to dispose of part of his inheritance from his
wife or part of his own share of the conjugal estate as well as of those made by PCIB after the death
of Hodges. After a long discussion, the consensus arrived at was as follows: (1) any such
dispositions made gratuitously in favor of third parties, whether these be individuals, corporations or
foundations, shall be considered as intended to be of properties constituting part of Hodges'
inheritance from his wife, it appearing from the tenor of his motions of May 27 and December 11,
1957 that in asking for general authority to make sales or other disposals of properties under the
jurisdiction of the court, which include his own share of the conjugal estate, he was not invoking
particularly his right over his own share, but rather his right to dispose of any part of his inheritance
pursuant to the will of his wife; (2) as regards sales, exchanges or other remunerative transfers, the
proceeds of such sales or the properties taken in by virtue of such exchanges, shall be considered
as merely the products of "physical changes" of the properties of her estate which the will expressly
authorizes Hodges to make, provided that whatever of said products should remain with the estate
at the time of the death of Hodges should go to her brothers and sisters; (3) the dispositions made
by PCIB after the death of Hodges must naturally be deemed as covering only the properties
belonging to his estate considering that being only the administrator of the estate of Hodges, PCIB
could not have disposed of properties belonging to the estate of his wife. Neither could such
dispositions be considered as involving conjugal properties, for the simple reason that the conjugal
partnership automatically ceased when Mrs. Hodges died, and by the peculiar provision of her will,
under discussion, the remainder of her share descended also automatically upon the death of
Hodges to her brothers and sisters, thus outside of the scope of PCIB's administration. Accordingly,
these construction of the will of Mrs. Hodges should be adhered to by the trial court in its final order
of adjudication and distribution and/or partition of the two estates in question.
THE APPEALS
A cursory examination of the seventy-eight assignments of error in appellant PCIB's brief would
readily reveal that all of them are predicated mainly on the contention that inasmuch as Hodges had
already adjudicated unto himself all the properties constituting his wife's share of the conjugal
partnership, allegedly with the sanction of the trial court per its order of December 14, 1957, there
has been, since said date, no longer any estate of Mrs. Hodges of which appellee Magno could be
administratrix, hence the various assailed orders sanctioning her actuations as such are not in
accordance with law. Such being the case, with the foregoing resolution holding such posture to be
untenable in fact and in law and that it is in the best interest of justice that for the time being the two
estates should be administered conjointly by the respective administrators of the two estates, it
should follow that said assignments of error have lost their fundamental reasons for being. There are
certain matters, however, relating peculiarly to the respective orders in question, if commonly among
some of them, which need further clarification. For instance, some of them authorized respondent
Magno to act alone or without concurrence of PCIB. And with respect to many of said orders, PCIB
further claims that either the matters involved were not properly within the probate jurisdiction of the
trial court or that the procedure followed was not in accordance with the rules. Hence, the necessity
of dealing separately with the merits of each of the appeals.
Indeed, inasmuch as the said two estates have until now remained commingled pro-indiviso, due to
the failure of Hodges and the lower court to liquidate the conjugal partnership, to recognize appellee
Magno as Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Mrs. Hodges which is still unsegregated from that
of Hodges is not to say, without any qualification, that she was therefore authorized to do and
perform all her acts complained of in these appeals, sanctioned though they might have been by the
trial court. As a matter of fact, it is such commingling pro-indiviso of the two estates that should
deprive appellee of freedom to act independently from PCIB, as administrator of the estate of
Hodges, just as, for the same reason, the latter should not have authority to act independently from
her. And considering that the lower court failed to adhere consistently to this basic point of view, by
allowing the two administrators to act independently of each other, in the various instances already
noted in the narration of facts above, the Court has to look into the attendant circumstances of each
of the appealed orders to be able to determine whether any of them has to be set aside or they may
all be legally maintained notwithstanding the failure of the court a quo to observe the pertinent
procedural technicalities, to the end only that graver injury to the substantive rights of the parties
concerned and unnecessary and undesirable proliferation of incidents in the subject proceedings
may be forestalled. In other words, We have to determine, whether or not, in the light of the unusual
circumstances extant in the record, there is need to be more pragmatic and to adopt a rather
unorthodox approach, so as to cause the least disturbance in rights already being exercised by
numerous innocent third parties, even if to do so may not appear to be strictly in accordance with the
letter of the applicable purely adjective rules.
Incidentally, it may be mentioned, at this point, that it was principally on account of the confusion that
might result later from PCIB's continuing to administer all the community properties, notwithstanding
the certainty of the existence of the separate estate of Mrs. Hodges, and to enable both estates to
function in the meantime with a relative degree of regularity, that the Court ordered in the resolution
of September 8, 1972 the modification of the injunction issued pursuant to the resolutions of August
8, October 4 and December 6, 1967, by virtue of which respondent Magno was completely barred
from any participation in the administration of the properties herein involved. In the September 8
resolution, We ordered that, pending this decision, Special Proceedings 1307 and 1672 should
proceed jointly and that the respective administrators therein "act conjointly — none of them to act
singly and independently of each other for any purpose." Upon mature deliberation, We felt that to
allow PCIB to continue managing or administering all the said properties to the exclusion of the
administratrix of Mrs. Hodges' estate might place the heirs of Hodges at an unduly advantageous
position which could result in considerable, if not irreparable, damage or injury to the other parties
concerned. It is indeed to be regretted that apparently, up to this date, more than a year after said
resolution, the same has not been given due regard, as may be gleaned from the fact that recently,
respondent Magno has filed in these proceedings a motion to declare PCIB in contempt for alleged
failure to abide therewith, notwithstanding that its repeated motions for reconsideration thereof have
all been denied soon after they were filed.9
Going back to the appeals, it is perhaps best to begin first with what appears to Our mind to be the
simplest, and then proceed to the more complicated ones in that order, without regard to the
numerical sequence of the assignments of error in appellant's brief or to the order of the discussion
thereof by counsel.
Assignments of error numbers

LXXII, LXXVII and LXXVIII.
These assignments of error relate to (1) the order of the trial court of August 6, 1965 providing that
"the deeds of sale (therein referred to involving properties in the name of Hodges) should be signed
jointly by the PCIB, as Administrator of Testate Estate of C.N. Hodges, and Avelina A. Magno, as
Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, and to this effect, the PCIB should take
the necessary steps so that Administratrix Avelina A. Magno could sign the deeds of sale," (p. 248,
Green Rec. on Appeal) (2) the order of October 27, 1965 denying the motion for reconsideration of
the foregoing order, (pp. 276-277, id.) (3) the other order also dated October 27, 1965 enjoining inter
alia, that "(a) all cash collections should be deposited in the joint account of the estate of Linnie Jane
Hodges and estate of C. N. Hodges, (b) that whatever cash collections (that) had been deposited in
the account of either of the estates should be withdrawn and since then (sic) deposited in the joint
account of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and the estate of C. N. Hodges; ... (d) (that)
Administratrix Magno — allow the PCIB to inspect whatever records, documents and papers she
may have in her possession, in the same manner that Administrator PCIB is also directed to allow
Administratrix Magno to inspect whatever records, documents and papers it may have in its
possession" and "(e) that the accountant of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges shall have access to all
records of the transactions of both estates for the protection of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges;
and in like manner, the accountant or any authorized representative of the estate of C. N. Hodges
shall have access to the records of transactions of the Linnie Jane Hodges estate for the protection
of the estate of C. N. Hodges", (pp. 292-295, id.) and (4) the order of February 15, 1966, denying,
among others, the motion for reconsideration of the order of October 27, 1965 last referred to. (pp.
455-456, id.)
As may be readily seen, the thrust of all these four impugned orders is in line with the Court's above-
mentioned resolution of September 8, 1972 modifying the injunction previously issued on August 8,
1967, and, more importantly, with what We have said the trial court should have always done
pending the liquidation of the conjugal partnership of the Hodges spouses. In fact, as already stated,
that is the arrangement We are ordering, by this decision, to be followed. Stated differently, since the
questioned orders provide for joint action by the two administrators, and that is precisely what We
are holding out to have been done and should be done until the two estates are separated from each
other, the said orders must be affirmed. Accordingly the foregoing assignments of error must be, as
they are hereby overruled.
Assignments of error Numbers LXVIII
to LXXI and LXXIII to LXXVI.
The orders complained of under these assignments of error commonly deal with expenditures made
by appellee Magno, as Administratrix of the Estate of Mrs. Hodges, in connection with her
administration thereof, albeit additionally, assignments of error Numbers LXIX to LXXI put into
question the payment of attorneys fees provided for in the contract for the purpose, as constituting,
in effect, premature advances to the heirs of Mrs. Hodges.
More specifically, assignment Number LXXIII refers to reimbursement of overtime pay paid to six
employees of the court and three other persons for services in copying the court records to enable
the lawyers of the administration to be fully informed of all the incidents in the proceedings. The
reimbursement was approved as proper legal expenses of administration per the order of December
19, 1964, (pp. 221-222, id.) and repeated motions for reconsideration thereof were denied by the
orders of January 9, 1965, (pp. 231-232, id.) October 27, 1965, (p. 277, id.) and February 15, 1966.
(pp. 455-456, id.) On the other hand, Assignments Numbers LXVIII to LXXI, LXXIV and LXXV
question the trial court's order of November 3, 1965 approving the agreement of June 6, 1964
between Administratrix Magno and James L. Sullivan, attorney-in-fact of the heirs of Mrs. Hodges,
as Parties of the First Part, and Attorneys Raul Manglapus and Rizal R. Quimpo, as Parties of the
Second Part, regarding attorneys fees for said counsel who had agreed "to prosecute and defend
their interests (of the Parties of the First Part) in certain cases now pending litigation in the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo —, more specifically in Special Proceedings 1307 and 1672 —" (pp. 126-
129, id.) and directing Administratrix Magno "to issue and sign whatever check or checks maybe
needed to implement the approval of the agreement annexed to the motion" as well as the
"administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges — to countersign the said check or checks as the case
maybe." (pp. 313-320, id.), reconsideration of which order of approval was denied in the order of
February 16, 1966, (p. 456, id.) Assignment Number LXXVI imputes error to the lower court's order
of October 27, 1965, already referred to above, insofar as it orders that "PCIB should counter sign
the check in the amount of P250 in favor of Administratrix Avelina A. Magno as her compensation as
administratrix of Linnie Jane Hodges estate chargeable to the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges
only." (p. 294, id.)
Main contention again of appellant PCIB in regard to these eight assigned errors is that there is no
such estate as the estate of Mrs. Hodges for which the questioned expenditures were made, hence
what were authorized were in effect expenditures from the estate of Hodges. As We have already
demonstrated in Our resolution above of the petition for certiorari and prohibition, this posture is
incorrect. Indeed, in whichever way the remaining issues between the parties in these cases are
ultimately resolved, 10 the final result will surely be that there are properties constituting the estate of
Mrs. Hodges of which Magno is the current administratrix. It follows, therefore, that said appellee
had the right, as such administratrix, to hire the persons whom she paid overtime pay and to be paid
for her own services as administratrix. That she has not yet collected and is not collecting amounts
as substantial as that paid to or due appellant PCIB is to her credit.
Of course, she is also entitled to the services of counsel and to that end had the authority to enter
into contracts for attorney's fees in the manner she had done in the agreement of June 6, 1964. And
as regards to the reasonableness of the amount therein stipulated, We see no reason to disturb the
discretion exercised by the probate court in determining the same. We have gone over the
agreement, and considering the obvious size of the estate in question and the nature of the issues
between the parties as well as the professional standing of counsel, We cannot say that the fees
agreed upon require the exercise by the Court of its inherent power to reduce it.
PCIB insists, however, that said agreement of June 6, 1964 is not for legal services to the estate but
to the heirs of Mrs. Hodges, or, at most, to both of them, and such being the case, any payment
under it, insofar as counsels' services would redound to the benefit of the heirs, would be in the
nature of advances to such heirs and a premature distribution of the estate. Again, We hold that
such posture cannot prevail.
Upon the premise We have found plausible that there is an existing estate of Mrs. Hodges, it results
that juridically and factually the interests involved in her estate are distinct and different from those
involved in her estate of Hodges and vice versa. Insofar as the matters related exclusively to the
estate of Mrs. Hodges, PCIB, as administrator of the estate of Hodges, is a complete stranger and it
is without personality to question the actuations of the administratrix thereof regarding matters not
affecting the estate of Hodges. Actually, considering the obviously considerable size of the estate of
Mrs. Hodges, We see no possible cause for apprehension that when the two estates are segregated
from each other, the amount of attorney's fees stipulated in the agreement in question will prejudice
any portion that would correspond to Hodges' estate.
And as regards the other heirs of Mrs. Hodges who ought to be the ones who should have a say on
the attorney's fees and other expenses of administration assailed by PCIB, suffice it to say that they
appear to have been duly represented in the agreement itself by their attorney-in-fact, James L.
Sullivan and have not otherwise interposed any objection to any of the expenses incurred by Magno
questioned by PCIB in these appeals. As a matter of fact, as ordered by the trial court, all the
expenses in question, including the attorney's fees, may be paid without awaiting the determination
and segregation of the estate of Mrs. Hodges.
Withal, the weightiest consideration in connection with the point under discussion is that at this stage
of the controversy among the parties herein, the vital issue refers to the existence or non-existence
of the estate of Mrs. Hodges. In this respect, the interest of respondent Magno, as the appointed
administratrix of the said estate, is to maintain that it exists, which is naturally common and identical
with and inseparable from the interest of the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges. Thus, it should not
be wondered why both Magno and these heirs have seemingly agreed to retain but one counsel. In
fact, such an arrangement should be more convenient and economical to both. The possibility of
conflict of interest between Magno and the heirs of Mrs. Hodges would be, at this stage, quite
remote and, in any event, rather insubstantial. Besides, should any substantial conflict of interest
between them arise in the future, the same would be a matter that the probate court can very well
take care of in the course of the independent proceedings in Case No. 1307 after the corresponding
segregation of the two subject estates. We cannot perceive any cogent reason why, at this stage,
the estate and the heirs of Mrs. Hodges cannot be represented by a common counsel.
Now, as to whether or not the portion of the fees in question that should correspond to the heirs
constitutes premature partial distribution of the estate of Mrs. Hodges is also a matter in which
neither PCIB nor the heirs of Hodges have any interest. In any event, since, as far as the records
show, the estate has no creditors and the corresponding estate and inheritance taxes, except those
of the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges, have already been paid, 11 no prejudice can caused to
anyone by the comparatively small amount of attorney's fees in question. And in this connection, it
may be added that, although strictly speaking, the attorney's fees of the counsel of an administrator
is in the first instance his personal responsibility, reimbursable later on by the estate, in the final
analysis, when, as in the situation on hand, the attorney-in-fact of the heirs has given his conformity
thereto, it would be idle effort to inquire whether or not the sanction given to said fees by the probate
court is proper.
For the foregoing reasons, Assignments of Error LXVIII to LXXI and LXXIII to LXXVI should be as
they are hereby overruled.
Assignments of error I to IV,
XIII to XV, XXII to XXV, XXXV
to XXX VI, XLI to XLIII and L.
These assignments of error deal with the approval by the trial court of various deeds of sale of real
properties registered in the name of Hodges but executed by appellee Magno, as Administratrix of
the Estate of Mrs. Hodges, purportedly in implementation of corresponding supposed written
"Contracts to Sell" previously executed by Hodges during the interim between May 23, 1957, when
his wife died, and December 25, 1962, the day he died. As stated on pp. 118-120 of appellant's main
brief, "These are: the, contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, and the
appellee, Pepito G. Iyulores executed on February 5, 1961; the contract to sell between the
deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, and the appellant Esperidion Partisala, executed on April 20,
1960; the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, and the appellee,
Winifredo C. Espada, executed on April 18, 1960; the contract to sell between the deceased,
Charles Newton Hodges, and the appellee, Rosario Alingasa, executed on August 25, 1958; the
contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, and the appellee, Lorenzo Carles,
executed on June 17, 1958; the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges,
and the appellee, Salvador S. Guzman, executed on September 13, 1960; the contract to sell
between the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, and the appellee, Florenia Barrido, executed on
February 21, 1958; the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, and the
appellee, Purificacion Coronado, executed on August 14, 1961; the contract to sell between the
deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, and the appellee, Graciano Lucero, executed on November 27,
1961; the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, and the appellee, Ariteo
Thomas Jamir, executed on May 26, 1961; the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles
Newton Hodges, and the appellee, Melquiades Batisanan, executed on June 9, 1959; the contract to
sell between the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, and the appellee, Belcezar Causing, executed
on February 10, 1959 and the contract to sell between the deceased, Charles Newton Hodges, and
the appellee, Adelfa Premaylon, executed on October 31, 1959, re Title No. 13815."
Relative to these sales, it is the position of appellant PCIB that, inasmuch as pursuant to the will of
Mrs. Hodges, her husband was to have dominion over all her estate during his lifetime, it was as
absolute owner of the properties respectively covered by said sales that he executed the
aforementioned contracts to sell, and consequently, upon his death, the implementation of said
contracts may be undertaken only by the administrator of his estate and not by the administratrix of
the estate of Mrs. Hodges. Basically, the same theory is invoked with particular reference to five
other sales, in which the respective "contracts to sell" in favor of these appellees were executed by
Hodges before the death of his wife, namely, those in favor of appellee Santiago Pacaonsis, Alfredo
Catedral, Jose Pablico, Western Institute of Technology and Adelfa Premaylon.
Anent those deeds of sale based on promises or contracts to sell executed by Hodges after the
death of his wife, those enumerated in the quotation in the immediately preceding paragraph, it is
quite obvious that PCIB's contention cannot be sustained. As already explained earlier, 11* all
proceeds of remunerative transfers or dispositions made by Hodges after the death of his wife
should be deemed as continuing to be parts of her estate and, therefore, subject to the terms of her
will in favor of her brothers and sisters, in the sense that should there be no showing that such
proceeds, whether in cash or property have been subsequently conveyed or assigned subsequently
by Hodges to any third party by acts inter vivos with the result that they could not thereby belong to
him anymore at the time of his death, they automatically became part of the inheritance of said
brothers and sisters. The deeds here in question involve transactions which are exactly of this
nature. Consequently, the payments made by the appellees should be considered as payments to
the estate of Mrs. Hodges which is to be distributed and partitioned among her heirs specified in the
will.
The five deeds of sale predicated on contracts to sell executed Hodges during the lifetime of his
wife, present a different situation. At first blush, it would appear that as to them, PCIB's position has
some degree of plausibility. Considering, however, that the adoption of PCIB's theory would
necessarily have tremendous repercussions and would bring about considerable disturbance of
property rights that have somehow accrued already in favor of innocent third parties, the five
purchasers aforenamed, the Court is inclined to take a pragmatic and practical view of the legal
situation involving them by overlooking the possible technicalities in the way, the non-observance of
which would not, after all, detract materially from what should substantially correspond to each and
all of the parties concerned.
To start with, these contracts can hardly be ignored. Bona fide third parties are involved; as much as
possible, they should not be made to suffer any prejudice on account of judicial controversies not of
their own making. What is more, the transactions they rely on were submitted by them to the probate
court for approval, and from already known and recorded actuations of said court then, they had
reason to believe that it had authority to act on their motions, since appellee Magno had, from time
to time prior to their transactions with her, been allowed to act in her capacity as administratrix of
one of the subject estates either alone or conjointly with PCIB. All the sales in question were
executed by Magno in 1966 already, but before that, the court had previously authorized or
otherwise sanctioned expressly many of her act as administratrix involving expenditures from the
estate made by her either conjointly with or independently from PCIB, as Administrator of the Estate
of Hodges. Thus, it may be said that said buyers-appellees merely followed precedents in previous
orders of the court. Accordingly, unless the impugned orders approving those sales indubitably
suffer from some clearly fatal infirmity the Court would rather affirm them.
It is quite apparent from the record that the properties covered by said sales are equivalent only to a
fraction of what should constitute the estate of Mrs. Hodges, even if it is assumed that the same
would finally be held to be only one-fourth of the conjugal properties of the spouses as of the time of
her death or, to be more exact, one-half of her estate as per the inventory submitted by Hodges as
executor, on May 12, 1958. In none of its numerous, varied and voluminous pleadings, motions and
manifestations has PCIB claimed any possibility otherwise. Such being the case, to avoid any
conflict with the heirs of Hodges, the said properties covered by the questioned deeds of sale
executed by appellee Magno may be treated as among those corresponding to the estate of Mrs.
Hodges, which would have been actually under her control and administration had Hodges complied
with his duty to liquidate the conjugal partnership. Viewing the situation in that manner, the only ones
who could stand to be prejudiced by the appealed orders referred to in the assignment of errors
under discussion and who could, therefore, have the requisite interest to question them would be
only the heirs of Mrs. Hodges, definitely not PCIB.
It is of no moment in what capacity Hodges made the "contracts to sell' after the death of his wife.
Even if he had acted as executor of the will of his wife, he did not have to submit those contracts to
the court nor follow the provisions of the rules, (Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of Rule 89 quoted by
appellant on pp. 125 to 127 of its brief) for the simple reason that by the very orders, much relied
upon by appellant for other purposes, of May 27, 1957 and December 14, 1957, Hodges was
"allowed or authorized" by the trial court "to continue the business in which he was engaged and to
perform acts which he had been doing while the deceased was living", (Order of May 27) which
according to the motion on which the court acted was "of buying and selling personal and real
properties", and "to execute subsequent sales, conveyances, leases and mortgages of the
properties left by the said deceased Linnie Jane Hodges in consonance with the wishes conveyed in
the last will and testament of the latter." (Order of December 14) In other words, if Hodges acted
then as executor, it can be said that he had authority to do so by virtue of these blanket orders, and
PCIB does not question the legality of such grant of authority; on the contrary, it is relying on the
terms of the order itself for its main contention in these cases. On the other hand, if, as PCIB
contends, he acted as heir-adjudicatee, the authority given to him by the aforementioned orders
would still suffice.
As can be seen, therefore, it is of no moment whether the "contracts to sell" upon which the deeds in
question were based were executed by Hodges before or after the death of his wife. In a word, We
hold, for the reasons already stated, that the properties covered by the deeds being assailed pertain
or should be deemed as pertaining to the estate of Mrs. Hodges; hence, any supposed irregularity
attending the actuations of the trial court may be invoked only by her heirs, not by PCIB, and since
the said heirs are not objecting, and the defects pointed out not being strictly jurisdictional in nature,
all things considered, particularly the unnecessary disturbance of rights already created in favor of
innocent third parties, it is best that the impugned orders are not disturbed.
In view of these considerations, We do not find sufficient merit in the assignments of error under
discussion.
Assignments of error V to VIII,

XVI to XVIII, XXVI to XXIX, XXXVII
to XXXVIII, XLIV to XLVI and LI.
All these assignments of error commonly deal with alleged non-fulfillment by the respective vendees,
appellees herein, of the terms and conditions embodied in the deeds of sale referred to in the
assignments of error just discussed. It is claimed that some of them never made full payments in
accordance with the respective contracts to sell, while in the cases of the others, like Lorenzo
Carles, Jose Pablico, Alfredo Catedral and Salvador S. Guzman, the contracts with them had
already been unilaterally cancelled by PCIB pursuant to automatic rescission clauses contained in
them, in view of the failure of said buyers to pay arrearages long overdue. But PCIB's posture is
again premised on its assumption that the properties covered by the deeds in question could not
pertain to the estate of Mrs. Hodges. We have already held above that, it being evident that a
considerable portion of the conjugal properties, much more than the properties covered by said
deeds, would inevitably constitute the estate of Mrs. Hodges, to avoid unnecessary legal
complications, it can be assumed that said properties form part of such estate. From this point of
view, it is apparent again that the questions, whether or not it was proper for appellee Magno to have
disregarded the cancellations made by PCIB, thereby reviving the rights of the respective buyers-
appellees, and, whether or not the rules governing new dispositions of properties of the estate were
strictly followed, may not be raised by PCIB but only by the heirs of Mrs. Hodges as the persons
designated to inherit the same, or perhaps the government because of the still unpaid inheritance
taxes. But, again, since there is no pretense that any objections were raised by said parties or that
they would necessarily be prejudiced, the contentions of PCIB under the instant assignments of error
hardly merit any consideration.
Assignments of error IX to XII, XIX

to XXI, XXX to XXIV, XXXIX to XL,
XLVII to XLIX, LII and LIII to LXI.
PCIB raises under these assignments of error two issues which according to it are fundamental,
namely: (1) that in approving the deeds executed by Magno pursuant to contracts to sell already
cancelled by it in the performance of its functions as administrator of the estate of Hodges, the trial
court deprived the said estate of the right to invoke such cancellations it (PCIB) had made and (2)
that in so acting, the court "arrogated unto itself, while acting as a probate court, the power to
determine the contending claims of third parties against the estate of Hodges over real property,"
since it has in effect determined whether or not all the terms and conditions of the respective
contracts to sell executed by Hodges in favor of the buyers-appellees concerned were complied with
by the latter. What is worse, in the view of PCIB, is that the court has taken the word of the appellee
Magno, "a total stranger to his estate as determinative of the issue".
Actually, contrary to the stand of PCIB, it is this last point regarding appellee Magno's having agreed
to ignore the cancellations made by PCIB and allowed the buyers-appellees to consummate the
sales in their favor that is decisive. Since We have already held that the properties covered by the
contracts in question should be deemed to be portions of the estate of Mrs. Hodges and not that of
Hodges, it is PCIB that is a complete stranger in these incidents. Considering, therefore, that the
estate of Mrs. Hodges and her heirs who are the real parties in interest having the right to oppose
the consummation of the impugned sales are not objecting, and that they are the ones who are
precisely urging that said sales be sanctioned, the assignments of error under discussion have no
basis and must accordingly be as they are hereby overruled.
With particular reference to assignments LIII to LXI, assailing the orders of the trial court requiring
PCIB to surrender the respective owner's duplicate certificates of title over the properties covered by
the sales in question and otherwise directing the Register of Deeds of Iloilo to cancel said certificates
and to issue new transfer certificates of title in favor of the buyers-appellees, suffice it to say that in
the light of the above discussion, the trial court was within its rights to so require and direct, PCIB
having refused to give way, by withholding said owners' duplicate certificates, of the corresponding
registration of the transfers duly and legally approved by the court.
Assignments of error LXII to LXVII
All these assignments of error commonly deal with the appeal against orders favoring appellee
Western Institute of Technology. As will be recalled, said institute is one of the buyers of real
property covered by a contract to sell executed by Hodges prior to the death of his wife. As of
October, 1965, it was in arrears in the total amount of P92,691.00 in the payment of its installments
on account of its purchase, hence it received under date of October 4, 1965 and October 20, 1965,
letters of collection, separately and respectively, from PCIB and appellee Magno, in their respective
capacities as administrators of the distinct estates of the Hodges spouses, albeit, while in the case of
PCIB it made known that "no other arrangement can be accepted except by paying all your past due
account", on the other hand, Magno merely said she would "appreciate very much if you can make
some remittance to bring this account up-to-date and to reduce the amount of the obligation." (See
pp. 295-311, Green R. on A.) On November 3, 1965, the Institute filed a motion which, after alleging
that it was ready and willing to pay P20,000 on account of its overdue installments but uncertain
whether it should pay PCIB or Magno, it prayed that it be "allowed to deposit the aforesaid amount
with the court pending resolution of the conflicting claims of the administrators." Acting on this
motion, on November 23, 1965, the trial court issued an order, already quoted in the narration of
facts in this opinion, holding that payment to both or either of the two administrators is "proper and
legal", and so "movant — can pay to both estates or either of them", considering that "in both cases
(Special Proceedings 1307 and 1672) there is as yet no judicial declaration of heirs nor distribution
of properties to whomsoever are entitled thereto."
The arguments under the instant assignments of error revolve around said order. From the
procedural standpoint, it is claimed that PCIB was not served with a copy of the Institute's motion,
that said motion was heard, considered and resolved on November 23, 1965, whereas the date set
for its hearing was November 20, 1965, and that what the order grants is different from what is
prayed for in the motion. As to the substantive aspect, it is contended that the matter treated in the
motion is beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court and that the order authorized payment to a
person other than the administrator of the estate of Hodges with whom the Institute had contracted.
The procedural points urged by appellant deserve scant consideration. We must assume, absent
any clear proof to the contrary, that the lower court had acted regularly by seeing to it that appellant
was duly notified. On the other hand, there is nothing irregular in the court's having resolved the
motion three days after the date set for hearing the same. Moreover, the record reveals that
appellants' motion for reconsideration wherein it raised the same points was denied by the trial court
on March 7, 1966 (p. 462, Green R. on A.) Withal, We are not convinced that the relief granted is not
within the general intent of the Institute's motion.
Insofar as the substantive issues are concerned, all that need be said at this point is that they are
mere reiterations of contentions We have already resolved above adversely to appellants' position.
Incidentally, We may add, perhaps, to erase all doubts as to the propriety of not disturbing the lower
court's orders sanctioning the sales questioned in all these appeal s by PCIB, that it is only when
one of the parties to a contract to convey property executed by a deceased person raises substantial
objections to its being implemented by the executor or administrator of the decedent's estate that
Section 8 of Rule 89 may not apply and, consequently, the matter has, to be taken up in a separate
action outside of the probate court; but where, as in the cases of the sales herein involved, the
interested parties are in agreement that the conveyance be made, it is properly within the jurisdiction
of the probate court to give its sanction thereto pursuant to the provisions of the rule just mentioned.
And with respect to the supposed automatic rescission clauses contained in the contracts to sell
executed by Hodges in favor of herein appellees, the effect of said clauses depend on the true
nature of the said contracts, despite the nomenclature appearing therein, which is not controlling, for
if they amount to actual contracts of sale instead of being mere unilateral accepted "promises to
sell", (Art. 1479, Civil Code of the Philippines, 2nd paragraph) thepactum commissorium or the
automatic rescission provision would not operate, as a matter of public policy, unless there has been
a previous notarial or judicial demand by the seller (10 Manresa 263, 2nd ed.) neither of which have
been shown to have been made in connection with the transactions herein involved.
Consequently, We find no merit in the assignments of error

Number LXII to LXVII.
SUMMARY
Considering the fact that this decision is unusually extensive and that the issues herein taken up and
resolved are rather numerous and varied, what with appellant making seventy-eight assignments of
error affecting no less than thirty separate orders of the court a quo, if only to facilitate proper
understanding of the import and extent of our rulings herein contained, it is perhaps desirable that a
brief restatement of the whole situation be made together with our conclusions in regard to its
various factual and legal aspects. .
The instant cases refer to the estate left by the late Charles Newton Hodges as well as that of his
wife, Linnie Jane Hodges, who predeceased him by about five years and a half. In their respective
wills which were executed on different occasions, each one of them provided mutually as follows: "I
give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder (after funeral and administration
expenses, taxes and debts) of my estate, both real and personal, wherever situated or located, to
my beloved (spouse) to have and to hold unto (him/her) — during (his/her) natural lifetime", subject
to the condition that upon the death of whoever of them survived the other, the remainder of what he
or she would inherit from the other is "give(n), devise(d) and bequeath(ed)" to the brothers and
sisters of the latter.
Mrs. Hodges died first, on May 23, 1957. Four days later, on May 27, Hodges was appointed special
administrator of her estate, and in a separate order of the same date, he was "allowed or authorized
to continue the business in which he was engaged, (buying and selling personal and real properties)
and to perform acts which he had been doing while the deceased was living." Subsequently, on
December 14, 1957, after Mrs. Hodges' will had been probated and Hodges had been appointed and
had qualified as Executor thereof, upon his motion in which he asserted that he was "not only part
owner of the properties left as conjugal, but also, the successor to all the properties left by the
deceased Linnie Jane Hodges", the trial court ordered that "for the reasons stated in his motion
dated December 11, 1957, which the Court considers well taken, ... all the sales, conveyances,
leases and mortgages of all properties left by the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges executed by the
Executor, Charles Newton Hodges are hereby APPROVED. The said Executor is further authorized
to execute subsequent sales, conveyances, leases and mortgages of the properties left by the said
deceased Linnie Jane Hodges in consonance with the wishes contained in the last will and
testament of the latter."
Annually thereafter, Hodges submitted to the court the corresponding statements of account of his
administration, with the particularity that in all his motions, he always made it point to urge the that
"no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of examining the herein accounts be
given notice as herein executor is the only devisee or legatee of the deceased in accordance with
the last will and testament already probated by the Honorable Court." All said accounts approved as
prayed for.
Nothing else appears to have been done either by the court a quo or Hodges until December 25,
1962. Importantly to be the provision in the will of Mrs. Hodges that her share of the conjugal
partnership was to be inherited by her husband "to have and to hold unto him, my said husband,
during his natural lifetime" and that "at the death of my said husband, I give, devise and bequeath all
the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, wherever situated or located,
to be equally divided among my brothers and sisters, share and share alike", which provision
naturally made it imperative that the conjugal partnership be promptly liquidated, in order that the
"rest, residue and remainder" of his wife's share thereof, as of the time of Hodges' own death, may
be readily known and identified, no such liquidation was ever undertaken. The record gives no
indication of the reason for such omission, although relatedly, it appears therein:
1. That in his annual statement submitted to the court of the net worth of C. N.
Hodges and the Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, Hodges repeatedly and consistently
reported the combined income of the conjugal partnership and then merely divided
the same equally between himself and the estate of the deceased wife, and, more
importantly, he also, as consistently, filed corresponding separate income tax returns
for each calendar year for each resulting half of such combined income, thus
reporting that the estate of Mrs. Hodges had its own income distinct from his own.
2. That when the court a quo happened to inadvertently omit in its order probating
the will of Mrs. Hodges, the name of one of her brothers, Roy Higdon then already
deceased, Hodges lost no time in asking for the proper correction "in order that the
heirs of deceased Roy Higdon may not think or believe they were omitted, and that
they were really interested in the estate of the deceased Linnie Jane Hodges".
3. That in his aforementioned motion of December 11, 1957, he expressly stated that
"deceased Linnie Jane Hodges died leaving no descendants or ascendants except
brothers and sisters and herein petitioner as the surviving spouse, to inherit the
properties of the decedent", thereby indicating that he was not excluding his wife's
brothers and sisters from the inheritance.
4. That Hodges allegedly made statements and manifestations to the United States
inheritance tax authorities indicating that he had renounced his inheritance from his
wife in favor of her other heirs, which attitude he is supposed to have reiterated or
ratified in an alleged affidavit subscribed and sworn to here in the Philippines and in
which he even purportedly stated that his reason for so disclaiming and renouncing
his rights under his wife's will was to "absolve (him) or (his) estate from any liability
for the payment of income taxes on income which has accrued to the estate of Linnie
Jane Hodges", his wife, since her death.
On said date, December 25, 1962, Hodges died. The very next day, upon motion of herein
respondent and appellee, Avelina A. Magno, she was appointed by the trial court as Administratrix of
the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, in Special Proceedings No. 1307 and as Special
Administratrix of the estate of Charles Newton Hodges, "in the latter case, because the last will of
said Charles Newton Hodges is still kept in his vault or iron safe and that the real and personal
properties of both spouses may be lost, damaged or go to waste, unless Special Administratrix is
appointed," (Order of December 26, 1962, p. 27, Yellow R. on A.) although, soon enough, on
December 29, 1962, a certain Harold K. Davies was appointed as her Co-Special Administrator, and
when Special Proceedings No. 1672, Testate Estate of Charles Newton Hodges, was opened, Joe
Hodges, as next of kin of the deceased, was in due time appointed as Co-Administrator of said
estate together with Atty. Fernando P. Mirasol, to replace Magno and Davies, only to be in turn
replaced eventually by petitioner PCIB alone.
At the outset, the two probate proceedings appear to have been proceeding jointly, with each
administrator acting together with the other, under a sort of modus operandi. PCIB used to secure at
the beginning the conformity to and signature of Magno in transactions it wanted to enter into and
submitted the same to the court for approval as their joint acts. So did Magno do likewise. Somehow,
however, differences seem to have arisen, for which reason, each of them began acting later on
separately and independently of each other, with apparent sanction of the trial court. Thus, PCIB had
its own lawyers whom it contracted and paid handsomely, conducted the business of the estate
independently of Magno and otherwise acted as if all the properties appearing in the name of
Charles Newton Hodges belonged solely and only to his estate, to the exclusion of the brothers and
sisters of Mrs. Hodges, without considering whether or not in fact any of said properties
corresponded to the portion of the conjugal partnership pertaining to the estate of Mrs. Hodges. On
the other hand, Magno made her own expenditures, hired her own lawyers, on the premise that
there is such an estate of Mrs. Hodges, and dealth with some of the properties, appearing in the
name of Hodges, on the assumption that they actually correspond to the estate of Mrs. Hodges. All
of these independent and separate actuations of the two administrators were invariably approved by
the trial court upon submission. Eventually, the differences reached a point wherein Magno, who
was more cognizant than anyone else about the ins and outs of the businesses and properties of the
deceased spouses because of her long and intimate association with them, made it difficult for PCIB
to perform normally its functions as administrator separately from her. Thus, legal complications
arose and the present judicial controversies came about.
Predicating its position on the tenor of the orders of May 27 and December 14, 1957 as well as the
approval by the court a quo of the annual statements of account of Hodges, PCIB holds to the view
that the estate of Mrs. Hodges has already been in effect closed with the virtual adjudication in the
mentioned orders of her whole estate to Hodges, and that, therefore, Magno had already ceased
since then to have any estate to administer and the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges have no
interests whatsoever in the estate left by Hodges. Mainly upon such theory, PCIB has come to this
Court with a petition for certiorari and prohibition praying that the lower court's orders allowing
respondent Magno to continue acting as administratrix of the estate of Mrs. Hodges in Special
Proceedings 1307 in the manner she has been doing, as detailed earlier above, be set aside.
Additionally, PCIB maintains that the provision in Mrs. Hodges' will instituting her brothers and
sisters in the manner therein specified is in the nature of a testamentary substitution, but inasmuch
as the purported substitution is not, in its view, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the
Civil Code, it is ineffective and may not be enforced. It is further contended that, in any event,
inasmuch as the Hodges spouses were both residents of the Philippines, following the decision of
this Court in Aznar vs. Garcia, or the case of Christensen, 7 SCRA 95, the estate left by Mrs.
Hodges could not be more than one-half of her share of the conjugal partnership, notwithstanding
the fact that she was citizen of Texas, U.S.A., in accordance with Article 16 in relation to Articles 900
and 872 of the Civil Code. Initially, We issued a preliminary injunction against Magno and allowed
PCIB to act alone.
At the same time PCIB has appealed several separate orders of the trial court approving individual
acts of appellee Magno in her capacity as administratrix of the estate of Mrs. Hodges, such as, hiring
of lawyers for specified fees and incurring expenses of administration for different purposes and
executing deeds of sale in favor of her co-appellees covering properties which are still registered in
the name of Hodges, purportedly pursuant to corresponding "contracts to sell" executed by Hodges.
The said orders are being questioned on jurisdictional and procedural grounds directly or indirectly
predicated on the principal theory of appellant that all the properties of the two estates belong
already to the estate of Hodges exclusively.
On the other hand, respondent-appellee Magno denies that the trial court's orders of May 27 and
December 14, 1957 were meant to be finally adjudicatory of the hereditary rights of Hodges and
contends that they were no more than the court's general sanction of past and future acts of Hodges
as executor of the will of his wife in due course of administration. As to the point regarding
substitution, her position is that what was given by Mrs. Hodges to her husband under the provision
in question was a lifetime usufruct of her share of the conjugal partnership, with the naked ownership
passing directly to her brothers and sisters. Anent the application of Article 16 of the Civil Code, she
claims that the applicable law to the will of Mrs. Hodges is that of Texas under which, she alleges,
there is no system of legitime, hence, the estate of Mrs. Hodges cannot be less than her share or
one-half of the conjugal partnership properties. She further maintains that, in any event, Hodges had
as a matter of fact and of law renounced his inheritance from his wife and, therefore, her whole
estate passed directly to her brothers and sisters effective at the latest upon the death of Hodges.
In this decision, for the reasons discussed above, and upon the issues just summarized, We
overrule PCIB's contention that the orders of May 27, 1957 and December 14, 1957 amount to an
adjudication to Hodges of the estate of his wife, and We recognize the present existence of the
estate of Mrs. Hodges, as consisting of properties, which, while registered in that name of Hodges,
do actually correspond to the remainder of the share of Mrs. Hodges in the conjugal partnership, it
appearing that pursuant to the pertinent provisions of her will, any portion of said share still existing
and undisposed of by her husband at the time of his death should go to her brothers and sisters
share and share alike. Factually, We find that the proven circumstances relevant to the said orders
do not warrant the conclusion that the court intended to make thereby such alleged final
adjudication. Legally, We hold that the tenor of said orders furnish no basis for such a conclusion,
and what is more, at the time said orders were issued, the proceedings had not yet reached the
point when a final distribution and adjudication could be made. Moreover, the interested parties were
not duly notified that such disposition of the estate would be done. At best, therefore, said orders
merely allowed Hodges to dispose of portions of his inheritance in advance of final adjudication,
which is implicitly permitted under Section 2 of Rule 109, there being no possible prejudice to third
parties, inasmuch as Mrs. Hodges had no creditors and all pertinent taxes have been paid.
More specifically, We hold that, on the basis of circumstances presently extant in the record, and on
the assumption that Hodges' purported renunciation should not be upheld, the estate of Mrs. Hodges
inherited by her brothers and sisters consists of one-fourth of the community estate of the spouses
at the time of her death, minus whatever Hodges had gratuitously disposed of therefrom during the
period from, May 23, 1957, when she died, to December 25, 1962, when he died provided, that with
regard to remunerative dispositions made by him during the same period, the proceeds thereof,
whether in cash or property, should be deemed as continuing to be part of his wife's estate, unless it
can be shown that he had subsequently disposed of them gratuitously.
At this juncture, it may be reiterated that the question of what are the pertinent laws of Texas and
what would be the estate of Mrs. Hodges under them is basically one of fact, and considering the
respective positions of the parties in regard to said factual issue, it can already be deemed as settled
for the purposes of these cases that, indeed, the free portion of said estate that could possibly
descend to her brothers and sisters by virtue of her will may not be less than one-fourth of the
conjugal estate, it appearing that the difference in the stands of the parties has reference solely to
the legitime of Hodges, PCIB being of the view that under the laws of Texas, there is such a legitime
of one-fourth of said conjugal estate and Magno contending, on the other hand, that there is none. In
other words, hereafter, whatever might ultimately appear, at the subsequent proceedings, to be
actually the laws of Texas on the matter would no longer be of any consequence, since PCIB would
anyway be in estoppel already to claim that the estate of Mrs. Hodges should be less than as
contended by it now, for admissions by a party related to the effects of foreign laws, which have to
be proven in our courts like any other controverted fact, create estoppel.
In the process, We overrule PCIB's contention that the provision in Mrs. Hodges' will in favor of her
brothers and sisters constitutes ineffective hereditary substitutions. But neither are We sustaining, on
the other hand, Magno's pose that it gave Hodges only a lifetime usufruct. We hold that by said
provision, Mrs. Hodges simultaneously instituted her brothers and sisters as co-heirs with her
husband, with the condition, however, that the latter would have complete rights of dominion over
the whole estate during his lifetime and what would go to the former would be only the remainder
thereof at the time of Hodges' death. In other words, whereas they are not to inherit only in case of
default of Hodges, on the other hand, Hodges was not obliged to preserve anything for them. Clearly
then, the essential elements of testamentary substitution are absent; the provision in question is a
simple case of conditional simultaneous institution of heirs, whereby the institution of Hodges is
subject to a partial resolutory condition the operative contingency of which is coincidental with that of
the suspensive condition of the institution of his brothers and sisters-in-law, which manner of
institution is not prohibited by law.
We also hold, however, that the estate of Mrs. Hodges inherited by her brothers and sisters could be
more than just stated, but this would depend on (1) whether upon the proper application of the
principle of renvoi in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code and the pertinent laws of Texas, it will
appear that Hodges had no legitime as contended by Magno, and (2) whether or not it can be held
that Hodges had legally and effectively renounced his inheritance from his wife. Under the
circumstances presently obtaining and in the state of the record of these cases, as of now, the Court
is not in a position to make a final ruling, whether of fact or of law, on any of these two issues, and
We, therefore, reserve said issues for further proceedings and resolution in the first instance by the
court a quo, as hereinabove indicated. We reiterate, however, that pending such further
proceedings, as matters stand at this stage, Our considered opinion is that it is beyond cavil that
since, under the terms of the will of Mrs. Hodges, her husband could not have anyway legally
adjudicated or caused to be adjudicated to himself her whole share of their conjugal partnership,
albeit he could have disposed any part thereof during his lifetime, the resulting estate of Mrs.
Hodges, of which Magno is the uncontested administratrix, cannot be less than one-fourth of the
conjugal partnership properties, as of the time of her death, minus what, as explained earlier, have
been gratuitously disposed of therefrom, by Hodges in favor of third persons since then, for even if it
were assumed that, as contended by PCIB, under Article 16 of the Civil Code and
applying renvoi the laws of the Philippines are the ones ultimately applicable, such one-fourth share
would be her free disposable portion, taking into account already the legitime of her husband under
Article 900 of the Civil Code.
The foregoing considerations leave the Court with no alternative than to conclude that in predicating
its orders on the assumption, albeit unexpressed therein, that there is an estate of Mrs. Hodges to
be distributed among her brothers and sisters and that respondent Magno is the legal administratrix
thereof, the trial court acted correctly and within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition
for certiorari and prohibition has to be denied. The Court feels however, that pending the liquidation
of the conjugal partnership and the determination of the specific properties constituting her estate,
the two administrators should act conjointly as ordered in the Court's resolution of September 8,
1972 and as further clarified in the dispositive portion of its decision.
Anent the appeals from the orders of the lower court sanctioning payment by appellee Magno, as
administratrix, of expenses of administration and attorney's fees, it is obvious that, with Our holding
that there is such an estate of Mrs. Hodges, and for the reasons stated in the body of this opinion,
the said orders should be affirmed. This We do on the assumption We find justified by the evidence
of record, and seemingly agreed to by appellant PCIB, that the size and value of the properties that
should correspond to the estate of Mrs. Hodges far exceed the total of the attorney's fees and
administration expenses in question.
With respect to the appeals from the orders approving transactions made by appellee Magno, as
administratrix, covering properties registered in the name of Hodges, the details of which are related
earlier above, a distinction must be made between those predicated on contracts to sell executed by
Hodges before the death of his wife, on the one hand, and those premised on contracts to sell
entered into by him after her death. As regards the latter, We hold that inasmuch as the payments
made by appellees constitute proceeds of sales of properties belonging to the estate of Mrs.
Hodges, as may be implied from the tenor of the motions of May 27 and December 14, 1957, said
payments continue to pertain to said estate, pursuant to her intent obviously reflected in the relevant
provisions of her will, on the assumption that the size and value of the properties to correspond to
the estate of Mrs. Hodges would exceed the total value of all the properties covered by the
impugned deeds of sale, for which reason, said properties may be deemed as pertaining to the
estate of Mrs. Hodges. And there being no showing that thus viewing the situation, there would be
prejudice to anyone, including the government, the Court also holds that, disregarding procedural
technicalities in favor of a pragmatic and practical approach as discussed above, the assailed orders
should be affirmed. Being a stranger to the estate of Mrs. Hodges, PCIB has no personality to raise
the procedural and jurisdictional issues raised by it. And inasmuch as it does not appear that any of
the other heirs of Mrs. Hodges or the government has objected to any of the orders under appeal,
even as to these parties, there exists no reason for said orders to be set aside.
DISPOSITIVE PART
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING PREMISES, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the
petition in G. R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896, and AFFIRMING, in G. R. Nos. L-27936-37 and the
other thirty-one numbers hereunder ordered to be added after payment of the corresponding docket
fees, all the orders of the trial court under appeal enumerated in detail on pages 35 to 37 and 80 to
82 of this decision; the existence of the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, with respondent-
appellee Avelina A. Magno, as administratrix thereof is recognized, and it is declared that, until final
judgment is ultimately rendered regarding (1) the manner of applying Article 16 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines to the situation obtaining in these cases and (2) the factual and legal issue of whether
or not Charles Newton Hodges had effectively and legally renounced his inheritance under the will of
Linnie Jane Hodges, the said estate consists of one-fourth of the community properties of the said
spouses, as of the time of the death of the wife on May 23, 1957, minus whatever the husband had
already gratuitously disposed of in favor of third persons from said date until his death, provided,
first, that with respect to remunerative dispositions, the proceeds thereof shall continue to be part of
the wife's estate, unless subsequently disposed of gratuitously to third parties by the husband, and
second, that should the purported renunciation be declared legally effective, no deductions
whatsoever are to be made from said estate; in consequence, the preliminary injunction of August 8,
1967, as amended on October 4 and December 6, 1967, is lifted, and the resolution of September 8,
1972, directing that petitioner-appellant PCIB, as Administrator of the Testate Estate of Charles
Newton Hodges, in Special Proceedings 1672, and respondent-appellee Avelina A. Magno, as
Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, in Special Proceedings 1307, should act
thenceforth always conjointly, never independently from each other, as such administrators, is
reiterated, and the same is made part of this judgment and shall continue in force, pending the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership of the deceased spouses and the determination and
segregation from each other of their respective estates, provided, that upon the finality of this
judgment, the trial court should immediately proceed to the partition of the presently combined
estates of the spouses, to the end that the one-half share thereof of Mrs. Hodges may be properly
and clearly identified; thereafter, the trial court should forthwith segregate the remainder of the one-
fourth herein adjudged to be her estate and cause the same to be turned over or delivered to
respondent for her exclusive administration in Special Proceedings 1307, while the other one-fourth
shall remain under the joint administration of said respondent and petitioner under a joint
proceedings in Special Proceedings 1307 and 1672, whereas the half unquestionably pertaining to
Hodges shall be administered by petitioner exclusively in Special Proceedings 1672, without
prejudice to the resolution by the trial court of the pending motions for its removal as administrator12;
and this arrangement shall be maintained until the final resolution of the two issues of renvoi and
renunciation hereby reserved for further hearing and determination, and the corresponding complete
segregation and partition of the two estates in the proportions that may result from the said
resolution.
Generally and in all other respects, the parties and the court a quo are directed to adhere
henceforth, in all their actuations in Special Proceedings 1307 and 1672, to the views passed and
ruled upon by the Court in the foregoing opinion.
Appellant PCIB is ordered to pay, within five (5) days from notice hereof, thirty-one additional appeal
docket fees, but this decision shall nevertheless become final as to each of the parties herein after
fifteen (15) days from the respective notices to them hereof in accordance with the rules.
Costs against petitioner-appellant PCIB.
Zaldivar, Castro, Esguerra and Fernandez, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, Antonio, Muñoz Palma and Aquino, JJ., concur in the result.
Separate Opinions
FERNANDO, J., concurring:
I concur on the basis of the procedural pronouncements in the opinion.

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:
I concur in the result of dismissal of the petition for certiorari and prohibition in Cases L-27860 and L-
27896 and with the affirmance of the appealed orders of the probate court in Cases L-27936-37.
I also concur with the portion of the dispositive part of the judgment penned by Mr. Justice Barredo
decreeing the lifting of the Court's writ of preliminary injunction of August 8, 1967 as amended on
October 4, and December 6, 19671 and ordering in lieu thereof that the Court's resolution of
September 8, 19722 which directed that petitioner-appellant PCIB as administrator of C. N. (Charles
Newton) Hodges' estate (Sp. Proc. No. 1672 and respondent-appellee Avelina A. Magno as
administratrix of Linnie Jane Hodges' estate (Sp. Proc. No. 1307) should act always conjointly never
independently from each other, as such administrators, is reiterated and shall continue in force and
made part of the judgment.
It is manifest from the record that petitioner-appellant PCIB's primal contention in the cases at bar
belatedly filed by it with this Court on August 1, 1967 (over ten (10) years after Linnie Jane Hodges'
death on May 23, 1957 and (over five (5) years after her husband C.N. Hodges' death on December
25, 1962 — during which time both estates have been pending settlement and distribution to the
decedents' respective rightful heirs all this time up to now) — that the probate court per its order of
December 14, 1957 (supplementing an earlier order of May 25, 1957)3 in granting C. N. Hodges'
motion as Executor of his wife Linnie's estate to continue their "business of buying and selling
personal and real properties" and approving "all sales, conveyances, leases and mortgages" made
and to be made by him as such executor under his obligation to submit his yearly accounts in effect
declared him as sole heir of his wife's estate and nothing remains to be done except to formally
close her estate (Sp. Proc. No. 1307) as her estate was thereby merged with his own so
that nothing remains of it that may be adjudicated to her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs
after him,4 — is wholly untenable and deserves scant consideration.
Aside from having been put forth as an obvious afterthought much too late in the day, this contention
of PCIB that there no longer exists any separate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges after the probate
court's order of December 14, 1957 goes against the very acts and judicial admissions of C.N.
Hodges as her executor whereby he consistently recognized the separate existence and identity of
his wife's estate apart from his own separate estate and from his own share of their conjugal
partnership and estate and "never considered the whole estate as a single one belonging exclusively
to himself" during the entire period that he survived her for over five (5) years up to the time of his
own death on December 25, 19625 and against the identical acts and judicial admissions of PCIB as
administrator of C.N. Hodges' estate until PCIB sought in 1966 to take over both estates as
pertaining to its sole administration.
PCIB is now barred and estopped from contradicting or taking a belated position contradictory to or
inconsistent with its previous admissions 6 (as well as those of C.N. Hodges himself in his lifetime
and of whose estate PCIB is merely an administrator) recognizing the existence and identity of
Linnie Jane Hodges' separate estate and the legal rights and interests therein of her brothers and
sisters as her designated heirs in her will.
PCIB's petition for certiorari and prohibition to declare all acts of the probate court in Linnie Jane
Hodges' estate subsequent to its order of December 14, 1957 as "null and void for having been
issued without jurisdiction" must therefore be dismissed with the rejection of its belated and
untenable contention that there is no longer any estate of Mrs. Hodges of which respondent Avelina
Magno is the duly appointed and acting administratrix.
PCIB's appeal7 from the probate court's various orders recognizing respondent Magno as
administratrix of Linnie's estate (Sp. Proc No. 1307) and sanctioning her acts of administration of
said estate and approving the sales contracts executed by her with the various individual appellees,
which involve basically the same primal issue raised in the petition as to whether there still exists a
separate estate of Linnie of which respondent-appellee Magno may continue to be the administratrix,
must necessarily fail — a result of the Court's main opinion at bar that there doesexist such an
estate and that the two estates (husband's and wife's) must be administered cojointly by their
respective administrators (PCIB and Magno).
The dispositive portion of the main opinion
The main opinion disposes that:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING PREMISES, judgment is hereby rendered

DISMISSING the petition in G. R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896, and AFFIRMING, in G.
R. Nos. L-27936-37 and the other thirty-one numbers hereunder ordered to be added
after payment of the corresponding docket fees, all the orders of the trial court under
appeal enumerated in detail on pages 35 to 37 and 80 to 82 of this decision:
The existence of the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, with respondent-appellee
Avelina A. Magno, as administratrix thereof is recognized, and
It is declared that, until final judgment is ultimately rendered regarding (1) the manner
of applying Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines to the situation obtaining in
these cases and (2) the factual and legal issues of whether or not Charles Newton
Hodges has effectively and legally renounced his inheritance under the will of Linnie
Jane Hodges, the said estate consists of one-fourthof the community properties of
the said spouses, as of the time of the death of the wife on May 23,
1957, minus whatever the husband had already gratuitously disposed of in favor of
third persons from said date until his death, provided, first, that with respect
to remunerative dispositions, the proceeds thereof shall continue to be part of
the wife's estate, unless subsequently disposed of gratuitously to third parties by the
husband, and second, that should the purported renunciation be declared legally
effective, no deduction whatsoever are to be made from said estate;
In consequence, the preliminary injunction of August 8, 1967, as amended on

October 4 and December 6, 1967, is lifted and the resolution of September 8, 1972,
directing that petitioner-appellant PCIB, as Administrator of the Testate Estate of
Charles Newton Hodges in Special Proceedings 1672, and respondent-appellee
Avelina A. Magno, as Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges in
Special Proceedings 1307, should act thenceforth always conjointly, never
independently from each other, as such administrators, is reiterated, and the same
is made part of this judgment and shall continue in force, pending the liquidation of
the conjugal partnership of the deceased spouses and
the determination and segregation from each other of their respective estates;
provided, that upon the finality of this judgment, the trial court should immediately
proceed to the partition of the presently combined estates of the spouses, to the end
that the one-half share thereof of Mrs. Hodges may be properly and clearly identified;
Thereafter, the trial court should forthwith segregate the remainder of the one-
fourth herein adjudged to be her estate and cause the same to be turned over or
delivered to respondent for her exclusive administration in Special Proceedings
1307, while the other one-fourth shall remain under the joint administrative of said
respondent and petitioner under a joint proceedings in Special Proceedings 1307
and 1672, whereas the half unquestionably pertaining to Hodges shall
be administered by petitioner exclusively in Special Proceedings 1672, without
prejudice to the resolution by the trial court of thepending motions for its removal as
administrator;
And this arrangement shall be maintained until the final resolution of the two issues
of renvoi and renunciation hereby reserved for further hearing and determination,
and the corresponding completesegregation and partition of the two estates in the
proportions that may result from the said resolution.
Generally and in all other respects, the parties and the court a quo are directed to
adhere henceforth, in all their actuations in Special Proceedings 1307 and 1672, to
the views passed and ruled upon by the Court in the foregoing opinion.8
Minimum estimate of Mrs. Hodges' estate:

One-fourth of conjugal properties.
The main opinion in declaring the existence of a separate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges which shall
pass to her brothers and sisters with right of representation (by their heirs) as her duly designated
heirs declares that her estate consists as a minimum (i.e. assuming (1) that under Article 16 of the
Philippine Civil Code C. N. Hodges as surviving husband was entitled to one-half of her estate
as legitime and (2) that he had not effectively and legally renouncedhis inheritance under her will) of
"one-fourth of the community properties of the said spouses, as of the time of the death of the wife
on May 23, 1957, minus whatever the husband had already gratuitously disposed of in favor of third
persons from said date until his death," with the proviso that proceeds of remunerative dispositions
or sales for valuable consideration made by C. N. Hodges after his wife Linnie's death shall continue
to be part of her estate unless subsequently disposed of by him gratuitously to third parties subject
to the condition, however, that if he is held to have validly and effectively renounced his inheritance
under his wife's will, no deductions of any dispositions made by Hodges even if gratuitously are to be
made from his wife Linnie's estate which shall pass intact to her brothers and sisters as her
designated heirs called in her will to succeed to her estate upon the death of her husband C. N.
Hodges.
Differences with the main opinion
I do not share the main opinion's view that Linnie Jane Hodges instituted her husband as her heir
under her will "to have dominion over all her estate during his lifetime ... as absolute owner of the
properties ..."9 and that she bequeathed "the whole of her estate to be owned and enjoyed by him as
universal and sole heir with absolute dominion over them only during his lifetime, which means that
while he could completely and absolutely dispose of any portion thereof inter vivos to anyone other
than himself, he was not free to do so mortis causa, and all his rights to what might remain upon his
death would cease entirely upon the occurrence of that contingency, inasmuch as the right of his
brothers and sisters-in-law to the inheritance, although vested already upon the death of Mrs.
Hodges, would automatically become operative upon the occurrence of the death of Hodges in the
event of actual existence of any remainder of her estate then." 10
As will be amplified hereinafter, I do not subscribe to such a view that Linnie Jane Hodges willed "full
and absolute ownership" and "absolute dominion" over her estate to her husband, but rather that she
named her husband C. N. Hodges and her brothers and sisters as instituted heirs with a term under
Article 885 of our Civil Code, to wit, Hodges as instituted heir with a resolutory term whereunder his
right to the succession ceased in diem upon arrival of the resolutory term of his death on December
25, 1962 and her brothers and sisters as instituted heirs with a suspensive term whereunder their
right to the succession commenced ex die upon arrival of the suspensive term of the death of C. N.
Hodges on December 25, 1962.
Hence, while agreeing with the main opinion that the proceeds of all remunerative dispositions made
by C. N. Hodges after his wife's death remain an integral part of his wife's estate which she willed to
her brothers and sisters, I submit that C. N. Hodges could not validly make gratuitous dispositions of
any part or all of his wife's estate — "completely and absolutely dispose of any portion thereof inter
vivos to anyone other than himself" in the language of the main opinion, supra — and thereby render
ineffectual and nugatory her institution of her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs to
succeed to her whole estate "at the death of (her) husband." If according to the main opinion,
Hodges could not make such gratuitous "complete and absolute dispositions" of his wife Linnie's
estate "mortis causa," it would seem that by the same token and rationale he was likewise
proscribed by the will from making such dispositions of Linnie's estate inter vivos.
I believe that the two questions of renvoi and renunciation should be

resolved preferentially and expeditiously by the probate court ahead of the partition and segregation
of the minimum one-fourth of the conjugal or community properties constituting Linnie Jane
Hodges' separate estate, which task considering that it is now seventeen (17) years since Linnie
Jane Hodges' death and her conjugal estate with C. N. Hodges has remained unliquidated up to now
might take a similar number of years to unravel with the numerous items, transactions and details of
the sizable estates involved.
Such partition of the minimum one-fourth would not be final, since if the two prejudicial questions
of renvoi and renunciation were resolved favorably to Linnie's estate meaning to say that if it should
be held that C. N. Hodges is not entitled to any legitime of her estate and at any rate he had totally
renounced his inheritance under the will), then Linnie's estate would consist not only of the minimum
one-fourth but one-half of the conjugal or community properties of the Hodges spouses, which would
require again the partition and segregation of still another one-fourth of said. properties
to complete Linnie's separate estate.
My differences with the main opinion involve further the legal concepts, effects and consequences of
the testamentary dispositions of Linnie Jane Hodges in her will and the question of the best to reach
a solution of the pressing question of expediting the closing of the estates which after all do not
appear to involve any outstanding debts nor any dispute between the heirs and should therefore be
promptly settled now after all these years without any further undue complications and delays and
distributed to the heirs for their full enjoyment and benefit. As no consensus appears to have been
reached thereon by a majority of the Court, I propose to state views as concisely as possible with the
sole end in view that they may be of some assistance to the probate court and the parties in
reaching an expeditious closing and settlement of the estates of the Hodges spouses.
Two Assumptions
As indicated above, the declaration of the minimum of Mrs. Hodges' estate as one-fourth of the
conjugal properties is based on two assumptions most favorable to C. N. Hodges' estate and his
heirs, namely (1) that the probate court must accept the renvoi or "reference back" 11 allegedly
provided by the laws of the State of Texas (of which state the Hodges spouses were citizens)
whereby the civil laws of the Philippines as the domicile of the Hodges spouses would govern their
succession notwithstanding the provisions of Article 16 of our Civil Code (which provides that the
national law of the decedents, in this case, of Texas, shall govern their succession) with the result
that her estate would consist of no more than one-fourth of the conjugal properties since
the legitime of her husband (the other one-fourth of said conjugal properties or one-half
of her estate, under Article 900 of our Civil Code) could not then be disposed of nor burdened with
any condition by her and (2) that C.N. Hodges had not effectively and legally renounced his
inheritance under his wife's will.
These two assumptions are of course flatly disputed by respondent-appellee Magno as Mrs. Hodges'
administratrix, who avers that the law of the State of Texas governs her succession and
does not provide for and legitime, hence, her brothers and sisters are entitled to succeed to the
whole of her share of the conjugal properties which is one-halfthereof and that in any event, Hodges
had totally renounced all his rights under the will.
The main opinion concedes that "(I)n the interest of settling the estates herein involved soonest, it
would be best, indeed, if these conflicting claims of the parties were determined in these
proceedings." It observes however that this cannot be done due to the inadequacy of the evidence
submitted by the parties in the probate court and of the parties' discussion, viz, "there is no clear and
reliable proof of what the possibly applicable laws of Texas are. Then also, the genuineness of the
documents relied upon by respondent Magno [re Hodges' renunciation] is disputed." 12
Hence, the main opinion expressly reserves resolution and determination on these two conflicting
claims and issues which it deems "are not properly before the Court
now," 13 and specifically holds that "(A)ccordingly, the only question that remains to be settled in the
further proceedings hereby ordered to be held in the court below is how much more than as fixed
above is the estate of Mrs. Hodges, and this would depend on (1) whether or not the applicable laws
of Texas do provide in effect for more, such as, when there is no legitime provided therein, and (2)
whether or not Hodges has validly waived his whole inheritance from Mrs. Hodges." 14
Suggested guidelines
Considering that the only unresolved issue has thus been narrowed down and in consonance with
the ruling spirit of our probate law calling for the prompt settlement of the estates of deceased
persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to the residue by way of inheritance —
considering that the estates have been long pending settlement since 1957 and 1962, respectively
— it was felt that the Court should lay down specific guidelines for the guidance of the probate court
towards the end that it may expedite the closing of the protracted estates proceedings below to the
mutual satisfaction of the heirs and without need of a dissatisfied party elevating its resolution of
this only remaining issue once more to this Court and dragging out indefinitely the proceedings.
After all, the only question that remains depends for its determination on the resolution of the two
questions of renvoiand renunciation, i.e. as to whether C. N. Hodges can claim
a legitime and whether he had renounced the inheritance. But as already indicated above, the Court
without reaching a consensus which would finally resolve the conflicting claims here and now in this
case opted that "these and other relevant matters should first be threshed out fully in the trial court in
the proceedings hereinafter to be held for the purpose of ascertaining and/or distributing the estate
of Mrs. Hodges to her heirs in accordance with her duly probated will." 15
The writer thus feels that laying down the premises and principles governing the nature, effects and
consequences of Linnie Jane Hodges' testamentary dispositions in relation to her conjugal
partnership and co-ownership of properties with her husband C. N. Hodges and "thinking out" the
end results, depending on whether the evidence directed to be formally received by the probate
court would bear out that under renvoi C. N. Hodges was or was not entitled to claim a legitime of
one-half of his wife Linnie's estate and/or that he had or had not effectively and validly renounced his
inheritance should help clear the decks, as it were, and assist the probate court in resolving
the onlyremaining question of how much more than the minimum one-fourth of the community
properties of the Hodges spouses herein finally determined should be awarded as the separate
estate of Linnie, particularly since the views expressed in the main opinion have not gained a
consensus of the Court. Hence, the following suggested guidelines, which needless to state,
represent the personal opinion and views of the writer:
1. To begin with, as pointed out in the main opinion, "according to Hodges' own inventory submitted
by him as executor of the estate of his wife, practically all their properties were conjugal which
means that the spouses have equal shares therein." 16
2. Upon the death of Mrs. Hodges on May 23, 1957, and the dissolution thereby of the marriage, the
law imposed upon Hodges as surviving husband the duty of inventorying, administering and
liquidating the conjugal or community property. 17 Hodges failed to discharge this duty
of liquidating the conjugal partnership and estate. On the contrary, he sought and obtained
authorization from the probate court to continue the conjugal partnership's business of buying and
selling real and personal properties.
In his annual accounts submitted to the probate court as executor of Mrs. Hodges' estate, Hodges
thus consistentlyreported the considerable combined income (in six figures) of the conjugal
partnership or coownership and then divided the same equally between himself and Mrs. Hodges'
estate and as consistently filed separate income tax returns and paid the income taxes
for each resulting half of such combined income corresponding to his own and to Mrs. Hodges'
estate. 18 (Parenthetically, he could not in law do this, had he adjudicated Linnie's entire estate to
himself, thus supporting the view advanced even in the main opinion that "Hodges waived not only
his rights to the fruits but to the properties themselves." 19
By operation of the law of trust 20 as well as by his own acknowledgment and acts, therefore, all
transactions made by Hodges after his wife's death were deemed for and on behalf of
their unliquidated conjugal partnership and community estate and were so reported and treated by
him.
3. With this premise established that all transactions of Hodges after his wife's death were for and on
behalf of their unliquidated conjugal partnership and community estate, share and share alike, it
should be clear that no gratuitousdispositions, if any, made by C. N. Hodges from his wife Linnie's
estate should be deducted from her separateestate as held in the main opinion. On the contrary, any
such gratuitous dispositions should be charged to his own share of the conjugal estate since he had
no authority or right to make any gratuitous dispositions of Linnie's properties to the prejudice of her
brothers and sisters whom she called to her succession upon his death, not to mention that the very
authority obtained by him from the probate court per its orders of May 25, and December 14, 1957
was to continue the conjugal partnership's business of buying and selling real properties for the
account of their unliquidated conjugal estate and co-ownership, share and share alike and not to
make any free dispositions of Linnie's estate.
4. All transactions as well after the death on December 25, 1962 of Hodges himself appear perforce
and necessarily to have been conducted, on the same premise, for and on behalf of
their unliquidated conjugal partnership and/or co-ownership, share and share alike — since the
conjugal partnership remained unliquidated — which is another way of saying that such transactions,
purchases and sales, mostly the latter, must be deemed in effect to have been made for the
respective estates of C. N. Hodges and of his wife Linnie Jane Hodges, as both estates continued to
have an equal stake and share in the conjugal partnership which was not only left unliquidated but
continued as a co-ownership or joint business with the probate court's approval by Hodges during
the five-year period that he survived his wife.
This explains the probate court's action of requiring that deeds of sale executed by PCIB as Hodges'
estate's administrator be "signed jointly" by respondent Magno as Mrs. Hodges' estate's
administratrix, as well as its order authorizing payment by lot purchasers from the Hodges
to either estate, since "there is as yet no judicial declaration of heirs nor distribution of properties to
whomsoever are entitled thereto." 22
And this equally furnishes the rationale of the main opinion for continued conjoint administration by
the administrators of the two estates of the deceased spouses, "pending the liquidation of the
conjugal partnership," 23since "it is but logical that both estates should be administered jointly by the
representatives of both, pending their segregation from each other. Particularly ... because the
actuations so far of PCIB evince a determined, albeit groundless, intent to exclude the other heirs of
Mrs. Hodges from their inheritance." 24 5. Antly by the representatives of both, pending their
segregation from each other. Particularly ... because the actuations so far of PCIB evince a
determined, albeit groundless, intent to exclude the other heirs of Mrs. Hodges from their
inheritance." 24
5. As stressed in the main opinion, the determination of the only unresolved issue of how much more
than the minimum of one-fourth of the community or conjugal properties of the Hodges spouses
pertains to Mrs. Hodges' estate depends on the twin questions of renunciation and renvoi. It directed
consequently that "a joint hearing of the two probate proceedings herein involved" be held by the
probate court for the reception of "further evidence" in order to finally resolved these twin
questions. 25
(a) On the question of renunciation, it is believed that all that the probate court has to do is to receive
formally in evidence the various documents annexed to respondent Magno's answer at
bar, 26 namely: Copy of the U.S. Estate Tax Return filed on August 8, 1958 by C. N. Hodges for his
wife Linnie's estate wherein he purportedly declared that he was renouncing his inheritance under
his wife's will in favor of her brothers and sisters as co-heirs designated with him and that it was his
"intention (as) surviving husband of the deceased to distribute the remaining property and interests
of the deceased in their community estate to the devisee and legatees named in the will when the
debts, liabilities, taxes and expenses of administration are finally determined and paid;" 27 and
The affidavit of ratification of such renunciation (which places him in estoppel) allegedly executed on
August 9, 1962 by C. N. Hodges in Iloilo City wherein he reaffirmed that "... on August 8, 1958,
I renounced and disclaimed any and all right to receive the rents, emoluments and income from said
estate" and further declared that "(T)he purpose of this affidavit is to ratify and confirm, and I do
hereby ratify and confirm, the declaration made in schedule M of said return and hereby
formally disclaim and renounce any right on my part to receive any of the said rents, emoluments
and income from the estate of my deceased wife, Linnie Jane Hodges. This affidavit is made
to absolve me or my estate from any liability for the payment of income taxes on income which has
accrued to the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges since the death of the said Linnie Jane Hodges on May
23, 1957." 28
(b) On the question of renvoi, all that remains for the probate court to do is to formally receive in
evidence duly authenticated copies of the laws of the State of Texas governing the succession of
Linnie Jane Hodges and her husband C. N. Hodges as citizens of said State at the time of their
respective deaths on May 23, 1957 and December 25, 1962. 29
6. The text and tenor of the declarations by C. N. Hodges of renunciation of his inheritance from his
wife in favor of her other named heirs in her will (her brothers and sisters and their respective heirs)
as ratified and reiterated expressly in his affidavit of renunciation executed four years later for the
avowed purpose of not being held liable for payment of income taxes on income which has accrued
to his wife's estate since her death indicate a valid and effective renunciation.
Once the evidence has been formally admitted and its genuineness and legal effectivity established
by the probate court, the renunciation by C. N. Hodges must be given due effect with the result that
C. N. Hodges therefore acquired no part of his wife's one-half share of the community properties
since he removed himself as an heir by virtue of his renunciation. By simple substitution then under
Articles 857 and 859 of our Civil Code 30 and by virtue of the will's institution of heirs, since "the heir
originally instituted C. N. Hodges) does not become an heir" 31 by force of his renunciation, Mrs.
Hodges' brothers and sisters whom she designated as her heirs upon her husband's death are
called immediately to her succession.
Consequently, the said community and conjugal properties would then pertain pro indiviso share and
share alike to their respective estates, with each estate, however, shouldering its own expenses of
administration, estate and inheritance taxes, if any remain unpaid, attorneys' fees and other like
expenses and the net remainder to be adjudicated directly to the decedents' respective brothers and
sisters (and their heirs) as the heirs duly designated in their respective wills. The question
of renvoi becomes immaterial since most laws and our laws permit such renunciation of inheritance.
7. If there were no renunciation (or the same may somehow be declared to have not been valid and
effective) by C. N. Hodges of his inheritance from his wife, however, what would be the
consequence?
(a) If the laws on succession of the State of Texas do provide for renvoi or "reference back" to
Philippine law as the domiciliary law of the Hodges' spouses governing their succession, then
petitioners' view that Mrs. Hodges' estate would consist only of the minimum of "one-fourth of the
community properties of the said spouses, as of the time of (her) death on May 23, 1957" would
have to be sustained and C. N. Hodges' estate would consist of three-fourths of the community
properties, comprising his own one-half (or two-fourths) share and the other fourth of Mrs. Hodges'
estate as the legitime granted him as surviving spouse by Philippine law (Article 900 of the Civil
Code) which could not be disposed of nor burdened with any condition by Mrs. Hodges as testatrix.
(b) If the laws on succession of the State of Texas do not provide for such renvoi and respondent
Magno's assertion is correct that the Texas law which would then prevail, provides for no legitime for
C. N. Hodges as the surviving spouse, then respondent Magno's assertion that Mrs. Hodges' estate
would consist of one-half of the community properties (with the other half pertaining to C. N. Hodges)
would have to be sustained. The community and conjugal properties would then pertain share and
share alike to their respective estates, with each estate shouldering its own expenses of
administration in the same manner stated in the last paragraph of paragraph 6 hereof. .
8. As to the nature of the institution of heirs made by Mrs. Hodges in her will, the main opinion holds
that "(T)he brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges are not substitutes for Hodges; rather, they are also
heirs instituted simultaneously with Hodges," but goes further and holds that "it was not the usufruct
alone of her estate ... that she bequeathed to Hodges during his lifetime, but the full
ownership thereof, although the same was to last also during his lifetime only, even as there was no
restriction against his disposing or conveying the whole or any portion thereof anybody other than
himself" and describes Hodges "as universal and sole heir with absolute dominion over Mrs. Hodges'
estate (except over their Lubbock, Texas property ), 32 adding that "Hodges was not obliged to
preserve anything for them" (referring to Mrs. Hodges' brothers and sisters as instituted co-heirs). 33
Contrary to this view of the main opinion, the writer submits that the provisions of Mrs. Hodges' will
did not grant to C.N. Hodges "full ownership" nor "absolute dominion" over her estate, such that he
could as "universal and sole heir" by the mere expedient of gratuitously disposing to third persons
her whole estate during his lifetime nullify her institution of her brothers and sisters as his co-heirs to
succeed to her whole estate "at the death of (her) husband," deprive them of any inheritance and
make his own brothers and sisters in effect sole heirs not only of his own estate but of
his wife's estate as well.
Thus, while Linnie Jane Hodges did not expressly name her brothers and sisters as substitutes for
Hodges because she willed that they would enter into the succession upon his death, still it cannot
be gainsaid, as the main opinion concedes, "that they are also heirs instituted simultaneously with
Hodges, subject however to certain conditions, partially resolutory insofar as Hodges was concerned
and correspondingly suspensive with reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law." 34
Hence, if Hodges is found to have validly renounced his inheritance, there would be a substitution of
heirs in fact and in law since Linnie's brothers and sisters as the heirs "simultaneously instituted"
with a suspensive term would be called immediately to her succession instead of waiting for the
arrival of suspensive term of Hodges' death, since as the heir originally instituted he does not
become an heir by force of his renunciation and therefore they would "enter into the inheritance in
default of the heir originally instituted" (Hodges) under the provisions of Article 857 and 859 of our
Civil Code, supra, 35 thus accelerating their succession to her estate as a consequence of Hodges'
renunciation.
Consequently, Linnie Jane Hodges willed that her husband C.N. Hodges would "during his natural
lifetime ... manage, control, use and enjoy said estate" and that only "all rents,
emoluments and income" alone shall belong to him. She further willed that while he
could sell and purchase properties of her estate, and "use any part of the principal estate," such
principal notwithstanding "any changes in the physical properties of said estate"(i.e. new properties
acquired or exchanged) would still pertain to her estate, which at the time of his death would pass
in full dominion to her brothers and sisters as the ultimate sole and universal heirs of her estate. 36
The testatrix Linnie Jane Hodges in her will thus principally provided that "I give, devise and
bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both personal and real ... to my
beloved husband, Charles Newton Hodges, to have and to hold with him ... during his natural
lifetime;" 37 that "(he) shall have the right to manage, control, use and enjoy said estate during his
lifetime, ... to make any changes in the physical properties of said estate, by sale ... and
the purchase of any other or additional property as he may think best ... . All rents,
emoluments and income from said estate shall belong to him and he is further authorized to use any
part of the principal of said estate as he may need or desire, ... he shall not sell or otherwise dispose
of any of the improved property now owned by us, located at ... City of Lubbock, Texas ... . He shall
have the right to subdivide any farm land and sell lots therein, and may sell unimproved
town lots;" 38 that "(A)t the death of my said husband, Charles Newton, I give, devise and bequeath
all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both personal and real, ... to be equally
divided among my brothers and sisters, share and share alike, namely: Esta Higdon, Emma Howell,
Leonard Higdon, Roy Higdon, Sadie Rascoe, Era Roman and Nimroy Higdon;" 39 and that "(I)n case
of the death of any of my brothers and/or sisters ...prior to the death of my husband ... the heirs of
such deceased brother or sister shall take jointly the share which would have gone to such brother
or sister had she or he survived." 40
Such provisions are wholly consistent with the view already fully expounded above that all
transactions and sales made by Hodges after his wife Linnie's death were by operation of the law
of trust as well as by his own acknowledgment and acts deemed for and on behalf of
their unliquidated conjugal partnership and community estate, share and share alike, with the
express authorization of the probate court per its orders of May 25, and December 14, 1957 granting
Hodges' motion to continue the conjugal partnership business of buying and selling real estate even
after her death. By the same token, Hodges could not conceivably be deemed to have had any
authority or right to dispose gratuitously of any portion of her estate to whose succession she had
called her brothers and sisters upon his death.
9. Such institutions of heirs with a term are expressly recognized and permitted under Book III,
Chapter 2, section 4 of our Civil Code dealing with "conditional testamentary dispositions and
testamentary dispositions with a term." 41
Thus, Article 885 of our Civil Code expressly provides that:
ART 885. The designation of the day or time when the effects of the institution of an
heir shall commence or cease shall be valid.
In both cases, the legal heir shall be considered as called to the succession until the
arrival of the period or its expiration. But in the first case he shall not enter into
possession of the property until after having given sufficient security, with the
intervention of the instituted heir.
Accordingly, under the terms of Mrs. Hodges' will, her husband's right to the succession as the
instituted heir ceased in diem, i.e. upon the arrival of the resolutory term of his death on December
25, 1962, while her brothers' and sisters' right to the succession also as instituted heirs
commenced ex die, i.e. upon the expiration of the suspensive term (as far as they were concerned)
of the death of C. N. Hodges on December 25, 1962 . 42
As stated in Padilla's treatise on the Civil Code, "A term is a period whose arrival is certain although
the exact date thereof may be uncertain. A term may have either a suspensive or a resolutory effect.
The designation of the day when the legacy "shall commence" is ex die, or a term with a suspensive
effect, from a certain day. The designation of the day when the legacy "shall cease" is in diem or a
term with a resolutory effect, until a certain day." He adds that "A legacy based upon a certain age or
upon the death of a person is not a condition but a term. If the arrival of the term would commence
the right of the heir, it is suspensive. If the arrival of the term would terminate his right, it is
resolutory" and that "upon the arrival of the period, in case of a suspensive term, the instituted heir is
entitled to the succession, and in case of a resolutory term, his right terminates." 43
10. The sizable estates herein involved have now been pending settlement for a considerably
protracted period (of seventeen years counted from Linnie's death in 1957), and all that is left to be
done is to resolve the only remaining issue (involving the two questions of renunciation and renvoi)
hereinabove discussed in order to close up the estates and finally effect distribution to the deceased
spouses' respective brothers and sisters and their heirs as the heirs duly instituted in their wills long
admitted to probate. Hence, it is advisable for said instituted heirs and their heirs in turn 44 to come to
terms for the adjudication and distribution to them pro-indiviso of the up to now unliquidated
community properties of the estates of the Hodges spouses (derived from their unliquidated conjugal
partnership) rather than to get bogged down with the formidable task of physically
segregating and partitioning the two estates with the numerous transactions, items and details and
physical changes of properties involved. The estates proceedings would thus be closed and they
could then name their respective attorneys-in-fact to work out the details of segregating, dividing or
partitioning the unliquidated community properties or liquidating them — which can be done then on
their own without further need of intervention on the part of the probate court as well as allow them
meanwhile to enjoy and make use of the income and cash and liquid assets of the estates in such
manner as may be agreed upon between them.
Such a settlement or modus vivendi between the heirs of the unliquidated two estates for the mutual
benefit of all of them should not prove difficult, considering that it appears as stated in the main
opinion that 22.968149% of the share or undivided estate of C. N. Hodges have already been
acquired by the heirs of Linnie Jane Hodges from certain heirs of her husband, while certain other
heirs representing 17.34375% of Hodges' estate were joining cause with Linnie's heirs in their
pending and unresolved motion for the removal of petitioner PCIB as administrator of Hodges'
estate, 45 apparently impatient with the situation which has apparently degenerated into a running
battle between the administrators of the two estates to the common prejudice of all the heirs.
11. As earlier stated, the writer has taken the pain of suggesting these guidelines which may serve
to guide the probate court as well as the parties towards expediting the winding up and closing of the
estates and the distribution of the net estates to the instituted heirs and their successors duly entitled
thereto. The probate court should exert all effort towards this desired objective pursuant to the
mandate of our probate law, bearing in mind the Court's admonition in previous cases that "courts of
first instance should exert themselves to close up estate within twelve months from the time they are
presented, and they may refuse to allow any compensation to executors and administrators who do
not actively labor to that end, and they may even adopt harsher measures." 46
Timeliness of appeals and imposition of

thirty-one (31) additional docket fees
Two appeals were docketed with this Court, as per the two records on appeal submitted (one with a
green cover and the other with a yellow cover). As stated at the outset, these appeals involve
basically the same primal issue raised in the petition for certiorari as to whether there still exists a
separate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges which has to continue to be administered by respondent
Magno. Considering the main opinion's ruling in the affirmative and that her estate and that of her
husband (since they jointly comprise unliquidated community properties) must be
administered conjointly by their respective administrators (PCIB and Magno), the said appeals
(involving thirty-three different orders of the probate court approving sales contracts and other acts
of administration executed and performed by respondent Magno on behalf of Linnie's estate) have
been necessarily overruled by the Court's decision at bar.
(a) The "priority question" raised by respondent Magno as to the patent failure of the two records on
appeal to show on their face and state the material data that the appeals were timely taken within
the 30-day reglamentary period as required by Rule 41, section 6 of the Rules of Court, has been
brushed aside by the main opinion with the statement that it is "not necessary to pass upon the
timeliness of any of said appeals" since they "revolve around practically the same main issues and ...
it is admitted that some of them have been timely taken." 47 The main opinion thus proceeded with
the determination of the thirty-three appealed orders despite the grave defect of the appellant PCIB's
records on appeal and their failure to state the required material data showing the timeliness of the
appeals.
Such disposition of the question of timeliness deemed as "mandatory and jurisdictional" in a number
of cases merits the writer's concurrence in that the question raised has been subordinated to the
paramount considerations of substantial justice and a "liberal interpretation of the rules" applied so
as not to derogate and detract from the primary intent and purpose of the rules, viz "the proper and
just determination of a litigation"48 — which calls for "adherence to a liberal construction of the
procedural rules in order to attain their objective of substantial justice and of avoiding denials of
substantial justice due to procedural technicalities." 49
Thus, the main opinion in consonance with the same paramount considerations of substantial justice
has likewise overruled respondents' objection to petitioner's taking the recourse of "the present
remedy of certiorari and prohibition" — "despite the conceded availability of appeal" — on the
ground that "there is a common thread among the basic issues involved in all these thirty-three
appeals — (which) deal with practically the same basic issues that can be more expeditiously
resolved or determined in a single special civil action . . . " 50
(b) Since the basic issues have been in effect resolved in the special civil action at bar (as above
stated) with the dismissal of the petition by virtue of the Court's judgment as to the continued
existence of a separate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and the affirmance as a necessary
consequence of the appealed orders approving and sanctioning respondent Magno's sales contracts
and acts of administration, some doubt would arise as to the propriety of the main opinion requiring
the payment by PCIB of thirty-one (31) additional appeal docket fees. This doubt is further enhanced
by the question of whether it would make the cost of appeal unduly expensive or prohibitive by
requiring the payment of a separate appeal docket fee for each incidental order questioned when the
resolution of all such incidental questioned orders involve basically one and the same main issue (in
this case, the existence of a separate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges) and can be more expeditiously
resolved or determined in a single special civil action" (for which a single docket fee is required) as
stated in the main opinion. 51 Considering the importance of the basic issues and the magnitude of
the estates involved, however, the writer has pro hac vice given his concurrence to the assessment
of the said thirty-one (31) additional appeal docket fees.
MAKALINTAL, C.J., concurring:
I concur in the separate opinion of Justice Teehankee, which in turn agrees with the dispositive
portion of the main opinion of Justice Barredo insofar as it dismisses the petition for certiorari and
prohibition in Cases L-27860 and L-27896 and affirms the appealed orders of the probate court in
cases L-27936-37.
However, I wish to make one brief observation for the sake of accuracy. Regardless of whether or
not C. N. Hodges was entitled to a legitime in his deceased wife's estate — which question, still to be
decided by the said probate court, may depend upon what is the law of Texas and upon its
applicability in the present case — the said estate consists of one-half, not one-fourth, of the
conjugal properties. There is neither a minimum of one-fourth nor a maximum beyond that. It is
important to bear this in mind because the estate of Linnie Hodges consists of her share in the
conjugal properties, is still under administration and until now has not been distributed by order of
the court.
The reference in both the main and separate opinions to a one-fourth portion of the conjugal
properties as Linnie Hodges' minimum share is a misnomer and is evidently meant only to indicate
that if her husband should eventually be declared entitled to a legitime, then the disposition made by
Linnie Hodges in favor of her collateral relatives would be valid only as to one-half of her share, or
one-fourth of the conjugal properties, since the remainder, which constitutes such legitime, would
necessarily go to her husband in absolute ownership, unburdened by any substitution, term or
condition, resolutory or otherwise. And until the estate is finally settled and adjudicated to the heirs
who may be found entitled to it, the administration must continue to cover Linnie's entire conjugal
share.
Separate Opinions
FERNANDO, J., concurring:
I concur on the basis of the procedural pronouncements in the opinion.
I concur in the result of dismissal of the petition for certiorari and prohibition in Cases L-27860 and L-
27896 and with the affirmance of the appealed orders of the probate court in Cases L-27936-37.
I also concur with the portion of the dispositive part of the judgment penned by Mr. Justice Barredo
decreeing the lifting of the Court's writ of preliminary injunction of August 8, 1967 as amended on
October 4, and December 6, 19671 and ordering in lieu thereof that the Court's resolution of
September 8, 19722 which directed that petitioner-appellant PCIB as administrator of C. N. (Charles
Newton) Hodges' estate (Sp. Proc. No. 1672 and respondent-appellee Avelina A. Magno as
administratrix of Linnie Jane Hodges' estate (Sp. Proc. No. 1307) should act always conjointly never
independently from each other, as such administrators, is reiterated and shall continue in force and
made part of the judgment.
It is manifest from the record that petitioner-appellant PCIB's primal contention in the cases at bar
belatedly filed by it with this Court on August 1, 1967 (over ten (10) years after Linnie Jane Hodges'
death on May 23, 1957 and (over five (5) years after her husband C.N. Hodges' death on December
25, 1962 — during which time both estates have been pending settlement and distribution to the
decedents' respective rightful heirs all this time up to now) — that the probate court per its order of
December 14, 1957 (supplementing an earlier order of May 25, 1957)3 in granting C. N. Hodges'
motion as Executor of his wife Linnie's estate to continue their "business of buying and selling
personal and real properties" and approving "all sales, conveyances, leases and mortgages" made
and to be made by him as such executor under his obligation to submit his yearly accounts in effect
declared him as sole heir of his wife's estate and nothing remains to be done except to formally
close her estate (Sp. Proc. No. 1307) as her estate was thereby merged with his own so
that nothing remains of it that may be adjudicated to her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs
after him,4 — is wholly untenable and deserves scant consideration.
Aside from having been put forth as an obvious afterthought much too late in the day, this contention
of PCIB that there no longer exists any separate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges after the probate
court's order of December 14, 1957 goes against the very acts and judicial admissions of C.N.
Hodges as her executor whereby he consistently recognized the separate existence and identity of
his wife's estate apart from his own separate estate and from his own share of their conjugal
partnership and estate and "never considered the whole estate as a single one belonging exclusively
to himself" during the entire period that he survived her for over five (5) years up to the time of his
own death on December 25, 19625 and against the identical acts and judicial admissions of PCIB as
administrator of C.N. Hodges' estate until PCIB sought in 1966 to take over both estates as
pertaining to its sole administration.
PCIB is now barred and estopped from contradicting or taking a belated position contradictory to or
inconsistent with its previous admissions 6 (as well as those of C.N. Hodges himself in his lifetime
and of whose estate PCIB is merely an administrator) recognizing the existence and identity of
Linnie Jane Hodges' separate estate and the legal rights and interests therein of her brothers and
sisters as her designated heirs in her will.
PCIB's petition for certiorari and prohibition to declare all acts of the probate court in Linnie Jane
Hodges' estate subsequent to its order of December 14, 1957 as "null and void for having been
issued without jurisdiction" must therefore be dismissed with the rejection of its belated and
untenable contention that there is no longer any estate of Mrs. Hodges of which respondent Avelina
Magno is the duly appointed and acting administratrix.
PCIB's appeal7 from the probate court's various orders recognizing respondent Magno as
administratrix of Linnie's estate (Sp. Proc No. 1307) and sanctioning her acts of administration of
said estate and approving the sales contracts executed by her with the various individual appellees,
which involve basically the same primal issue raised in the petition as to whether there still exists a
separate estate of Linnie of which respondent-appellee Magno may continue to be the administratrix,
must necessarily fail — a result of the Court's main opinion at bar that there doesexist such an
estate and that the two estates (husband's and wife's) must be administered cojointly by their
respective administrators (PCIB and Magno).
The dispositive portion of the main opinion
The main opinion disposes that:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING PREMISES, judgment is hereby rendered

DISMISSING the petition in G. R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896, and AFFIRMING, in G.
R. Nos. L-27936-37 and the other thirty-one numbers hereunder ordered to be added
after payment of the corresponding docket fees, all the orders of the trial court under
appeal enumerated in detail on pages 35 to 37 and 80 to 82 of this decision:
The existence of the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges, with respondent-appellee
Avelina A. Magno, as administratrix thereof is recognized, and
It is declared that, until final judgment is ultimately rendered regarding (1) the manner
of applying Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines to the situation obtaining in
these cases and (2) the factual and legal issues of whether or not Charles Newton
Hodges has effectively and legally renounced his inheritance under the will of Linnie
Jane Hodges, the said estate consists of one-fourthof the community properties of
the said spouses, as of the time of the death of the wife on May 23,
1957, minus whatever the husband had already gratuitously disposed of in favor of
third persons from said date until his death, provided, first, that with respect
to remunerative dispositions, the proceeds thereof shall continue to be part of
the wife's estate, unless subsequently disposed of gratuitously to third parties by the
husband, and second, that should the purported renunciation be declared legally
effective, no deduction whatsoever are to be made from said estate;
In consequence, the preliminary injunction of August 8, 1967, as amended on

October 4 and December 6, 1967, is lifted and the resolution of September 8, 1972,
directing that petitioner-appellant PCIB, as Administrator of the Testate Estate of
Charles Newton Hodges in Special Proceedings 1672, and respondent-appellee
Avelina A. Magno, as Administratrix of the Testate Estate of Linnie Jane Hodges in
Special Proceedings 1307, should act thenceforth always conjointly, never
independently from each other, as such administrators, is reiterated, and the same
is made part of this judgment and shall continue in force, pending the liquidation of
the conjugal partnership of the deceased spouses and
the determination and segregation from each other of their respective estates;
provided, that upon the finality of this judgment, the trial court should immediately
proceed to the partition of the presently combined estates of the spouses, to the end
that the one-half share thereof of Mrs. Hodges may be properly and clearly identified;
Thereafter, the trial court should forthwith segregate the remainder of the one-
fourth herein adjudged to be her estate and cause the same to be turned over or
delivered to respondent for her exclusive administration in Special Proceedings
1307, while the other one-fourth shall remain under the joint administrative of said
respondent and petitioner under a joint proceedings in Special Proceedings 1307
and 1672, whereas the half unquestionably pertaining to Hodges shall
be administered by petitioner exclusively in Special Proceedings 1672, without
prejudice to the resolution by the trial court of thepending motions for its removal as
administrator;
And this arrangement shall be maintained until the final resolution of the two issues
of renvoi and renunciation hereby reserved for further hearing and determination,
and the corresponding completesegregation and partition of the two estates in the
proportions that may result from the said resolution.
Generally and in all other respects, the parties and the court a quo are directed to
adhere henceforth, in all their actuations in Special Proceedings 1307 and 1672, to
the views passed and ruled upon by the Court in the foregoing opinion.8
Minimum estimate of Mrs. Hodges' estate:

One-fourth of conjugal properties.
The main opinion in declaring the existence of a separate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges which shall
pass to her brothers and sisters with right of representation (by their heirs) as her duly designated
heirs declares that her estate consists as a minimum (i.e. assuming (1) that under Article 16 of the
Philippine Civil Code C. N. Hodges as surviving husband was entitled to one-half of her estate
as legitime and (2) that he had not effectively and legally renouncedhis inheritance under her will) of
"one-fourth of the community properties of the said spouses, as of the time of the death of the wife
on May 23, 1957, minus whatever the husband had already gratuitously disposed of in favor of third
persons from said date until his death," with the proviso that proceeds of remunerative dispositions
or sales for valuable consideration made by C. N. Hodges after his wife Linnie's death shall continue
to be part of her estate unless subsequently disposed of by him gratuitously to third parties subject
to the condition, however, that if he is held to have validly and effectively renounced his inheritance
under his wife's will, no deductions of any dispositions made by Hodges even if gratuitously are to be
made from his wife Linnie's estate which shall pass intact to her brothers and sisters as her
designated heirs called in her will to succeed to her estate upon the death of her husband C. N.
Hodges.
Differences with the main opinion
I do not share the main opinion's view that Linnie Jane Hodges instituted her husband as her heir
under her will "to have dominion over all her estate during his lifetime ... as absolute owner of the
properties ..."9 and that she bequeathed "the whole of her estate to be owned and enjoyed by him as
universal and sole heir with absolute dominion over them only during his lifetime, which means that
while he could completely and absolutely dispose of any portion thereof inter vivos to anyone other
than himself, he was not free to do so mortis causa, and all his rights to what might remain upon his
death would cease entirely upon the occurrence of that contingency, inasmuch as the right of his
brothers and sisters-in-law to the inheritance, although vested already upon the death of Mrs.
Hodges, would automatically become operative upon the occurrence of the death of Hodges in the
event of actual existence of any remainder of her estate then." 10
As will be amplified hereinafter, I do not subscribe to such a view that Linnie Jane Hodges willed "full
and absolute ownership" and "absolute dominion" over her estate to her husband, but rather that she
named her husband C. N. Hodges and her brothers and sisters as instituted heirs with a term under
Article 885 of our Civil Code, to wit, Hodges as instituted heir with a resolutory term whereunder his
right to the succession ceased in diem upon arrival of the resolutory term of his death on December
25, 1962 and her brothers and sisters as instituted heirs with a suspensive term whereunder their
right to the succession commenced ex die upon arrival of the suspensive term of the death of C. N.
Hodges on December 25, 1962.
Hence, while agreeing with the main opinion that the proceeds of all remunerative dispositions made
by C. N. Hodges after his wife's death remain an integral part of his wife's estate which she willed to
her brothers and sisters, I submit that C. N. Hodges could not validly make gratuitous dispositions of
any part or all of his wife's estate — "completely and absolutely dispose of any portion thereof inter
vivos to anyone other than himself" in the language of the main opinion, supra — and thereby render
ineffectual and nugatory her institution of her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs to
succeed to her whole estate "at the death of (her) husband." If according to the main opinion,
Hodges could not make such gratuitous "complete and absolute dispositions" of his wife Linnie's
estate "mortis causa," it would seem that by the same token and rationale he was likewise
proscribed by the will from making such dispositions of Linnie's estate inter vivos.
I believe that the two questions of renvoi and renunciation should be

resolved preferentially and expeditiously by the probate court ahead of the partition and segregation
of the minimum one-fourth of the conjugal or community properties constituting Linnie Jane
Hodges' separate estate, which task considering that it is now seventeen (17) years since Linnie
Jane Hodges' death and her conjugal estate with C. N. Hodges has remained unliquidated up to now
might take a similar number of years to unravel with the numerous items, transactions and details of
the sizable estates involved.
Such partition of the minimum one-fourth would not be final, since if the two prejudicial questions
of renvoi and renunciation were resolved favorably to Linnie's estate meaning to say that if it should
be held that C. N. Hodges is not entitled to any legitime of her estate and at any rate he had totally
renounced his inheritance under the will), then Linnie's estate would consist not only of the minimum
one-fourth but one-half of the conjugal or community properties of the Hodges spouses, which would
require again the partition and segregation of still another one-fourth of said. properties
to complete Linnie's separate estate.
My differences with the main opinion involve further the legal concepts, effects and consequences of
the testamentary dispositions of Linnie Jane Hodges in her will and the question of the best to reach
a solution of the pressing question of expediting the closing of the estates which after all do not
appear to involve any outstanding debts nor any dispute between the heirs and should therefore be
promptly settled now after all these years without any further undue complications and delays and
distributed to the heirs for their full enjoyment and benefit. As no consensus appears to have been
reached thereon by a majority of the Court, I propose to state views as concisely as possible with the
sole end in view that they may be of some assistance to the probate court and the parties in
reaching an expeditious closing and settlement of the estates of the Hodges spouses.
Two Assumptions
As indicated above, the declaration of the minimum of Mrs. Hodges' estate as one-fourth of the
conjugal properties is based on two assumptions most favorable to C. N. Hodges' estate and his
heirs, namely (1) that the probate court must accept the renvoi or "reference back" 11 allegedly
provided by the laws of the State of Texas (of which state the Hodges spouses were citizens)
whereby the civil laws of the Philippines as the domicile of the Hodges spouses would govern their
succession notwithstanding the provisions of Article 16 of our Civil Code (which provides that the
national law of the decedents, in this case, of Texas, shall govern their succession) with the result
that her estate would consist of no more than one-fourth of the conjugal properties since
the legitime of her husband (the other one-fourth of said conjugal properties or one-half
of her estate, under Article 900 of our Civil Code) could not then be disposed of nor burdened with
any condition by her and (2) that C.N. Hodges had not effectively and legally renounced his
inheritance under his wife's will.
These two assumptions are of course flatly disputed by respondent-appellee Magno as Mrs. Hodges'
administratrix, who avers that the law of the State of Texas governs her succession and
does not provide for and legitime, hence, her brothers and sisters are entitled to succeed to the
whole of her share of the conjugal properties which is one-halfthereof and that in any event, Hodges
had totally renounced all his rights under the will.
The main opinion concedes that "(I)n the interest of settling the estates herein involved soonest, it
would be best, indeed, if these conflicting claims of the parties were determined in these
proceedings." It observes however that this cannot be done due to the inadequacy of the evidence
submitted by the parties in the probate court and of the parties' discussion, viz, "there is no clear and
reliable proof of what the possibly applicable laws of Texas are. Then also, the genuineness of the
documents relied upon by respondent Magno [re Hodges' renunciation] is disputed." 12
Hence, the main opinion expressly reserves resolution and determination on these two conflicting
claims and issues which it deems "are not properly before the Court
now," 13 and specifically holds that "(A)ccordingly, the only question that remains to be settled in the
further proceedings hereby ordered to be held in the court below is how much more than as fixed
above is the estate of Mrs. Hodges, and this would depend on (1) whether or not the applicable laws
of Texas do provide in effect for more, such as, when there is no legitime provided therein, and (2)
whether or not Hodges has validly waived his whole inheritance from Mrs. Hodges." 14
Suggested guidelines
Considering that the only unresolved issue has thus been narrowed down and in consonance with
the ruling spirit of our probate law calling for the prompt settlement of the estates of deceased
persons for the benefit of creditors and those entitled to the residue by way of inheritance —
considering that the estates have been long pending settlement since 1957 and 1962, respectively
— it was felt that the Court should lay down specific guidelines for the guidance of the probate court
towards the end that it may expedite the closing of the protracted estates proceedings below to the
mutual satisfaction of the heirs and without need of a dissatisfied party elevating its resolution of
this only remaining issue once more to this Court and dragging out indefinitely the proceedings.
After all, the only question that remains depends for its determination on the resolution of the two
questions of renvoiand renunciation, i.e. as to whether C. N. Hodges can claim
a legitime and whether he had renounced the inheritance. But as already indicated above, the Court
without reaching a consensus which would finally resolve the conflicting claims here and now in this
case opted that "these and other relevant matters should first be threshed out fully in the trial court in
the proceedings hereinafter to be held for the purpose of ascertaining and/or distributing the estate
of Mrs. Hodges to her heirs in accordance with her duly probated will." 15
The writer thus feels that laying down the premises and principles governing the nature, effects and
consequences of Linnie Jane Hodges' testamentary dispositions in relation to her conjugal
partnership and co-ownership of properties with her husband C. N. Hodges and "thinking out" the
end results, depending on whether the evidence directed to be formally received by the probate
court would bear out that under renvoi C. N. Hodges was or was not entitled to claim a legitime of
one-half of his wife Linnie's estate and/or that he had or had not effectively and validly renounced his
inheritance should help clear the decks, as it were, and assist the probate court in resolving
the onlyremaining question of how much more than the minimum one-fourth of the community
properties of the Hodges spouses herein finally determined should be awarded as the separate
estate of Linnie, particularly since the views expressed in the main opinion have not gained a
consensus of the Court. Hence, the following suggested guidelines, which needless to state,
represent the personal opinion and views of the writer:
1. To begin with, as pointed out in the main opinion, "according to Hodges' own inventory submitted
by him as executor of the estate of his wife, practically all their properties were conjugal which
means that the spouses have equal shares therein." 16
2. Upon the death of Mrs. Hodges on May 23, 1957, and the dissolution thereby of the marriage, the
law imposed upon Hodges as surviving husband the duty of inventorying, administering and
liquidating the conjugal or community property. 17 Hodges failed to discharge this duty
of liquidating the conjugal partnership and estate. On the contrary, he sought and obtained
authorization from the probate court to continue the conjugal partnership's business of buying and
selling real and personal properties.
In his annual accounts submitted to the probate court as executor of Mrs. Hodges' estate, Hodges
thus consistentlyreported the considerable combined income (in six figures) of the conjugal
partnership or coownership and then divided the same equally between himself and Mrs. Hodges'
estate and as consistently filed separate income tax returns and paid the income taxes
for each resulting half of such combined income corresponding to his own and to Mrs. Hodges'
estate. 18 (Parenthetically, he could not in law do this, had he adjudicated Linnie's entire estate to
himself, thus supporting the view advanced even in the main opinion that "Hodges waived not only
his rights to the fruits but to the properties themselves." 19
By operation of the law of trust 20 as well as by his own acknowledgment and acts, therefore, all
transactions made by Hodges after his wife's death were deemed for and on behalf of
their unliquidated conjugal partnership and community estate and were so reported and treated by
him.
3. With this premise established that all transactions of Hodges after his wife's death were for and on
behalf of their unliquidated conjugal partnership and community estate, share and share alike, it
should be clear that no gratuitousdispositions, if any, made by C. N. Hodges from his wife Linnie's
estate should be deducted from her separateestate as held in the main opinion. On the contrary, any
such gratuitous dispositions should be charged to his own share of the conjugal estate since he had
no authority or right to make any gratuitous dispositions of Linnie's properties to the prejudice of her
brothers and sisters whom she called to her succession upon his death, not to mention that the very
authority obtained by him from the probate court per its orders of May 25, and December 14, 1957
was to continue the conjugal partnership's business of buying and selling real properties for the
account of their unliquidated conjugal estate and co-ownership, share and share alike and not to
make any free dispositions of Linnie's estate.
4. All transactions as well after the death on December 25, 1962 of Hodges himself appear perforce
and necessarily to have been conducted, on the same premise, for and on behalf of
their unliquidated conjugal partnership and/or co-ownership, share and share alike — since the
conjugal partnership remained unliquidated — which is another way of saying that such transactions,
purchases and sales, mostly the latter, must be deemed in effect to have been made for the
respective estates of C. N. Hodges and of his wife Linnie Jane Hodges, as both estates continued to
have an equal stake and share in the conjugal partnership which was not only left unliquidated but
continued as a co-ownership or joint business with the probate court's approval by Hodges during
the five-year period that he survived his wife.
This explains the probate court's action of requiring that deeds of sale executed by PCIB as Hodges'
estate's administrator be "signed jointly" by respondent Magno as Mrs. Hodges' estate's
administratrix, as well as its order authorizing payment by lot purchasers from the Hodges
to either estate, since "there is as yet no judicial declaration of heirs nor distribution of properties to
whomsoever are entitled thereto." 22
And this equally furnishes the rationale of the main opinion for continued conjoint administration by
the administrators of the two estates of the deceased spouses, "pending the liquidation of the
conjugal partnership," 23since "it is but logical that both estates should be administered jointly by the
representatives of both, pending their segregation from each other. Particularly ... because the
actuations so far of PCIB evince a determined, albeit groundless, intent to exclude the other heirs of
Mrs. Hodges from their inheritance." 24 5. Antly by the representatives of both, pending their
segregation from each other. Particularly ... because the actuations so far of PCIB evince a
determined, albeit groundless, intent to exclude the other heirs of Mrs. Hodges from their
inheritance." 24
5. As stressed in the main opinion, the determination of the only unresolved issue of how much more
than the minimum of one-fourth of the community or conjugal properties of the Hodges spouses
pertains to Mrs. Hodges' estate depends on the twin questions of renunciation and renvoi. It directed
consequently that "a joint hearing of the two probate proceedings herein involved" be held by the
probate court for the reception of "further evidence" in order to finally resolved these twin
questions. 25
(a) On the question of renunciation, it is believed that all that the probate court has to do is to receive
formally in evidence the various documents annexed to respondent Magno's answer at
bar, 26 namely: Copy of the U.S. Estate Tax Return filed on August 8, 1958 by C. N. Hodges for his
wife Linnie's estate wherein he purportedly declared that he was renouncing his inheritance under
his wife's will in favor of her brothers and sisters as co-heirs designated with him and that it was his
"intention (as) surviving husband of the deceased to distribute the remaining property and interests
of the deceased in their community estate to the devisee and legatees named in the will when the
debts, liabilities, taxes and expenses of administration are finally determined and paid;" 27 and
The affidavit of ratification of such renunciation (which places him in estoppel) allegedly executed on
August 9, 1962 by C. N. Hodges in Iloilo City wherein he reaffirmed that "... on August 8, 1958,
I renounced and disclaimed any and all right to receive the rents, emoluments and income from said
estate" and further declared that "(T)he purpose of this affidavit is to ratify and confirm, and I do
hereby ratify and confirm, the declaration made in schedule M of said return and hereby
formally disclaim and renounce any right on my part to receive any of the said rents, emoluments
and income from the estate of my deceased wife, Linnie Jane Hodges. This affidavit is made
to absolve me or my estate from any liability for the payment of income taxes on income which has
accrued to the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges since the death of the said Linnie Jane Hodges on May
23, 1957." 28
(b) On the question of renvoi, all that remains for the probate court to do is to formally receive in
evidence duly authenticated copies of the laws of the State of Texas governing the succession of
Linnie Jane Hodges and her husband C. N. Hodges as citizens of said State at the time of their
respective deaths on May 23, 1957 and December 25, 1962. 29
6. The text and tenor of the declarations by C. N. Hodges of renunciation of his inheritance from his
wife in favor of her other named heirs in her will (her brothers and sisters and their respective heirs)
as ratified and reiterated expressly in his affidavit of renunciation executed four years later for the
avowed purpose of not being held liable for payment of income taxes on income which has accrued
to his wife's estate since her death indicate a valid and effective renunciation.
Once the evidence has been formally admitted and its genuineness and legal effectivity established
by the probate court, the renunciation by C. N. Hodges must be given due effect with the result that
C. N. Hodges therefore acquired no part of his wife's one-half share of the community properties
since he removed himself as an heir by virtue of his renunciation. By simple substitution then under
Articles 857 and 859 of our Civil Code 30 and by virtue of the will's institution of heirs, since "the heir
originally instituted C. N. Hodges) does not become an heir" 31 by force of his renunciation, Mrs.
Hodges' brothers and sisters whom she designated as her heirs upon her husband's death are
called immediately to her succession.
Consequently, the said community and conjugal properties would then pertain pro indiviso share and
share alike to their respective estates, with each estate, however, shouldering its own expenses of
administration, estate and inheritance taxes, if any remain unpaid, attorneys' fees and other like
expenses and the net remainder to be adjudicated directly to the decedents' respective brothers and
sisters (and their heirs) as the heirs duly designated in their respective wills. The question
of renvoi becomes immaterial since most laws and our laws permit such renunciation of inheritance.
7. If there were no renunciation (or the same may somehow be declared to have not been valid and
effective) by C. N. Hodges of his inheritance from his wife, however, what would be the
consequence?
(a) If the laws on succession of the State of Texas do provide for renvoi or "reference back" to
Philippine law as the domiciliary law of the Hodges' spouses governing their succession, then
petitioners' view that Mrs. Hodges' estate would consist only of the minimum of "one-fourth of the
community properties of the said spouses, as of the time of (her) death on May 23, 1957" would
have to be sustained and C. N. Hodges' estate would consist of three-fourths of the community
properties, comprising his own one-half (or two-fourths) share and the other fourth of Mrs. Hodges'
estate as the legitime granted him as surviving spouse by Philippine law (Article 900 of the Civil
Code) which could not be disposed of nor burdened with any condition by Mrs. Hodges as testatrix.
(b) If the laws on succession of the State of Texas do not provide for such renvoi and respondent
Magno's assertion is correct that the Texas law which would then prevail, provides for no legitime for
C. N. Hodges as the surviving spouse, then respondent Magno's assertion that Mrs. Hodges' estate
would consist of one-half of the community properties (with the other half pertaining to C. N. Hodges)
would have to be sustained. The community and conjugal properties would then pertain share and
share alike to their respective estates, with each estate shouldering its own expenses of
administration in the same manner stated in the last paragraph of paragraph 6 hereof. .
8. As to the nature of the institution of heirs made by Mrs. Hodges in her will, the main opinion holds
that "(T)he brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges are not substitutes for Hodges; rather, they are also
heirs instituted simultaneously with Hodges," but goes further and holds that "it was not the usufruct
alone of her estate ... that she bequeathed to Hodges during his lifetime, but the full
ownership thereof, although the same was to last also during his lifetime only, even as there was no
restriction against his disposing or conveying the whole or any portion thereof anybody other than
himself" and describes Hodges "as universal and sole heir with absolute dominion over Mrs. Hodges'
estate (except over their Lubbock, Texas property ), 32 adding that "Hodges was not obliged to
preserve anything for them" (referring to Mrs. Hodges' brothers and sisters as instituted co-heirs). 33
Contrary to this view of the main opinion, the writer submits that the provisions of Mrs. Hodges' will
did not grant to C.N. Hodges "full ownership" nor "absolute dominion" over her estate, such that he
could as "universal and sole heir" by the mere expedient of gratuitously disposing to third persons
her whole estate during his lifetime nullify her institution of her brothers and sisters as his co-heirs to
succeed to her whole estate "at the death of (her) husband," deprive them of any inheritance and
make his own brothers and sisters in effect sole heirs not only of his own estate but of
his wife's estate as well.
Thus, while Linnie Jane Hodges did not expressly name her brothers and sisters as substitutes for
Hodges because she willed that they would enter into the succession upon his death, still it cannot
be gainsaid, as the main opinion concedes, "that they are also heirs instituted simultaneously with
Hodges, subject however to certain conditions, partially resolutory insofar as Hodges was concerned
and correspondingly suspensive with reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law." 34
Hence, if Hodges is found to have validly renounced his inheritance, there would be a substitution of
heirs in fact and in law since Linnie's brothers and sisters as the heirs "simultaneously instituted"
with a suspensive term would be called immediately to her succession instead of waiting for the
arrival of suspensive term of Hodges' death, since as the heir originally instituted he does not
become an heir by force of his renunciation and therefore they would "enter into the inheritance in
default of the heir originally instituted" (Hodges) under the provisions of Article 857 and 859 of our
Civil Code, supra, 35 thus accelerating their succession to her estate as a consequence of Hodges'
renunciation.
Consequently, Linnie Jane Hodges willed that her husband C.N. Hodges would "during his natural
lifetime ... manage, control, use and enjoy said estate" and that only "all rents,
emoluments and income" alone shall belong to him. She further willed that while he
could sell and purchase properties of her estate, and "use any part of the principal estate," such
principal notwithstanding "any changes in the physical properties of said estate"(i.e. new properties
acquired or exchanged) would still pertain to her estate, which at the time of his death would pass
in full dominion to her brothers and sisters as the ultimate sole and universal heirs of her estate. 36
The testatrix Linnie Jane Hodges in her will thus principally provided that "I give, devise and
bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both personal and real ... to my
beloved husband, Charles Newton Hodges, to have and to hold with him ... during his natural
lifetime;" 37 that "(he) shall have the right to manage, control, use and enjoy said estate during his
lifetime, ... to make any changes in the physical properties of said estate, by sale ... and
the purchase of any other or additional property as he may think best ... . All rents,
emoluments and income from said estate shall belong to him and he is further authorized to use any
part of the principal of said estate as he may need or desire, ... he shall not sell or otherwise dispose
of any of the improved property now owned by us, located at ... City of Lubbock, Texas ... . He shall
have the right to subdivide any farm land and sell lots therein, and may sell unimproved
town lots;" 38 that "(A)t the death of my said husband, Charles Newton, I give, devise and bequeath
all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both personal and real, ... to be equally
divided among my brothers and sisters, share and share alike, namely: Esta Higdon, Emma Howell,
Leonard Higdon, Roy Higdon, Sadie Rascoe, Era Roman and Nimroy Higdon;" 39 and that "(I)n case
of the death of any of my brothers and/or sisters ...prior to the death of my husband ... the heirs of
such deceased brother or sister shall take jointly the share which would have gone to such brother
or sister had she or he survived." 40
Such provisions are wholly consistent with the view already fully expounded above that all
transactions and sales made by Hodges after his wife Linnie's death were by operation of the law
of trust as well as by his own acknowledgment and acts deemed for and on behalf of
their unliquidated conjugal partnership and community estate, share and share alike, with the
express authorization of the probate court per its orders of May 25, and December 14, 1957 granting
Hodges' motion to continue the conjugal partnership business of buying and selling real estate even
after her death. By the same token, Hodges could not conceivably be deemed to have had any
authority or right to dispose gratuitously of any portion of her estate to whose succession she had
called her brothers and sisters upon his death.
9. Such institutions of heirs with a term are expressly recognized and permitted under Book III,
Chapter 2, section 4 of our Civil Code dealing with "conditional testamentary dispositions and
testamentary dispositions with a term." 41
Thus, Article 885 of our Civil Code expressly provides that:
ART 885. The designation of the day or time when the effects of the institution of an
heir shall commence or cease shall be valid.
In both cases, the legal heir shall be considered as called to the succession until the
arrival of the period or its expiration. But in the first case he shall not enter into
possession of the property until after having given sufficient security, with the
intervention of the instituted heir.
Accordingly, under the terms of Mrs. Hodges' will, her husband's right to the succession as the
instituted heir ceased in diem, i.e. upon the arrival of the resolutory term of his death on December
25, 1962, while her brothers' and sisters' right to the succession also as instituted heirs
commenced ex die, i.e. upon the expiration of the suspensive term (as far as they were concerned)
of the death of C. N. Hodges on December 25, 1962 . 42
As stated in Padilla's treatise on the Civil Code, "A term is a period whose arrival is certain although
the exact date thereof may be uncertain. A term may have either a suspensive or a resolutory effect.
The designation of the day when the legacy "shall commence" is ex die, or a term with a suspensive
effect, from a certain day. The designation of the day when the legacy "shall cease" is in diem or a
term with a resolutory effect, until a certain day." He adds that "A legacy based upon a certain age or
upon the death of a person is not a condition but a term. If the arrival of the term would commence
the right of the heir, it is suspensive. If the arrival of the term would terminate his right, it is
resolutory" and that "upon the arrival of the period, in case of a suspensive term, the instituted heir is
entitled to the succession, and in case of a resolutory term, his right terminates." 43
10. The sizable estates herein involved have now been pending settlement for a considerably
protracted period (of seventeen years counted from Linnie's death in 1957), and all that is left to be
done is to resolve the only remaining issue (involving the two questions of renunciation and renvoi)
hereinabove discussed in order to close up the estates and finally effect distribution to the deceased
spouses' respective brothers and sisters and their heirs as the heirs duly instituted in their wills long
admitted to probate. Hence, it is advisable for said instituted heirs and their heirs in turn 44 to come to
terms for the adjudication and distribution to them pro-indiviso of the up to now unliquidated
community properties of the estates of the Hodges spouses (derived from their unliquidated conjugal
partnership) rather than to get bogged down with the formidable task of physically
segregating and partitioning the two estates with the numerous transactions, items and details and
physical changes of properties involved. The estates proceedings would thus be closed and they
could then name their respective attorneys-in-fact to work out the details of segregating, dividing or
partitioning the unliquidated community properties or liquidating them — which can be done then on
their own without further need of intervention on the part of the probate court as well as allow them
meanwhile to enjoy and make use of the income and cash and liquid assets of the estates in such
manner as may be agreed upon between them.
Such a settlement or modus vivendi between the heirs of the unliquidated two estates for the mutual
benefit of all of them should not prove difficult, considering that it appears as stated in the main
opinion that 22.968149% of the share or undivided estate of C. N. Hodges have already been
acquired by the heirs of Linnie Jane Hodges from certain heirs of her husband, while certain other
heirs representing 17.34375% of Hodges' estate were joining cause with Linnie's heirs in their
pending and unresolved motion for the removal of petitioner PCIB as administrator of Hodges'
estate, 45 apparently impatient with the situation which has apparently degenerated into a running
battle between the administrators of the two estates to the common prejudice of all the heirs.
11. As earlier stated, the writer has taken the pain of suggesting these guidelines which may serve
to guide the probate court as well as the parties towards expediting the winding up and closing of the
estates and the distribution of the net estates to the instituted heirs and their successors duly entitled
thereto. The probate court should exert all effort towards this desired objective pursuant to the
mandate of our probate law, bearing in mind the Court's admonition in previous cases that "courts of
first instance should exert themselves to close up estate within twelve months from the time they are
presented, and they may refuse to allow any compensation to executors and administrators who do
not actively labor to that end, and they may even adopt harsher measures." 46
Timeliness of appeals and imposition of

thirty-one (31) additional docket fees
Two appeals were docketed with this Court, as per the two records on appeal submitted (one with a
green cover and the other with a yellow cover). As stated at the outset, these appeals involve
basically the same primal issue raised in the petition for certiorari as to whether there still exists a
separate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges which has to continue to be administered by respondent
Magno. Considering the main opinion's ruling in the affirmative and that her estate and that of her
husband (since they jointly comprise unliquidated community properties) must be
administered conjointly by their respective administrators (PCIB and Magno), the said appeals
(involving thirty-three different orders of the probate court approving sales contracts and other acts
of administration executed and performed by respondent Magno on behalf of Linnie's estate) have
been necessarily overruled by the Court's decision at bar.
(a) The "priority question" raised by respondent Magno as to the patent failure of the two records on
appeal to show on their face and state the material data that the appeals were timely taken within
the 30-day reglamentary period as required by Rule 41, section 6 of the Rules of Court, has been
brushed aside by the main opinion with the statement that it is "not necessary to pass upon the
timeliness of any of said appeals" since they "revolve around practically the same main issues and ...
it is admitted that some of them have been timely taken." 47 The main opinion thus proceeded with
the determination of the thirty-three appealed orders despite the grave defect of the appellant PCIB's
records on appeal and their failure to state the required material data showing the timeliness of the
appeals.
Such disposition of the question of timeliness deemed as "mandatory and jurisdictional" in a number
of cases merits the writer's concurrence in that the question raised has been subordinated to the
paramount considerations of substantial justice and a "liberal interpretation of the rules" applied so
as not to derogate and detract from the primary intent and purpose of the rules, viz "the proper and
just determination of a litigation"48 — which calls for "adherence to a liberal construction of the
procedural rules in order to attain their objective of substantial justice and of avoiding denials of
substantial justice due to procedural technicalities." 49
Thus, the main opinion in consonance with the same paramount considerations of substantial justice
has likewise overruled respondents' objection to petitioner's taking the recourse of "the present
remedy of certiorari and prohibition" — "despite the conceded availability of appeal" — on the
ground that "there is a common thread among the basic issues involved in all these thirty-three
appeals — (which) deal with practically the same basic issues that can be more expeditiously
resolved or determined in a single special civil action . . . " 50
(b) Since the basic issues have been in effect resolved in the special civil action at bar (as above
stated) with the dismissal of the petition by virtue of the Court's judgment as to the continued
existence of a separate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and the affirmance as a necessary
consequence of the appealed orders approving and sanctioning respondent Magno's sales contracts
and acts of administration, some doubt would arise as to the propriety of the main opinion requiring
the payment by PCIB of thirty-one (31) additional appeal docket fees. This doubt is further enhanced
by the question of whether it would make the cost of appeal unduly expensive or prohibitive by
requiring the payment of a separate appeal docket fee for each incidental order questioned when the
resolution of all such incidental questioned orders involve basically one and the same main issue (in
this case, the existence of a separate estate of Linnie Jane Hodges) and can be more expeditiously
resolved or determined in a single special civil action" (for which a single docket fee is required) as
stated in the main opinion. 51 Considering the importance of the basic issues and the magnitude of
the estates involved, however, the writer has pro hac vice given his concurrence to the assessment
of the said thirty-one (31) additional appeal docket fees.
MAKALINTAL, C.J., concurring:
I concur in the separate opinion of Justice Teehankee, which in turn agrees with the dispositive
portion of the main opinion of Justice Barredo insofar as it dismisses the petition for certiorari and
prohibition in Cases L-27860 and L-27896 and affirms the appealed orders of the probate court in
cases L-27936-37.
However, I wish to make one brief observation for the sake of accuracy. Regardless of whether or
not C. N. Hodges was entitled to a legitime in his deceased wife's estate — which question, still to be
decided by the said probate court, may depend upon what is the law of Texas and upon its
applicability in the present case — the said estate consists of one-half, not one-fourth, of the
conjugal properties. There is neither a minimum of one-fourth nor a maximum beyond that. It is
important to bear this in mind because the estate of Linnie Hodges consists of her share in the
conjugal properties, is still under administration and until now has not been distributed by order of
the court.
The reference in both the main and separate opinions to a one-fourth portion of the conjugal
properties as Linnie Hodges' minimum share is a misnomer and is evidently meant only to indicate
that if her husband should eventually be declared entitled to a legitime, then the disposition made by
Linnie Hodges in favor of her collateral relatives would be valid only as to one-half of her share, or
one-fourth of the conjugal properties, since the remainder, which constitutes such legitime, would
necessarily go to her husband in absolute ownership, unburdened by any substitution, term or
condition, resolutory or otherwise. And until the estate is finally settled and adjudicated to the heirs
who may be found entitled to it, the administration must continue to cover Linnie's entire conjugal
share.
Footnotes
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-27952 February 15, 1982
TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, MARIA LUISA PALACIOS,

Administratrix, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
MARCELLE D. VDA. DE RAMIREZ, ET AL., oppositors, JORGE and ROBERTO
RAMIREZ, legatees, oppositors- appellants.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
The main issue in this appeal is the manner of partitioning the testate estate of Jose Eugenio
Ramirez among the principal beneficiaries, namely: his widow Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez; his
two grandnephews Roberto and Jorge Ramirez; and his companion Wanda de Wrobleski.
The task is not trouble-free because the widow Marcelle is a French who lives in Paris, while the
companion Wanda is an Austrian who lives in Spain. Moreover, the testator provided for
substitutions.
Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964, with only his widow
as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch
X, on July 27, 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios was appointed administratrix of the estate. In due time she
submitted an inventory of the estate as follows:
INVENTARIO
Una sexta parte (1/6) proindiviso de un te
rreno, con sus mejoras y edificaciones, situadoen
la Escolta, Manila............................................................. P500,000.00
Una sexta parte (1/6) proindiviso de dos
parcelas de terreno situadas en Antipolo, Rizal................... 658.34
Cuatrocientos noventa y uno (491) acciones
de la 'Central Azucarera de la Carlota a P17.00
por accion ................................................................................8,347.00
Diez mil ochocientos seize (10,806) acciones

de la 'Central Luzon Milling Co.', disuelta y en
liquidacion a P0.15 por accion ..............................................1,620.90
Cuenta de Ahorros en el Philippine Trust
Co.............................................................................................. 2,350.73
TOTAL.............................................................. P512,976.97
MENOS:
Deuda al Banco de las Islas Filipinas, garan-
tizada con prenda de las acciones de La Carlota ......... P 5,000,00
VALOR LIQUIDO........................................... P507,976.97
The testamentary dispositions are as follows:
A.—En nuda propiedad, a D. Roberto y D. Jorge Ramirez, ambas menores de edad,

residentes en Manila, I.F., calle 'Alright, No. 1818, Malate, hijos de su sobrino D.
Jose Ma. Ramirez, con sustitucion vulgar a favor de sus respectivos descendientes,
y, en su defecto, con sustitucion vulgar reciprocal entre ambos.
El precedente legado en nuda propiedad de la participacion indivisa de la finca

Santa Cruz Building, lo ordena el testador a favor de los legatarios nombrados, en
atencion a que dicha propiedad fue creacion del querido padre del otorgante y por
ser aquellos continuadores del apellido Ramirez,
B.—Y en usufructo a saber: —
a. En cuanto a una tercera parte, a favor de la esposa del testador, Da. Marcelle
Ramirez, domiciliada en IE PECO, calle del General Gallieni No. 33, Seine Francia,
con sustitucion vulgar u fideicomisaria a favor de Da. Wanda de Wrobleski, de Palma
de Mallorca, Son Rapina Avenida de los Reyes 13,
b.—Y en cuanto a las dos terceras partes restantes, a favor de la nombrada Da.
Wanda de Nrobleski con sustitucion vulgar v fideicomisaria a saber:—
En cuanto a la mitad de dichas dos terceras partes, a favor de D. Juan Pablo

Jankowski, de Son Rapina Palma de Mallorca; y encuanto a la mitad restante, a
favor de su sobrino, D. Horace V. Ramirez, San Luis Building, Florida St. Ermita,
Manila, I.F.
A pesar de las sustituciones fideiconiisarias precedentemente ordinadas, las

usufiructuarias nombradas conjuntamente con los nudo propietarios, podran en
cualquier memento vender a tercero los bienes objeto delegado, sin intervencion
alguna de los titulares fideicomisaarios.
On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows: the property of the
deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part shall go to the widow 'en pleno dominio" in
satisfaction of her legitime; the other part or "free portion" shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez "en
nuda propriedad." Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with the widow's
usufruct and the remaining two-thirds (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda.
Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition on the grounds: (a) that the provisions for vulgar
substitution in favor of Wanda de Wrobleski with respect to the widow's usufruct and in favor of Juan
Pablo Jankowski and Horacio V. Ramirez, with respect to Wanda's usufruct are invalid because the
first heirs Marcelle and Wanda) survived the testator; (b) that the provisions for fideicommissary
substitutions are also invalid because the first heirs are not related to the second heirs or substitutes
within the first degree, as provided in Article 863 of the Civil Code; (c) that the grant of a usufruct
over real property in the Philippines in favor of Wanda Wrobleski, who is an alien, violates Section 5,
Article III of the Philippine Constitution; and that (d) the proposed partition of the testator's interest in
the Santa Cruz (Escolta) Building between the widow Marcelle and the appellants, violates the
testator's express win to give this property to them Nonetheless, the lower court approved the project
of partition in its order dated May 3, 1967. It is this order which Jorge and Roberto have appealed to
this Court.
1. The widow's legitime.
The appellant's do not question the legality of giving Marcelle one-half of the estate in full ownership.
They admit that the testator's dispositions impaired his widow's legitime. Indeed, under Art. 900 of
the Civil Code "If the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to one-half of
the hereditary estate." And since Marcelle alone survived the deceased, she is entitled to one-half of
his estate over which he could impose no burden, encumbrance, condition or substitution of any kind
whatsoever. (Art. 904, par. 2, Civil Code.)
It is the one-third usufruct over the free portion which the appellants question and justifiably so. It
appears that the court a quo approved the usufruct in favor of Marcelle because the testament
provides for a usufruct in her favor of one-third of the estate. The court a quo erred for Marcelle who
is entitled to one-half of the estate "en pleno dominio" as her legitime and which is more than what
she is given under the will is not entitled to have any additional share in the estate. To give Marcelle
more than her legitime will run counter to the testator's intention for as stated above his dispositions
even impaired her legitime and tended to favor Wanda.
2. The substitutions.
It may be useful to recall that "Substitution is the appoint- judgment of another heir so that he may
enter into the inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted." (Art. 857, Civil Code. And that
there are several kinds of substitutions, namely: simple or common, brief or compendious,
reciprocal, and fideicommissary (Art. 858, Civil Code.) According to Tolentino, "Although the Code
enumerates four classes, there are really only two principal classes of substitutions: the simple and
the fideicommissary. The others are merely variations of these two." (111 Civil Code, p. 185 [1973].)
The simple or vulgar is that provided in Art. 859 of the Civil Code which reads:
ART. 859. The testator may designate one or more persons to substitute the heir or
heirs instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before him, or should not wish,
or should be incapacitated to accept the inheritance.
A simple substitution, without a statement of the cases to which it refers, shall
comprise the three mentioned in the preceding paragraph, unless the testator has
otherwise provided.
The fideicommissary substitution is described in the Civil Code as follows:
ART. 863. A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first heir
instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir
the whole or part of inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect, provided such
substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted, and
provided further that the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are living at time of
the death of the testator.
It will be noted that the testator provided for a vulgar substitution in respect of the legacies of
Roberto and Jorge Ramirez, the appellants, thus: con sustitucion vulgar a favor de sus respectivos
descendientes, y, en su defecto, con substitution vulgar reciprocal entre ambos.
The appellants do not question the legality of the substitution so provided. The appellants question
the sustitucion vulgar y fideicomisaria a favor de Da. Wanda de Wrobleski" in connection with the
one-third usufruct over the estate given to the widow Marcelle However, this question has become
moot because as We have ruled above, the widow is not entitled to any usufruct.
The appellants also question the sustitucion vulgar y fideicomisaria in connection with Wanda's
usufruct over two thirds of the estate in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace v. Ramirez.
They allege that the substitution in its vulgar aspect as void because Wanda survived the testator or
stated differently because she did not predecease the testator. But dying before the testator is not
the only case for vulgar substitution for it also includes refusal or incapacity to accept the inheritance
as provided in Art. 859 of the Civil Code, supra. Hence, the vulgar substitution is valid.
As regards the substitution in its fideicommissary aspect, the appellants are correct in their claim that
it is void for the following reasons:
(a) The substitutes (Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez) are not related to Wanda, the
heir originally instituted. Art. 863 of the Civil Code validates a fideicommissary substitution "provided
such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted."
What is meant by "one degree" from the first heir is explained by Tolentino as follows:
Scaevola Maura, and Traviesas construe "degree" as designation, substitution, or

transmission. The Supreme Court of Spain has decidedly adopted this construction.
From this point of view, there can be only one tranmission or substitution, and the
substitute need not be related to the first heir. Manresa, Morell and Sanchez Roman,
however, construe the word "degree" as generation, and the present Code has
obviously followed this interpretation. by providing that the substitution shall not go
beyond one degree "from the heir originally instituted." The Code thus clearly
indicates that the second heir must be related to and be one generation from the first
heir.
From this, it follows that the fideicommissary can only be either a child or a parent of
the first heir. These are the only relatives who are one generation or degree from the
fiduciary (Op. cit., pp. 193-194.)
(b) There is no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufruct to the substitutes as
required by Arts. 865 and 867 of the Civil Code. In fact, the appellee admits "that the testator
contradicts the establishment of a fideicommissary substitution when he permits the properties
subject of the usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement of the usufructuaries and the naked
owners." (Brief, p. 26.)
3. The usufruct of Wanda.
The appellants claim that the usufruct over real properties of the estate in favor of Wanda is void
because it violates the constitutional prohibition against the acquisition of lands by aliens.
The 1935 Constitution which is controlling provides as follows:
SEC. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be

transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified
to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines. (Art. XIII.)
The court a quo upheld the validity of the usufruct given to Wanda on the ground that the
Constitution covers not only succession by operation of law but also testamentary succession. We
are of the opinion that the Constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands does
not extend to testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and
meaningless. Any alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine
landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land.
This opinion notwithstanding, We uphold the usufruct in favor of Wanda because a usufruct, albeit a
real right, does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to land in favor
of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez is hereby ordered distributed
as follows:
One-half (1/2) thereof to his widow as her legitime;
One-half (1/2) thereof which is the free portion to Roberto and Jorge Ramirez in naked ownership
and the usufruct to Wanda de Wrobleski with a simple substitution in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski
and Horace V. Ramirez.
The distribution herein ordered supersedes that of the court a quo. No special pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., De Castro, Ericta and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Aquino J., took no part.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-31703 February 13, 1930
CARMEN G. DE PEREZ, trustee of the estate of Ana Maria Alcantara, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO, Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of
Manila,defendants-appellants.
L. D. Lockwood and Jose M. Casal for appellants.

Eduardo Gutierrez Repide and Leoncio B. Monzon for appellee.
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
The amount of P21,428.58 is on deposit in the plaintiff's name with the association known as La
Urbana in Manila, as the final payment of the liquidated credit of Ana Maria Alcantara, deceased,
whose heiress is said plaintiff, against Andres Garchitorena, also deceased, represented by his son,
the defendant Mariano Garchitorena.
And as said Mariano Garchitorena held a judgment for P7,872.23 against Joaquin Perez Alcantara,
husband of the plaintiff, Carmen G. de Perez, the sheriff pursuant to the writ of execution issued in
said judgment, levied an attachment on said amount deposited with La Urbana.
The plaintiff, alleging that said deposit belongs to the fideicommissary heirs of the decedent Ana
Maria Alcantara, secured a preliminary injunction restraining the execution of said judgment on the
sum so attached. The defendants contend that the plaintiff is the decedent's universal heiress, and
pray for the dissolution of the injunction.
The court below held that said La Urbana deposit belongs to the plaintiff's children as
fideicommissary heirs of Ana Maria Alcantara, and granted a final writ of injunction.
The defendants insist in their contentions, and, in their appeal from the decision of the trial court,
assign the following errors:
1. The lower court erred in holding that a trust was created by the will of Doña Ana Maria
Alcantara.
2. The lower court erred in concluding and declaring that the amount of P21,428.58
deposited with La Urbana is the property of the children of the plaintiff as "herederos fidei-
comisarios."
3. The lower court erred in making the injunction permanent and condemning defendant to
pay the costs.
The question here raised is confined to the scope and meaning of the institution of heirs made in the
will of the late Ana Maria Alcantara already admitted to probate, and whose legal force and effect is
not in dispute.
The clauses of said will relevant to the points in dispute, between the parties are the ninth, tenth, and
eleventh, quoted below:
Ninth. Being single and without any forced heir, to show my gratitude to my niece-in-law,
Carmen Garchitorena, of age, married to my nephew, Joaquin Perez Alcantara, and living in
this same house with me, I institute her as my sole and universal heiress to the remainder of
my estate after the payment of my debts and legacies, so that upon my death and after
probate of this will, and after the report of the committee on claims and appraisal has been
rendered and approved, she will receive from my executrix and properties composing my
hereditary estate, that she may enjoy them with God's blessing and my own.
Tenth. Should my heiress Carmen Garchitorena die, I order that my whole estate shall pass
unimpaired to her surviving children; and should any of these die, his share shall serve to
increase the portions of his surviving brothers (and sisters) by accretion, in such wise that my
estate shall never pass out of the hands of my heiress or her children in so far as it is legally
possible.
Eleventh. Should my aforesaid heiress, Carmen Garchitorena, die after me while her children
are still in their minority, I order that my estate be administered by my executrix, Mrs. Josefa
Laplana, and in her default, by Attorney Ramon Salinas and in his default, by his son Ramon
Salinas; but the direction herein given must not be considered as an indication of lack of
confidence in my nephew Joaquin Perez Alcantara, whom I relieve from the duties of
administering my estate, because I recognize that his character is not adapted to
management and administration.
The appellants contend that in these clauses the testatrix has ordered a simple substitution, while
the appellee contends that it is a fideicommissary substitution.
This will certainly provides for a substitution of heirs, and of the three cases that might give rise to a
simple substitution (art. 774, Civil Code), only the death of the instituted heiress before the testatrix
would in the instant case give place to such substitution, inasmuch as nothing is said of the waiver of
inheritance, or incapacity to accept it. As a matter of fact, however, clause XI provides for the
administration of the estate in case the heiress instituted should die after the testatrix and while the
substitute heirs are still under age. And it is evident that, considering the nature of simple
substitution by the heir's death before the testator, and the fact that by clause XI in connection with
clause X, the substitution is ordered where the heiress instituted dies after the testatrix, this cannot
be a case of simple substitution.
The existence of a substitution in the will is not and cannot be denied, and since it cannot be a
simple substitution in the light of the considerations above stated, let us now see whether the
instants case is a fideicommissary substitution.
In clause IX, the testatrix institutes the plaintiff herein her sole and universal heiress, and provides
that upon her death (the testatrix's) and after probate of the will and approval of the report of the
committee on claims and appraisal, said heiress shall receive and enjoy the whole hereditary estate.
Although this clause provides nothing explicit about substitution, it does not contain anything in
conflict with the idea of fideicommissary substitution. The fact that the plaintiff was instituted the sole
and universal heiress does not prevent her children from receiving, upon her death and in conformity
with the express desire of the testatrix, the latter's hereditary estate, as provided in the following
(above quoted) clauses which cannot be disregarded if we are to give a correct interpretation of the
will. The word sole does not necessarily exclude the idea of substitute heirs; and taking these three
clauses together, such word means that the plaintiff is the sole heiress instituted in the first instance.
The disposition contained in clause IX, that said heiress shall receive and enjoy the estate, is not
incompatible with a fideicommissary substitution (it certainly is incompatible with the idea of simple
substitution, where the heiress instituted does not receive the inheritance). In fact the enjoyment of
the inheritance is in conformity with the idea of fideicommissary substitution, by virtue of which the
heir instituted receives the inheritance and enjoys it, although at the same time he preserves it in
order to pass it on the second heir. On this point the illustrious Manresa, in his Civil Code (Vol. 6, pp.
142 and 143, 5th ed.), says:
Or, what amounts to the same thing, the fideicommissary substitution, as held in the
Resolution of June 25, 1895, February 10, 1899, and July 19, 1909, requires three things:
1. A first heir called primarily to the enjoyment of the estate.
2. An obligation clearly imposed upon him to preserve and transmit to a third person the
whole or a part of the estate.
3. A second heir.
To these requisites, the decision of November 18, 1918 adds another, namely that the
fideicommissarius be entitled to the estate from the time the testator dies, since he is to
inherit from the latter and not from the fiduciary. (Emphasis ours.)
It appears from this quotation that the heir instituted or the fiduciary, as referred to in articles 783 of
the Civil Code, is entitled to enjoy the inheritance. And it might here be observed, as a timely remark,
that the fideicommissum arising from a fideicommissary substitution, which is of Roman origin, is not
exactly equivalent to, nor may it be confused with, the English "trust."
It should also be noted that said clause IX vests in the heiress only the right to enjoy but not the right
to dispose of the estate. It says, she may enjoy it, but does not say she may dispose of it. This is an
indication of the usufruct inherent in fideicommissary substitution.
Clause X expressly provides for the substitution. It is true that it does not say whether the death of
the heiress herein referred to is before or after that of the testatrix; but from the whole context it
appears that in making the provisions contained in this clause X, the testatrix had in mind a
fideicommissary substitution, since she limits the transmission of her estate to the children of the
heiress by this provision, "in such wise that my estate shall never pass out of the hands of my
heiress or her children in so far as it is legally possible." Here it clearly appears that the testatrix tried
to avoid the possibility that the substitution might later be legally declared null for transcending the
limits fixed by article 781 of the Civil Code which prescribed that fideicommissary substitutions shall
be valid "provided they do not go beyond the second degree."
Another clear and outstanding indication of fideicommissary substitution in clause X is the provision
that the whole estate shall pass unimpaired to the heiress's children, that is to say the heiress is
required to preserve the whole estate, without diminution, in order to pass it on in due time to the
fideicommissary heirs. This provision complies with another of the requisites of fideicommissary
substitution according to our quotation from Manresa inserted above.
Lastly, clause XI more clearly indicates the idea of fideicommissary substitution, when a provision is
therein made in the event the heiress should die after the testatrix. That is, said clause anticipates
the case where the instituted heiress should die after the testatrix and after receiving and enjoying
the inheritance.
The foregoing leads us to the conclusion that all the requisites of a fideicommissary substitution,
according to the quotation from Manresa above inserted, are present in the case of substitution now
under consideration, to wit:
1. At first heir primarily called to the enjoyment of the estate. In this case the plaintiff was
instituted an heiress, called to the enjoyment of the estate, according to clause IX of the will.
2. An obligation clearly imposed upon the heir to preserve and transmit to a third person the
whole or a part of the estate. Such an obligation is imposed in clause X which provides that
the "whole estate shall pass unimpaired to her (heiress's) surviving children;" thus, instead of
leaving the heiress at liberty to dispose of the estate by will, or of leaving the law to take its
course in case she dies intestate, said clause not only disposes of the estate in favor of the
heiress instituted, but also provides for the disposition thereof in case she should die after
the testatrix.
3. A second heir. Such are the children of the heiress instituted, who are referred to as such
second heirs both in clause X and in clause XI.
Finally, the requisite added by the decision of November 18, 1918, to wit, that the fideicommissarius
or second heir should be entitled to the estate from the time of the testator's death, which in the
instant case, is, rather than a requisite, a necessary consequence derived from the nature of the
fideicommissary substitution, in which the second heir does not inherit from the heir first instituted,
but from the testator.
By virtue of this consequence, the inheritance in question does not belong to the heiress instituted,
the plaintiff herein, as her absolute property, but to her children, from the moment of the death of the
testatrix, Ana Maria Alcantara.
Therefore, said inheritance, of which the amount referred to at the beginning, which is on deposit
with the association known as La Urbana in the plaintiff's name, is a part, does not belong to her nor
can it be subject to the execution of the judgment against Joaquin Perez, who is not one of the
fideicommissary heirs.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant, Mariano Garchitorena. So
ordered.
Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Street, J., reserves his vote.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-13876 February 28, 1962
CONSOLACION FLORENTINO DE CRISOLOGO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees,

vs.
DR. MANUEL SINGSON, defendant-appellant.
Felix V. Vergara for defendant-appellant.
B. Martinez for plaintiffs-appellees.
DIZON, J.:
Action for partition commenced by the spouses Consolacion Florentino and Francisco Crisologo
against Manuel Singson in connection with a residential lot located a 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 Dña. 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.
Defendant's defense was that Consolacion Florentino was a mere usufructuary of, and not owner of
one-half pro-indiviso of the property in question, and that, therefore, she was not entitled to demand
partition thereof.
After trial upon the issue thus posed, the lower court rendered judgment as follows:
1. Declaring that the plaintiff is a co-owner pro-indiviso with the defendant of the house and
lot described in the complaint to the extent of each of an undivided 1/2 portion thereof; .
2. Ordering the aforesaid co-owners to execute an agreement of partition of the said property
within 30 days from receipt of this judgment unless it be shown that the division thereof may
render it unserviceable, in which case the provisions of Art. 498 of the New Civil Code may
be applied; .1äw phï1.ñët
3. That in the event the said parties shall fail to do so, this Court will appoint the
corresponding commissioners to make the partition in accordance with law; and .
4. Without special pronouncement as to costs." .
From the above judgment, defendant Singson appealed.
It is admitted that Dña. 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.
Clause IX of her last will reads as follows: .
NOVENO. — Ordeno que se de a mi nieta por parte de mi hermana mia y que al mismo
tiempo vive en mi casa, y, por tanto, bajo mi proteccion, y es la CONSOLACION
FLORENTINO: —
(A). La mitad de mi casa de materials fuertes con techo de hierro galvanizado, incluyendo la
mitad de su solar, ubicado en la Poblacion de Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Calle Plaridel, actualmente
arrendada por los hermanos Fortunato, Teofilo y Pedro del appellido Kairuz. Pero si
falleciere antes o despues que yo mi citada nieta, esta propiedad se dara por partes iguales
entre mis tres hermanos Evaristo, Manuel y Dionisio, o a sus herederos forzosos en el caso
de que alguno de ellas murieie antes ... (Exhibit F.)
The issue to be decided is whether the testamentary disposition above-quoted provided for what is
called sustitucion vulgar or for a sustitucion fideicomisaria. This issue is, we believe, controlled by
the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code in force in the Philippines prior to the effectivity of the New
Civil Code, in view of the fact that the testatrix died on January 13, 1948. They are the following: .
Art. 774. The testator may designate one or more persons to substitute the heir or heirs
instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before him, or should not wish or should be
unable to accept the inheritance.
A simple substitution, without a statement of the cases to which it is to apply, shall include
the three mentioned in the next preceeding paragraph, unless the testator has otherwise
provided:
Art. 781. Fidei-commissary substitutions by virtue of which the heir is charged to preserve
and transmit to a third person the whole or part of the inheritance shall be valid and effective,
provided they do not go beyond the second degree, or that they are made in favor of persons
living at the time of the death of the testator." .
Art. 785. The following shall be inoperative: .
1. Fiduciary substitutions not made expressly, either by giving them this name or by imposing
upon the fiduciary the absolute obligation of delivering the property to a second heir." ....
In accordance with the first legal provision quoted above, the testator may not only designate the
heirs who will succeed him upon his death, but also provide for substitutes in the event that said
heirs do not accept or are in no position to accept the inheritance or legacies, or die ahead of him.
The testator may also bequeath his properties to a particular person with the obligation, on the part
of the latter, to deliver the same to another person, totally or partially, upon the occurrence of a
particular event (6 Manresa, p. 1112).
It is clear that the particular testamentary clause under consideration provides for a substitution of
the heir named therein in this manner: that upon the death of Consolacion Florentino — whether this
occurs before or after that of the testatrix — the property bequeathed to her shall be delivered ("se
dara") or shall belong in equal parts to the testatrix's three brothers, Evaristo, Manuel and Dionisio,
or their forced heirs, should anyone of them die ahead of Consolacion Florentino. If this clause
created what is known as sustitucion vulgar, the necessary result would be that Consolacion
Florentino, upon the death of the testatrix, became the owner of one undivided half of the property,
but if it provided for a sustitution fideicomisaria, she would have acquired nothing more than
usufructuary rights over the same half. In the former case, she would undoubtedly be entitled to
partition, but not in the latter. As Manresa says, if the fiduciary did not acquire full ownership of the
property bequeathed by will, but mere usufructuary rights thereon until the time came for him to
deliver said property to the fideicomisario, it is obvious that the nude ownership over the property,
upon the death of the testatrix, passed to and was acquired by another person, and the person
cannot be other than the fideicomisario (6 Manresa p. 145).
It seems to be of the essence of a fideicommissary substitution that an obligation be clearly imposed
upon the first heir to preserve and transmit to another the whole or part of the estate bequeathed to
him, upon his death or upon the happening of a particular event. For this reason, Art. 785 of the old
Civil Code provides that a fideicommissary substitution shall have no effect unless it is made
expressly ("de una manera expresa") either by giving it such name, or by imposing upon the first heir
the absolute obligation ("obligacion terminante") to deliver the inheritance to a substitute or second
heir. In this connection Manresa says: .
Para que la sustitucion sea fideicomisaria, es preciso segun el art. 781, que se ordeno o
encargue al primer heredero, cuando sea tal, que conserve y transmita a una tercera
persona o entidad el todo a parte de la herencia. O lo que es lo mismo, la sustitucion
fideicomisaria, como declaran las resoluciones de 25 de Junio de 1895, 10 de Febrero de
1899 y 19 de Julio de 1909, exige tres requisitos: .
1.o Un primer heredero llamado al goce de los bienes preferentemente.
2.o Obligacion claramente impuesta al mismo de conservar y transmitir a un tercero el todo

o parte del caudal.
3.o Un segundo heredero.
A estos requisitos anade la sentencia de 18 de Noviembre de 1918, otro mas, el del que el
fideicomisario tenga derecho a los bienes de la herencia desde el momento de la muerte del
testador, puesto que ha de suceder a este y no al fiduciario.
Por tanto, cuando el causante se limita a instituir dos herederos, y por fallecimiento de
ambos o de cualquiera de ellos, asigna la parte del fallecido o fallecidos, a los herederos
legitimos o a otras personas, solo existe una sustitucion vulgar, porque falta el requisito de
haberse impuesto a los primeros herederos la obligacion de conservar y transmitir los
bienes, y el articulo 789, en su parrafo primero, evige que la sustitucion sea expresa, ya
dandole el testador el nombre de sustitucion fideicomisaria, ya imponiendo al sustituido la
obligacion terminante de conservar y transmitir los bienes a un segundo heredero.
A careful perusal of the testamentary clause under consideration shows that the substitution of heirs
provided for therein 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.
In the light of the foregoing, we believe, and so hold, that the last will of the deceased Dña. 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.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealed judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and
De Leon, JJ., concur.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 45425 March 27, 1992
CELSA L. VDA. DE KILAYKO, ENCARNACION L. VDA. DE PANLILIO and REMEDIOS L. VDA.

DE GUINTO, petitioners,
vs.
HON. JUDGE ERNESTO TENGCO of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental,
Bacolod City, Branch IV and RODOLFO LIZARES and AMELO LIZARES, as Judicial
Administrators of the Estate of the late EUSTAQUIA LIZARES, respondents.
G.R. No. 45965 March 27, 1992
ROLDOFO LIZARES and AMELO LIZARES, as Judicial Administrators of the ESTATE OF

EUSTAQUIA LIZARES, petitioners,
vs.
HON. JUDGE ERNESTO TENGCO, CELSA L. VDA. DE KILAYKO, ENCARNACION L. VDA. DE
PANLILIO and REMEDIOS VDA. DE GUINTO, respondents.
ROMERO, J.:
These consolidated cases seek to annul the orders 1 dated September 20, 1976, January 7, 1977
and January 31, 1977 of the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch, IV
respectively, cancelling the notice of lis pendens filed by Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al. with the
Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental, denying the motion for reconsideration of the order dated
September 20, 1976 filed by Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al., and holding in abeyance the resolution
of defendants' motion to dismiss.
The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:
On November 20, 1962, the late Maria Lizares y Alunan executed a "Testamento" 2 which contains
among its provisions, the following:
DECIMA — Asimismo, ordeno y dispongo que mi participacion consistente en una

tercera parte (1/3) de una catorce (1/14) avas partes proindivisas de la Hda.
Minuluan, que he adquirido mediante permuta de mi hermano Dr. Antonio A. Lizares,
se adjudique, como por el presente se adjudica, a mi sobrina Eustaquia Lizares;
ENTENDIENDOSE, sin embargo, que en el caso de que mi citada sobrina Eustaquia
Lizares muera soltera o sin descendientes legitimos, mi referida participacion en la
Hda. Minuluan se adjudicara a mi hermano Antonio A. Lizares que me sobrevivan.
UNDECIMA — Tambien ordeno y dispongo que el resto de todas mis propiendades,

incluyendo mis participaciones, derechos e intereses (no dispuestos mas arriba) an
las Haciendas "Minuluan" (Lotes Nos. 439, 403, 1273, 1274, 1278, 1279 y 1280 del
Catastro de Talisay, Negros Occidental), y "Matab-ang" (Lotes Nos. 514, 550, 552,
553 y 1287-C del Catastrado de Talisay, Negros Occidental), situadas en el
Municipio de Talisay, Provincia de Negros Occidental, I.F., el resto de mis acciones
en la Central Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. (unas 2,860 acciones) y de la Financing
Corporation of the Philippines (unas 53,636 acciones), registradas a mi nombre y no
heredadas de mi difunta madre Dña. Enrica A. Vda. de Lizares, mis acciones en la
Central Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., Negros Navigation Co. y otras Compañas
Mineras, y todos los demas bienes no mencionados en este testamento y que me
pertenezcan en la fecha de mi muerte, se adjudiquen, como por el presente
adjudico, a mi sobrina Srta. Eusaquia Lizares, hija de mi difunto hermano Don
Simplicio Lizares cuidados que mi citada sobrina me ha prestado y signe
prestandome hasta ahora. Ordeno, sin embargo, a mi referida sobrina, Srta.
Eustaquia Lizares, que ella se haga cargo de pagar todas las obligaciones que tengo
y que gravan sobre las propriedades adjudicadas a la misma. Asimismo ordeno a mi
citada sobrina que ella mande celebrar una Misa Gregoriana cada año en sufragio
de mi alma, y misas ordinarias en sufragio de las almas de mi difunto Padre y de mi
difunta Madre, el 6 de Marzo y 17 de Deciembre de cada año, respectivamente, y
mande celebrar todos los años la fiesta de San Jose en Talisay como lo hago hasta
ahora. En el caso de que mi citada sobrina, Srta. Eustaquia Lizares, falleciere sin
dejar descendientes legitimos, ordeno y dispongo que mi participacion consistente
en una sexta parte (1/6) de la Hda. Matab-ang, con su correspondiente cuota de
azucar y otros mejoras, se adjudique a mis hermanas y hermano antes mencionados
y que me sobrevivan (Emphasis supplied)
On January 28, 1968, Maria Lizares y Alunan died without any issue leaving said "testamento" in the
possession and custody of her niece, Eustquia Lizares.3 On February 6, 1968, Eustaquia filed a
petition for the settlement of the testate estate of Maria Lizares y Alunan, before the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch IV, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 8452. 4
The required publication of the notice of hearing of the petition having been made, in due course, the
probate court issued an order declaring the will probated and appointing Eustaquia as the executrix
of the estate of Maria Lizares. 5
On July 10, 1968, Eustaquia filed a project of partition 6 which was granted by the probate court in an
order dated January 8, 1971. Simultaneously, said court declared the heirs, devisees, legatees and
usufructuaries mentioned in the project of partition as the only heirs, devisees, legatees and
usufructuaries of the estate; adjudicated to them the properties repectively assigned to each and
every one of them, and ordered the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental and Bacolod City to
effect the corresponding transfer of the real properties to said heirs as well as the transfer of shares,
stocks, and dividends in different corporations, companies and partnerships in the name of Maria
Lizares to the heirs and legatees, and the closure of the testate proceedings of Maria Lizares. 7
Thereafter, Eustaquia filed an urgent motion to reopen the testate proceedings in order that some
properties of Maria Lizares which had been omitted in the partition be adjudicated to her. 8 The Court
granted the motion and correspondingly reopened the testate proceedings. It adjudicated to Eustaquia certain shares of stocks, a revolving
fund certificate, plantation credits and sugar quota allocations, and real or personal properties of Maria Lizares which were not given by her
to any other person in her last will and testament. 9
On November 28, 1972, the heirs of Maria Lizares, namely: Encarnacion L. Vda. de Panlilio,
Remedios L. Vda. de Guinto, Felicidad Paredes Llopez, Rosario Paredes Mendoza and Eustaquia
Lizares executed an agreement of partition and subdivision, thereby terminating their co-ownership
over Lots Nos. 550, 514, 553, 1287-C of plan SWO-7446, and 552, all of the Cadastral Survey of
Talisay covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-65004, T-65005; T-65006, T-65007, and T-
65008. 10
A year later or on November 23, 1973, Eustquia Lizares died single without any descendant. 11 In
due time, Rodolfo Lizares and Amelo Lizares were appointed joint administrators of Eustquia's
intestate estate.
On the strength of the testamentary provisions contained in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the will of
Maria Lizares, which were allegedly in the nature of a simple substitution, Celsa Vda. de Kilayko,
Encarnacion Vda. de Panlilio, and Remedios Vda. de Guinto (hereinafter collectively referred to as
Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al.) filed a motion in Special Proceedings No. 8452 to reopen once
again the testate estate proceedings of Maria Lizares. They prayed among others that a substitute
administrator be appointed; that the order dated January 8, 1971 be reconsidered and amended by
declaring them as heirs to 1/3 of 1/14 of Hda. Minuluan and to 1/6 of Hda. Matab-ang, both of which
form an aggregate area of 33 hectares; that the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental, after such
amendment, be ordered to register at the back of their respective certificates of title, the order of
probate and a "declaration" that movants are the heirs of said properties, and correspondingly issue
new certificates of title in their names. 12
Two (2) sets of intestate heirs of the deceased Eustaquia Lizares namely: Socorro L. Vda. de
Escario, Rodolfo Lizares, Mario Lizares, Lucrecia Gustilo, and Aurora Lizares Wagner opposed the
aforesaid motion. They alleged that the court had no more jurisdiction to reopen the testate estate
proceedings of Maria Lizares as the order of closure had long become final and that the
testamentary provisions sought to be enforced are null and void.13
On April 6, 1974, the Court issued an order denying the motion to reopen the testate proceedings
and holding that inasmuch as the settlement of an estate is a proceeding in rem, the judgment
therein is binding against the whole world. It observed that inspite of the fact that the movants knew
that the court had jurisdiction over them, they did not take part in the proceedings nor did they
appeal the order of January 8, 1971. Thus, the court concluded, even if the said order was
erroneous, and since the error was not jurisdictional, the same could have been corrected only by a
regular appeal. The period for filing a motion for reconsideration having expired, the court opined
that the movants could have sought relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, but
unfortunately for the movants, the period for filing such remedy had also elapsed. 14
Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al. then filed a motion for reconsideration of said order. It was denied on
June 17, 1974. 15 Hence, on October 14, 1974, the said movants filed a complaint for recovery of
ownership and possession of real property against the joining administrators of the estate of
Eustaquia Lizares, Rodolfo and Amelo Lizares. It was docketed as Civil Case No. 11639 with the
then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch IV. 16 On the same date, they availed of
their rights under Rule 14, Section 24 of Rules of Court
by filing a notice of lis pendens with the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental. 17
As duly appointed judicial joint administrators of the estate of the late Eustaquia Lizares, Rodolfo
Lizares and Amelo Lizares (the joint administrators for brevity), filed a motion to dismiss alleging that
the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the case; the cause of action was
barred by prior judgment, and the complaint stated no cause of action. 18 This motion was opposed
by the plaintiffs.
On January 23, 1975, the joint administrators filed a motion for the cancellation of the notice of lis
pendens on the contentions that there existed exceptional circumstances which justified the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendensand that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs. 19 The
latter opposed said motion. The defendants having filed a reply thereto, the plaintiffs filed a rejoinder
reiterating their arguments in their opposition to the motion for cancellation of notice of lis pendens. 20
On September 20, 1976, respondent judge issued an order granting the motion for cancellation of
notice of lis pendens. 21 The court simultaneously held in abeyance the resolution of the motion to
dismiss the complaint.
The joint administrators filed the answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 11639. 22 Thereafter, they
filed a motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses. 23 Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al.
vigorously opposed said motion. 24
On November 3, 1976, Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al. filed a motion praying for the reconsideration
of the order dated September 20, 1976. 25 The joint administrators having filed an opposition
thereto, 26 on January 7, 1977 the lower court denied the aforesaid motion for reconsideration. 27 It
held that while a notice of lis pendens would serve as notice to strangers that a particular property
was under litigation, its annotation upon the certificates of title to the properties involved was not
necessary because such properties, being in custodia legis, could not just be alienated without the
approval of the court. Moreover, the court added, a notice of lis pendens would prejudice any effort
of the estate to secure crop loans which were necessary for the viable cultivation and production of
sugar to which the properties were planted.
Upon receipt of a copy of said order, Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al. filed in this Court a motion for
extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari. Docketed as G.R No. L-45425, the petition
contends that the grounds of lis pendens, namely, that the properties are in custodia legis and the
lending institutions would not grant crop loans to the estate, are not the legal grounds provided for
under Sec. 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court for the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens.
Meanwhile, on January 31, 1977, the lower court issued an order stating that since on September
21, 1976 it had held in abeyance the resolution of the motion to dismiss, it was also proper to
suspend the resolution of the affirmative defenses interposed by the defendants until after trial on
the merits of the case. Accordingly, the court set the date of pre-trial for March 24, 1977. 28
On April 13, 1977, the joint administrators filed before this Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition
and/or mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It was docketed as G.R. No. L-
45965. Petitioners contend that the lower court had no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 11639 as it
involves the interpretation of the will of Maria Lizares, its implementation and/or the adjudication of
her properties. They assert that the matter had been settled in Special Proceedings No. become
final and unappealable long before the complaint in Civil Case No. 8452 which had become final and
unappealable long before the complaint in Civil Case No. 11639 was filed, and therefore, the cause
of action in the latter case was barred by the principle of res judicata. They aver that the claim of
Celsa, Encarnacion and Remedios, sisters of Maria Lizares, over the properties left by their niece
Eustaquia and which the latter had inherited by will from Maria Lizares, was groundless because
paragraphs 10 and 11 of Maria's will on which Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al. base their claim,
conceived of a fideicommissary substitution of heirs. Petitioners contend that said provisions of the
will are not valid because under Article 863 of the Civil code, they constitute an invalid
fideicommissary substitution of heirs.
On April 26, 1977, this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the lower court from
further proceeding with the trial of Civil Case No. 11639. 29 After both G.R. Nos. L-45425 and L-
45965 had been given due course and submitted for decision, on January 20, 1986, the two cases
were consolidated.
The petition in G.R. No. L-45965 is impressed with merit.
In testate succession, there can be no valid partition among the heirs until after the will has been
probated. 30 The law enjoins the probate of a will and the public requires it, because unless a will is
probated and notice thereof given to the whole world, the right of a person to dispose of his property
by will may be rendered nugatory. 31 The authentication of a will decides no other question than such
as touch upon the capacity of the testator and the compliance with those requirements or
solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of a will. 32
Pertinent to the issue interposed by the petitioners in G.R. No. L-45965 is Section 1, Rule 90 of the
Rules of Court which reads:
Sec. 1. When order for distribution of residue made. — When the debts, funeral
charges, and expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow, and
inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have been
paid, the court, on application of the executor or administrator, or of a person
interested in the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue of the
estate to the persons entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions or parts,
to which each is entitled, and such persons may demand and recover their
respective shares from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the
same in his possession. If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the
lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each
person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in
ordinary cases.
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above-mentioned

has been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them give a bond,
in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations
within such time as the court directs.
Applying this rule, in the cases of De Jesus v. Daza, 33 and Torres v. Encarnacion, 34 the Court said:
. . . (T)he probate court, having the custody and control of the entire estate, is the
most logical authority to effectuate this provision, within the estate proceeding, said
proceeding being the most convenient one in which this power and function of the
court can be exercised and performed without the necessity of requiring the parties
to undergo the incovenience and litigate an entirely different action.
Some decisions of the Court pertinent to the issue that the probate court has the jurisdiction to settle
the claims of an heir and the consequent adjudication of the properties, are worth mentioning. In the
cases of Arroyo v. Gerona, 35and Benedicto v. Javellana, 36 this Court said:
. . . any challenge to the validity of a will, any objection to the authentication thereof,
and every demand or claim which any heir, legatee or party interested in a testate or
intestate succession may make, must be acted upon and decided within the same
special proceedings, not in a separate action, and the same judge having jurisdiction
in the administration of the estate shall take cognizance of the question raised,
inasmuch as when the day comes he will be called upon to make distribution and
adjudication of the property to the interested parties. . . . (Emphasis supplied)
The probate court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to distribute the estate, has the power to
determine the proportion or parts to which each distributee is entitled . . .. 37 A project of partition is
merely a proposal for the distribution of the heredity estate which the court may accept or reject. It is
the court that makes that distribution of the estate and determines the persons entitled thereto. 38
In the instant case, the records will show that in the settlement of the testate estate of Maria Lizares,
the executrix, Eustaquia Lizares submitted on January 8, 1971, a project of partition in which the
parcels of land, subject matters of the complaint for reconveyance, were included as property of the
estate and assigned exclusively to Eustaquia as a devisee of Maria Lizares. In accordance with said
project of partition which was approved by the probate court, Encarnacion Lizares Vda. de Panlilio,
Remedios Lizares Vda. de Guinto, Felicidad Paredes Llopez, Rosario Paredes Mendoza and
Eustaquia Lizares executed an Agreement of Partition and Subdivision on November 28, 1972,
whereby they agreed to terminate their co-ownership over Lots Nos. 550, 514, 553, 1287-C of SWO-
7446 and 552 covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-65004, T-65005, T-65006, T-65007
and T-65008. These facts taken altogether show that the Lizares sisters recognized the decree of
partition sanctioned by the probate court and in fact reaped the fruits thereof.
Hence, they are now precluded from attacking the validity of the partition or any part of it in the guise
of a complaint for reconveyance. A party cannot, in law and in good conscience be allowed to reap
the fruits of a partition, agreement or judgment and repudiate what does not suit him. 39 Thus, where
a piece of land has been included in a partition and there is no allegation that the inclusion was
affected through improper means or without petitioner's knowledge, the partition barred any further
litigation on said title and operated to bring the property under the control and jurisdiction of the court
for its proper disposition according to the tenor of the partition. 40 The question of private respondents
title over the lots in question has been concluded by the partition and became a closed matter.
The admission made by Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al. in their complaint, Civil Case No. 11639, that
Eustaquia had been in possession of the questioned lots since March 2, 1971 up to the time of her
death indicates that the distribution pursuant to the decree of partition has already been carried out.
Moreover, it cannot be denied that when Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al. moved for the reopening of
the testate estate proceedings of Maria Lizares, the judicial decree of partition and order of closure
of such proceedings was already final and executory, then reglementary period of thirty (30) days
having elapsed from the time of its issuance, with no timely appeal having been filed by them.
Therefore, they cannot now be permitted to question the adjudication of the properties left by will of
Maria Lizares, by filing an independent action for the reconveyance of the very same properties
subject of such partition.
A final decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests the title to the land of the
estate in the distributees. If the decree is erroneous, it should be corrected by opportune appeal, for
once it becomes final, its binding effect is like any other judgment in rem, unless properly set aside
for lack of jurisdiction or fraud. Where the court has validly issued a decree of distribution and the
same has become final, the validity or invalidity of the project of partition becomes irrelevant. 41
It is a fundamental concept in the origin of every jural system, a principle of public policy, that at the
risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some definite time fixed by
law, interest rei publicae ut finis sit litum. "The very object of which the courts were constituted was
to put an end to controversies." 42 The only instance where a party interested in a probate proceeding
may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason of circumstances beyond his
control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to negligence. Even then, the better
practice to secure relief is the opening of the same by proper motion within the reglementary period,
instead of an independent action, the effect of which if successful, would be for another court or
judge to throw out a decision or order already final and executed and reshuffle properties long ago
distributed and disposed of. 43
The fundamental principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata rests is that parties ought not to be
permitted to litigate the same issue more than once, that, when a right or fact has been judicially
tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been
given, the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the
parties and those in privity with them in law or estate. 44
All the requisites for the existence of res judicata are present. Thus, the order approving the
distribution of the estate of Maria Lizares to the heirs instituted in said will has become final and
unappealable; the probate court that rendered judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter and
over the parties; the judgment or orders had been rendered on the merits; the special proceedings
for the settlement of the estate of Maria Lizares was a proceeding in rem that was directed against
the whole world including Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al., so that it can be said that there is a
similarity of parties in Special Proceedings No. 8452 and Civil Case No. 11639, the judicial
administrators of Eustaquia being privy to Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al.; there is identity of subject
matter involved in both actions, namely, the properties left by Maria Lizares; there is identity of
causes of action because in the first action there was a declaration of the probate court in its order
dated April 6, 1974 that although the testatrix intended a fideicommissary substitution in paragraphs
10 and 11 of her will, the substitution can have no effect because the requisites for it to be valid, had
not been satisfied. 45
Granting that res judicata has not barred the institution of Civil Case No. 11639, the contention of
Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al. that they are conditional substitute heirs of Eustaquia in the testate
estate of Maria Lizares 46 is not meritorious. While the allegation of the joint administrators that
paragraphs 10 and 11 of Maria Lizares' last will and testament conceives of a fideicommissary
substitution under Article 863 of the Civil Code is also baseless as said paragraphs do not impose
upon Eustaquia a clear obligation to preserve the estate in favor of Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al.,
neither may said paragraphs be considered as providing for a vulgar or simple substitution.
It should be remembered that when a testator merely names an heir and provides that if such heir
should die a second heir also designated shall succeed, there is no fideicommissary substitution.
The substitution should then be construed as a vulgar or simple substitution under Art. 859 of the
Civil Code but it shall be effective only if the first heir dies before the testator. 47 In this case, the
instituted heir, Eustaquia, survived the testatrix, Maria Lizares. Hence, there can be no substitution
of heirs for, upon Maria Lizares' death, the properties involved unconditionally devolved upon
Eustaquia. Under the circumstances, the sisters of Maria Lizares could only inherit the estate of
Eustaquia by operation of the law of intestacy.
With respect to the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens on the properties involved, there is no
merit in the contention of Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al., that the lower court acted contrary to law
and/or gravely abused its discretion in cancelling the notice of lis pendens. The cancellation of such
a precautionary notice, being a mere incident in an action, may be ordered by the court having
jurisdiction over it at any given time. 48 Under Sec. 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, a notice of lis
pendens may be cancelled "after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the
adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be
recorded." 49 In this case, the lower court ordered the cancellation of said notice on the principal
reason that the administrators of the properties involved are subject to the supervision of the court
and the said properties are under custodia legis. Therefore, such notice was not necessary to
protect the rights of Celsa L. Vda. de Kilayko, et al. More so in this case where it turned out that their
claim to the properties left by Eustaquia is without any legal basis.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari in L-45425 is hereby DENIED but the petition
for certiorari and prohibition and/or mandamus in L-45965 is GRANTED. The temporary restraining
order of April 26, 1977 which was issued by the Court in L-45965 is made PERMANENT. Costs
against the petitioners in L-45425.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., is on leave.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 113725 June 29, 2000
JOHNNY S. RABADILLA,1 petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND MARIA MARLENA2 COSCOLUELLA Y BELLEZA
VILLACARLOS, respondents.
DECISION
PURISIMA, J.:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,3 dated December 23, 1993, in
CA-G.R. No. CV-35555, which set aside the decision of Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court in
Bacolod City, and ordered the defendants-appellees (including herein petitioner), as heirs of Dr.
Jorge Rabadilla, to reconvey title over Lot No. 1392, together with its fruits and interests, to the
estate of Aleja Belleza.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
predecessor-in-interest of the herein petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of
511, 855 square meters of that parcel of land surveyed as Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre.
The said Codicil, which was duly probated and admitted in Special Proceedings No. 4046 before the
then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, contained the following provisions:
"FIRST
I give, leave and bequeath the following property owned by me to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla resident of
141 P. Villanueva, Pasay City:
(a) Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-
4002 (10942), which is registered in my name according to the records of the Register of
Deeds of Negros Occidental.
(b) That should Jorge Rabadilla die ahead of me, the aforementioned property and the rights
which I shall set forth hereinbelow, shall be inherited and acknowledged by the children and
spouse of Jorge Rabadilla.
xxx
FOURTH
(a)....It is also my command, in this my addition (Codicil), that should I die and Jorge Rabadilla shall
have already received the ownership of the said Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002 (10942), and also at the time that the lease of Balbinito G.
Guanzon of the said lot shall expire, Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, every
year to give to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, Seventy (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and
Twenty Five (25) piculs of Domestic sugar, until the said Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza dies.
FIFTH
(a) Should Jorge Rabadilla die, his heir to whom he shall give Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002 (10492), shall have the obligation to still give
yearly, the sugar as specified in the Fourth paragraph of his testament, to Maria Marlina Coscolluela
y Belleza on the month of December of each year.
SIXTH
I command, in this my addition (Codicil) that the Lot No. 1392, in the event that the one to whom I
have left and bequeathed, and his heir shall later sell, lease, mortgage this said Lot, the buyer,
lessee, mortgagee, shall have also the obligation to respect and deliver yearly ONE HUNDRED
(100) piculs of sugar to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, on each month of December,
SEVENTY FIVE (75) piculs of Export and TWENTY FIVE (25) piculs of Domestic, until Maria Marlina
shall die, lastly should the buyer, lessee or the mortgagee of this lot, not have respected my
command in this my addition (Codicil), Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, shall immediately seize
this Lot No. 1392 from my heir and the latter's heirs, and shall turn it over to my near desendants,
(sic) and the latter shall then have the obligation to give the ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar
until Maria Marlina shall die. I further command in this my addition (Codicil) that my heir and his heirs
of this Lot No. 1392, that they will obey and follow that should they decide to sell, lease, mortgage,
they cannot negotiate with others than my near descendants and my sister."4
Pursuant to the same Codicil, Lot No. 1392 was transferred to the deceased, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 44498 thereto issued in his name.
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife Rufina and children Johnny
(petitioner), Aurora, Ofelia and Zenaida, all surnamed Rabadilla.
On August 21, 1989, Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza Villacarlos brought a complaint, docketed
as Civil Case No. 5588, before Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City, against the
above-mentioned heirs of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, to enforce the provisions of subject Codicil. The
Complaint alleged that the defendant-heirs violated the conditions of the Codicil, in that:
1. Lot No. 1392 was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank and the Republic Planters
Bank in disregard of the testatrix's specific instruction to sell, lease, or mortgage only to the
near descendants and sister of the testatrix.
2. Defendant-heirs failed to comply with their obligation to deliver one hundred (100) piculs of
sugar (75 piculs export sugar and 25 piculs domestic sugar) to plaintiff Maria Marlena
Coscolluela y Belleza from sugar crop years 1985 up to the filing of the complaint as
mandated by the Codicil, despite repeated demands for compliance.
3. The banks failed to comply with the 6th paragraph of the Codicil which provided that in
case of the sale, lease, or mortgage of the property, the buyer, lessee, or mortgagee shall
likewise have the obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar per crop year to herein private
respondent.
The plaintiff then prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant-heirs to reconvey/return-Lot
No. 1392 to the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza, the cancellation of TCT No. 44498 in the
name of the deceased, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the
names of the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza.
On February 26, 1990, the defendant-heirs were declared in default but on March 28, 1990 the
Order of Default was lifted, with respect to defendant Johnny S. Rabadilla, who filed his Answer,
accordingly.
During the pre-trial, the parties admitted that:
On November 15, 1998, the plaintiff (private respondent) and a certain 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 on the obligation to
deliver one hundred piculs of sugar, to the following effect:
"That for crop year 1988-89, the annuity mentioned in Entry No. 49074 of TCT No. 44489 will be
delivered not later than January of 1989, more specifically, to wit:
75 piculs of 'A' sugar, and 25 piculs of 'B' sugar, or then existing in any of our names, Mary Rose
Rabadilla y Azurin or Alan Azurin, during December of each sugar crop year, in Azucar Sugar
Central; and, this is considered compliance of the annuity as mentioned, and in the same manner
will compliance of the annuity be in the next succeeding crop years.
That the annuity above stated for crop year 1985-86, 1986-87, and 1987-88, will be complied in cash
equivalent of the number of piculs as mentioned therein and which is as herein agreed upon, taking
into consideration the composite price of sugar during each sugar crop year, which is in the total
amount of ONE HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P105,000.00).
That the above-mentioned amount will be paid or delivered on a staggered cash installment, payable
on or before the end of December of every sugar crop year, to wit:
For 1985-86, TWENTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (P26,250.00) Pesos, payable on
or before December of crop year 1988-89;
or before December of crop year 1989-90;
or before December of crop year 1990-91; and
or before December of crop year 1991-92."5
However, there was no compliance with the aforesaid Memorandum of Agreement except for a
partial delivery of 50.80 piculs of sugar corresponding to sugar crop year 1988 -1989.
On July 22, 1991, the Regional Trial Court came out with a decision, dismissing the complaint and
disposing as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in the light of the aforegoing findings, the Court finds that the action is prematurely
filed as no cause of action against the defendants has as yet arose in favor of plaintiff. While there
maybe the non-performance of the command as mandated exaction from them simply because they
are the children of Jorge Rabadilla, the title holder/owner of the lot in question, does not warrant the
filing of the present complaint. The remedy at bar must fall. Incidentally, being in the category as
creditor of the left estate, it is opined that plaintiff may initiate the intestate proceedings, if only to
establish the heirs of Jorge Rabadilla and in order to give full meaning and semblance to her claim
under the Codicil.
In the light of the aforegoing findings, the Complaint being prematurely filed is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED."6
On appeal by plaintiff, the First Division of the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial
court; ratiocinating and ordering thus:
"Therefore, the evidence on record having established plaintiff-appellant's right to receive 100 piculs
of sugar annually out of the produce of Lot No. 1392; defendants-appellee's obligation under Aleja
Belleza's codicil, as heirs of the modal heir, Jorge Rabadilla, to deliver such amount of sugar to
plaintiff-appellant; defendants-appellee's admitted non-compliance with said obligation since 1985;
and, the punitive consequences enjoined by both the codicil and the Civil Code, of seizure of Lot No.
1392 and its reversion to the estate of Aleja Belleza in case of such non-compliance, this Court
deems it proper to order the reconveyance of title over Lot No. 1392 from the estates of Jorge
Rabadilla to the estate of Aleja Belleza. However, plaintiff-appellant must institute separate
proceedings to re-open Aleja Belleza's estate, secure the appointment of an administrator, and
distribute Lot No. 1392 to Aleja Belleza's legal heirs in order to enforce her right, reserved to her by
the codicil, to receive her legacy of 100 piculs of sugar per year out of the produce of Lot No. 1392
until she dies.
Accordingly, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and another one entered ordering
defendants-appellees, as heirs of Jorge Rabadilla, to reconvey title over Lot No. 1392, together with
its fruits and interests, to the estate of Aleja Belleza.
SO ORDERED."7
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid disposition by the Court of Appeals, petitioner found his way to this
Court via the present petition, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reversion of
Lot 1392 to the estate of the testatrix Aleja Belleza on the basis of paragraph 6 of the Codicil, and in
ruling that the testamentary institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla is a modal institution within the purview
of Article 882 of the New Civil Code.
The petition is not impressed with merit.
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the appeal in accordance with Article
882 of the New Civil Code on modal institutions and in deviating from the sole issue raised which is
the absence or prematurity of the cause of action. Petitioner maintains that Article 882 does not find
application as there was no modal institution and the testatrix intended a mere simple substitution -
i.e. the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, was to be substituted by the testatrix's "near
descendants" should the obligation to deliver the fruits to herein private respondent be not complied
with. And since the testatrix died single and without issue, there can be no valid substitution and
such testamentary provision cannot be given any effect.
The petitioner theorizes further that there can be no valid substitution for the reason that the
substituted heirs are not definite, as the substituted heirs are merely referred to as "near
descendants" without a definite identity or reference as to who are the "near descendants" and
therefore, under Articles 8438 and 8459 of the New Civil Code, the substitution should be deemed as
not written.
The contentions of petitioner are untenable. Contrary to his supposition that the Court of Appeals
deviated from the issue posed before it, which was the propriety of the dismissal of the complaint on
the ground of prematurity of cause of action, there was no such deviation. The Court of Appeals
found that the private respondent had a cause of action against the petitioner. The disquisition made
on modal institution was, precisely, to stress that the private respondent had a legally demandable
right against the petitioner pursuant to subject Codicil; on which issue the Court of Appeals ruled in
accordance with law.
It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are transmitted from the
moment of death of the decedent10 and compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of law.
The legitimate children and descendants, in relation to their legitimate parents, and the widow or
widower, are compulsory heirs.11 Thus, the petitioner, his mother and sisters, as compulsory heirs of
the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter by operation of law, without need of
further proceedings, and the successional rights were transmitted to them from the moment of death
of the decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code, inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations
of a person, not extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had by
virtue of subject Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death. And since
obligations not extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the
obligations imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to
his compulsory heirs upon his death.
In the said Codicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No. 1392 to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the
condition that the usufruct thereof would be delivered to the herein private respondent every year.
Upon the death of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title over
the said property, and they also assumed his (decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot
involved to herein private respondent. Such obligation of the instituted heir reciprocally corresponds
to the right of private respondent over the usufruct, the fulfillment or performance of which is now
being demanded by the latter through the institution of the case at bar. Therefore, private respondent
has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint below.
Petitioner also theorizes that Article 882 of the New Civil Code on modal institutions is not applicable
because what the testatrix intended was a substitution - Dr. Jorge Rabadilla was to be substituted by
the testatrix's near descendants should there be noncompliance with the obligation to deliver the
piculs of sugar to private respondent.
Again, the contention is without merit.
Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or persons to take the place of the heir or
heirs first instituted. Under substitutions in general, the testator may either (1) provide for the
designation of another heir to whom the property shall pass in case the original heir should die
before him/her, renounce the inheritance or be incapacitated to inherit, as in a simple
substitution,12 or (2) leave his/her property to one person with the express charge that it be
transmitted subsequently to another or others, as in a fideicommissary substitution.13 The Codicil
sued upon contemplates neither of the two.
In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by reason of
incapacity, predecease or renunciation.14 In the case under consideration, the provisions of subject
Codicil do not provide that should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla default due to predecease, incapacity or
renunciation, the testatrix's near descendants would substitute him. What the Codicil provides is that,
should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil, the property
referred to shall be seized and turned over to the testatrix's near descendants.
Neither is there a fideicommissary substitution here and on this point, petitioner is correct. In a
fideicommissary substitution, the first heir is strictly mandated to preserve the property and to
transmit the same later to the second heir.15 In the case under consideration, the instituted heir is in
fact allowed under the Codicil to alienate the property provided the negotiation is with the near
descendants or the sister of the testatrix. Thus, a very important element of a fideicommissary
substitution is lacking; the obligation clearly imposing upon the first heir the preservation of the
property and its transmission to the second heir. "Without this obligation to preserve clearly imposed
by the testator in his will, there is no fideicommissary substitution."16 Also, the near descendants' right
to inherit from the testatrix is not definite. The property will only pass to them should Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the obligation to deliver part of the usufruct to private respondent.
Another important element of a fideicommissary substitution is also missing here. Under Article 863,
the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the property is transmitted must not be beyond one
degree from the first heir or the fiduciary. A fideicommissary substitution is therefore, void if the first
heir is not related by first degree to the second heir.17 In the case under scrutiny, the near
descendants are not at all related to the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
The Court of Appeals erred not in ruling that the institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under subject
Codicil is in the nature of a modal institution and therefore, Article 882 of the New Civil Code is the
provision of law in point. Articles 882 and 883 of the New Civil Code provide:
Art. 882. The statement of the object of the institution or the application of the property left by the
testator, or the charge imposed on him, shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that
such was his intention.
That which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or
his heirs give security for compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he
or they may receive, together with its fruits and interests, if he or they should disregard this
obligation.
Art. 883. When without the fault of the heir, an institution referred to in the preceding article cannot
take effect in the exact manner stated by the testator, it shall be complied with in a manner most
analogous to and in conformity with his wishes.
The institution of an heir in the manner prescribed in Article 882 is what is known in the law of
succession as an institucion sub modo or a modal institution. In a modal institution, the testator
states (1) the object of the institution, (2) the purpose or application of the property left by the
testator, or (3) the charge imposed by the testator upon the heir.18 A "mode" imposes an obligation
upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the succession.19 On the
other hand, in a conditional testamentary disposition, the condition must happen or be fulfilled in
order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator. The condition suspends but does not
obligate; and the mode obligates but does not suspend.20 To some extent, it is similar to a resolutory
condition.21
From the provisions of the Codicil litigated upon, it can be gleaned unerringly that the testatrix
intended that subject property be inherited by Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. It is likewise clearly worded that
the testatrix imposed an obligation on the said instituted heir and his successors-in-interest to deliver
one hundred piculs of sugar to the herein private respondent, Marlena Coscolluela Belleza, during
the lifetime of the latter. However, the testatrix did not make Dr. Jorge Rabadilla's inheritance and
the effectivity of his institution as a devisee, dependent on the performance of the said obligation. It
is clear, though, that should the obligation be not complied with, the property shall be turned over to
the testatrix's near descendants. The manner of institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under subject
Codicil is evidently modal in nature because it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without,
however, affecting the efficacy of such institution.
Then too, since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality, an obligation imposed upon
the heir should not be considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the Will itself that such
was the intention of the testator. In case of doubt, the institution should be considered as modal and
not conditional.22
Neither is there tenability in the other contention of petitioner that the private respondent has only a
right of usufruct but not the right to seize the property itself from the instituted heir because the right
to seize was expressly limited to violations by the buyer, lessee or mortgagee.
In the interpretation of Wills, when an uncertainty arises on the face of the Will, as to the application
of any of its provisions, the testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the Will, taking
into consideration the circumstances under which it was made.23 Such construction as will sustain
and uphold the Will in all its parts must be adopted.24
Subject Codicil provides that the instituted heir is under obligation to deliver One Hundred (100)
piculs of sugar yearly to Marlena Belleza Coscuella. Such obligation is imposed on the instituted
heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his heirs, and their buyer, lessee, or mortgagee should they sell, lease,
mortgage or otherwise negotiate the property involved. The Codicil further provides that in the event
that the obligation to deliver the sugar is not respected, Marlena Belleza Coscuella shall seize the
property and turn it over to the testatrix's near descendants. The non-performance of the said
obligation is thus with the sanction of seizure of the property and reversion thereof to the testatrix's
near descendants. Since the said obligation is clearly imposed by the testatrix, not only on the
instituted heir but also on his successors-in-interest, the sanction imposed by the testatrix in case of
non-fulfillment of said obligation should equally apply to the instituted heir and his successors-in-
interest.
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 fulfillment 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.25 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.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated
December 23, 1993, in CA-G.R. No. CV-35555 AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs
SO ORDERED.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-40789 February 27, 1987
INTESTATE ESTATE OF PETRA V. ROSALES, IRENEA C. ROSALES, petitioner,

vs.
FORTUNATO ROSALES, MAGNA ROSALES ACEBES, MACIKEQUEROX ROSALES and
ANTONIO ROSALES, respondents.
Jose B. Echaves for petitioner.
Jose A. Binghay and Paul G. Gorres for respondents.
GANCAYCO, J.:
In this Petition for Review of two (2) Orders of the Court of First Instance of Cebu the question raised
is whether the widow whose husband predeceased his mother can inherit from the latter, her
mother-in-law.
It appears from the record of the case that on February 26, 1971, Mrs. Petra V. Rosales, a resident
of Cebu City, died intestate. She was survived by her husband Fortunate T. Rosales and their two
(2) children Magna Rosales Acebes and Antonio Rosales. Another child, Carterio Rosales,
predeceased her, leaving behind a child, Macikequerox Rosales, and his widow Irenea C. Rosales,
the herein petitioner. The estate of the dismissed has an estimated gross value of about Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).
On July 10, 1971, Magna Rosales Acebes instituted the proceedings for the settlement of the estate
of the deceased in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The case was docketed as Special
Proceedings No. 3204-R. Thereafter, the trial court appointed Magna Rosales Acebes administratrix
of the said estate.
In the course of the intestate proceedings, the trial court issued an Order dated June 16, 1972
declaring the following in individuals the legal heirs of the deceased and prescribing their respective
share of the estate —
Fortunata T. Rosales (husband), 1/4; Magna R. Acebes (daughter), 1/4;

Macikequerox Rosales, 1/4; and Antonio Rosales son, 1/4.
This declaration was reiterated by the trial court in its Order I dated February 4, 1975.
These Orders notwithstanding, Irenea Rosales insisted in getting a share of the estate in her
capacity as the surviving spouse of the late Carterio Rosales, son of the deceased, claiming that she
is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law together with her son, Macikequerox Rosales.
Thus, Irenea Rosales sought the reconsideration of the aforementioned Orders. The trial court
denied her plea. Hence this petition.
In sum, the petitioner poses two (2) questions for Our resolution petition. First — is a widow
(surviving spouse) an intestate heir of her mother-in-law? Second — are the Orders of the trial court
which excluded the widow from getting a share of the estate in question final as against the said
widow?
Our answer to the first question is in the negative.
Intestate or legal heirs are classified into two (2) groups, namely, those who inherit by their own
right, and those who inherit by the right of representation. 1 Restated, an intestate heir can only
inherit either by his own right, as in the order of intestate succession provided for in the Civil
Code, 2 or by the right of representation provided for in Article 981 of the same law. The relevant
provisions of the Civil Code are:
Art. 980. The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right,
dividing the inheritance in equal shares.
Art. 981. Should children of the deceased and descendants of other children who are
dead, survive, the former shall inherit in their own right, and the latter by right of
representation.
Art. 982. The grandchildren and other descendants shag inherit by right of
representation, and if any one of them should have died, leaving several heirs, the
portion pertaining to him shall be divided among the latter in equal portions.
Art. 999. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or their
descendants and illegitimate children or their descendants, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, such widow or widower shall be entitled to the same share as that of a
legitimate child.
There is no provision in the Civil Code which states that a widow (surviving spouse) is an intestate
heir of her mother-in-law. The entire Code is devoid of any provision which entitles her to inherit from
her mother-in- law either by her own right or by the right of representation. The provisions of the
Code which relate to the order of intestate succession (Articles 978 to 1014) enumerate with
meticulous exactitude the intestate heirs of a decedent, with the State as the final intestate heir. The
conspicuous absence of a provision which makes a daughter-in-law an intestate heir of the
deceased all the more confirms Our observation. If the legislature intended to make the surviving
spouse an intestate heir of the parent-in-law, it would have so provided in the Code.
Petitioner argues that she is a compulsory heir in accordance with the provisions of Article 887 of the
Civil Code which provides that:
Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to
their legitimate children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287;
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1
and 2; neither do they exclude one another.
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall
inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code.
The aforesaid provision of law 3 refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in which case the
surviving spouse (widow or widower) is a compulsory heir. It does not apply to the estate of a parent-
in-law.
Indeed, the surviving spouse is considered a third person as regards the estate of the parent-in-law.
We had occasion to make this observation in Lachenal v. Salas, 4 to Wit:
We hold that the title to the fishing boat should be determined in Civil Case No. 3597
(not in the intestate proceeding) because it affects the lessee thereof, Lope L.
Leoncio, the decedent's son-in-law, who, although married to his daughter or
compulsory heir, is nevertheless a third person with respect to his estate. ...
(Emphasis supplied).
By the same token, the provision of Article 999 of the Civil Code aforecited does not support
petitioner's claim. A careful examination of the said Article confirms that the estate contemplated
therein is the estate of the deceased spouse. The estate which is the subject matter of the intestate
estate proceedings in this case is that of the deceased Petra V. Rosales, the mother-in-law of the
petitioner. It is from the estate of Petra V. Rosales that Macikequerox Rosales draws a share of the
inheritance by the right of representation as provided by Article 981 of the Code.
The essence and nature of the right of representation is explained by Articles 970 and 971 of the
Civil Code, viz —
Art. 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of which the
representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented, and
acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have
inherited.
Art. 971. The representative is called to the succession by the law and not by the
person represented. The representative does not succeed the person
represented but the one whom the person represented would have succeeded.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Article 971 explicitly declares that Macikequerox Rosales is called to succession by law because of
his blood relationship. He does not succeed his father, Carterio Rosales (the person represented)
who predeceased his grandmother, Petra Rosales, but the latter whom his father would have
succeeded. Petitioner cannot assert the same right of representation as she has no filiation by blood
with her mother-in-law.
Petitioner however contends that at the time of the death of her husband Carterio Rosales he had an
inchoate or contingent right to the properties of Petra Rosales as compulsory heir. Be that as it may,
said right of her husband was extinguished by his death that is why it is their son Macikequerox
Rosales who succeeded from Petra Rosales by right of representation. He did not succeed from his
deceased father, Carterio Rosales.
On the basis of the foregoing observations and conclusions, We find it unnecessary to pass upon
the second question posed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, it is Our considered opinion, and We so hold, that a surviving spouse is not an intestate
heir of his or her parent-in-law.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, with costs
against the petitioner. Let this case be remanded to the trial-court for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 82233 March 22, 1990

JOSE BARITUA and EDGAR BITANCOR, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NICOLAS NACARIO and VICTORIA RONDA
NACARIO, respondents.
Domingo Lucenario for petitioners.
Ernesto A. Atienza for private respondents.
SARMIENTO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari assails as erroneous and contrary to existing relevant laws and
applicable jurisprudence the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated December 11, 1987 which
reversed and set aside that of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXXII, at Pili, Camarines Sur. 2 The
challenged decision adjudged the petitioners liable to the private respondents in the total amount of
P20,505.00 and for costs.
The facts are as follows:
In the evening of November 7, 1979, the tricycle then being driven by Bienvenido Nacario along the
national highway at Barangay San Cayetano, in Baao, Camarines Sur, figured in an accident with JB
Bus No. 80 driven by petitioner Edgar Bitancor and owned and operated by petitioner Jose
Baritua. 3 As a result of that accident Bienvenido and his passenger died 4 and the tricycle was
damaged. 5 No criminal case arising from the incident was ever instituted. 6
Subsequently, on March 27, 1980, as a consequence of the extra-judicial settlement of the matter
negotiated by the petitioners and the bus insurer — Philippine First Insurance Company,
Incorporated (PFICI for brevity) — Bienvenido Nacario's widow, Alicia Baracena Vda. de Nacario,
received P18,500.00. In consideration of the amount she received, Alicia executed on March 27,
1980 a "Release of Claim" in favor of the petitioners and PFICI, releasing and forever discharging
them from all actions, claims, and demands arising from the accident which resulted in her
husband's death and the damage to the tricycle which the deceased was then driving. Alicia likewise
executed an affidavit of desistance in which she formally manifested her lack of interest in instituting
any case, either civil or criminal, against the petitioners. 7
On September 2, 1981, or about one year and ten months from the date of the accident on
November 7, 1979, the private respondents, who are the parents of Bienvenido Nacario, filed a
complaint for damages against the petitioners with the then Court of First Instance of Camarines
Sur. 8 In their complaint, the private respondents alleged that during the vigil for their deceased son,
the petitioners through their representatives promised them (the private respondents) that as extra-
judicial settlement, they shall be indemnified for the death of their son, for the funeral expenses
incurred by reason thereof, and for the damage for the tricycle the purchase price of which they (the
private respondents) only loaned to the victim. The petitioners, however, reneged on their promise
and instead negotiated and settled their obligations with the long-estranged wife of their late son.
The Nacario spouses prayed that the defendants, petitioners herein, be ordered to indemnify them in
the amount of P25,000.00 for the death of their son Bienvenido, P10,000.00 for the damaged
tricycle, P25,000.00 for compensatory and exemplary damages, P5,000.00 for attorney's fees, and
for moral damages. 9
After trial, the court a quo dismissed the complaint, holding that the payment by the defendants
(herein petitioners) to the widow and her child, who are the preferred heirs and successors-in-
interest of the deceased Bienvenido to the exclusion of his parents, the plaintiffs (herein private
respondents), extinguished any claim against the defendants (petitioners). 10
The parents appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the judgment of the trial court. The
appellate court ruled that the release executed by Alicia Baracena Vda. de Nacario did not discharge
the liability of the petitioners because the case was instituted by the private respondents in their own
capacity and not as "heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns" of Alicia; and Alicia could not
have validly waived the damages being prayed for (by the private respondents) since she was not
the one who suffered these damages arising from the death of their son. Furthermore, the appellate
court said that the petitioners "failed to rebut the testimony of the appellants (private respondents)
that they were the ones who bought the tricycle that was damaged in the incident. Appellants had
the burden of proof of such fact, and they did establish such fact in their testimony . . . 11 Anent the
funeral expenses, "(T)he expenses for the funeral were likewise shouldered by the appellants (the
private respondents). This was never contradicted by the appellees (petitioners). . . . Payment (for
these) were made by the appellants, therefore, the reimbursement must accrue in their favor. 12
Consequently, the respondent appellate court ordered the petitioners to pay the private respondents
P10,000.00 for the damage of the tricycle, P5,000.00 for "complete" funeral services, P450.00 for
cemetery lot, P55.00 for oracion adulto, and P5,000.00 for attorney's fees. 13 The petitioners moved
for
a reconsideration of the appellate court's decision 14 but their motion was denied. 15 Hence, this
petition.
The issue here is whether or not the respondent appellate court erred in holding that the petitioners
are still liable to pay the private respondents the aggregate amount of P20,505.00 despite the
agreement of extrajudicial settlement between the petitioners and the victim's compulsory heirs.
The petition is meritorious.
Obligations are extinguished by various modes among them being by payment. Article 1231 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines provides:
Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished:
(1) By payment or performance;
(2) By the loss of the thing due;
(3) By the condonation or remission of the debt;
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor;
(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation.
(Emphasis ours.)
There is no denying that the petitioners had paid their obligation petition arising from the accident
that occurred on November 7, 1979. The only question now is whether or not Alicia, the spouse and
the one who received the petitioners' payment, is entitled to it.
Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Philippines enumerates the persons to whom payment to
extinguish an obligation should be made.
Art 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has
been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.
Certainly there can be no question that Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors in
interest referred to in law as the persons authorized to receive payment. The Civil Code states:
Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;
2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to their
legitimate children and decendants;
3. The widow or widower;
4. Acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction;
5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1
and 2. Neither do they exclude one another. (Emphasis ours.)
Article 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his
parents and ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of collateral relatives.
(Emphasis ours.)
It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without a
legitimate descendant. On the other hand, the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs. As
it has been established that Bienvenido was married to Alicia and that they begot a child, the private
respondents are not successors-in-interest of Bienvenido; they are not compulsory heirs. The
petitioners therefore acted correctly in settling their obligation with Alicia as the widow of Bienvenido
and as the natural guardian of their lone child. This is so even if Alicia had been estranged from
Bienvenido. Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as
an heir of the deceased spouse.
Neither could the private respondents, as alleged creditors of Bienvenido, seek relief and
compensation from the petitioners. While it may be true that the private respondents loaned to
Bienvenido the purchase price of the damaged tricycle and shouldered the expenses for his funeral,
the said purchase price and expenses are but money claims against the estate of their deceased
son. 16 These money claims are not the liabilities of the petitioners who, as we have said, had been
released by the agreement of the extra-judicial settlement they concluded with Alicia Baracena Vda.
de Nacario, the victim's widow and heir, as well as the natural guardian of their child, her co-heir. As
a matter of fact, she executed a "Release Of Claim" in favor of the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby REINSTATED. Costs against the
private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 89783 February 19, 1992
MARIANO B. LOCSIN, JULIAN J. LOCSIN, JOSE B. LOCSIN, AUREA B. LOCSIN, MATILDE L.

CORDERO, SALVADOR B. LOCSIN and MANUEL V. DEL ROSARIO, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE JAUCIAN, FLORENTINO JAUCIAN, MERCEDES
JAUCIAN ARBOLEDA, HEIRS OF JOSEFINA J. BORJA, HEIRS OF EDUARDO JAUCIAN and
HEIRS OF VICENTE JAUCIAN, respondents.
Aytona Law Office and Siquia Law Offices for petitioners.
Mabella, Sangil & Associates for private respondents.
NARVASA, C.J.:
Reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CV-11186 — affirming with
modification the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Albay in favor of the plaintiffs in Civil Case
No. 7152 entitled "Jose Jaucian, et al. v. Mariano B. Locsin, et al.," an action for recovery of real
property with damages — is sought. in these proceedings initiated by petition for review
on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The petition was initially denied due course and dismissed by this Court. It was however reinstated
upon a second motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners, and the respondents were required
to comment thereon. The petition was thereafter given due course and the parties were directed to
submit their memorandums. These, together with the evidence, having been carefully considered,
the Court now decides the case.
First, the facts as the Court sees them in light of the evidence on record:
The late Getulio Locsin had three children named Mariano, Julian and Magdalena, all surnamed
Locsin. He owned extensive residential and agricultural properties in the provinces of Albay and
Sorsogon. After his death, his estate was divided among his three (3) children as follows:
(a) the coconut lands of some 700 hectares in Bual, Pilar, Sorsogon, were adjudicated to his
daughter, Magdalena Locsin;
(b) 106 hectares of coconut lands were given to Julian Locsin, father of the petitioners Julian,
Mariano, Jose, Salvador, Matilde, and Aurea, all surnamed Locsin;
(c) more than forty (40) hectares of coconut lands in Bogtong, eighteen (18) hectares of riceland in
Daraga, and the residential lots in Daraga, Albay and in Legazpi City went to his son Mariano, which
Mariano brought into his marriage to Catalina Jaucian in 1908. Catalina, for her part, brought into the
marriage untitled properties which she had inherited from her parents, Balbino Jaucian and Simona
Anson. These were augmented by other properties acquired by the spouses in the course of their
union,1 which however was not blessed with children.
Eventually, the properties of Mariano and Catalina were brought under the Torrens System. Those
that Mariano inherited from his father, Getulio Locsin, were surveyed cadastrally and registered in
the name of "Mariano Locsin, married to Catalina Jaucian.'' 2
Mariano Locsin executed a Last Will and Testament instituting his wife, Catalina, as the sole and
universal heir of all his properties. 3 The will was drawn up by his wife's nephew and trusted legal
adviser, Attorney Salvador Lorayes. Attorney Lorayes disclosed that the spouses being childless,
they had agreed that their properties, after both of them shall have died should revert to their
respective sides of the family, i.e., Mariano's properties would go to his "Locsin relatives"
(i.e., brothers and sisters or nephews and nieces), and those of Catalina to her "Jaucian relatives." 4
Don Mariano Locsin died of cancer on September 14, 1948 after a lingering illness. In due time, his
will was probated in Special Proceedings No. 138, CFI of Albay without any opposition from both
sides of the family. As directed in his will, Doña Catalina was appointed executrix of his estate. Her
lawyer in the probate proceeding was Attorney Lorayes. In the inventory of her husband's
estate 5 which she submitted to the probate court for approval, 6Catalina declared that "all items
mentioned from Nos. 1 to 33 are the private properties of the deceased and form part of his capital
at the time of the marriage with the surviving spouse, while items Nos. 34 to 42 are conjugal." 7
Among her own and Don Mariano's relatives, Doña Catalina was closest to her nephew, Attorney
Salvador Lorayes, her nieces, Elena Jaucian, Maria Lorayes-Cornelio and Maria Olbes-Velasco, and
the husbands of the last two: Hostilio Cornelio and Fernando Velasco. 8 Her trust in Hostilio Cornelio was such
that she made him custodian of all the titles of her properties; and before she disposed of any of them, she unfailingly consulted her lawyer-
nephew, Attorney Salvador Lorayes. It was Atty. Lorayes who prepared the legal documents and, more often than not, the witnesses to the
transactions were her niece Elena Jaucian, Maria Lorayes-Cornelio, Maria Olbes-Velasco, or their husbands. Her niece, Elena Jaucian, was
her life-long companion in her house.
Don Mariano relied on Doña Catalina to carry out the terms of their compact, hence, nine (9) years
after his death, as if in obedience to his voice from the grave, and fully cognizant that she was also
advancing in years, Doña Catalina began transferring, by sale, donation or assignment, Don
Mariano's as well as her own, properties to their respective nephews and nieces. She made the
following sales and donation of properties which she had received from her husband's estate, to his
Locsin nephews and nieces:
EXHIBIT DATE PARTICULARS AREA/SQ.M. PRICE WITNESSES

23 Jan. 26, 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale in 962 P 481
favor of Mariano Locsin
1-JRL Apr. 7, 1966 Deed of Sale in favor of 430,203 P 20,000

Jose R. Locsin
1-JJL Mar. 22, 1967 Deed of Sale in favor of 5,000 P 1,000 Hostilio Cornello
Julian Locsin (Lot 2020) Helen M. Jaucian
1 Nov. 29, 1974 Deed of Donation in 26,509

favor Aurea Locsin,
Matilde L. Cordero
and Salvador Locsin
2 Feb. 4, 1975 Deed of Donation in 34,045

favor Aurea Locsin,
Matilde L. Cordero
and Salvador Locsin
3 Sept. 9, 1975 Deed of Donation in (Lot 2059)

favor Aurea Locsin,
Matilde L. Cordero
and Salvador Locsin
4 July 15, 1974 Deed of Absolute Sale in 1,424 Hostilio Cornelio

favor of Aurea B. Locsin Fernando Velasco
5 July 15, 1974 Deed of Absolute Sale in 1,456 P 5,750 Hostilio Cornelio
favor of Aurea B. Locsin Elena Jaucian
6 July 15, 1974 Deed of Absolute Sale in 1,237 P 5,720 - ditto -

favor of Aurea B. Locsin
7 July 15, 1974 Deed of Absolute Sale in 1,404 P 4,050 - ditto -

favor of Aurea B. Locsin
15 Nov. 26, 1975 Deed of Sale in favor of 261 P 4,930 - ditto -

Aurea Locsin
16 Oct. 17, 1975 Deed of Sale in favor of 533 P 2,000 Delfina Anson
Aurea Locsin M. Acabado
17 Nov. 26, 1975 Deed of Sale in favor of 373 P 1,000 Leonor Satuito
Aurea Locsin Mariano B. Locsin
19 Sept. 1, 1975 Conditional Donation in 1,130 P 3,000 - ditto -

favor of Mariano Locsin
1-MVRJ Dec. 29, 1972 Deed of Reconveyance 1,5110.66 P 1,000 Delfina Anson
in favor of Manuel V. del (Lot 2155) Antonio Illegible
Rosario whose maternal
grandfather was Getulio
Locsin
2-MVRJ June 30, 1973 Deed of Reconveyance 319.34 P 500 Antonio Illegible
in favor of Manuel V. del (Lot 2155) Salvador Nical
Rosario but the rentals
from bigger portion of
Lot 2155 leased to Filoil
Refinery were assigned to
Maria Jaucian Lorayes
Cornelio
Of her own properties, Doña Catalina conveyed the following to her own nephews and nieces and
others:
EXHIBIT DATE PARTICULARS AREA/SQ.M. PRICE
2-JJL July 16, 1964 Deed of Sale in favor 5,000 P 1,000

Vicente Jaucian (lot 2020)
(6,825 sqm. when
resurveyed)
24 Feb. 12, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale 100 P 1,000

in favor of Francisco M.
Maquiniana
26 July 15, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 130 P 1,300

favor of Francisco
Maquiniana
27 May 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 100 P 1,000

favor of Ireneo Mamia
28 May 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 75 P 750

favor of Zenaida Buiza
29 May 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 150 P 1,500

favor of Felisa Morjella
30 Apr. 3, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 31 P 1,000

favor of Inocentes Motocinos
31 Feb. 12, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 150 P 1,500

favor of Casimiro Mondevil
32 Mar. 1, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 112 P 1,200

favor of Juan Saballa
25 Dec. 28, 1973 Deed of Absolute Sale in 250 P 2,500

of Rogelio Marticio
Doña Catalina died on July 6, 1977.
Four years before her death, she had made a will on October 22, 1973 affirming and ratifying the
transfers she had made during her lifetime in favor of her husband's, and her own, relatives. After
the reading of her will, all the relatives agreed that there was no need to submit it to the court for
probate because the properties devised to them under the will had already been conveyed to them
by the deceased when she was still alive, except some legacies which the executor of her will or
estate, Attorney Salvador Lorayes, proceeded to distribute.
In 1989, or six (6) years after Doña Catalina's demise, some of her Jaucian nephews and nieces
who had already received their legacies and hereditary shares from her estate, filed action in the
Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City (Branch VIII, Civil Case No. 7152) to recover the properties
which she had conveyed to the Locsins during her lifetime, alleging that the conveyances were
inofficious, without consideration, and intended solely to circumvent the laws on succession. Those
who were closest to Doña Catalina did not join the action.
After the trial, judgment was rendered on July 8, l985 in favor of the plaintiffs (Jaucian), and against
the Locsin defendants, the dispositive part of which reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment for the plaintiffs and against the
defendants:
(1) declaring the, plaintiffs, except the heirs of Josefina J. Borja and Eduardo
Jaucian, who withdrew, the rightful heirs and entitled to the entire estate, in equal
portions, of Catalina Jaucian Vda. de Locsin, being the nearest collateral heirs by
right of representation of Juan and Gregorio, both surnamed Jaucian, and full-blood
brothers of Catalina;
(2) declaring the deeds of sale, donations, reconveyance and exchange and all other
instruments conveying any part of the estate of Catalina J. Vda. de Locsin including,
but not limited to those in the inventory of known properties (Annex B of the
complaint) as null and void ab-initio;
(3) ordering the Register of Deeds of Albay and/or Legazpi City to cancel all
certificates of title and other transfers of the real properties, subject of this case, in
the name of defendants, and derivatives therefrom, and issue new ones to the
plaintiffs;
(4) ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to reconvey ownership and
possession of all such properties to the plaintiffs, together with all muniments of title
properly endorsed and delivered, and all the fruits and incomes received by the
defendants from the estate of Catalina, with legal interest from the filing of this action;
and where reconveyance and delivery cannot be effected for reasons that might
have intervened and prevent the same, defendants shall pay for the value of such
properties, fruits and incomes received by them, also with legal interest from the
filing, of this case
(5) ordering each of the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the amount of P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and the further sum of P20,000.00 each as moral damages;
and
(6) ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs attorney's fees and litigation
expenses, in the amount of P30,000.00 without prejudice to any contract between
plaintiffs and counsel.
Costs against the defendants.9
The Locsins appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. CV-11186) which rendered its now
appealed judgment on March 14, 1989, affirming the trial court's decision.
The petition has merit and should be granted.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the private respondents, nephews and
nieces of Doña Catalina J. Vda. de Locsin, entitled to inherit the properties which she had already
disposed of more than ten (10) years before her death. For those properties did not form part of her
hereditary estate, i.e., "the property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of
(the decedent's) death and those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the
succession." 10 The rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the moment of his death,
and do not vest in his heirs until such time.11 Property which Doña Catalina had transferred or
conveyed to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed part of her estate at the time of her
death to which her heirs may lay claim. Had she died intestate, only the property that remained in
her estate at the time of her death devolved to her legal heirs; and even if those transfers were, one
and all, treated as donations, the right arising under certain circumstances to impugn and compel the
reduction or revocation of a decedent's gifts inter vivos does not inure to the respondents since
neither they nor the donees are compulsory (or forced) heirs. 12
There is thus no basis for assuming an intention on the part of Doña Catalina, in transferring the
properties she had received from her late husband to his nephews and nieces, an intent to
circumvent the law in violation of the private respondents' rights to her succession. Said respondents
are not her compulsory heirs, and it is not pretended that she had any such, hence there were no
legitimes that could conceivably be impaired by any transfer of her property during her lifetime. All
that the respondents had was an expectancy that in nowise restricted her freedom to dispose of
even her entire estate subject only to the limitation set forth in Art. 750, Civil Code which, even if it
were breached, the respondents may not invoke:
Art. 750. The donation may comprehend all the present property of the donor or part
thereof, provided he reserves, in full ownership or in usufruct, sufficient means for the
support of himself, and of all relatives who, at the time of the acceptance of the
donation, are by law entitled to be supported by the donor. Without such reservation,
the donation shall be reduced on petition of any person affected. (634a)
The lower court capitalized on the fact that Doña Catalina was already 90 years old when she died
on July 6, 1977. It insinuated that because of her advanced years she may have been imposed
upon, or unduly influenced and morally pressured by her husband's nephews and nieces (the
petitioners) to transfer to them the properties which she had inherited from Don Mariano's estate.
The records do not support that conjecture.
For as early as 1957, or twenty-eight (28) years before her death, Doña Catalina had already begun
transferring to her Locsin nephews and nieces the properties which she received from Don Mariano.
She sold a 962-sq.m. lot on January 26, 1957 to his nephew and namesake Mariano Locsin II. 13 On
April 7, 1966, or 19 years before she passed away, she also sold a 43 hectare land to another
Locsin nephew, Jose R. Locsin.14 The next year, or on March 22, 1967, she sold a 5,000-sq.m.
portion of Lot 2020 to Julian Locsin.15
On March 27, 1967, Lot 2020 16 was partitioned by and among Doña Catalina, Julian Locsin, Vicente
Jaucian and Agapito Lorete.17 At least Vicente Jaucian, among the other respondents in this case, is
estopped from assailing the genuineness and due execution of the sale of portions of Lot 2020 to
himself, Julian Locsin, and Agapito Lorete, and the partition agreement that he (Vicente) concluded
with the other co-owners of Lot 2020.
Among Doña, Catalina's last transactions before she died in 1977 were the sales of property which
she made in favor of Aurea Locsin and Mariano Locsin in 1975.18
There is not the slightest suggestion in the record that Doña Catalina was mentally incompetent
when she made those dispositions. Indeed, how can any such suggestion be made in light of the
fact that even as she was transferring properties to the Locsins, she was also contemporaneously
disposing of her other properties in favor of the Jaucians? She sold to her nephew, Vicente Jaucian,
on July 16, 1964 (21 years before her death) one-half (or 5,000 sq.m.) of Lot 2020. Three years
later, or on March 22, 1967, she sold another 5000 sq.m. of the same lot to Julian Locsin.19
From 1972 to 1973 she made several other transfers of her properties to her relatives and other
persons, namely: Francisco Maquiniana, Ireneo Mamia, Zenaida Buiza, Feliza Morjella, Inocentes
Motocinos, Casimiro Mondevil, Juan Saballa and Rogelio Marticio. 20 None of those transactions was
impugned by the private respondents.
In 1975, or two years before her death, Doña Catalina sold some lots not only to Don Mariano's
niece, Aurea Locsin, and his nephew, Mariano Locsin
II, 21 but also to her niece, Mercedes Jaucian Arboleda. 22 If she was competent to make that
conveyance to Mercedes, how can there be any doubt that she was equally competent to transfer
her other pieces of property to Aurea and Mariano II?
The trial court's belief that Don Mariano Locsin bequeathed his entire estate to his wife, from a
"consciousness of its real origin" which carries the implication that said estate consisted of properties
which his wife had inherited from her parents, flies in the teeth of Doña Catalina's admission in her
inventory of that estate, that "items 1 to 33 are the private properties of the deceased (Don Mariano)
and forms (sic) part of his capital at the time of the marriage with the surviving spouse, while items
34 to 42 are conjugal properties, acquired during the marriage." She would have known better than
anyone else whether the listing included any of her paraphernal property so it is safe to assume that
none was in fact included. The inventory was signed by her under oath, and was approved by the
probate court in Special Proceeding No. 138 of the Court of First Instance of Albay. It was prepared
with the assistance of her own nephew and counsel, Atty. Salvador Lorayes, who surely would not
have prepared a false inventory that would have been prejudicial to his aunt's interest and to his
own, since he stood to inherit from her eventually.
This Court finds no reason to disbelieve Attorney Lorayes' testimony that before Don Mariano died,
he and his wife (Doña Catalina), being childless, had agreed that their respective properties should
eventually revert to their respective lineal relatives. As the trusted legal adviser of the spouses and a
full-blood nephew of Doña Catalina, he would not have spun a tale out of thin air that would also
prejudice his own interest.
Little significance, it seems, has been attached to the fact that among Doña Catalina's nephews and
nieces, those closest to her: (a) her lawyer-nephew Attorney Salvador Lorayes; (b) her niece and
companion Elena Jaucian: (c) her nieces Maria Olbes-Velasco and Maria Lorayes-Cornelio and their
respective husbands, Fernando Velasco and Hostilio Cornelio, did not join the suit to annul and
undo the dispositions of property which she made in favor of the Locsins, although it would have
been to their advantage to do so. Their desistance persuasively demonstrates that Doña Catalina
acted as a completely free agent when she made the conveyances in favor of the petitioners. In fact,
considering their closeness to Doña Catalina it would have been well-nigh impossible for the
petitioners to employ "fraud, undue pressure, and subtle manipulations" on her to make her sell or
donate her properties to them. Doña Catalina's niece, Elena Jaucian, daughter of her brother,
Eduardo Jaucian, lived with her in her house. Her nephew-in-law, Hostilio Cornelio, was the
custodian of the titles of her properties. The sales and donations which she signed in favor of the
petitioners were prepared by her trusted legal adviser and nephew, Attorney Salvador Lorayes. The
(1) deed of donation dated November 19,
197423 in favor of Aurea Locsin, (2) another deed of donation dated February 4, 1975 24 in favor of
Matilde Cordero, and (3) still another deed dated September 9, 1975 25 in favor of Salvador Lorayes,
were all witnessed by Hostilio Cornelio (who is married to Doña Catalina's niece, Maria Lorayes) and
Fernando Velasco who is married to another niece, Maria Olbes.26 The sales which she made in
favor of Aurea Locsin on July 15, 1974 27 were witnessed by Hostilio Cornelio and Elena Jaucian.
Given those circumstances, said transactions could not have been anything but free and voluntary
acts on her part.
Apart from the foregoing considerations, the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in not
dismissing this action for annulment and reconveyance on the ground of prescription. Commenced
decades after the transactions had been consummated, and six (6) years after Doña Catalina's
death, it prescribed four (4) years after the subject transactions were recorded in the Registry of
Property,28 whether considered an action based on fraud, or one to redress an injury to the rights of
the plaintiffs. The private respondents may not feign ignorance of said transactions because the
registration of the deeds was constructive notice thereof to them and the whole world.29
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted. The decision dated March 14, 1989 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 11186 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The private respondents'
complaint for annulment of contracts and reconveyance of properties in Civil Case No. 7152 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch VIII of Legazpi City, is DISMISSED, with costs against the private
respondents, plaintiffs therein.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 126376 November 20, 2003
SPOUSES BERNARDO BUENAVENTURA and CONSOLACION JOAQUIN, SPOUSES JUANITO

EDRA and NORA JOAQUIN, SPOUSES RUFINO VALDOZ and EMMA JOAQUIN, and
NATIVIDAD JOAQUIN, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES LEONARDO JOAQUIN and FELICIANA LANDRITO,
SPOUSES FIDEL JOAQUIN and CONCHITA BERNARDO, SPOUSES TOMAS JOAQUIN and
SOLEDAD ALCORAN, SPOUSES ARTEMIO JOAQUIN and SOCORRO ANGELES, SPOUSES
ALEXANDER MENDOZA and CLARITA JOAQUIN, SPOUSES TELESFORO CARREON and
FELICITAS JOAQUIN, SPOUSES DANILO VALDOZ and FE JOAQUIN, and SPOUSES GAVINO
JOAQUIN and LEA ASIS, respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 to annul the Decision2 dated 26 June 1996 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41996. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision3 dated 18 February
1993 rendered by Branch 65 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati ("trial court") in Civil Case No. 89-
5174. The trial court dismissed the case after it found that the parties executed the Deeds of Sale for
valid consideration and that the plaintiffs did not have a cause of action against the defendants.
The Facts
The Court of Appeals summarized the facts of the case as follows:
Defendant spouses Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito are the parents of plaintiffs
Consolacion, Nora, Emma and Natividad as well as of defendants Fidel, Tomas, Artemio, Clarita,
Felicitas, Fe, and Gavino, all surnamed JOAQUIN. The married Joaquin children are joined in this
action by their respective spouses.
Sought to be declared null and void ab initio are certain deeds of sale of real property executed by
defendant parents Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito in favor of their co-defendant children
and the corresponding certificates of title issued in their names, to wit:
1. Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-C-7 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256395
executed on 11 July 1978, in favor of defendant Felicitas Joaquin, for a consideration of
₱6,000.00 (Exh. "C"), pursuant to which TCT No. [36113/T-172] was issued in her name
(Exh. "C-1");
2. Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-I-3 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256394
executed on 7 June 1979, in favor of defendant Clarita Joaquin, for a consideration of
₱1[2],000.00 (Exh. "D"), pursuant to which TCT No. S-109772 was issued in her name (Exh.
"D-1");
3 Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-I-1 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256394
executed on 12 May 1988, in favor of defendant spouses Fidel Joaquin and Conchita
Bernardo, for a consideration of ₱54,[3]00.00 (Exh. "E"), pursuant to which TCT No. 155329
was issued to them (Exh. "E-1");
4. Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-I-2 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256394
executed on 12 May 1988, in favor of defendant spouses Artemio Joaquin and Socorro
Angeles, for a consideration of ₱[54,3]00.00 (Exh. "F"), pursuant to which TCT No. 155330
was issued to them (Exh. "F-1"); and
5. Absolute Sale of Real Property covering Lot 168-C-4 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-
256395 executed on 9 September 1988, in favor of Tomas Joaquin, for a consideration of
₱20,000.00 (Exh. "G"), pursuant to which TCT No. 157203 was issued in her name (Exh. "G-
1").
6. Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-C-1 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256395
executed on 7 October 1988, in favor of Gavino Joaquin, for a consideration of ₱25,000.00
(Exh. "K"), pursuant to which TCT No. 157779 was issued in his name (Exh. "K-1").]
In seeking the declaration of nullity of the aforesaid deeds of sale and certificates of title, plaintiffs, in
their complaint, aver:
- XX-
The deeds of sale, Annexes "C," "D," "E," "F," and "G," [and "K"] are simulated as they are, are
NULL AND VOID AB INITIO because –
a) Firstly, there was no actual valid consideration for the deeds of sale xxx over the
properties in litis;
b) Secondly, assuming that there was consideration in the sums reflected in the questioned
deeds, the properties are more than three-fold times more valuable than the measly sums
appearing therein;
c) Thirdly, the deeds of sale do not reflect and express the true intent of the parties (vendors
and vendees); and
d) Fourthly, the purported sale of the properties in litis was the result of a deliberate
conspiracy designed to unjustly deprive the rest of the compulsory heirs (plaintiffs herein) of
their legitime.
- XXI -
Necessarily, and as an inevitable consequence, Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 36113/T-172, S-

109772, 155329, 155330, 157203 [and 157779] issued by the Registrar of Deeds over the properties
in litis xxx are NULL AND VOID AB INITIO.
Defendants, on the other hand aver (1) that plaintiffs do not have a cause of action against them as
well as the requisite standing and interest to assail their titles over the properties in litis; (2) that the
sales were with sufficient considerations and made by defendants parents voluntarily, in good faith,
and with full knowledge of the consequences of their deeds of sale; and (3) that the certificates of
title were issued with sufficient factual and legal basis.4 (Emphasis in the original)
The Ruling of the Trial Court
Before the trial, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the case against defendant spouses Gavino
Joaquin and Lea Asis.5 Instead of filing an Answer with their co-defendants, Gavino Joaquin and Lea
Asis filed a Motion to Dismiss.6In granting the dismissal to Gavino Joaquin and Lea Asis, the trial
court noted that "compulsory heirs have the right to a legitime but such right is contingent since said
right commences only from the moment of death of the decedent pursuant to Article 777 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines."7
After trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint. The trial court
stated:
In the first place, the testimony of the defendants, particularly that of the xxx father will show that the
Deeds of Sale were all executed for valuable consideration. This assertion must prevail over the
negative allegation of plaintiffs.
And then there is the argument that plaintiffs do not have a valid cause of action against defendants
since there can be no legitime to speak of prior to the death of their parents. The court finds this
contention tenable. In determining the legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the
testator shall be considered (Art. 908 of the New Civil Code). Hence, the legitime of a compulsory
heir is computed as of the time of the death of the decedent. Plaintiffs therefore cannot claim an
impairment of their legitime while their parents live.
All the foregoing considered, this case is DISMISSED.
In order to preserve whatever is left of the ties that should bind families together, the counterclaim is
likewise DISMISSED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.8
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court ruled:
1âwphi1
To the mind of the Court, appellants are skirting the real and decisive issue in this case, which is,
whether xxx they have a cause of action against appellees.
Upon this point, there is no question that plaintiffs-appellants, like their defendant brothers and
sisters, are compulsory heirs of defendant spouses, Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito, who
are their parents. However, their right to the properties of their defendant parents, as compulsory
heirs, is merely inchoate and vests only upon the latter’s death. While still alive, defendant parents
are free to dispose of their properties, provided that such dispositions are not made in fraud of
creditors.
Plaintiffs-appellants are definitely not parties to the deeds of sale in question. Neither do they claim
to be creditors of their defendant parents. Consequently, they cannot be considered as real parties
in interest to assail the validity of said deeds either for gross inadequacy or lack of consideration or
for failure to express the true intent of the parties. In point is the ruling of the Supreme Court in
Velarde, et al. vs. Paez, et al., 101 SCRA 376, thus:
The plaintiffs are not parties to the alleged deed of sale and are not principally or subsidiarily bound
thereby; hence, they have no legal capacity to challenge their validity.
Plaintiffs-appellants anchor their action on the supposed impairment of their legitime by the
dispositions made by their defendant parents in favor of their defendant brothers and sisters. But, as
correctly held by the court a quo, "the legitime of a compulsory heir is computed as of the time of the
death of the decedent. Plaintiffs therefore cannot claim an impairment of their legitime while their
parents live."
With this posture taken by the Court, consideration of the errors assigned by plaintiffs-appellants is
inconsequential.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against plaintiffs-
appellants.
SO ORDERED.9
Hence, the instant petition.
Issues
Petitioners assign the following as errors of the Court of Appeals:
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CONVEYANCE IN

QUESTION HAD NO VALID CONSIDERATION.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT EVEN ASSUMING THAT
THERE WAS A CONSIDERATION, THE SAME IS GROSSLY INADEQUATE.
3. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE DEEDS OF SALE DO
NOT EXPRESS THE TRUE INTENT OF THE PARTIES.
4. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CONVEYANCE WAS
PART AND PARCEL OF A CONSPIRACY AIMED AT UNJUSTLY DEPRIVING THE REST
OF THE CHILDREN OF THE SPOUSES LEONARDO JOAQUIN AND FELICIANA
LANDRITO OF THEIR INTEREST OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
5. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS HAVE A

GOOD, SUFFICIENT AND VALID CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS.10
The Ruling of the Court
We find the petition without merit.
We will discuss petitioners’ legal interest over the properties subject of the Deeds of Sale before
discussing the issues on the purported lack of consideration and gross inadequacy of the prices of
the Deeds of Sale.
Whether Petitioners have a legal interest over the properties subject of the Deeds of Sale
Petitioners’ Complaint betrays their motive for filing this case. In their Complaint, petitioners asserted
that the "purported sale of the properties in litis was the result of a deliberate conspiracy designed to
unjustly deprive the rest of the compulsory heirs (plaintiffs herein) of their legitime." Petitioners’
strategy was to have the Deeds of Sale declared void so that ownership of the lots would eventually
revert to their respondent parents. If their parents die still owning the lots, petitioners and their
respondent siblings will then co-own their parents’ estate by hereditary succession.11
It is evident from the records that petitioners are interested in the properties subject of the Deeds of
Sale, but they have failed to show any legal right to the properties. The trial and appellate courts
should have dismissed the action for this reason alone. An action must be prosecuted in the name of
the real party-in-interest.12
[T]he question as to "real party-in-interest" is whether he is "the party who would be benefitted or
injured by the judgment, or the ‘party entitled to the avails of the suit.’"
xxx
In actions for the annulment of contracts, such as this action, the real parties are those who are
parties to the agreement or are bound either principally or subsidiarily or are prejudiced in their rights
with respect to one of the contracting parties and can show the detriment which would positively
result to them from the contract even though they did not intervene in it (Ibañez v. Hongkong &
Shanghai Bank, 22 Phil. 572 [1912]) xxx.
These are parties with "a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or
future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest…. The phrase ‘present substantial interest’
more concretely is meant such interest of a party in the subject matter of the action as will entitle
him, under the substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient, or that he has the legal title to
demand and the defendant will be protected in a payment to or recovery by him."13
Petitioners do not have any legal interest over the properties subject of the Deeds of Sale. As the
appellate court stated, petitioners’ right to their parents’ properties is merely inchoate and vests only
upon their parents’ death. While still living, the parents of petitioners are free to dispose of their
properties. In their overzealousness to safeguard their future legitime, petitioners forget that
theoretically, the sale of the lots to their siblings does not affect the value of their parents’ estate.
While the sale of the lots reduced the estate, cash of equivalent value replaced the lots taken from
the estate.
Whether the Deeds of Sale are void for lack of consideration
Petitioners assert that their respondent siblings did not actually pay the prices stated in the Deeds of
Sale to their respondent father. Thus, petitioners ask the court to declare the Deeds of Sale void.
A contract of sale is not a real contract, but a consensual contract. As a consensual contract, a
contract of sale becomes a binding and valid contract upon the meeting of the minds as to price. If
there is a meeting of the minds of the parties as to the price, the contract of sale is valid, despite the
manner of payment, or even the breach of that manner of payment. If the real price is not stated in
the contract, then the contract of sale is valid but subject to reformation. If there is no meeting of the
minds of the parties as to the price, because the price stipulated in the contract is simulated, then
the contract is void.14 Article 1471 of the Civil Code states that if the price in a contract of sale is
simulated, the sale is void.
It is not the act of payment of price that determines the validity of a contract of sale. Payment of the
price has nothing to do with the perfection of the contract. Payment of the price goes into the
performance of the contract. Failure to pay the consideration is different from lack of consideration.
The former results in a right to demand the fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation under an
existing valid contract while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract.15
Petitioners failed to show that the prices in the Deeds of Sale were absolutely simulated. To prove
simulation, petitioners presented Emma Joaquin Valdoz’s testimony stating that their father,
respondent Leonardo Joaquin, told her that he would transfer a lot to her through a deed of sale
without need for her payment of the purchase price.16The trial court did not find the allegation of
absolute simulation of price credible. Petitioners’ failure to prove absolute simulation of price is
magnified by their lack of knowledge of their respondent siblings’ financial capacity to buy the
questioned lots.17 On the other hand, the Deeds of Sale which petitioners presented as evidence
plainly showed the cost of each lot sold. Not only did respondents’ minds meet as to the purchase
price, but the real price was also stated in the Deeds of Sale. As of the filing of the complaint,
respondent siblings have also fully paid the price to their respondent father.18
Whether the Deeds of Sale are void for gross inadequacy of price
Petitioners ask that assuming that there is consideration, the same is grossly inadequate as to
invalidate the Deeds of Sale.
Articles 1355 of the Civil Code states:
Art. 1355. Except in cases specified by law, lesion or inadequacy of cause shall not invalidate a
contract, unless there has been fraud, mistake or undue influence. (Emphasis supplied)
Article 1470 of the Civil Code further provides:
Art. 1470. Gross inadequacy of price does not affect a contract of sale, except as may indicate a
defect in the consent, or that the parties really intended a donation or some other act or contract.
(Emphasis supplied)
Petitioners failed to prove any of the instances mentioned in Articles 1355 and 1470 of the Civil
Code which would invalidate, or even affect, the Deeds of Sale. Indeed, there is no requirement that
the price be equal to the exact value of the subject matter of sale. All the respondents believed that
they received the commutative value of what they gave. As we stated in Vales v. Villa:19
Courts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains, protect him from
unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts. Courts
cannot constitute themselves guardians of persons who are not legally incompetent. Courts operate
not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another, but because he has been
defeated or overcome illegally. Men may do foolish things, make ridiculous contracts, use miserable
judgment, and lose money by them – indeed, all they have in the world; but not for that alone can the
law intervene and restore. There must be, in addition, a violation of the law, the commission of what
the law knows as an actionable wrong, before the courts are authorized to lay hold of the situation
and remedy it. (Emphasis in the original)
Moreover, the factual findings of the appellate court are conclusive on the parties and carry greater
weight when they coincide with the factual findings of the trial court. This Court will not weigh the
evidence all over again unless there has been a showing that the findings of the lower court are
totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.20 In
the instant case, the trial court found that the lots were sold for a valid consideration, and that the
defendant children actually paid the purchase price stipulated in their respective Deeds of Sale.
Actual payment of the purchase price by the buyer to the seller is a factual finding that is now
conclusive upon us.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
FIRST DIVISION
G. R. No. 136773 June 25, 2003
MILAGROS MANONGSONG, joined by her husband, CARLITO MANONGSONG, Petitioners,

vs.
FELOMENA JUMAQUIO ESTIMO, EMILIANA JUMAQUIO, NARCISO ORTIZ, CELESTINO
ORTIZ, RODOLFO ORTIZ, ERLINDA O. OCAMPO, PASTOR ORTIZ, JR., ROMEO ORTIZ
BENJAMIN DELA CRUZ, SR., BENJAMIN DELA CRUZ, JR., AURORA NICOLAS, GLORIA
RACADIO, ROBERTO DELA CRUZ, JOSELITO DELA CRUZ and LEONCIA S.
LOPEZ, Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before this Court is a petition for review1 assailing the Decision2 of 26 June 1998 and the Resolution
of 21 December 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51643. The Court of Appeals
reversed the Decision dated 10 April 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 135, in
Civil Case No. 92-1685, partitioning the property in controversy and awarding to petitioners a portion
of the property.
Antecedent Facts
Spouses Agatona Guevarra ("Guevarra") and Ciriaco Lopez had six (6) children, namely: (1)
Dominador Lopez; (2) Enriqueta Lopez-Jumaquio, the mother of respondents Emiliana Jumaquio
Rodriguez and Felomena Jumaquio Estimo ("Jumaquio sisters"); (3) Victor Lopez, married to
respondent Leoncia Lopez; (4) Benigna Lopez-Ortiz, the mother of respondents Narciso, Celestino,
Rodolfo, Pastor Jr. and Romeo Ortiz, and Erlinda Ortiz Ocampo; (5) Rosario Lopez-dela Cruz,
married to respondent Benjamin dela Cruz, Sr. and the mother of respondents Benjamin Jr.,
Roberto, and Joselito, all surnamed dela Cruz, and of Gloria dela Cruz Racadio and Aurora dela
Cruz Nicolas; and (6) Vicente Lopez, the father of petitioner Milagros Lopez Manongsong
("Manongsong").
The contested property is a parcel of land on San Jose Street, Manuyo Uno, Las Piñas, Metro
Manila with an area of approximately 152 square meters ("Property"). The records do not show that
the Property is registered under the Torrens system. The Property is particularly described in Tax
Declaration No. B-001-003903 as bounded in the north by Juan Gallardo, south by Calle Velay, east
by Domingo Lavana and west by San Jose Street. Tax Declaration No. B-001-00390 was registered
with the Office of the Municipal Assessor of Las Piñas on 30 September 1984 in the name of
"Benigna Lopez, et al".4 However, the improvements on the portion of the Property denominated as
No. 831 San Jose St., Manuyo Uno, Las Piñas were separately declared in the name of "Filomena J.
Estimo" under Tax Declaration No. 90-001-02145 dated 14 October 1991.5
Milagros and Carlito Manongsong ("petitioners") filed a Complaint6 on 19 June 1992, alleging that
Manongsong and respondents are the owners pro indiviso of the Property. Invoking Article 494 of
the Civil Code,7 petitioners prayed for the partition and award to them of an area equivalent to one-
fifth (1/5) of the Property or its prevailing market value, and for damages.
Petitioners alleged that Guevarra was the original owner of the Property. Upon Guevarra’s death,
her children inherited the Property. Since Dominador Lopez died without offspring, there were only
five children left as heirs of Guevarra. Each of the five children, including Vicente Lopez, the father of
Manongsong, was entitled to a fifth of the Property. As Vicente Lopez’ sole surviving heir,
Manongsong claims her father’s 1/5 share in the Property by right of representation.
There is no dispute that respondents, who are the surviving spouses of Guevarra’s children and their
offspring, have been in possession of the Property for as long as they can remember. The area
actually occupied by each respondent family differs, ranging in size from approximately 25 to 50
square meters. Petitioners are the only descendants not occupying any portion of the Property.
Most respondents, specifically Narciso, Rodolfo, Pastor Jr., and Celestino Ortiz, and Erlinda Ortiz
Ocampo ("Ortiz family"), as well as Benjamin Sr., Benjamin Jr., and Roberto dela Cruz, Aurora dela
Cruz Nicolas and Gloria Dela Cruz Racadio ("Dela Cruz family"), entered into a compromise
agreement with petitioners. Under the Stipulation of Facts and Compromise Agreement8 dated 12
September 1992 ("Agreement"), petitioners and the Ortiz and Dela Cruz families agreed that each
group of heirs would receive an equal share in the Property. The signatories to the Agreement asked
the trial court to issue an order of partition to this effect and prayed further that "those who have
exceeded said one-fifth (1/5) must be reduced so that those who have less and those who have
none shall get the correct and proper portion."9
Among the respondents, the Jumaquio sisters and Leoncia Lopez – who each occupy 50 square
meter portions of the Property – and Joselito dela Cruz, did not sign the Agreement.10 However, only
the Jumaquio sisters actively opposed petitioners’ claim. The Jumaquio sisters contended that
Justina Navarro ("Navarro"), supposedly the mother of Guevarra, sold the Property to Guevarra’s
daughter Enriqueta Lopez Jumaquio.
The Jumaquio sisters presented provincial Tax Declaration No. 91111 for the year 1949 in the sole
name of Navarro. Tax Declaration No. 911 described a residential parcel of land with an area of
172.51 square meters, located on San Jose St., Manuyo, Las Piñas, Rizal with the following
boundaries: Juan Gallardo to the north, I. Guevarra Street to the south, Rizal Street to the east and
San Jose Street to the west. In addition, Tax Declaration No. 911 stated that the houses of "Agatona
Lopez" and "Enriquita Lopez" stood on the Property as improvements.
The Jumaquio sisters also presented a notarized KASULATAN SA BILIHAN NG
LUPA12 ("Kasulatan") dated 11 October 1957, the relevant portion of which states:
AKO SI JUSTINA NAVARRO, sapat ang gulang, may asawa, Pilipino at naninirahan sa LAS PIÑAS,
ay siyang nagma-may-ari at nagtatangkilik ng isang lagay na lupa na matatagpuan sa Manuyo, Las
Piñas, Rizal, lihis sa anomang pagkakautang lalong napagkikilala sa pamamagitan ng mga
sumusunod na palatandaan:
BOUNDARIES:
NORTH: JUAN GALLARDO SOUTH: I. GUEVARRA ST. EAST: RIZAL ST., WEST: SAN JOSE ST.,
na may sukat na 172.51 metros cuadrados na may TAX DECLARATION BILANG 911.
NA DAHIL AT ALANG ALANG sa halagang DALAWANG DAAN LIMANGPUNG PISO (₱250.00),

SALAPING PILIPINO, na sa akin ay kaliwang iniabot at ibinayad ni ENRIQUETA LOPEZ, may sapat
na gulang, Pilipino, may asawa at naninirahan sa Las Piñas, Rizal, at sa karapatang ito ay aking
pinatutunayan ng pagkakatanggap ng nasabing halaga na buong kasiyahan ng aking kalooban ay
aking IPINAGBILI, ISINALIN AT INILIPAT sa nasabing, ENRIQUETA LOPEZ, sa kanyang mga
tagapagmana at kahalili, ang kabuuang sukat ng lupang nabanggit sa itaas nito sa pamamagitan ng
bilihang walang anomang pasubali. Ang lupang ito ay walang kasama at hindi taniman ng palay o
mais.
Simula sa araw na ito ay aking ililipat ang pagmamay-ari at pagtatangkilik ng nasabing lupa kay
ENRIQUETA LOPEZ sa kanilang/kanyang tagapagmana at kahalili x x x.
The Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila certified on 1 June 1994 that the
"‘KASULATAN SA BILIHAN NG LUPA’, between Justina Navarro (Nagbili) and Enriqueta Lopez
(Bumili), was notarized by Atty. Ruperto Q. Andrada on 11 October 1957 and entered in his Notarial
Register xxx."13 The certification further stated that Atty. Andrada was a duly appointed notary public
for the City of Manila in 1957.
Because the Jumaquio sisters were in peaceful possession of their portion of the Property for more
than thirty years, they also invoked the defense of acquisitive prescription against petitioners, and
charged that petitioners were guilty of laches. The Jumaquio sisters argued that the present action
should have been filed years earlier, either by Vicente Lopez when he was alive or by Manongsong
when the latter reached legal age. Instead, petitioners filed this action for partition only in 1992 when
Manongsong was already 33 years old.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
After trial on the merits, the trial court in its Decision14 of 10 April 1995 ruled in favor of petitioners.
The trial court held that the Kasulatan was void, even absent evidence attacking its validity. The trial
court declared:
It appears that the ownership of the estate in question is controverted. According to defendants
Jumaquios, it pertains to them through conveyance by means of a Deed of Sale executed by their
common ancestor Justina Navarro to their mother Enriqueta, which deed was presented in evidence
as Exhs. "4" to "4-A". Plaintiff Milagros Manongsong debunks the evidence as fake. The document of
sale, in the observance of the Court, is however duly authenticated by means of a certificate issued
by the RTC of the Manila Clerk of Court as duly notarized public document (Exh. "5"). No
countervailing proof was adduced by plaintiffs to overcome or impugn the document’s legality or its
validity.
xxx The conveyance made by Justina Navarro is subject to nullity because the property conveyed
had a conjugal character. No positive evidence had been introduced that it was solely a paraphernal
property. The name of Justina Navarro’s spouse/husband was not mentioned and/or whether the
husband was still alive at the time the conveyance was made to Justina Navarro. Agatona Guevarra
as her compulsory heir should have the legal right to participate with the distribution of the estate
under question to the exclusion of others. She is entitled to her legitime. The Deed of Sale [Exhs "4"
& "4-1"(sic)] did not at all provide for the reserved legitime or the heirs, and, therefore it has no force
and effect against Agatona Guevarra and her six (6) legitimate children including the grandchildren,
by right of representation, as described in the order of intestate succession. The same Deed of Sale
should be declared a nullity ab initio. The law on the matter is clear. The compulsory heirs cannot be
deprived of their legitime, except on (sic) cases expressly specified by law like for instance
disinheritance for cause. xxx (Emphasis supplied)
Since the other respondents had entered into a compromise agreement with petitioners, the
dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision was directed against the Jumaquio sisters only, as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against
the remaining active defendants, Emiliana Jumaquio and Felomena J. Estimo, jointly and severally,
ordering:
1. That the property consisting of 152 square meters referred to above be immediately
partitioned giving plaintiff Milagros Lopez-Manongsong her lawful share of 1/5 of the area in
square meters, or the prevailing market value on the date of the decision;
2. Defendants to pay plaintiffs the sum of ₱10,000.00 as compensatory damages for having
deprived the latter the use and enjoyment of the fruits of her 1/5 share;
3. Defendants to pay plaintiffs’ litigation expenses and attorney’s fee in the sum of
₱10,000.00; and
4. Defendants to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.15 (Emphasis supplied)
When the trial court denied their motion for reconsideration, the Jumaquio sisters appealed to the
Court of Appeals.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioners, in their appellee’s brief before the Court of Appeals, presented for the first time a
supposed photocopy of the death certificate16 of Guevarra, which stated that Guevarra’s mother was
a certain Juliana Gallardo. Petitioner also attached an affidavit17 from Benjamin dela Cruz, Sr.
attesting that he knew Justina Navarro only by name and had never met her personally, although he
had lived for some years with Agatona Guevarra after his marriage with Rosario Lopez. On the basis
of these documents, petitioners assailed the genuineness and authenticity of the Kasulatan.
The Court of Appeals refused to take cognizance of the death certificate and affidavit presented by
petitioners on the ground that petitioners never formally offered these documents in evidence.
The appellate court further held that the petitioners were bound by their admission that Navarro was
the original owner of the Property, as follows:
Moreover, plaintiffs-appellees themselves admitted before the trial court that Justina Navarro and not
Juliana Gallardo was the original owner of the subject property and was the mother of Agatona
Navarro (sic). Plaintiffs-appellees in their Reply-Memorandum averred:
"As regards the existence of common ownership, the defendants clearly admit as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
‘History of this case tells us that originally the property was owned by JUSTINA NAVARRO who has
a daughter by the name of AGATONA GUEVARRA who on the other hand has six children namely:
xxx xxx xxx.’
which point-out that co-ownership exists on the property between the parties. Since this is the
admitted history, facts of the case, it follows that there should have been proper document to
extinguish this status of co-ownership between the common owners either by (1) Court action or
proper deed of tradition, xxx xxx xxx."
The trial court confirms these admissions of plaintiffs-appellees. The trial court held:
"x x x xxx xxx
With the parties’ admissions and their conformity to a factual common line of relationship of the heirs
with one another, it has been elicited ascendant Justina Navarro is the common ancestor of the heirs
herein mentioned, however, it must be noted that the parties failed to amplify who was the husband
and the number of compulsory heirs of Justina Navarro. xxx xxx xxx"
Therefore, plaintiffs-appellees cannot now be heard contesting the fact that Justina Navarro was
their common ancestor and was the original owner of the subject property.
The Court of Appeals further held that the trial court erred in assuming that the Property was
conjugal in nature when Navarro sold it. The appellate court reasoned as follows:
However, it is a settled rule that the party who invokes the presumption that all property of marriage
belongs to the conjugal partnership, must first prove that the property was acquired during the
marriage. Proof of acquisition during the coveture is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the
presumption in favor of conjugal ownership.
In this case, not a single iota of evidence was submitted to prove that the subject property was
acquired by Justina Navarro during her marriage. xxx
The findings of the trial court that the subject property is conjugal in nature is not supported by any
evidence.
To the contrary, records show that in 1949 the subject property was declared, for taxation purposes
under the name of Justina Navarro alone. This indicates that the land is the paraphernal property of
Justina Navarro.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, thus:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
A new one is hereby rendered DISMISSING plaintiffs-appellees’ complaint in so far as defendants-
appellants are concerned.
Costs against plaintiffs-appellees.
SO ORDERED.18
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied the same in its
Resolution of 21 December 1998.19
On 28 January 1999, petitioners appealed the appellate court’s decision and resolution to this Court.
The Court initially denied the petition for review due to certain procedural defects. The Court,
however, gave due course to the petition in its Resolution of 31 January 2000.20
The Issues
Petitioners raise the following issues before this Court:
1. WHETHER PETITIONER HAS NO COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE ON THE ALLEGED

SALE BY ONE JUSTINA NAVARRO;
2. WHETHER THERE IS PRETERITION AND THE ISSUES RAISED ARE REVIEWABLE;
3. WHETHER THERE IS CO-OWNERSHIP PRO INDIVISO;
4. WHETHER THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY CO-OWNERS ON THE LAND SHOULD

PREVAIL;
5. WHETHER THE ALLEGED SALE IS VALID AND BINDS THE OTHER CO-HEIRS;
6. WHETHER PRESCRIPTION APPLIES AGAINST THE SHARE OF PETITIONERS.21
The fundamental question for resolution is whether petitioners were able to prove, by the requisite
quantum of evidence, that Manongsong is a co-owner of the Property and therefore entitled to
demand for its partition.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition lacks merit.
The issues raised by petitioners are mainly factual in nature. In general, only questions of law are
appealable to this Court under Rule 45. However, where the factual findings of the trial court and
Court of Appeals conflict, this Court has the authority to review and, if necessary, reverse the
findings of fact of the lower courts.22 This is precisely the situation in this case.
We review the factual and legal issues of this case in light of the general rules of evidence and the
burden of proof in civil cases, as explained by this Court in Jison v. Court of Appeals :23
xxx Simply put, he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the
plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in a civil case,
once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to
defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of
plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a
preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence
and not upon the weakness of the defendant’s. The concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers
to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at
bottom, it means probability of truth.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the validity of the Kasulatan sa Bilihan ng Lupa
Petitioners anchor their action for partition on the claim that Manongsong is a co-owner or co-heir of
the Property by inheritance, more specifically, as the heir of her father, Vicente Lopez. Petitioners
likewise allege that the Property originally belonged to Guevarra, and that Vicente Lopez inherited
from Guevarra a 1/5 interest in the Property. As the parties claiming the affirmative of these issues,
petitioners had the burden of proof to establish their case by preponderance of evidence.
To trace the ownership of the Property, both contending parties presented tax declarations and the
testimonies of witnesses. However, the Jumaquio sisters also presented a notarized KASULATAN
SA BILIHAN NG LUPA which controverted petitioners’ claim of co-ownership.
The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged before a notary public, is a public document and
prima facie evidence of its authenticity and due execution. To assail the authenticity and due
execution of a notarized document, the evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant.24 Otherwise the authenticity and due execution of the document should be
upheld.25 The trial court itself held that "(n)o countervailing proof was adduced by plaintiffs to
overcome or impugn the document’s legality or its validity."26
Even if the Kasulatan was not notarized, it would be deemed an ancient document and thus still
presumed to be authentic. The Kasulatan is: (1) more than 30 years old, (2) found in the proper
custody, and (3) unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance of suspicion. It appears, on
its face, to be genuine.27
Nevertheless, the trial court held that the Kasulatan was void because the Property was conjugal at
the time Navarro sold it to Enriqueta Lopez Jumaquio. We do not agree. The trial court’s conclusion
that the Property was conjugal was not based on evidence, but rather on a misapprehension of
Article 160 of the Civil Code, which provides:
All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved
that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.
As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, the presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code
applies only when there is proof that the property was acquired during the marriage. Proof of
acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition for the operation of the presumption in favor
of the conjugal partnership.28
There was no evidence presented to establish that Navarro acquired the Property during her
marriage. There is no basis for applying the presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code to the
present case. On the contrary, Tax Declaration No. 911 showed that, as far back as in 1949, the
Property was declared solely in Navarro’s name.29 This tends to support the argument that the
Property was not conjugal.
We likewise find no basis for the trial court’s declaration that the sale embodied in the Kasulatan
deprived the compulsory heirs of Guevarra of their legitimes. As opposed to a disposition inter vivos
by lucrative or gratuitous title, a valid sale for valuable consideration does not diminish the estate of
the seller. When the disposition is for valuable consideration, there is no diminution of the estate but
merely a substitution of values,30 that is, the property sold is replaced by the equivalent monetary
consideration.1âwphi 1
Under Article 1458 of the Civil Code, the elements of a valid contract of sale are: (1) consent or
meeting of the minds; (2) determinate subject matter and (3) price certain in money or its
equivalent.31 The presence of these elements is apparent on the face of the Kasulatan itself. The
Property was sold in 1957 for ₱250.00.32
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not admitting the documents presented by petitioners for the
first time on appeal
We find no error in the Court of Appeals’ refusal to give any probative value to the alleged birth
certificate of Guevarra and the affidavit of Benjamin dela Cruz, Sr. Petitioners belatedly attached
these documents to their appellee’s brief. Petitioners could easily have offered these documents
during the proceedings before the trial court. Instead, petitioners presented these documents for the
first time on appeal without any explanation. For reasons of their own, petitioners did not formally
offer in evidence these documents before the trial court as required by Section 34, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court.33 To admit these documents now is contrary to due process, as it deprives
respondents of the opportunity to examine and controvert them.
Moreover, even if these documents were admitted, they would not controvert Navarro’s ownership of
the Property. Benjamin dela Cruz, Sr.’s affidavit stated merely that, although he knew Navarro by
name, he was not personally acquainted with her.34 Guevarra’s alleged birth certificate casts doubt
only as to whether Navarro was indeed the mother of Guevarra. These documents do not prove that
Guevarra owned the Property or that Navarro did not own the Property.
Petitioners admitted before the trial court that Navarro was the mother of Guevarra. However,
petitioners denied before the Court of Appeals that Navarro was the mother of Guevarra. We agree
with the appellate court that this constitutes an impermissible change of theory. When a party adopts
a certain theory in the court below, he cannot change his theory on appeal. To allow him to do so is
not only unfair to the other party, it is also offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due
process.35
If Navarro were not the mother of Guevarra, it would only further undermine petitioners’ case. Absent
any hereditary relationship between Guevarra and Navarro, the Property would not have passed
from Navarro to Guevarra, and then to the latter’s children, including petitioners, by succession.
There would then be no basis for petitioners’ claim of co-ownership by virtue of inheritance from
Guevarra. On the other hand, this would not undermine respondents’ position since they anchor their
claim on the sale under the Kasulatan and not on inheritance from Guevarra.
Since the notarized Kasulatan is evidence of greater weight which petitioners failed to refute by clear
and convincing evidence, this Court holds that petitioners were not able to prove by preponderance
of evidence that the Property belonged to Guevarra’s estate. There is therefore no legal basis for
petitioners’ complaint for partition of the Property.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of 26 June 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51643,
dismissing the complaint of petitioners against Felomena Jumaquio Estimo and Emiliana Jumaquio,
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 118449 February 11, 1998
LAURO G. VIZCONDE, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 120, Caloocan City, and RAMON G.
NICOLAS, respondents.
FRANCISCO, J.:
Petitioner Lauro G. Vizconde and his wife Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde had two
children, viz., Carmela and Jennifer. Petitioner's wife, Estrellita, is one of the five siblings of
spouses Rafael Nicolas and Salud Gonzales-Nicolas. The other children of Rafael and Salud
are Antonio Nicolas; Ramon Nicolas; Teresita Nicolas de Leon, and RicardoNicolas, an incompetent.
Antonio predeceased his parents and is now survived by his widow, Zenaida, and their four children.
On May 22, 1979, Estrellita purchased from Rafael a parcel of land with an area of 10,110 sq. m.
located at Valenzuela, Bulacan (hereafter Valenzuela property) covered by TCT No. (T-36734)
13206 for One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Pesos (P135,000.00), evidenced by a "Lubusang
Bilihan ng Bahagi ng Lupa na Nasasakupan ng Titulo TCT No. T-36734".1 In view thereof, TCT No.
V-554 covering the Valenzuela property was issued to Estrellita. 2 On March 30, 1990, Estrellita
sold the Valenzuela property to Amelia Lim and Maria Natividad Balictar Chiu for Three
Million, Four Hundred Five Thousand, Six Hundred Twelve Pesos (P3,405,612.00).3 In June of
the same year, Estrellita bought from Premier Homes, Inc., a parcel of land with
improvements situated at Vinzon St., BF Homes, Parañaque (hereafter Parañaque property)
using a portion of the proceeds of sale of the Valenzuela property. The remaining amount of
the proceeds was used in buying a car while the balance was deposited in a bank.
The following year an unfortunate event in petitioner's life occurred. Estrellita and her two
daughters, Carmela and Jennifer, were killed on June 30, 1991, an incident popularly known
as the "Vizconde Massacre". The findings of the investigation conducted by the NBI reveal
that Estrellita died ahead of her daughters.4 Accordingly, Carmela, Jennifer and herein
petitioner succeeded Estrellita and, with the subsequent death of Carmela and Jennifer,
petitioner was left as the sole heir of his daughters. Nevertheless, petitioner entered into an
"Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde With Waiver
of Shares", 5 with Rafael and Salud, Estrellita's parents. The extra-judicial settlement provided
for the division of the properties of Estrellita and her two daughters between petitioner and
spouses Rafael and Salud. The properties include bank deposits, a car and the Parañaque
property. The total value of the deposits deducting the funeral and other related expenses in
the burial of Estrellita, Carmela and Jennifer, amounts to Three Million Pesos
(P3,000,000.00).6 The settlement gave fifty percent (50%) of the total amount of the bank
deposits of Estrellita and her daughters to Rafael, except Savings Account No. 104-111211-0
under the name of Jennifer which involves a token amount. The other fifty percent (50%) was
allotted to petitioner. The Parañaque property and the car and were also given to petitioner
with Rafael and Salud waiving all their "claims, rights, ownership and participation as
heirs" 7 in the said properties.
On November 18, 1992, Rafael died. To settle Rafael's estate, Teresita instituted an intestate
estate proceeding8 docketed as Sp. Proc. No. C-1679, with Branch 120 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Caloocan City listing as heirs Salud, Ramon, Ricardo, and the wife (Zenaida)
and children of Antonio. Teresita prayed to be appointed Special Administratrix of Rafael's
estate. Additionally, she sought to be appointed as guardian ad litem of Salud, now senile,
and Ricardo, her incompetent brother Herein private respondent Ramon filed an
opposition9 dated March 24, 1993, praying to be appointed instead as Salud and Ricardo's
guardian. Barely three weeks passed, Ramon filed another opposition 10 alleging, among
others, that Estrellita was given the Valenzuela property by Rafael which she sold for not less
than Six Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00) before her gruesome murder. Ramon pleaded for the
court's intervention "to determine the legality and validity of the intervivos distribution made
by deceased Rafael to his children," 11Estrellita included. On May 12, 1993, Ramon filed his
own petition, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. C-1699, entitled "In The Matter Of The Guardianship
Of Salud G. Nicolas and Ricardo G. Nicolas" and averred that their legitime should come from
the collation of all the properties distributed to his children by Rafael during his
lifetime. 12 Ramon stated that herein petitioner is one of Rafael's children "by right of
representation as the widower of deceased legitimate daughter of Estrellita." 13
In a consolidated Order, dated November 9, 1993, the RTC appointed Ramon as the guardian
of Salud and Ricardo while Teresita, in turn, was appointed as the Special Administratrix of
Rafael's estate. The court's Order did not include petitioner in the slate of Rafael's
heirs. 14 Neither was the Parañaque property listed in its list of properties to be included in the
estate. 15 Subsequently, the RTC in an Order dated January 5, 1994, removed Ramon as Salud
and Ricardo's guardian for Selling his ward's property without the court's knowledge and
permission. 16
Sometime on January 13, 1994, the RTC released an Order giving petitioner "ten (10) days . . .
within which to file any appropriate petition or motion related to the pending petition insofar
as the case is concerned and to file any opposition to any pending motion that has been filed
by both the counsels for Ramon Nicolas and Teresita de Leon." In response, petitioner filed a
Manifestation, dated January 19, 1994, stressing that he was neither a compulsory heir nor an
intestate heir of Rafael and he has no interest to participate in the proceedings. The RTC
noted said Manifestation in its Order dated February 2, 1994. 17Despite the Manifestation,
Ramon, through a motion dated February 14, 1994, moved to include petitioner in the
intestate estate proceeding and asked that the Parañaque property, as well as the car and the
balance of the proceeds of the sale of the Valenzuela property, be collated. 18 Acting on
Ramon's motion, the trial court on March 10, 1994 granted the same in an Order which
pertinently reads as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
On the Motion To Include Lauro G. Vizconde In Intestate proceedings in instant

case and considering the comment on his Manifestation, the same is hereby
granted.19
xxx xxx xxx
Petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Order which Ramon
opposed. 20 On August 12, 1994, the RTC rendered an Order denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration. It provides:
xxx xxx xxx
The centerpoint of oppositor-applicant's argument is that spouses Vizconde

were then financially incapable of having purchased or acquired for a valuable
consideration the property at Valenzuela from the deceased Rafael
Nicolas. Admittedly, the spouses Vizconde were then living with the deceased
Rafael Nicolas in the latter's ancestral home. In fact, as the argument further
goes, said spouses were dependent for support on the deceased Rafael
Nicolas. And, Lauro Vizconde left for the United States in, de-facto separation,
from the family for sometime and returned to the Philippines only after the
occurrence of violent deaths of Estrellita and her two daughters.
To dispute the contention that the spouses Vizconde were financially

incapable to buy the property from the late Rafael Nicolas, Lauro Vizconde
claims that they have been engaged in business venture such as taxi business,
canteen concessions and garment manufacturing.However, no competent
evidence has been submitted to indubitably support the business
undertakings adverted to.
In fine, there is no sufficient evidence to show that the acquisition of the

property from Rafael Nicolas was for a valuable consideration.
Accordingly, the transfer of the property at Valenzuela in favor of Estrellita by

her father was gratuitous and the subject property in Parañaque which was
purchased out of the proceeds of the said transfer of the property by the
deceased Rafael Nicolas in favor of Estrellita, is subject to collation.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. 21 (Emphasis

added)
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with respondent Court of
Appeals. In its decision of December 14, 1994, respondent Court of Appeals 22 denied
the petition stressing that the RTC correctly adjudicated the question on the title of
the Valenzuela property as "the jurisdiction of the probate court extends to matters
incidental and collateral to the exercise of its recognized powers in handling the
settlement of the estate of the deceased (Cf.: Sec. 1, Rule 90, Revised Rules of
Court)." 23 Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari.
Finding prima faciemerit, the Court on December 4, 1995, gave due course to the
petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
The core issue hinges on the validity of the probate court's Order, which respondent Court of
Appeals sustained, nullifying the transfer of the Valenzuela property from Rafael to Estrellita
and declaring the Parañaque property as subject to collation.
The appeal is well taken.

Basic principles of collation need to be emphasized at the outset. Article 1061 of the Civil
Code speaks of collation. It states:
Art. 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs,
must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have
received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of
donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the
determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.
Collation is the act by virtue of which descendants or other forced heirs who intervene in the
division of the inheritance of an ascendant bring into the common mass, the property which
they received from him, so that the division may be made according to law and the will of the
testator. 24 Collation is only required of compulsory heirs succeeding with other compulsory
heirs and involves property or rights received by donation or gratuitous title during the
lifetime of the decedent. 25 The purpose is to attain equality among the compulsory heirs in so
far as possible for it is presumed that the intention of the testator or predecessor in interest
making a donation or gratuitous transfer to a forced heir is to give him something in advance
on account of his share in the estate, and that the predecessor's will is to treat all his heirs
equally, in the absence of any expression to the contrary. 26 Collation does not impose any
lien on the property or the subject matter of collationable donation. What is brought to
collation is not the property donated itself, but rather the value of such property at the time it
was donated, 27 the rationale being that the donation is a real alienation which conveys
ownership upon its acceptance, hence any increase in value or any deterioration or loss
thereof is for the account of the heir or donee. 28
The attendant facts herein do not make a case of collation. We find that the probate court, as
well as respondent Court of Appeals, committed reversible errors.
First: The probate court erred in ordering the inclusion of petitioner in the intestate estate
proceeding. Petitioner, a son-in-law of Rafael, is not one of Rafael's compulsory heirs. Article
887 of the Civil Code is clear on this point:
Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate

parents and ascendants;
(2) In default of the following, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect
to their legitimate children and ascendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in

Nos. 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one another.
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.

The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned,
shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this
Code.
With respect to Rafael's estate, therefore, petitioner who was not even shown to be a
creditor of Rafael is considered a third person or a stranger. 29 As such, petitioner may
not be dragged into the intestate estate proceeding. Neither may he be permitted or
allowed to intervene as he has no personality or interest in the said
proceeding, 30 which petitioner correctly argued in his manifestation. 31
Second: As a rule, the probate court may pass upon and determine the title or ownership of a
property which may or may not be included in the estate proceedings. 32 Such determination
is provisional in character and is subject to final decision in a separate action to resolve
title. 33 In the case at bench, however, we note that the probate court went beyond the scope
of its jurisdiction when it proceeded to determine the validity of the sale of the Valenzuela
property between Rafael and Estrellita and ruled that the transfer of the subject property
between the concerned parties was gratuitous. The interpretation of the deed and the true
intent of the contracting parties, as well as the presence or absence of consideration, are
matters outside the probate court's jurisdiction. These issues should be ventilated in an
appropriate action. We reiterate:
. . . we are of the opinion and so hold, that a court which takes cognizance of
testate or intestate proceedings has power and jurisdiction to determine
whether or not the properties included therein or excluded therefrom
belong prima facie to the deceased, although such a determination is not final
or ultimate in nature, and without prejudice to the right of the interested
parties, in a proper action, to raise the question bearing on the ownership or
existence of the right or credit.34
Third: The order of the probate court subjecting the Parañaque property to collation is
premature. Records indicate that the intestate estate proceedings is still in its initiatory stage.
We find nothing herein to indicate that the legitime of any of Rafael's heirs has been impaired
to warrant collation. We thus advert to our ruling in Udarbe v. Jurado, 59 Phil. 11, 13-14, to
wit:
We are of the opinion that this contention is untenable. In accordance with the
provisions of article 1035 35 of the Civil Code, it was the duty of the plaintiffs to
allege and prove that the donations received by the defendants were
inofficious in whole or in part and prejudiced the legitime or hereditary portion
to which they are entitled. In the absence of evidence to that effect, the
collation sought is untenable for lack of ground or basis therefor.
Fourth: Even on the assumption that collation is appropriate in this case the probate court,
nonetheless, made a reversible error in ordering collation of the Parañaque property. We note
that what was transferred to Estrellita, by way of deed of sale, is the Valenzuela property. The
Parañaque property which Estrellita acquired by using the proceeds of the sale of the
Valenzuela property does not become collationable simply by reason thereof. Indeed,
collation of the Parañaque property has no statutory basis. 36 The order of the probate court
presupposes that the Parañaque property was gratuitously conveyed by Rafael to Estrellita.
Records indicate, however, that the Parañaque property was conveyed for and in
consideration of P900,000.00, 37 by Premier Homes, Inc., to Estrellita. Rafael, the decedent,
has no participation therein, and petitioner who inherited and is now the present owner of the
Parañaque property is not one of Rafael's heirs. Thus, the probate court's order of collation
against petitioner is unwarranted for the obligation to collate is lodged with Estrellita, the
heir, and not to herein petitioner who does not have any interest in Rafael's estate. As it
stands, collation of the Parañaque property is improper for, to repeat, collation covers only
properties gratuitously given by the decedent during his lifetime to his compulsory heirs
which fact does not obtain anent the transfer of the Parañaque property. Moreover, Rafael, in
a public instrument, voluntarily and willfully waived any "claims, rights, ownership and
participation as heir" 38 in the Parañaque property.
Fifth: Finally, it is futile for the probate court to ascertain whether or not the Valenzuela
property may be brought to collation. Estrellita, it should be stressed, died ahead of Rafael. In
fact, it was Rafael who inherited from Estrellita an amount more than the value of the
Valenzuela property. 39 Hence, even assuming that the Valenzuela property may be collated
collation may not be allowed as the value of the Valenzuela property has long been returned
to the estate of Rafael. Therefore, any determination by the probate court on the matter
serves no valid and binding purpose.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from is hereby REVERSED AND
SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17818 January 25, 1967
TIRSO T. REYES, as guardian of the minors Azucena Flordelis and Tirso, Jr., all surnamed
Reyes y Barretto,plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
LUCIA MILAGROS BARRETTO-DATU, defendant-appellee.
Recto Law Office for plaintiff-appealant.

Deogracias T. Reyes and Associates for defendant-appellee.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Direct appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, in its Civil Case No. 1084,
dismissing the complaint of appellant Tirso T. Reyes and ordering the same to deliver to the
defendant-appellee, Lucia Milagros Barretto-Datu, the properties receivea by his deceasea wife
under the terms of the will of the late Bibiano Barretto, consisting of lots in Manila, Rizal, Pampanga
and Bulacan, valued at more than P200,000.
The decision appealed from sets the antecedents of the case to be as follows:
"This is an action to recover one-half share in the fishpond, located in the barrio of San
Roque, Hagonoy, Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-13734 of the Land
Records of this Province, being the share of plaintiff's wards as minor heirs of the deceased
Salud Barretto, widow of plaintiff Tirso Reyes, guardian of said minors."
It appears that Bibiano Barretto was married to Maria Gerardo. During their lifetime they acquired a
vast estate, consisting of real properties in Manila, Pampanga, and Bulacan, covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 41423, 22443, 8858, 32989, 31046, 27285, 6277, 6500, 2057, 6501, 2991,
57403 and 12507/T-337.
When Bibiano Barretto died on February 18, 1936, in the City of Manila, he left his share of these
properties in a will Salud Barretto, mother of plaintiff's wards, and Lucia Milagros Barretto and a
small portion as legacies to his two sisters Rosa Barretto and Felisa Barretto and his nephew anä
nieces® The usufruct oæ the fishponä situateä iî barrio Saî Roque¬ Hagonoy, Bulacan, above-
mentioned, however, was reserved for his widow, Maria Gerardo® Iî the meantime¬ Maria Gerardo
was appointeä administratrix. By virtue thereof, she prepared a project of partition, which was signed
by her in her own behalf and as guardian of the minor Milagros Barretto. Said project of partition was
approved by the Court of First Instance of Manila on November 22, 1939. The distribution of the
estate and the delivery of the shares of the heirs followed forthwith. As a consequence, Salud
Barretto took immediate possession of her share and secured the cancellation of the original
certificates of title and the issuance of new titles in her own name.
Everything went well since then. Nobody was heard to complain of any irregularity in the distribution
of the said estate until the widow, Maria Gerardo died on March 5, 1948. Upon her death, it was
discovered that she had executed two wills, in the first of which, she instituted Salud and Milagros,
both surnamed Barretto, as her heirs; and, in the second, she revoked the same and left all her
properties in favor of Milagros Barretto alone. Thus, the later will was allowed and the first rejected.
In rejecting the first will presented by Tirso Reyes, as guardian of the children of Salud Barretto, the
lower court held that Salud was not the daughter of the decedent Maria Gerardo by her husband
Bibiano Barretto. This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the same.1
Having thus lost this fight for a share in the estate of Maria Gerardo, as a legitimate heir of Maria
Gerardo, plaintiff now falls back upon the remnant of the estate of the deceased Bibiano Barretto,
which was given in usufruct to his widow Maria Gerardo. Hence, this action for the recovery of one-
half portion, thereof.
This action afforded the defendant an opportunity to set up her right of ownership, not only of the
fishpond under litigation, but of all the other properties willed and delivered to Salud Barretto, for
being a spurious heir, and not entitled to any share in the estate of Bibiano Barretto, thereby directly
attacking the validity, not only of the project of partition, but of the decision of the court based
thereon as well.
The defendant contends that the Project of Partition from which Salud acquired the fishpond in
question is void ab initio and Salud Barretto did not acquire any valid title thereto, and that the court
did not acquire any jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, who was then a minor.'
Finding for the defendant (now appellee), Milagros Barretto, the lower court declared the project of
partition submitted in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Bibiano Barretto (Civil Case
No. 49629 of the Court of First Instance of Manila) to be null and void ab initio (not merely voidable)
because the distributee, Salud Barretto, predecessor of plaintiffs (now appellants), was not a
daughter of the spouses Bibiano Barretto and Maria Gerardo. The nullity of the project of partition
was decreed on the basis of Article 1081 of the Civil Code of 1889 (then in force) providing as
follows: .
A partition in which a person was believed to be an heir, without being so, has been
included, shall be null and void.
The court a quo further rejected the contention advanced by plaintiffs that since Bibiano Barretto was
free to dispose of one-third (1/3) of his estate under the old Civil Code, his will was valid in favor of
Salud Barretto (nee Lim Boco) to the extent, at least, of such free part. And it concluded that, as
defendant Milagros was the only true heir of Bibiano Barretto, she was entitled to recover from
Salud, and from the latter's children and successors, all the Properties received by her from
Bibiano's estate, in view of the provisions of Article 1456 of the new Civil Code of the Philippines
establishing that property acquired by fraud or mistake is held by its acquirer in implied trust for the
real owner. Hence, as stated at the beginning of this opinion, the Court a quo not only dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint but ordered them to return the properties received under the project of partition
previously mentioned as prayed for in defendant Milagros Barretto's counterclaim. However, it
denied defendant's prayer for damages. Hence, this appeal interposed by both plaintiffs and
defendant.
Plaintiffs-appellants correctly point out that Article 1081 of the old Civil Code has been misapplied to
the present case by the court below. The reason is obvious: Salud Barretto admittedly had been
instituted heir in the late Bibiano Barretto's last will and testament together with defendant Milagros;
hence, the partition had between them could not be one such had with a party who was believed to
be an heir without really being one, and was not null and void under said article. The legal precept
(Article 1081) does not speak of children, or descendants, but of heirs(without distinction between
forced, voluntary or intestate ones), and the fact that Salud happened not to be a daughter of the
testator does not preclude her being one of the heirs expressly named in his testament; for Bibiano
Barretto was at liberty to assign the free portion of his estate to whomsoever he chose. While the
share (½) assigned to Salud impinged on the legitime of Milagros, Salud did not for that reason
cease to be a testamentary heir of Bibiano Barretto.
Nor does the fact that Milagros was allotted in her father's will a share smaller than her legitime
invalidate the institution of Salud as heir, since there was here no preterition, or total ommission of a
forced heir. For this reason, Neri vs. Akutin, 72 Phil. 322, invoked by appellee, is not at all
applicable, that case involving an instance of preterition or omission of children of the testator's
former marriage.
Appellee contends that the partition in question was void as a compromise on the civil status of
Salud in violation of Article 1814 of the old Civil Code. This view is erroneous, since a compromise
presupposes the settlement of a controversy through mutual concessions of the parties (Civil Code
of 1889, Article 1809; Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 2028); and the condition of Salud as
daughter of the testator Bibiano Barretto, while untrue, was at no time disputed during the settlement
of the estate of the testator. There can be no compromise over issues not in dispute. And while a
compromise over civil status is prohibited, the law nowhere forbids a settlement by the parties over
the share that should correspond to a claimant to the estate.
At any rate, independently of a project of partition which, as its own name implies, is merely a
proposal for distribution of the estate, that the court may accept or reject, it is the court alone that
makes the distribution of the estate and determines the persons entitled thereto and the parts to
which each is entitled (Camia vs. Reyes, 63 Phil. 629, 643; Act 190, Section 750; Rule 90, Rules of
1940; Rule 91, Revised Rules of Court), and it is that judicial decree of distribution, once final, that
vests title in the distributees. If the decree was erroneous or not in conformity with law or the
testament, the same should have been corrected by opportune appeal; but once it had become final,
its binding effect is like that of any other judgment in rem, unless properly set aside for lack of
jurisdiction or fraud.
It is thus apparent that where a court has validly issued a decree of distribution of the estate, and the
same has become final, the validity or invalidity of the project of partition becomes irrelevant.
It is, however, argued for the appellee that since the court's distribution of the estate of the late
Bibiano Barretto was predicated on the project of partition executed by Salud Barretto and the
widow, Maria Gerardo (who signed for herself and as guardian of the minor Milagros Barretto), and
since no evidence was taken of the filiation of the heirs, nor were any findings of fact or law made,
the decree of distribution can have no greater validity than that of the basic partition, and must stand
or fall with it, being in the nature of a judgment by consent, based on a compromise. Saminiada vs.
Mata, 92 Phil. 426, is invoked in support of the proposition. That case is authority for the proposition
that a judgment by compromise may be set aside on the ground of mistake or fraud, upon petition
filed in due time, where petition for "relief was filed before the compromise agreement a proceeding,
was consummated" (cas. cit. at p. 436). In the case before us, however, the agreement of partition
was not only ratified by the court's decree of distribution, but actually consummated, so much so that
the titles in the name of the deceased were cancelled, and new certificates issued in favor of the
heirs, long before the decree was attacked. Hence, Saminiada vs. Mata does not apply.
Moreover, the defendant-appellee's argument would be plausible if it were shown that the sole basis
for the decree of distribution was the project of partition. But, in fact, even without it, the distribution
could stand, since it was in conformity with the probated will of Bibiano Barretto, against the
provisions whereof no objection had been made. In fact it was the court's duty to do so. Act 190,
section 640, in force in 1939, provided: .
SEC. 640. Estate, How Administered. — When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant
letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and such letters
testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the
Philippine Islands. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of
administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as such will may operate
upon it; and the residue, if any, shall be disposed of as is provided by law in cases of estates
in these Islands belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another state or country.
(Emphasis supplied)
That defendant Milagros Barretto was a minor at the time the probate court distributed the estate of
her father in 1939 does not imply that the said court was without jurisdiction to enter the decree of
distribution. Passing upon a like issue, this Court ruled in Ramos vs. Ortuzar, 89 Phil. Reports, pp.
741 and 742:
If we are to assume that Richard Hill and Marvin Hill did not formally intervene, still they
would be concluded by the result of the proceedings, not only as to their civil status but as
the distribution of the estate as well. As this Court has held in Manolo vs. Paredes, 47 Phil.
938, "The proceeding for probate is one in rem (40 Cyc., 1265) and the court acquires
jurisdiction over all persons interested, through the publication of the notice prescribed by
section 630 C.P.C.; and any order that any be entered therein is binding against all of them."
(See also in re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156.) "A final order of distribution of the estate of
a deceased person vests the title to the land of the estate in the distributees". (Santos vs.
Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva Caceres, 45 Phil. 895.) There is no reason why, by
analogy, these salutary doctrines should not apply to intestate proceedings.
The only instance that we can think of in which a party interested in a probate proceeding
may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason of circumstances
beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to negligence. Even
then, the better practice to secure relief is reopening of the same case by proper motion
within the reglementary period, instead of an independent action the effect of which, if
successful, would be, as in the instant case, for another court or judge to throw out a
decision or order already final and executed and reshuffle properties long ago distributed and
disposed of.
It is well to observe, at this juncture, as this Court expressly declared in Reyes vs. Barretto Datu, 94
Phil. 446 (Am'd Rec. Appeal, pp. 156, 157), that:
... It is argued that Lucia Milagros Barretto was a minor when she signed the partition, and
that Maria Gerardo was not her judicially appointed guardian. The claim is not true. Maria
Gerardo signed as guardian of the minor. (Secs. 3 and 5, Rule 97, Rules of Court.) The mere
statement in the project of partion that the guardianship proceedings of the minor Lucia
Milagros Barretto are pending in the court, does not mean that the guardian had not yet been
appointed; it meant that the guardianship proceedings had not yet been terminated, and as a
guardianship proceedings begin with the appointment of a guardian, Maria Gerardo must
have been already appointed when she signed the project of partition. There is, therefore, no
irregularity or defect or error in the project of partition, apparent on the record of the testate
proceedings, which shows that Maria Gerardo had no power or authority to sign the project
of partition as guardian of the minor Lucia Milagros Barretto, and, consequently, no ground
for the contention that the order approving the project of partition is absolutely null and void
and may be attacked collaterally in these proceedings.
So that it is now incontestable that appellee Milagros Barretto was not only made a party by
publication but actually appeared and participated in the proceedings through her guardian: she,
therefore, can not escape the jurisdiction of the Manila Court of First Instance which settled her
father's estate.
Defendant-appellee further pleads that as her mother and guardian (Maria Gerardo) could not have
ignored that the distributee Salud was not her child, the act of said widow in agreeing to the oft-cited
partition and distribution was a fraud on appellees rights and entitles her to relief. In the first place,
there is no evidence that when the estate of Bibiano Barretto was judicially settled and distributed
appellants' predecessor, Salud Lim Boco Barretto to, knew that she was not Bibiano's child: so that if
fraud was committed, it was the widow, Maria Gerardo, who was solely responsible, and neither
Salud nor her minor children, appellants herein, can be held liable therefor. In the second
placegranting that there was such fraud, relief therefrom can only be obtained within 4 years from its
discovery, and the record shows that this period had elapsed long ago.
Because at the time of the distribution Milagros Barretto was only 16 years old (Exhibit 24), she
became of age five years later, in 1944. On that year, her cause of action accrued to contest on the
ground of fraud the court decree distributing her father's estate and the four-year period of limitation
started to run, to expire in 1948 (Section 43, Act. 190). In fact, conceding that Milagros only became
aware of the true facts in 1946 (Appellee's Brief, p. 27), her action still became extinct in 1950.
Clearly, therefore, the action was already barred when in August 31, 1956 she filed her counterclaim
in this case contesting the decree of distribution of Bibiano Barretto's estate.
In order to evade the statute of limitations, Milagros Barretto introduced evidence that appellant Tirso
Reyes had induced her to delay filing action by verbally promising to reconvey the properties
received by his deceased wife, Salud. There is no reliable evidence of the alleged promise, which
rests exclusively on the oral assertions of Milagros herself and her counsel. In fact, the trial court
made no mention of such promise in the decision under appeal. Even more: granting arguendo that
the promise was made, the same can not bind the wards, the minor children of Salud, who are the
real parties in interest. An abdicative waiver of rights by a guardian, being an act of disposition, and
not of administration, can not bind his wards, being null and void as to them unless duly authorized
by the proper court (Ledesma Hermanos vs. Castro, 55 Phil. 136, 142).
In resume, we hold (1) that the partition had between Salud and Milagros Barretto in the proceedings
for the settlement of the estate of Bibiano Barretto duly approved by the Court of First Instance of
Manila in 1939, in its Civil Case No. 49629, is not void for being contrary to either Article 1081 or
1814 of the, Civil Code of 1889; (2) that Milagros Barretto's action to contest said partition and
decree of distribution is barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) that her claim that plaintiff-
appellant guardian is a possessor in bad faith and should account for the fruits received from the
properties inherited by Salud Barretto (nee Lim Boco) is legally untenable. It follows that the
plaintiffs' action for partition of the fishpond described in the complaint should have been given due
course.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan now under appeal is reversed and
set aside in so far as it orders plaintiff-appellant to reconvey to appellee Milagros Barretto Datu the
properties enumeracted in said decision, and the same is affirmed in so far as it denies any right of
said appellee to accounting. Let the records be returned to the court of origin, with instructions to
proceed with the action for partition of the fishpond (Lot No. 4, Plan Psu-4709), covered by TCT No.
T-13734 of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan, and for the accounting of the fruits
thereof, as prayed for in the complaint No costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ.,
concur.
Footnotes
1 Reyes vs. Barretto, G.R. No. L-5831, Jan. 31, 1956.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24365 June 30, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN, deceased.

ADOLFO C. AZNAR, executor and appellee,
vs.
MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DUNCAN, oppositor and appellant.
MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN, oppositor and appellee.
J. Salonga and L. M. Abellera for oppositor and appellee.

Carlos Dominguez, Jr. for executor-appellee.
M. R. Sotelo for appellant.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Edward E. Christensen, a citizen of California with domicile in the Philippines, died leaving a will
executed on March 5, 1951. The will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Davao
in its decision of February 28, 1954. In that same decision the court declared that Maria Helen
Christensen Garcia (hereinafter referred to as Helen Garcia) was a natural child of the deceased.
The declaration was appealed to this Court, and was affirmed in its decision of February 14, 1958
(G.R. No. L-11484).
In another incident relative to the partition of the deceased's estate, the trial court approved the
project submitted by the executor in accordance with the provisions of the will, which said court
found to be valid under the law of California. Helen Garcia appealed from the order of approval, and
this Court, on January 31, 1963, reversed the same on the ground that the validity of the provisions
of the will should be governed by Philippine law, and returned the case to the lower court with
instructions that the partition be made as provided by said law (G.R. No. L-16749).
On October 29, 1964, the Court of First Instance of Davao issued an order approving the project of
partition submitted by the executor, dated June 30, 1964, wherein the properties of the estate were
divided equally between Maria Lucy Christensen Duncan (named in the will as Maria Lucy
Christensen Daney, and hereinafter referred to as merely Lucy Duncan), whom the testator had
expressly recognized in his will as his daughter (natural) and Helen Garcia, who had been judicially
declared as such after his death. The said order was based on the proposition that since Helen
Garcia had been preterited in the will the institution of Lucy Duncan as heir was annulled, and hence
the properties passed to both of them as if the deceased had died intestate, saving only the legacies
left in favor of certain other persons, which legacies have been duly approved by the lower court and
distributed to the legatees.
The case is once more before us on appeal, this time by Lucy Duncan, on the sole question of
whether the estate, after deducting the legacies, should pertain to her and to Helen Garcia in equal
shares, or whether the inheritance of Lucy Duncan as instituted heir should be merely reduced to the
extent necessary to cover the legitime of Helen Garcia, equivalent to 1/4 of the entire estate.
The will of Edward E. Christensen contains, among others, the following clauses which are pertinent
to the issue in this case:
3. I declare ... that I have but ONE (1) child, named MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN (Now
Mrs. Bernard Daney), who was born in the Philippines about twenty-eight years ago, who is
now residing at No. 665 Rodger Young Village, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
4. I further declare that I now have no living ascendants, and no descendants except my
above-named daughter, MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY.
xxx xxx xxx
7. I give, devise, and bequeath unto MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN, now married to
Eduardo Garcia, about eighteen years of age and who, notwithstanding the fact that she was
baptized Christensen, is not in any way related to me, nor has she been at any time adopted
by me, and who, from all information I have now resides in Egpit, Digos, Davao, Philippines,
the sum of THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P3,600.00), Philippine Currency,
the same to be deposited in trust for the said Maria Helen Christensen with the Davao
Branch of the Philippine National Bank, and paid to her at the rate of One Hundred Pesos
(P100.00), Philippine Currency per month until the principal thereof as well as any interest
which may have accrued thereon, is exhausted.
xxx xxx xxx

12. I hereby give, devise and bequeath, unto my well-beloved daughter, the said MARIA
LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY (Mrs. Bernard Daney) now residing, as aforesaid, at No. 665
Rodger Young Village, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., all the income from the rest,
remainder, and residue of my property and estate, real, personal and/or mixed, of
whatsoever kind or character, and wheresoever situated, of which I may be possessed at my
death and which may have come to me from any source whatsoever, during her lifetime;
Provided, however, that should the said MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY at anytime
prior to her decease having living issue, then and in that event, the life interest herein given
shall terminate, and if so terminated, then I give, devise, and bequeath to my daughter, the
said MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY the rest, remainder and residue of my property
with the same force and effect as if I had originally so given, devised and bequeathed it to
her; and provided, further, that should the said MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY die
without living issue, then, and in that event, I give, devise and bequeath all the rest,
remainder and residue of my property one-half (1/2) to my well-beloved sister, Mrs. CARRIE
LOUISE C. BORTON, now residing at No. 2124, Twentieth Street, Bakersfield, California,
U.S.A., and one-half (1/2) to the children of my deceased brother, JOSEPH C.
CHRISTENSEN, namely: Mrs. Carol F. Ruggaver, of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., and
Joseph Raymond Christensen, of Manhattan Beach, California, U.S.A., share and share
alike, the share of any of the three above named who may predecease me, to go in equal
parts to the descendants of the deceased; and, provided further, that should my sister Mrs.
Carol Louise C. Borton die before my own decease, then, and in that event, the share of my
estate devised to her herein I give, devise and bequeath to her children, Elizabeth Borton de
Treviño, of Mexico City Mexico; Barbara Borton Philips, of Bakersfield, California, U.S.A.,
and Richard Borton, of Bakersfield, California, U.S.A., or to the heirs of any of them who may
die before my own decease, share and share alike.
The trial court ruled, and appellee now maintains, that there has been preterition of Helen Garcia, a
compulsory heir in the direct line, resulting in the annulment of the institution of heir pursuant to
Article 854 of the Civil Code, which provides:
ART. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the
direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the
testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar
as they are not inofficious.
On the other hand, appellant contends that this is not a case of preterition, but is governed by Article
906 of the Civil Code, which says: "Any compulsory heir to whom the testator has left by any title
less than the legitime belonging to him may demand that the same be fully satisfied." Appellant also
suggests that considering the provisions of the will whereby the testator expressly denied his
relationship with Helen Garcia, but left to her a legacy nevertheless although less than the amount of
her legitime, she was in effect defectively disinherited within the meaning of Article 918, which reads:
ART. 918. Disinheritance without a specification of the cause, or for a cause the truth of
which, if contradicted, is not proved, or which is not one of those set forth in this Code, shall
annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited; but the
devices and legacies and other testamentary dispositions shall be valid to such extent as will
not impair the legitimate.
Thus, according to appellant, under both Article 906 and 918, Helen Garcia is entitled only to her
legitime, and not to a share of the estate equal that of Lucy Duncan as if the succession were
intestate.
Article 854 is a reproduction of Article 814 of the Spanish Civil Code; and Article 906 of Article 815.
Commenting on Article 815, Manresa explains:
Como dice Goyena, en el caso de pretericion puede presumirse ignorancia o falta de

memoria en el testador; en el de dejar algo al heredero forzoso no. Este no se encuentra
plivado totalmente de su legitima: ha recibido por cualquir titulo una porcion de los bienes
hereditarios, porcion que no alcanza a completar la legitima, pero que influeye
poderosamente en el animo del legislador para decidirle a adoptar una solucion bien
diferente de la señalada para el caso de pretericion.
El testador no ha olvidado por completo al heredero forzoso; le ha dejado bienes; pero

haciendo un calculo equivocado, ha repartido en favor de extraños o en favor de otros
legitimarios por via de legado donacion o mejora mayor cantidad de la que la ley de
consentia disponer. El heredero forzoso no puede perder su legitima, pero tampoco puede
pedir mas que la misma. De aqui su derecho a reclamar solamente lo que le falta; al
complemento de la porcion que forzosamente la corresponde.
... Dejar el testador por cualquier titulo, equivale a disponer en testamento por titulo de
herencia legado o mejora, y en favor de legitimarios, de alguna cantidad o porcion de bienes
menos que la legitima o igual a la misma. Tal sentido, que es el mas proprio en al articulo
815, no pugna tampoco con la doctrina de la ley. Cuando en el testamento se deja algo al
heredero forzoso, la pretericion es incompleta: es mas formularia que real. Cuando en el
testamento nada se deja el legitimario, hay verdadera pretericion. (6 Manresa, 7th Ed., 1951,
p. 437.)
On the difference between preterition of a compulsory heir and the right to ask for completion of his
legitime, Sanchez Roman says:
La desheredacion, como expresa, es siempre voluntaria; la pretericion puede serlo pero se

presume involuntaria la omision en que consiste en cuanto olvida o no atiende el testador en
su testamento a la satisfaccion del derecho a la legitima del heredero forzoso preterido,
prescindiendo absoluta y totalmente de el y no mencionandole en ninguna de sus
disposiciones testamentarias, o no instituyendole en parte alguna de la herencia, ni por titulo
de heredero ni por el de legatar o aunque le mencionara o nombrara sin dejarle mas o
menos bienes. Si le dejara algunos, por pocos que sean e insuficientes para cubrir su
legitima, ya no seria caso de pretericion, sino de complemento de aquella. El primer
supuesto o de pretericion se regula por el articulo 814, y produce accion de nulidad de la
institucion de heredero; y el segundo, o de complemento de legitima por el 815 y solo
original la accion ad suplementum, para completar la legitima. (Sanchez Roman, Tomo VI,
Vol. 2, p. 1131.)
Manresa defines preterition as the omission of the heir in the will, either by not naming him at all or,
while mentioning him as father, son, etc., by not instituting him as heir without disinheriting him
expressly, nor assigning to him some part of the properties. Manresa continues:
Se necesita pues (a) Que la omision se refiera a un heredero forzoso; (b) Que la omision
sea completa; que el heredero forzoso nada reciba en el testamento. 1äwphï1.ñët
xxx xxx xxx
B. Que la omision sea completa — Esta condicion se deduce del mismo Articulo 814 y
resulta con evidencia al relacionar este articulo con el 815. El heredero forzoso a quien el
testador deja algo por cualquier titulo en su testamento, no se halla propiamente omitido
pues se le nombra y se le reconoce participacion en los bienes hereditarios. Podria
discutirse en el Articulo 814 si era o no necesario que se reconociese el derecho del
heredero como tal heredero, pero el articulo 815 desvanece esta duda. Aquel se ocupa de
privacion completa o total, tacita este, de la privacion parcial. Los efectos deben ser y son,
como veremos completamente distintos (6 Manresa, p. 428.)
La privacion de la legitima puede ser total o parcial.
Privar totalmente de la legitima es negarla en absoluto al legitimario, despojarle de ella por

completo. A este caso se refiere el articulo 814. Privar parcialmente de la legitima, es
menguarla o reducirla dejar al legitimario una porcion, menor que la que le corresponde. A
este caso se refiere el articulo 815. El 813 sienta, pues, una regla general, y las
consecuencias del que brantamiento de esta regla se determina en los articulos 814 y 815.
(6 Manresa p. 418.)
Again Sanchez Roman:
QUE LA OMISSION SEA TOTAL. — Aunque el articulo 814 no consigna de modo expreso
esta circunstancia de que la pretericion o falta de mencion e institucion o disposicion
testamentaria a su favor, sea total, completa y absoluta, asi se deduce de no hacer
distincion o salvedad alguna empleandola en terminos generales; pero sirve a confirmarlo de
un modo indudable el siguiente articulo 815, al decir que el heredero forzoso a quien el
testador haya dejado por cualquier titulo, menos de la legitima que la corresponda, podria
pedir el complemento de la misma, lo cual ya no son el caso ni los efectos de la
pretericion, que anula la institucion, sino simplemente los del suplemento necesario para
cubrir su legitima. (Sanchez Roman — Tomo VI, Vol. 2.0 p. 1133.)
The question may be posed: In order that the right of a forced heir may be limited only to the
completion of his legitime (instead of the annulment of the institution of heirs) is it necessary that
what has been left to him in the will "by any title," as by legacy, be granted to him in his capacity as
heir, that is, a titulo de heredero? In other words, should he be recognized or referred to in the will as
heir? This question is pertinent because in the will of the deceased Edward E. Christensen Helen
Garcia is not mentioned as an heir — indeed her status as such is denied — but is given a legacy of
P3,600.00.
While the classical view, pursuant to the Roman law, gave an affirmative answer to the question,
according to both Manresa (6 Manresa 7th 3rd. 436) and Sanchez Roman (Tomo VI, Vol. 2.0 — p.
937), that view was changed by Article 645 of the "Proyecto de Codigo de 1851," later on copied in
Article 906 of our own Code. Sanchez Roman, in the citation given above, comments as follows:
RESPECTO DEL COMPLEMENTO DE LA LEGITIMA. — Se inspira el Codigo en esta

materia en la doctrina clasica del Derecho romano y patrio (2); pero con alguna racional
modificacion. Concedian aquellos precedentes legales al heredero forzoso, a quien no se le
dejaba por titulo de tal el completo de su legitima, la accion para invalidar la institucion
hecha en el testamento y reclamar y obtener aquella mediante el ejercicio de la querella de
inoficioso, y aun cuando resultara favorecido como donotario, por otro titulo que no fuera el
de heredero, sino al honor de que se le privaba no dandole este caracter, y solo cuando era
instituido heredero en parte o cantidad inferior a lo que le correspondiera por legitima, era
cuando bastaba el ejercicio de la accion ad suplementum para completarla, sin necesidad
de anular las otras instituciones de heredero o demas disposiciones contenidas en el
testamento.
El Articulo 851 se aparta de este criterio estricto y se ajusta a la unica necesidad que le
inspira cual es la de que se complete la legitima del heredero forzoso, a quien por cualquier
titulo se haya dejado menos de lo que le corresponda, y se le otorga tan solo el derecho de
pedir el complemento de la misma sin necesidad de que se anulen las disposiciones
testamentarias, que se reduciran en lo que sean inoficiosas conforme al articulo 817, cuya
interpretacion y sentido tienen ya en su apoyo la sancion de la jurisprudencia (3); siendo
condicion precisa que lo que se hubiere dejado de menos de la legitima al heredero forzoso,
lo haya sido en el testamento, o sea por disposicion del testador, segun lo revela el texto del
articulo, "el heredero forzoso a quien el testador haya dejado, etc., esto es por titulo de
legado o donacion mortis causa en el testamento y, no fuera de al. (Sanchez Roman, Tomo
VI, Vol. 2.0 — p. 937.)
Manresa cites particularly three decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain dated January 16, 1895,
May 25, 1917, and April 23, 1932, respectively. In each one of those cases the testator left to one
who was a forced heir a legacy worth less than the legitime, but without referring to the legatee as
an heir or even as a relative, and willed the rest of the estate to other persons. It was held that
Article 815 applied, and the heir could not ask that the institution of heirs be annulled entirely, but
only that the legitime be completed. (6 Manresa, pp. 438, 441.)
The foregoing solution is indeed more in consonance with the expressed wishes of the testator in the
present case as may be gathered very clearly from the provisions of his will. He refused to
acknowledge Helen Garcia as his natural daughter, and limited her share to a legacy of P3,600.00.
The fact that she was subsequently declared judicially to possess such status is no reason to
assume that had the judicial declaration come during his lifetime his subjective attitude towards her
would have undergone any change and that he would have willed his estate equally to her and to
Lucy Duncan, who alone was expressly recognized by him.
The decision of this Court in Neri, et al. v. Akutin, 74 Phil. 185, is cited by appellees in support of
their theory of preterition. That decision is not here applicable, because it referred to a will where
"the testator left all his property by universal title to the children by his second marriage, and (that)
without expressly disinheriting the children by his first marriage, he left nothing to them or, at least,
some of them." In the case at bar the testator did not entirely omit oppositor-appellee Helen Garcia,
but left her a legacy of P3,600.00.
The estate of the deceased Christensen upon his death consisted of 399 shares of stocks in the
Christensen Plantation Company and a certain amount in cash. One-fourth (1/4) of said estate
descended to Helen Garcia as her legitime. Since she became the owner of her share as of the
moment of the death of the decedent (Arts. 774, 777, Civil Code), she is entitled to a corresponding
portion of all the fruits or increments thereof subsequently accruing. These include the stock
dividends on the corporate holdings. The contention of Lucy Duncan that all such dividends pertain
to her according to the terms of the will cannot be sustained, for it would in effect impair the right of
ownership of Helen Garcia with respect to her legitime.
One point deserves to be here mentioned, although no reference to it has been made in the brief for
oppositor-appellant. It is the institution of substitute heirs to the estate bequeathed to Lucy Duncan in
the event she should die without living issue. This substitution results in effect from the fact that
under paragraph 12 of the will she is entitled only to the income from said estate, unless prior to her
decease she should have living issue, in which event she would inherit in full ownership; otherwise
the property will go to the other relatives of the testator named in the will. Without deciding this,
point, since it is not one of the issues raised before us, we might call attention to the limitations
imposed by law upon this kind of substitution, particularly that which says that it can never burden
the legitime (Art. 864 Civil Code), which means that the legitime must descend to the heir concerned
in fee simple.
Wherefore, the order of the trial court dated October 29, 1964, approving the project of partition as
submitted by the executor-appellee, is hereby set aside; and the case is remanded with instructions
to partition the hereditary estate anew as indicated in this decision, that is, by giving to oppositor-
appellee Maria Helen Christensen Garcia no more than the portion corresponding to her as legitime,
equivalent to one-fourth (1/4) of the hereditary estate, after deducting all debts and charges, which
shall not include those imposed in the will of the decedent, in accordance with Article 908 of the Civil
Code. Costs against appellees in this instance.
Concepcion, C.J., J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ.,
concur.
RESOLUTION
July 30, 1967
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Oppositor-appellant has filed an ex-parte petition dated July 11, 1966, making reference to an
alleged oversight and asking for the corresponding correction, in the last paragraph before the
dispositive part of our decision, which reads as follows:
One point deserves to be here mentioned, although no reference to it has been made in the brief for
oppositor-appellant. It is the institution of substituted heirs to the estate bequeathed to Lucy Duncan
in the event she should die without living issue. This substitution results in effect from the fact that
under paragraph 12 of the will she is entitled only to the income from said estate, unless prior to her
decease she should have living issue, in which event she would inherit in full ownership; otherwise
the property will go to the other relatives of the testator named in the will. Without deciding this
point, since it is not one of the issues raised before us, we might call attention to the limitations
imposed by law upon this kind of substitution, particularly that which says that it can never burden
the legitime (Art. 864, Civil Code), which means that the legitime must descend to the heir
concerned in fee simple. (Decision, June 30, 1966, pages 14-15; emphasis ours).
Oppositor-appellant points out that the matter of substitution of heirs was taken up and discussed in
her brief particularly in pages 28 and 32 thereof. This is indeed quite true, but the reference to and
discussion of the rights of the substitute heirs (called American heirs in the brief) appears to be
merely for the purpose of refuting the theory advanced by appellees and not for the purpose of
having the rights of said heirs defined in so far as, under the terms of the will, they may affect the
legitime of oppositor-appellant. This point of course was not and could hardly have been squarely
raised as an issue inasmuch as the substitute heirs are not parties in this case. We have
nevertheless called attention "to the limitations imposed by law upon this kind of substitution,"
because in the brief for oppositor-appellant, at page 45, she makes the conclusion "that the Last Will
and Testament of Edward E. Christensen are valid under Philippine Law and must be given full force
and effect;" and to give them full force and effect would precisely affect the legitime of oppositor-
appellant.
Wherefore, the last paragraph before the dispositive part of our decision quoted above is amended
by eliminating the following phrase in the first sentence: "although no reference to it has been made
in the brief for oppositor-appellant."
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Regala and Castro, JJ., took no part.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 141882 March 11, 2005
J.L.T. AGRO, INC., represented by its Manager, JULIAN L. TEVES, Petitioner,

vs.
ANTONIO BALANSAG and HILARIA CADAYDAY, respondents.
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
Once again, the Court is faced with the perennial conflict of property claims between two sets of
heirs, a conflict ironically made grievous by the fact that the decedent in this case had resorted to
great lengths to allocate which properties should go to which set of heirs.
This is a Rule 45 petition assailing the Decision1 dated 30 September 1999 of the Court of Appeals
which reversed the Decision2 dated 7 May 1993 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, of
Bais City, Negros Oriental.
The factual antecedents follow.
Don Julian L. Teves (Don Julian) contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena (Antonia), and
after her death, with Milagros Donio Teves (Milagros Donio). Don Julian had two children with
Antonia, namely: Josefa Teves Escaño (Josefa) and Emilio Teves (Emilio). He had also four (4)
children with Milagros Donio, namely: Maria Evelyn Donio Teves (Maria Evelyn), Jose Catalino
Donio Teves (Jose Catalino), Milagros Reyes Teves (Milagros Reyes) and Pedro Reyes Teves
(Pedro).3
The present controversy involves a parcel of land covering nine hundred and fifty-four (954) square
meters, known as Lot No. 63 of the Bais Cadastre, which was originally registered in the name of the
conjugal partnership of Don Julian and Antonia under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 5203 of
the Registry of Deeds of Bais City. When Antonia died, the land was among the properties involved
in an action for partition and damages docketed as Civil Case No. 3443 entitled "Josefa Teves
Escaño v. Julian Teves, Emilio B. Teves, et al."4 Milagros Donio, the second wife of Don Julian,
participated as an intervenor. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise
Agreement5 which embodied the partition of all the properties of Don Julian.
On the basis of the compromise agreement and approving the same, the Court of First Instance
(CFI) of Negros Oriental, 12th Judicial District, rendered a Decision6 dated 31 January 1964. The CFI
decision declared a tract of land known as Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa as property owned in
common by Don Julian and his two (2) children of the first marriage. The property was to remain
undivided during the lifetime of Don Julian.7 Josefa and Emilio likewise were given other properties
at Bais, including the electric plant, the "movie property," the commercial areas, and the house
where Don Julian was living. The remainder of the properties was retained by Don Julian, including
Lot No. 63.
Paragraph 13 of the Compromise Agreement, at the heart of the present dispute, lays down the
effect of the eventual death of Don Julian vis-à-vis his heirs:
13. That in the event of death of Julian L. Teves, the properties hereinafter adjudicated to
Josefa Teves Escaňo and Emilio B. Teves, (excluding the properties comprised as Hacienda
Medalla Milagrosa together with all its accessories and accessions) shall be understood as
including not only their one-half share which they inherited from their mother but also the
legitimes and other successional rights which would correspond to them of the other half
belonging to their father, Julian L. Teves. In other words, the properties now selected and
adjudicated to Julian L. Teves (not including his share in the Hacienda Medalla
Milagrosa) shall exclusively be adjudicated to the wife in second marriage of Julian L.
Teves and his four minor children, namely, Milagros Donio Teves, his two acknowledged
natural children Milagros Reyes Teves and Pedro Reyes Teves and his two legitimated
children Maria Evelyn Donio Teves and Jose Catalino Donio Teves. (Emphasis supplied)
On 16 November 1972, Don Julian, Emilio and Josefa executed a Deed of Assignment of Assets
with Assumption of Liabilities8 in favor of J.L.T. Agro, Inc. (petitioner). Less than a year later, Don
Julian, Josefa and Emilio also executed an instrument entitled Supplemental to the Deed of
Assignment of Assets with the Assumption of Liabilities (Supplemental Deed)9 dated 31 July 1973.
This instrument which constitutes a supplement to the earlier deed of assignment transferred
ownership over Lot No. 63, among other properties, in favor of petitioner.10 On 14 April 1974, Don
Julian died intestate.
On the strength of the Supplemental Deed in its favor, petitioner sought the registration of the
subject lot in its name. A court, so it appeared, issued an order11 cancelling OCT No. 5203 in the
name of spouses Don Julian and Antonia on 12 November 1979, and on the same date TCT No. T-
375 was issued in the name of petitioner.12 Since then, petitioner has been paying taxes assessed
on the subject lot.13
Meanwhile, Milagros Donio and her children had immediately taken possession over the subject lot
after the execution of the Compromise Agreement. In 1974, they entered into a yearly lease
agreement with spouses Antonio Balansag and Hilaria Cadayday, respondents herein.14 On Lot No.
63, respondents temporarily established their home and constructed a lumber yard. Subsequently,
Milagros Donio and her children executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate15 dated 18
March 1980. In the deed of partition, Lot No. 63 was allotted to Milagros Donio and her two (2)
children, Maria Evelyn and Jose Catalino. Unaware that the subject lot was already registered in the
name of petitioner in 1979, respondents bought Lot No. 63 from Milagros Donio as evidenced by
the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Estate16 dated 9 November 1983.
At the Register of Deeds while trying to register the deed of absolute sale, respondents discovered
that the lot was already titled in the name of petitioner. Thus, they failed to register the deed.17
Respondents, as vendees of Lot No. 63, filed a complaint before the RTC Branch 45 of Bais City,
seeking the declaration of nullity and cancellation of TCT No. T-375 in the name of petitioner and the
transfer of the title to Lot No. 63 in their names, plus damages.18
After hearing, the trial court dismissed the complaint filed by respondents. The dispositive portion of
the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, by preponderance of evidence, this Court finds

judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and thus hereby orders:
(1) That complaint be dismissed;
(2) That plaintiffs vacate the subject land, particularly identified as Lot No. 63
registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-375;
(3) That plaintiffs pay costs.
Finding no basis on the counterclaim by defendant, the same is hereby ordered dismissed.19
The trial court ruled that the resolution of the case specifically hinged on the interpretation of
paragraph 13 of the Compromise Agreement.20 It added that the direct adjudication of the properties
listed in the Compromise Agreement was only in favor of Don Julian and his two children by the first
marriage, Josefa and Emilio.21Paragraph 13 served only as an amplification of the terms of the
adjudication in favor of Don Julian and his two children by the first marriage.
According to the trial court, the properties adjudicated in favor of Josefa and Emilio comprised their
shares in the estate of their deceased mother Antonia, as well as their potential share in the estate
of Don Julian upon the latter’s death. Thus, upon Don Julian’s death, Josefa and Emilio could not
claim any share in his estate, except their proper share in the Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa which
was adjudicated in favor of Don Julian in the Compromise Agreement. As such, the properties
adjudicated in favor of Don Julian, except Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa, were free from the forced
legitimary rights of Josefa and Emilio, and Don Julian was under no impediment to allocate the
subject lot, among his other properties, to Milagros Donio and her four (4) children.22
The trial court further stressed that with the use of the words "shall be," the adjudication in favor of
Milagros Donio and her four (4) children was not final and operative, as the lot was still subject to
future disposition by Don Julian during his lifetime.23 It cited paragraph 1424 of the Compromise
Agreement in support of his conclusion.25 With Lot No. 63 being the conjugal property of Don Julian
and Antonia, the trial court also declared that Milagros Donio and her children had no hereditary
rights thereto except as to the conjugal share of Don Julian, which they could claim only upon the
death of the latter.26
The trial court ruled that at the time of Don Julian’s death on 14 April 1974, Lot No. 63 was no longer
a part of his estate since he had earlier assigned it to petitioner on 31 July 1973. Consequently, the
lot could not be a proper subject of extrajudicial partition by Milagros Donio and her children, and not
being the owners they could not have sold it. Had respondents exercised prudence before buying
the subject lot by investigating the registration of the same with the Registry of Deeds, they would
have discovered that five (5) years earlier, OCT No. 5203 had already been cancelled and replaced
by TCT No. T-375 in the name of petitioner, the trial court added.27
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial court’s decision. The decretal part of the appellate
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and a new one is entered declaring the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-375
registered in the name of J.L.T. Agro, Inc. as null and void.
With costs against defendant J.L.T. Agro, Inc. represented by its Manager, Julian L. Teves.
SO ORDERED.28
Per the appellate court, the Compromise Agreement incorporated in CFI decision dated 31 January
1964, particularly paragraph 13 thereof, determined, adjudicated and reserved to Don Julian’s two
sets of heirs their future legitimes in his estate except as regards his (Don Julian’s) share in
Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa.29 The two sets of heirs acquired full ownership and possession of the
properties respectively adjudicated to them in the CFI decision and Don Julian himself could no
longer dispose of the same, including Lot No. 63. The disposition in the CFI decision constitutes res
judicata.30 Don Julian could have disposed of only his conjugal share in the Hacienda Medalla
Milagrosa.31
The appellate court likewise emphasized that nobody in his right judgment would preterit his legal
heirs by simply executing a document like the Supplemental Deed which practically covers all
properties which Don Julian had reserved in favor of his heirs from the second marriage. It also
found out that the blanks reserved for the Book No. and Page No. at the upper right corner of TCT
No. T-375, "to identify the exact location where the said title was registered or transferred," were not
filled up, thereby indicating that the TCT is "spurious and of dubious origin."32
Aggrieved by the appellate court’s decision, petitioner elevated it to this Court via a petition for
review on certiorari, raising pure questions of law.
Before this Court, petitioner assigns as errors the following rulings of the appellate court, to wit: (a)
that future legitime can be determined, adjudicated and reserved prior to the death of Don Julian; (b)
that Don Julian had no right to dispose of or assign Lot No. 63 to petitioner because he reserved the
same for his heirs from the second marriage pursuant to the Compromise Agreement; (c) that
the Supplemental Deed was tantamount to a preterition of his heirs from the second marriage; and
(d) that TCT No. T-375 in the name of petitioner is spurious for not containing entries on the Book
No. and Page No.33
While most of petitioner’s legal arguments have merit, the application of the appropriate provisions of
law to the facts borne out by the evidence on record nonetheless warrants the affirmance of the
result reached by the Court of Appeals in favor of respondents.
Being the key adjudicative provision, paragraph 13 of the Compromise Agreement has to be quoted
again:
13. That in the event of death of Julian L. Teves, the properties herein adjudicated to Josefa
Teves Escaño and Emilio B. Teves, (excluding the properties comprised as Hacienda
Medalla Milagrosa together with all its accessories and accessions) shall be understood as
including not only their one-half share which they inherited from their mother but also the
legitimes and other successional rights which would correspond to them of the other half
belonging to their father, Julian L.Teves. In other words, the properties now selected and
adjudicated to Julian L. Teves (not including his share in the Hacienda Medalla
Milagrosa) shall exclusively be adjudicated to the wife in second marriage of Julian L.
Teves and his four minor children, namely, Milagros Donio Teves, his two
acknowledged natural children Milagros Reyes Teves and Pedro Reyes Teves and his
two legitimated children Maria Evelyn Donio Teves and Jose Catalino Donio
Teves." (Emphasis supplied)
With the quoted paragraph as basis, the Court of Appeals ruled that the adjudication in favor of the
heirs of Don Julian from the second marriage became automatically operative upon the approval of
the Compromise Agreement, thereby vesting on them the right to validly dispose of Lot No. 63 in
favor of respondents.
Petitioner argues that the appellate court erred in holding that future legitime can be determined,
adjudicated and reserved prior to the death of Don Julian. The Court agrees. Our declaration in Blas
v. Santos34 is relevant, where we defined future inheritance as 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. Article 1347 of the New Civil Code explicitly provides:
ART. 1347. All things which are not outside the commerce of men, including future things,
may be the object of a contract. All rights which are not intransmissible may also be the
object of contracts.
No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly
authorized by law.
All services which are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy may
likewise be the object of a contract.
Well-entrenched is the rule that all things, even future ones, which are not outside the commerce of
man may be the object of a contract. The exception is that no contract may be entered into with
respect to future inheritance, and the exception to the exception is the partition inter vivos referred to
in Article 1080.35
For the inheritance to be considered "future," the succession must not have been opened at the time
of the contract.36 A contract may be classified as a contract upon future inheritance, prohibited under
the second paragraph of Article 1347, where the following requisites concur:
(1) That the succession has not yet been opened;
(2) That the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and
(3) That the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which is
purely hereditary in nature.37
The first paragraph of Article 1080, which provides the exception to the exception and therefore
aligns with the general rule on future things, reads:
ART. 1080. Should a person make a partition of his estate by an act inter vivos, or by will,
such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the
compulsory heirs.
....
In interpreting this provision, Justice Edgardo Paras advanced the opinion that if the partition is
made by an act inter vivos, no formalities are prescribed by the Article.38 The partition will of
course be effective only after death. It does not necessarily require the formalities of a will for after
all it is not the partition that is the mode of acquiring ownership. Neither will the formalities of a
donation be required since donation will not be the mode of acquiring the ownership here after
death; since no will has been made it follows that the mode will be succession (intestate
succession). Besides, the partition here is merely the physical determination of the part to be given
to each heir.39
The historical antecedent of Article 1080 of the New Civil Code is Article 105640 of the old Civil Code.
The only change in the provision is that Article 1080 now permits any person (not a testator, as
under the old law) to partition his estate by act inter vivos. This was intended to abrogate the then
prevailing doctrine that for a testator to partition his estate by an act inter vivos, he must first make a
will with all the formalities provided by law.41
Article 1056 of the old Civil Code (now Article 1080) authorizes a testator to partition inter vivos his
property, and distribute them among his heirs, and this partition is neither a donation nor a
testament, but an instrument of a special character, sui generis, which is revocable at any time
by the causante during his lifetime, and does not operate as a conveyance of title until his
death. It derives its binding force on the heirs from the respect due to the will of the owner of the
property, limited only by his creditors and the intangibility of the legitime of the forced heirs.42
The partition inter vivos of the properties of Don Julian is undoubtedly valid pursuant to Article 1347.
However, considering that it would become legally operative only upon the death of Don Julian, the
right of his heirs from the second marriage to the properties adjudicated to him under the
compromise agreement was but a mere expectancy. It was a bare hope of succession to the
property of their father. Being the prospect of a future acquisition, the interest by its nature was
inchoate. It had no attribute of property, and the interest to which it related was at the time
nonexistent and might never exist.43
Evidently, at the time of the execution of the deed of assignment covering Lot No. 63 in favor of
petitioner, Don Julian remained the owner of the property since ownership over the subject lot would
only pass to his heirs from the second marriage at the time of his death. Thus, as the owner of the
subject lot, Don Julian retained the absolute right to dispose of it during his lifetime. His right cannot
be challenged by Milagros Donio and her children on the ground that it had already been adjudicated
to them by virtue of the compromise agreement.
Emerging as the crucial question in this case is whether Don Julian had validly transferred
ownership of the subject lot during his lifetime. The lower court ruled that he had done so through
the Supplemental Deed. The appellate court disagreed, holding that the Supplemental Deed is not
valid, containing as it does a prohibited preterition of Don Julian’s heirs from the second marriage.
Petitioner contends that the ruling of the Court of Appeals is erroneous. The contention is well-
founded.
Article 854 provides that the preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in
the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the
testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they
are not inofficious. Manresa defines preterition as the omission of the heir in the will, either by not
naming him at all or, while mentioning him as father, son, etc., by not instituting him as heir without
disinheriting him expressly, nor assigning to him some part of the properties.44 It is the total omission
of a compulsory heir in the direct line from inheritance.45 It consists in the silence of the testator with
regard to a compulsory heir, omitting him in the testament, either by not mentioning him at all, or by
not giving him anything in the hereditary property but without expressly disinheriting him, even if he
is mentioned in the will in the latter case.46 But there is no preterition where the testator allotted to a
descendant a share less than the legitime, since there was no total omission of a forced heir.47
In the case at bar, Don Julian did not execute a will since what he resorted to was a partition inter
vivos of his properties, as evidenced by the court approved Compromise Agreement. Thus, it is
premature if not irrelevant to speak of preterition prior to the death of Don Julian in the absence of a
will depriving a legal heir of his legitime. Besides, there are other properties which the heirs from the
second marriage could inherit from Don Julian upon his death. A couple of provisions in
the Compromise Agreement are indicative of Don Julian’s desire along this line.48Hence, the total
omission from inheritance of Don Julian’s heirs from the second marriage, a requirement for
preterition to exist, is hardly imaginable as it is unfounded.
Despite the debunking of respondents’ argument on preterition, still the petition would ultimately rise
or fall on whether there was a valid transfer effected by Don Julian to petitioner. Notably, Don Julian
was also the president and director of petitioner, and his daughter from the first marriage, Josefa,
was the treasurer thereof. There is of course no legal prohibition against such a transfer to a family
corporation. Yet close scrutiny is in order, especially considering that such transfer would remove
Lot No. 63 from the estate from which Milagros and her children could inherit. Both the alleged
transfer deed and the title which necessarily must have emanated from it have to be subjected to
incisive and detailed examination.
Well-settled, of course, is the rule that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title
to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.49 A certificate of title accumulates
in one document a precise and correct statement of the exact status of the fee held by its owner.
The certificate, in the absence of fraud, is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of
its owner.50
To successfully assail the juristic value of what a Torrens title establishes, a sufficient and
convincing quantum of evidence on the defect of the title must be adduced to overcome the
predisposition in law in favor of a holder of a Torrens title. Thus, contrary to the appellate court’s
ruling, the appearance of a mere thumbmark of Don Julian instead of his signature in
the Supplemental Deed would not affect the validity of petitioner’s title for this Court has ruled that a
thumbmark is a recognized mode of signature.51
The truth, however, is that the replacement of OCT No. 5203 in the name of Julian by T.C.T. No. T-
375 is marred by a grave irregularity which is also an illegality, as it contravenes the orthodox,
conventional and normal process established by law. And, worse still, the illegality is reflected on the
face of both titles. Where, as in this case, the transferee relies on a voluntary instrument to secure
the issuance of a new title in his name such instrument has to be presented to the Registry of
Deeds. This is evident from Sections 53 and 57 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 or
the Property Registration Decree. The sections read, thus:
SEC. 53. Presentation of owner’s duplicate upon entry of new certificate. – No voluntary
instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds unless the owner’s duplicate
certificate is presented with such instrument, except in cases expressly provided for in this
Decree or upon order of the court, for cause shown. (Emphasis supplied)
....
SEC. 57. Procedure in registration of conveyances. – An owner desiring to convey his

registered land in fee simple shall execute and register a deed of conveyance in a form
sufficient in law. The Register of Deeds shall thereafter make out in the registration book a
new certificate of title to the grantee and shall prepare and deliver to him an owner’s
duplicate certificate. The Register of Deeds shall note upon the original and duplicate
certificate the date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book in which the new
certificate is registered and a reference by number to the last preceding certificate. The
original and the owner’s duplicate of the grantor’s certificate shall be stamped
"cancelled." The deed of conveyance shall be filed and endorsed with the number and
the place of registration of the certificate of title of the land conveyed. (Emphasis
supplied)
As petitioner bases its right to the subject lot on the Supplemental Deed, it should have presented it
to the Register of Deeds to secure the transfer of the title in its name. Apparently, it had not done so.
There is nothing on OCT No. 5203 or on the succeeding TCT No. T-375 either which shows that it
had presented the Supplemental Deed. In fact, there is absolutely no mention of a reference to said
document in the original and transfer certificates of title. It is in this regard that the finding of the
Court of Appeals concerning the absence of entries on the blanks intended for the Book No. and
Page No. gains significant relevance. Indeed, this aspect fortifies the conclusion that the cancellation
of OCT No. 5203 and the consequent issuance of TCT No. T-375 in its place are not predicated on a
valid transaction.
What appears instead on OCT No. 5203 is the following pertinent entry:
Entry No. 1374: Kind: Order: Executed in favor of J.L.T. AGRO, INC.
CONDITIONS: Lost owner’s duplicate is hereby cancelled, and null and void and a new
Certificate of Title No. 375 is issued per Order of the Court of First Instance on file in
this office.
Date of Instrument: November 12, 1979
Date of Inscription: Nov. 12, 1979 4:00 P.M.
(SGD) MANUEL C. MONTESA

Acting Deputy Register of Deeds II
(Emphasis supplied)52
What the entry indicates is that the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 5203 was lost, a petition for the
reconstitution of the said owner’s duplicate was filed in court, and the court issued an order for the
reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate and its replacement with a new one. But if the entry is to be
believed, the court concerned (CFI, according to the entry) issued an order for the issuance of a new
title which is TCT No. T-375 although the original of OCT No. 5203 on file with the Registry of Deeds
had not been lost.
Going by the legal, accepted and normal process, the reconstitution court may order the
reconstitution and replacement of the lost title only, nothing else. Since what was lost is the owner’s
copy of OCT No. 5203, only that owner’s copy could be ordered replaced. Thus, the Register of
Deeds exceeded his authority in issuing not just a reconstituted owner’s copy of the original
certificate of title but a new transfer certificate of title in place of the original certificate of title. But if
the court order, as the entry intimates, directed the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title—
even designating the very number of the new transfer certificate of title itself—the order would be
patently unlawful. A court cannot legally order the cancellation and replacement of the original of the
O.C.T. which has not been lost,53 as the petition for reconstitution is premised on the loss merely of
the owner’s duplicate of the OCT
Apparently, petitioner had resorted to the court order as a convenient contrivance to effect the
transfer of title to the subject lot in its name, instead of the Supplemental Deed which should be its
proper course of action. It was so constrained to do because the Supplemental Deed does not
constitute a deed of conveyance of the "registered land in fee simple" "in a form sufficient in law," as
required by Section 57 of P.D. No. 1529.
A plain reading of the pertinent provisions of the Supplemental Deed discloses that the assignment
is not supported by any consideration. The provision reads:
....
WHEREAS, in the Deed of Assignment of Assets with the Assumption of Liabilities executed
by Julian L. Teves, Emilio B. Teves and Josefa T. Escaño at Dumaguete City on 16th day of
November 1972 and ratified in the City of Dumaguete before Notary Public Lenin Victoriano,
and entered in the latter’s notarial register as Doc. No. 367; Page No. 17; Book No. V; series
of 1972, Julian L. Teves, Emilio B. Teves and Josefa T. Escaño, transferred, conveyed and
assigned unto J.L.T. AGRO, INC., all its assets and liabilities as reflected in the Balance
Sheet of the former as of December 31, 1971.
WHEREAS, on the compromise agreement, as mentioned in the Decision made in the Court
of First Instance of Negros Oriental, 12th Judicial District Branch II, on Dec. 31, 1964
pertaining to Civil Case No. 3443 the following properties were adjudicated to Don Julian L.
Teves. We quote.
From the properties at Bais

Adjudicated to Don Julian L.Teves
....
Lot No. 63, Tax Dec. No. 33, Certificate of Title No. 5203, together with all improvements.
Assessed value - P2,720.00
....
WHEREAS, this Deed of Assignment is executed by the parties herein in order to effect the
registration of the transfer of the above corporation.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above premises the ASSIGNOR hereby
transfers, conveys, and assigns unto J.L.T. AGRO, INC., the above described parcel of
land[s] with a fair market value of EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND PESOS
(P84,000.00), Philippine Currency, and which transfer, conveyance and assignment shall
become absolute upon signing.54 (Emphasis supplied)
The amount of P84,000.00 adverted to in the dispositive portion of the instrument does not represent
the consideration for the assignment made by Don Julian. Rather, it is a mere statement of the fair
market value of allthe nineteen (19) properties enumerated in the instrument, of which Lot No. 63 is
just one, that were transferred by Don Julian in favor of petitioner. Consequently, the testimony55 of
petitioner’s accountant that the assignment is supported by consideration cannot prevail over the
clear provision to the contrary in the Supplemental Deed.
The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, apparently considered the 1948 mortgage which is
annotated on the back of the TCT No. T-375 as the consideration for the assignment.56 However, the
said annotation57 shows that the mortgage was actually executed in favor of Rehabilitation Finance
Corporation, not of petitioner.58 Clearly, said mortgage, executed as it was in favor of the
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation and there being no showing that petitioner itself paid off the
mortgate obligation, could not have been the consideration for the assignment to petitioner.
Article 1318 of the New Civil Code enumerates the requisites of a valid contract, namely: (1) consent
of the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.
Thus, Article 1352 declares that contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause produce no effect
whatsoever. Those contracts lack an essential element and they are not only voidable but void or
inexistent pursuant to Article 1409, paragraph (2).59 The absence of the usual recital of consideration
in a transaction which normally should be supported by a consideration such as the assignment
made by Don Julian of all nineteen (19) lots he still had at the time, coupled with the fact that the
assignee is a corporation of which Don Julian himself was also the President and Director,
forecloses the application of the presumption of existence of consideration established by law.60
Neither could the Supplemental Deed validly operate as a donation. Article 749 of the New Civil
Code is clear on the point, thus:
Art. 749. In order that the donation of the immovable may be valid, it must be made in a
public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which
the donee must satisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public
document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an
authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.
In Sumipat, et al v. Banga, et al.,61 this Court declared that title to immovable property does not pass
from the donor to the donee by virtue of a deed of donation until and unless it has been accepted in
a public instrument and the donor duly notified thereof. The acceptance may be made in the very
same instrument of donation. If the acceptance does not appear in the same document, it must be
made in another. Where the deed of donation fails to show the acceptance, or where the formal
notice of the acceptance, made in a separate instrument, is either not given to the donor or else not
noted in the deed of donation and in the separate acceptance, the donation is null and void.
In the case at bar, although the Supplemental Deed appears in a public document,62 the absence of
acceptance by the donee in the same deed or even in a separate document is a glaring violation of
the requirement.
One final note. From the substantive and procedural standpoints, the cardinal objectives to
write finis to a protracted litigation and avoid multiplicity of suits are worth pursuing at all
times.63 Thus, this Court has ruled that appellate courts have ample authority to rule on specific
matters not assigned as errors or otherwise not raised in an appeal, if these are indispensable or
necessary to the just resolution of the pleaded issues.64 Specifically, matters not assigned as errors
on appeal but consideration of which are necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete
resolution of the case, or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice.65
In the instant case, the correct characterization of the Supplemental Deed, i.e., whether it is valid or
void, is unmistakably determinative of the underlying controversy. In other words, the issue of validity
or nullity of the instrument which is at the core of the controversy is interwoven with the issues
adopted by the parties and the rulings of the trial court and the appellate court.66 Thus, this Court is
also resolute in striking down the alleged deed in this case, especially as it appears on its face to be
a blatant nullity.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Decision dated 30 September 1999 of the Court
of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner J.L.T. Agro, Inc.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 72706 October 27, 1987
CONSTANTINO C. ACAIN, petitioner,

vs.
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (Third Special Cases Division), VIRGINIA A.
FERNANDEZ and ROSA DIONGSON, respondents.
PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision * of respondent. Court of Appeals in AC-G.R. SP No. 05744
promulgated on August 30, 1985 (Rollo, p. 108) ordering the dismissal of the petition in Special Proceedings No, 591 ACEB and its
Resolution issued on October 23, 1985 (Rollo, p. 72) denying respondents' (petitioners herein) motion for reconsideration.
The dispositive portion of the questioned decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and respondent Regional Trial Court of
the Seventh Judicial Region, Branch XIII (Cebu City), is hereby ordered to dismiss
the petition in Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB No special pronouncement is
made as to costs.
The antecedents of the case, based on the summary of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court
of Appeals, (Rollo, pp. 108-109) are as follows:
On May 29, 1984 petitioner Constantino Acain filed on the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City Branch
XIII, a petition for the probate of the will of the late Nemesio Acain and for the issuance to the same
petitioner of letters testamentary, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB (Rollo, p. 29), on
the premise that Nemesio Acain died leaving a will in which petitioner and his brothers Antonio,
Flores and Jose and his sisters Anita, Concepcion, Quirina and Laura were instituted as heirs. The
will allegedly executed by Nemesio Acain on February 17, 1960 was written in Bisaya (Rollo, p. 27)
with a translation in English (Rollo, p. 31) submi'tted by petitioner without objection raised by private
respondents. The will contained provisions on burial rites, payment of debts, and the appointment of
a certain Atty. Ignacio G. Villagonzalo as the executor of the testament. On the disposition of the
testator's property, the will provided:
THIRD: All my shares that I may receive from our properties. house, lands and
money which I earned jointly with my wife Rosa Diongson shall all be given by me to
my brother SEGUNDO ACAIN Filipino, widower, of legal age and presently residing
at 357-C Sanciangko Street, Cebu City. In case my brother Segundo Acain pre-
deceased me, all the money properties, lands, houses there in Bantayan and here in
Cebu City which constitute my share shall be given to me to his children, namely:
Anita, Constantino, Concepcion, Quirina, laura, Flores, Antonio and Jose, all
surnamed Acain.
Obviously, Segundo pre-deceased Nemesio. Thus it is the children of Segundo who are claiming to
be heirs, with Constantino as the petitioner in Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB
After the petition was set for hearing in the lower court on June 25, 1984 the oppositors
(respondents herein Virginia A. Fernandez, a legally adopted daughter of tile deceased and the
latter's widow Rosa Diongson Vda. de Acain filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds for
the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedings; (2) he is merely a universal heir
and (3) the widow and the adopted daughter have been pretirited. (Rollo, p. 158). Said motion was
denied by the trial judge.
After the denial of their subsequent motion for reconsideration in the lower court, respondents filed
with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction which was
subsequently referred to the Intermediate Appellate Court by Resolution of the Court dated March
11, 1985 (Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 3; Rollo, p. 159).
Respondent Intermediate Appellate Court granted private respondents' petition and ordered the trial
court to dismiss the petition for the probate of the will of Nemesio Acain in Special Proceedings No.
591 ACEB
His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed this present petition for the review
of respondent Court's decision on December 18, 1985 (Rollo, p. 6). Respondents' Comment was
filed on June 6, 1986 (Rollo, p. 146).
On August 11, 1986 the Court resolved to give due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 153).
Respondents' Memorandum was filed on September 22, 1986 (Rollo, p. 157); the Memorandum for
petitioner was filed on September 29, 1986 (Rollo, p. 177).
Petitioner raises the following issues (Memorandum for petitioner, p. 4):
(A) The petition filed in AC-G.R. No. 05744 for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction is not the proper remedy under the premises;
(B) The authority of the probate courts is limited only to inquiring into the extrinsic
validity of the will sought to be probated and it cannot pass upon the intrinsic validity
thereof before it is admitted to probate;
(C) The will of Nemesio Acain is valid and must therefore, be admitted to probate.
The preterition mentioned in Article 854 of the New Civil Code refers to preterition of
"compulsory heirs in the direct line," and does not apply to private respondents who
are not compulsory heirs in the direct line; their omission shall not annul the
institution of heirs;
(D) DICAT TESTATOR ET MERIT LEX. What the testator says will be the law;
(E) There may be nothing in Article 854 of the New Civil Code, that suggests that
mere institution of a universal heir in the will would give the heir so instituted a share
in the inheritance but there is a definite distinct intention of the testator in the case at
bar, explicitly expressed in his will. This is what matters and should be in violable.
(F) As an instituted heir, petitioner has the legal interest and standing to file the
petition in Sp. Proc. No. 591 ACEB for probate of the will of Nemesio Acain and
(G) Article 854 of the New Civil Code is a bill of attainder. It is therefore
unconstitutional and ineffectual.
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not private respondents have been pretirited.
Art. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in
the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the
death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devisees and legacies
shall be valid insofar as they are not; inofficious.
If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall he
effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation.
Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them either
because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs
nor are expressly disinherited (Nuguid v. Nuguid, 17 SCRA 450 [1966]; Maninang v. Court of
Appeals, 114 SCRA 478 [1982]). Insofar as the widow is concerned, Article 854 of the Civil Code
may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, although she is a compulsory
heir. Stated otherwise, even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir, there is no preterition even
if she is omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line. (Art. 854, Civil code) however,
the same thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia A. Fernandez, whose legal adoption
by the testator has not been questioned by petitioner (.Memorandum for the Petitioner, pp. 8-9).
Under Article 39 of P.D. No. 603, known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, adoption gives to the
adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes
the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. It cannot be denied that she has totally omitted and
preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at
least their legitime. Neither can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited. Hence, this is
a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child.
Pretention annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate succession the
entire inheritance including "la porcion libre (que) no hubiese dispuesto en virtual de legado mejora o
donacion" Maniesa as cited in Nuguid v. Nuguid, supra; Maninang v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA
[1982]). The only provisions which do not result in intestacy are the legacies and devises made in
the will for they should stand valid and respected, except insofar as the legitimes are concerned.
The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of
the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification of such institution of
universal heirs-without any other testamentary disposition in the will-amounts to a declaration that
nothing at all was written. Carefully worded and in clear terms, Article 854 of the Civil Code offers no
leeway for inferential interpretation (Nuguid v. Nuguid), supra. No legacies nor devises having been
provided in the will the whole property of the deceased has been left by universal title to petitioner
and his brothers and sisters. The effect of annulling the "Institution of heirs will be, necessarily, the
opening of a total intestacy (Neri v. Akutin, 74 Phil. 185 [1943]) except that proper legacies and
devises must, as already stated above, be respected.
We now deal with another matter. In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate
proceeding he must have an interest iii the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it
either as executor or as a claimant of the estate and an interested party is one who would be
benefited by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim against the estate like a creditor
(Sumilang v. Ramagosa, 21 SCRA 1369/1967). Petitioner is not the appointed executor, neither a
devisee or a legatee there being no mention in the testamentary disposition of any gift of an
individual item of personal or real property he is called upon to receive (Article 782, Civil Code). At
the outset, he appears to have an interest in the will as an heir, defined under Article 782 of the Civil
Code as a person called to the succession either by the provision of a will or by operation of law.
However, intestacy having resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child and the
universal institution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator. He has no legal standing
to petition for the probate of the will left by the deceased and Special Proceedings No. 591 A-CEB
must be dismissed.
As a general rule certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal, except when the questioned order is an
oppressive exercise of j judicial authority (People v. Villanueva, 110 SCRA 465 [1981]; Vda. de
Caldito v. Segundo, 117 SCRA 573 [1982]; Co Chuan Seng v. Court of Appeals, 128 SCRA 308
[1984]; and Bautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587 [1985]). It is axiomatic that the remedies of
certiorari and prohibition are not available where the petitioner has the remedy of appeal or some
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law (DD Comendador Construction
Corporation v. Sayo (118 SCRA 590 [1982]). They are, however, proper remedies to correct a grave
abuse of discretion of the trial court in not dismissing a case where the dismissal is founded on valid
grounds (Vda. de Bacang v. Court of Appeals, 125 SCRA 137 [1983]).
Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB is for the probate of a will. As stated by respondent Court, the
general rule is that the probate court's authority is limited only to the extrinsic validity of the will, the
due execution thereof, the testator's testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or
solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the Court
has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. Said court at this stage of the proceedings is
not called upon to rule on the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will (Nuguid v.
Nuguid, 17 SCRA 449 [1966]; Sumilang v. Ramagosa, supra; Maninang v. Court of Appeals, 114
SCRA 478 [1982]; Cayetano v. Leonides, 129 SCRA 522 [1984]; and Nepomuceno v. Court of
Appeals, 139 SCRA 206 [1985]).
The rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. Under exceptional circumstances, the probate court
is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the
will (Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, supra). In Nuguid v. Nuguid the oppositors to the probate
moved to dismiss on the ground of absolute preteriton The probate court acting on the motion held
that the will in question was a complete nullity and dismissed the petition without costs. On appeal
the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the probate court, induced by practical considerations.
The Court said:
We pause to reflect. If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing
will be gained. On the contrary, this litigation will be protracted. And for aught that
appears in the record, in the event of probate or if the court rejects the will,
probability exists that the case will come up once again before us on the same issue
of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the will. Result: waste of time, effort, expense, plus
added anxiety. These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief that
we might as well meet head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in
question. After all there exists a justiciable controversy crying for solution.
In Saguimsim v. Lindayag (6 SCRA 874 [1962]) the motion to dismiss the petition by the surviving
spouse was grounded on petitioner's lack of legal capacity to institute the proceedings which was
fully substantiated by the evidence during the hearing held in connection with said motion. The Court
upheld the probate court's order of dismissal.
In Cayetano v. Leonides, supra one of the issues raised in the motion to dismiss the petition deals
with the validity of the provisions of the will. Respondent Judge allowed the probate of the will. The
Court held that as on its face the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner the respondent judge
should have denied its probate outright. Where circumstances demand that intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions be passed upon even before the extrinsic validity of the will is resolved, the
probate court should meet the issue. (Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, supra; Nuguid v.
Nuguid, supra).
In the instant case private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition in Sp. Proceedings No.
591 ACEB of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu on the following grounds: (1) petitioner has no legal
capacity to institute the proceedings; (2) he is merely a universal heir; and (3) the widow and the
adopted daughter have been preterited (Rollo, p. 158). It was denied by the trial court in an order
dated January 21, 1985 for the reason that "the grounds for the motion to dismiss are matters
properly to be resolved after a hearing on the issues in the course of the trial on the merits of the
case (Rollo, p. 32). A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on
February 15, 1985 (Rollo, p. 109).
For private respondents to have tolerated the probate of the will and allowed the case to progress
when on its face the will appears to be intrinsically void as petitioner and his brothers and sisters
were instituted as universal heirs coupled with the obvious fact that one of the private respondents
had been preterited would have been an exercise in futility. It would have meant a waste of time,
effort, expense, plus added futility. The trial court could have denied its probate outright or could
have passed upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions before the extrinsic validity of
the will was resolved (Cayetano v. Leonides, supra; Nuquid v. Nuguid, supra. The remedies of
certiorari and prohibition were properly availed of by private respondents.
Thus, this Court ruled that where the grounds for dismissal are indubitable, the defendants had the
right to resort to the more speedy, and adequate remedies of certiorari and prohibition to correct a
grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, committed by the trial court in not
dismissing the case, (Vda. de Bacang v. Court of Appeals, supra) and even assuming the existence
of the remedy of appeal, the Court harkens to the rule that in the broader interests of justice, a
petition for certiorari may be entertained, particularly where appeal would not afford speedy and
adequate relief. (Maninang Court of Appeals, supra).
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the questioned
decision of respondent Court of Appeals promulgated on August 30, 1985 and its Resolution dated
October 23, 1985 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring:
I concur in the result on the basic proposition that preterition in this case was by mistake or
inadvertence.
To my mind, an important distinction has to be made as to whether the omission of a forced heir in
the will of a testator is by mistake or inadvertence, or voluntary or intentional. If by mistake or
inadvertence, there is true preterirton and total intestacy results. The reason for this is the "inability
to determine how the testator would have distributed his estate if none of the heirs had been omitted
or forgotten (An Outline of Civil Law, J.B.L. Reyes and R.C. Puno, Vol. III, p. 54).
The requisites of preterition are:
1. The heir omitted is a forced heir (in the direct line);
2. The ommission is by mistake or thru an oversight.
3. The omission is complete so that the forced heir received nothing in the will. (111
Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, 1973 Edition, pp. 224-225) (Parenthetical addendum
supplied).
On the other hand, if the omission is intentional, the effect would be a defective disinheritance
covered by Article 918 of the Civil Code in which case the institution of heir is not wholly void but
only insofar as it prejudices the legitime of the person disinherited. Stated otherwise. the nullity is
partial unlike in true preterition where the nullity is total.
Pretention is presumed to be only an involuntary omission; that is, that if the testator
had known of the existence of the compulsory heir at the time of the execution of the
will, he would have instituted such heir. On the other hand, if the testator attempts to
disinherit a compulsory heir, the presumption of the law is that he wants such heir to
receive as little as possible from his estate. (III Tolentino, Civil Code, 1973 Edition,
pp. 174-175).
In the case at bar, there seems to have been mistake or in advertence in the omission of the
adopted daughter, hence, my concurrence in the result that total intestacy ensued.
Separate Opinions
inadvertence.
supplied).
pp. 174-175).
Footnotes

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-23445 June 23, 1966

REMEDIOS NUGUID, petitioner and appellant,
vs.
FELIX NUGUID and PAZ SALONGA NUGUID, oppositors and appellees.
Custodio O. Partade for petitioner and appellant.

Beltran, Beltran and Beltran for oppositors and appellees.
SANCHEZ, J.:
Rosario Nuguid, a resident of Quezon City, died on December 30, 1962, single, without
descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate parents, Felix Nuguid and
Paz Salonga Nuguid, and six (6) brothers and sisters, namely: Alfredo, Federico, Remedios,
Conrado, Lourdes and Alberto, all surnamed Nuguid.
On May 18, 1963, petitioner Remedios Nuguid filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a
holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid on November 17, 1951, some 11 years
before her demise. Petitioner prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of
administration with the will annexed be issued to her.
On June 25, 1963, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, concededly the legitimate father and
mother of the deceased Rosario Nuguid, entered their opposition to the probate of her will. Ground
therefor, inter alia, is that by the institution of petitioner Remedios Nuguid as universal heir of the
deceased, oppositors — who are compulsory heirs of the deceased in the direct ascending line —
were illegally preterited and that in consequence the institution is void.
On August 29, 1963, before a hearing was had on the petition for probate and objection thereto,
oppositors moved to dismiss on the ground of absolute preterition.
On September 6, 1963, petitioner registered her opposition to the motion to dismiss. 1äwphï1.ñët
The court's order of November 8, 1963, held that "the will in question is a complete nullity and will
perforce create intestacy of the estate of the deceased Rosario Nuguid" and dismissed the petition
without costs.
A motion to reconsider having been thwarted below, petitioner came to this Court on appeal.
1. Right at the outset, a procedural aspect has engaged our attention. The case is for the probate of
a will. The court's area of inquiry is limited — to an examination of, and resolution on,
the extrinsic validity of the will. The due execution thereof, the testatrix's testamentary capacity, and
the compliance with the requisites or solemnities by law prescribed, are the questions solely to be
presented, and to be acted upon, by the court. Said court at this stage of the proceedings — is not
called upon to rule on the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will, the legality of any
devise or legacy therein.1
A peculiar situation is here thrust upon us. The parties shunted aside the question of whether or not
the will should be allowed probate. For them, the meat of the case is the intrinsic validity of the will.
Normally, this comes only after the court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated.2 But
petitioner and oppositors, in the court below and here on appeal, travelled on the issue of law, to wit:
Is the will intrinsically a nullity?
We pause to reflect. If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained.
On the contrary, this litigation will be protracted. And for aught that appears in the record, in the
event of probate or if the court rejects the will, probability exists that the case will come up once
again before us on the same issue of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the will. Result: waste of time,
effort, expense, plus added anxiety. These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief
that we might as well meet head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in
question.3 After all, there exists a justiciable controversy crying for solution.
2. Petitioner's sole assignment of error challenges the correctness of the conclusion below that the
will is a complete nullity. This exacts from us a study of the disputed will and the applicable statute.
Reproduced hereunder is the will:
Nov. 17, 1951
I, ROSARIO NUGUID, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, having amassed a certain
amount of property, do hereby give, devise, and bequeath all of the property which I may have when
I die to my beloved sister Remedios Nuguid, age 34, residing with me at 38-B Iriga, Q.C. In witness
whereof, I have signed my name this seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.
(Sgd.) Illegible
T/ ROSARIO NUGUID
The statute we are called upon to apply in Article 854 of the Civil Code which, in part, provides:
ART. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the
direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the
testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar
as they are not inofficious. ...
Except for inconsequential variation in terms, the foregoing is a reproduction of Article 814 of the
Civil Code of Spain of 1889, which is similarly herein copied, thus —
Art. 814. The preterition of one or all of the forced heirs in the direct line, whether living at the
time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall void the institution
of heir; but the legacies and betterments4 shall be valid, in so far as they are not inofficious.
...
A comprehensive understanding of the term preterition employed in the law becomes a necessity.
On this point Manresa comments:
La pretericion consiste en omitar al heredero en el testamento. O no se le nombra siquiera o

aun nombrandole como padre, hijo, etc., no se le instituya heredero ni se le deshereda
expresamente ni se le asigna parte alguna de los bienes, resultando privado de un modo
tacito de su derecho a legitima.
Para que exista pretericion, con arreglo al articulo 814, basta que en el testamento omita el
testador a uno cualquiera de aquellos a quienes por su muerte corresponda la herencia
forzosa.
Se necesita, pues, a) Que la omision se refiera a un heredero forzoso. b) Que la omision sea
completa; que el heredero forzoso nada reciba en el testamento.
It may now appear trite bat nonetheless helpful in giving us a clear perspective of the problem before
us, to have on hand a clear-cut definition of the word annul:
To "annul" means to abrogate, to make void ... In re Morrow's Estate, 54 A. 342, 343, 204
Pa. 484.6
The word "annul" as used in statute requiring court to annul alimony provisions of divorce
decree upon wife's remarriage means to reduce to nothing; to annihilate; obliterate; blot out;
to make void or of no effect; to nullify; to abolish. N.J.S.A. 2:50 — 38 (now N.J.S. 2A:34-35).
Madden vs. Madden, 40 A. 2d 611, 614, 136 N..J Eq. 132.7
ANNUL. To reduce to nothing; annihilate; obliterate; to make void or of no effect; to nullify; to

abolish; to do away with. Ex parte Mitchell, 123 W. Va. 283, 14 S.E. 2d. 771, 774.8
And now, back to the facts and the law. The deceased Rosario Nuguid left no descendants,
legitimate or illegitimate. But she left forced heirs in the direct ascending line her parents, now
oppositors Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid. And, the will completely omits both of them: They
thus received nothing by the testament; tacitly, they were deprived of their legitime; neither were
they expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition. Such preterition in the words of
Manresa "anulara siempre la institucion de heredero, dando caracter absoluto a este ordenamiento
referring to the mandate of Article 814, now 854 of the Civil Code.9 The one-sentence will here
institutes petitioner as the sole, universal heir — nothing more. No specific legacies or bequests are
therein provided for. It is in this posture that we say that the nullity is complete. Perforce, Rosario
Nuguid died intestate. Says Manresa:
En cuanto a la institucion de heredero, se anula. Lo que se anula deja de existir, en todo o

en parte? No se añade limitacion alguna, como en el articulo 851, en el que se expresa que
se anulara la institucion de heredero en cuanto prejudique a la legitima del deseheredado
Debe, pues, entenderse que la anulacion es completa o total, y que este articulo como
especial en el caso que le motiva rige con preferencia al 817. 10
The same view is expressed by Sanchez Roman: —
La consecuencia de la anulacion o nulidad de la institucion de heredero por pretericion de

uno, varios o todos los forzosos en linea recta, es la apertura de la sucesion intestada total o
parcial. Sera total, cuando el testador que comete la pretericion, hubiese dispuesto de todos
los bienes por titulo universal de herencia en favor de los herederos instituidos, cuya
institucion se anula, porque asi lo exige la generalidad del precepto legal del art. 814, al
determinar, como efecto de la pretericion, el de que "anulara la institucion de heredero." ... 11
Really, as we analyze the word annul employed in the statute, there is no escaping the conclusion
that the universal institution of petitioner to the entire inheritance results in totally abrogating the will.
Because, the nullification of such institution of universal heir — without any other testamentary
disposition in the will — amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written. Carefully worded
and in clear terms, Article 854 offers no leeway for inferential interpretation. Giving it an expansive
meaning will tear up by the roots the fabric of the statute. On this point, Sanchez Roman cites the
"Memoria annual del Tribunal Supreme, correspondiente a 1908", which in our opinion expresses
the rule of interpretation, viz:
... El art. 814, que preceptua en tales casos de pretericion la nulidad de la institucion de
heredero, no consiente interpretacion alguna favorable a la persona instituida en el sentido
antes expuesto aun cuando parezca, y en algun caso pudiera ser, mas o menos equitativa,
porque una nulidad no significa en Derecho sino la suposicion de que el hecho o el acto no
se ha realizado, debiendo por lo tanto procederse sobre tal base o supuesto, y
consiguientemente, en un testamento donde falte la institucion, es obligado llamar a los
herederos forzosos en todo caso, como habria que llamar a los de otra clase, cuando el
testador no hubiese distribudo todos sus bienes en legados, siendo tanto mas obligada esta
consecuencia legal cuanto que, en materia de testamentos, sabido es, segun tiene
declarado la jurisprudencia, con repeticion, que no basta que sea conocida la voluntad de
quien testa si esta voluntad no aparece en la forma y en las condiciones que la ley ha
exigido para que sea valido y eficaz, por lo que constituiria una interpretacion arbitraria,
dentro del derecho positivo, reputar como legatario a un heredero cuya institucion fuese
anulada con pretexto de que esto se acomodaba mejor a la voluntad del testador, pues aun
cuando asi fuese, sera esto razon para modificar la ley, pero no autoriza a una interpretacion
contraria a sus terminos y a los principios que informan la testamentifaccion, pues no porque
parezca mejor una cosa en el terreno del Derecho constituyente, hay razon para convereste
juicio en regla de interpretacion, desvirtuando y anulando por este procedimiento lo que el
legislador quiere establecer. 12
3. We should not be led astray by the statement in Article 854 that, annullment notwithstanding, "the
devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious". Legacies and devises merit
consideration only when they are so expressly given as such in a will. Nothing in Article 854
suggests that the mere institution of a universal heir in a will — void because of preterition — would
give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance. As to him, the will is inexistent. There must be,
in addition to such institution, a testamentary disposition granting him bequests or legacies apart and
separate from the nullified institution of heir. Sanchez Roman, speaking of the two component parts
of Article 814, now 854, states that preterition annuls the institution of the heir "totalmente por la
pretericion"; but added (in reference to legacies and bequests) "pero subsistiendo ... todas aquellas
otras disposiciones que no se refieren a la institucion de heredero ... . 13 As Manresa puts it,
annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance including "la porcion libre (que)
no hubiese dispuesto en virtud de legado, mejora o donacion. 14
As aforesaid, there is no other provision in the will before us except the institution of petitioner as
universal heir. That institution, by itself, is null and void. And, intestate succession ensues.
4. Petitioner's mainstay is that the present is "a case of ineffective disinheritance rather than one of
preterition". 15From this, petitioner draws the conclusion that Article 854 "does not apply to the case
at bar". This argument fails to appreciate the distinction between pretention and disinheritance.
Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either
nor are expressly disinherited." 16 Disinheritance, in turn, "is a testamentary disposition depriving any
compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law. " 17 In Manresa's own
words: "La privacion expresa de la legitima constituye la desheredacion. La privacion tacita de la
misma se denomina pretericion." 18 Sanchez Roman emphasizes the distinction by stating that
disinheritance "es siempre voluntaria"; preterition, upon the other hand, is presumed to be
"involuntaria". 19 Express as disinheritance should be, the same must be supported by a legal cause
specified in the will itself. 20
The will here does not explicitly disinherit the testatrix's parents, the forced heirs. It simply omits their
names altogether. Said will rather than be labeled ineffective disinheritance is clearly one in which
the said forced heirs suffer from preterition.
On top of this is the fact that the effects flowing from preterition are totally different from those of
disinheritance. Preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code, we repeat, "shall annul the institution
of heir". This annulment is in toto, unless in the will there are, in addition, testamentary dispositions
in the form of devises or legacies. In ineffective disinheritance under Article 918 of the same Code,
such disinheritance shall also "annul the institution of heirs", put only "insofar as it may prejudice the
person disinherited", which last phrase was omitted in the case of preterition. 21 Better stated yet, in
disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs have
been illegally deprived. Manresa's expressive language, in commenting on the rights of the
preterited heirs in the case of preterition on the one hand and legal disinheritance on the other, runs
thus: "Preteridos, adquiren el derecho a todo; desheredados, solo les corresponde un tercio o dos
tercios, 22 el caso. 23
5. Petitioner insists that the compulsory heirs ineffectively disinherited are entitled to receive their
legitimes, but that the institution of heir "is not invalidated," although the inheritance of the heir so
instituted is reduced to the extent of said legitimes. 24
This is best answered by a reference to the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Moran in the Neri case
heretofore cited, viz:
But the theory is advanced that the bequest made by universal title in favor of the children by
the second marriage should be treated as legado and mejora and, accordingly, it must not be
entirely annulled but merely reduced. This theory, if adopted, will result in a complete
abrogation of Articles 814 and 851 of the Civil Code. If every case of institution of heirs may
be made to fall into the concept of legacies and betterments reducing the bequest
accordingly, then the provisions of Articles 814 and 851 regarding total or partial nullity of the
institution, would. be absolutely meaningless and will never have any application at all. And
the remaining provisions contained in said article concerning the reduction of inofficious
legacies or betterments would be a surplusage because they would be absorbed by Article
817. Thus, instead of construing, we would be destroying integral provisions of the Civil
Code.
The destructive effect of the theory thus advanced is due mainly to a failure to distinguish
institution of heirs from legacies and betterments, and a general from a special provision.
With reference to article 814, which is the only provision material to the disposition of this
case, it must be observed that the institution of heirs is therein dealt with as a thing separate
and distinct from legacies or betterments. And they are separate and distinct not only
because they are distinctly and separately treated in said article but because they are in
themselves different. Institution of heirs is a bequest by universal title of property that is
undetermined. Legacy refers to specific property bequeathed by a particular or special title.
... But again an institution of heirs cannot be taken as a legacy. 25
The disputed order, we observe, declares the will in question "a complete nullity". Article 854 of the
Civil Code in turn merely nullifies "the institution of heir". Considering, however, that the will before
us solely provides for the institution of petitioner as universal heir, and nothing more, the result is the
same. The entire will is null.
Upon the view we take of this case, the order of November 8, 1963 under review is hereby affirmed.
No costs allowed. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar,
JJ., concur.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-41971 November 29, 1983
ZONIA ANA T. SOLANO, petitioner,

vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, BIENVENIDO S. GARCIA, and EMETERIA S. GARCIA, respondents.
Benjamin H. Aquino for petitioner.
Alfredo Kallos for respondents.
MELENCIO HERRERA, J.: ñé+.£ª wph!1
A Petition for Review on certiorari of the Decision of the then Court of Appeals affirming the
judgment rendered by the former Court of First Instance of Albay, Branch II, in Civil Case No. 3956,
an action for Recognition.
On July 7, 1969, Bienvenido Garcia and Emeteria Garcia (GARCIAS), claiming to be illegitimate
children of Dr. Meliton SOLANO, filed an action for recognition against him. In his Answer, SOLANO
denied paternity. On February 3, 1970, during the pendency of the suit, SOLANO died. Petitioner
ZONIA Ana Solano was ordered substituted for the DECEDENT as the only surviving heir mentioned
in his Last Will and Testament probated on March 10, 1969, or prior to his death, in Special
Proceedings No. 842 of the same Court. ZONIA entered her formal appearance as a "substitute
defendant" on March 4, 1970 claiming additionally that she was the sole heir of her father, SOLANO,
and asking that she be allowed to assume her duties as executrix of the probated Will with the least
interference from the GARCIAS who were "mere pretenders to be illegitimate children of SOLANO".
On April 6, 1970, the GARCIAS filed their "Reply to ZONIA's Appearance and Supplemental Cause
of Action" impugning the recognition of ZONIA as an acknowledged natural child with the prayer that
she be declared instead, like them, as an adulterous child of the DECEDENT. ZONIA did not file any
responsive pleading and the case proceeded to trial. The GARCIAS further moved for the
impleading of the SOLANO estate in addition to ZONIA, which was opposed by the latter, but which
the Trial Court granted in its Order dated April 15, 1970. 1
In the hearing of May 13, 1970, the Trial Court specified the legal issues to be treated in the parties'
respective Memoranda as: 1) the question of recognition of the GARCIAS; 2) the correct status of
ZONIA, and 3) the hereditary share of each of them in view of the probated Will. 2
On July 14, 1970, the Trial Court, presided by Judge Ezequiel S. Grageda, rendered judgment the
dispositive portion of which decrees: têñ.£îhqw â£
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the plaintiffs Bienvenido S.
Garcia and Emeteria S. Garcia and the defendant Sonia Ana Tuagnon as the
illegitimate children of the late Dr. Meliton Solano under the class of ADULTEROUS
CHILDREN, with all the rights granted them by law. The institution of Sonia Ana
Solano as sole and universal heir of the said deceased in the will is hereby declared
null and void and the three (3) children shall share equally the estate or one- third
(1/3) each, without prejudice to the legacy given to Trinidad Tuagnon and the right of
any creditors of the estate. No pronouncement as to costs.
Appealed to the Court of Appeals by ZONIA, said Court affirmed the judgment in toto (CA-G.R. No.
49018).
ZONIA seeks a reversal of that affirmance in this petition, which was given due course.
At the outset, we should state that we are bound by the findings of fact of both the Trial Court and
the Appellate Court, particularly, the finding that the GARCIAS and ZONIA are, in fact, illegitimate
children of the DECEDENT. The oral testimony and the documentary evidence of record inevitably
point to that conclusion, as may be gleaned from the following background facts: SOLANO, a
resident of Tabaco, Albay, married Pilar Riosa. The latter died. On a world tour he met a French
woman, Lilly Gorand, who became his second wife in 1928. The union was short-lived as she left
him in 1929. In the early part of 1930, SOLANO started having amorous relations with Juana Garcia,
out of which affair was born Bienvenido Garcia on March 24, 1931 (Exhibits "A" & "3"); and on
November 3, 1935, Emeteria Garcia was born (Exhibits "B " & "2"). Their birth certificates and
baptismal certificates mention only the mother's name without the father's name. The facts establish,
however, that SOLANO during his lifetime recognized the GARCIAS as his children by acts of
support and provisions for their education.
In 1935, SOLANO started living with Trinidad Tuagnon. Three children were born out of this relation
but only petitioner ZONIA Ana Tuagnon, born on July 26, 1941, is living. In her Birth Certificate, her
status was listed as "illegitimate"; her mother as Trinidad Tuagnon; her father as "P.N.C. " (Exhibit
"V"), or "padre no conocido".
During the Japanese occupation, SOLANO obtained a divorce from Lilly Gorand on November 29,
1943 (Exhibits "R-1" and "S-1"). On December 22, 1943, SOLANO and Trinidad Tuagnon executed
an "Escritura de Reconocimiento de Unit Hija Natural" (Exhibit "Q"; "7"), acknowledging ZONIA as a
"natural child" and giving her the right to use the name ZONIA Ana Solano y Tuagnon. The
document was registered with the Local Civil Registrar on the same date.
On January 18, 1969, SOLANO executed his "Ultima Voluntad y Testamento" (Exhibit "11"),
instituting ZONIA as his universal heir to all his personal and real properties in Camalig, Tabaco and
Malinao, all in the province of Albay, except for five parcels of land in Bantayan, Tabaco, Albay,
which were given to Trinidad Tuagnon in usufruct Upon SOLANO's petition (Exhibit "10"), the Will
was duly probated on March 10, 1969 in Special Proceedings No. 842 of the Court of First Instance
of Albay, Branch II, in a Decision also rendered by Judge Ezequiel S. Grageda (Exhibit "12").
As above stated, these facts are not in question.
Petitioner maintains, however, that: têñ.£îhqwâ£
I
The Court of Appeals, as well as the trial Court, acted without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction in declaring substitute defendant Zonia Ana Solano, now
petitioner, an illegitimate child of the late Dr. Meliton Solano in an action where
private respondents, as plaintiffs in the Court below, sought recognition as natural
children of Dr. Meliton Solano.
II
excess of jurisdiction in ordering the division of the estate of Dr. Meliton Solano
between the petitioner and private respondents, when said estate is under the
jurisdiction and control of the probate Court in Special Proceedings No. 842.
III
excess of jurisdiction in declaring nun and void the institution of heir in the last will
and testament of Dr. Meliton Solano, which was duly probated in special proceedings
No. 842 of the Court of First Instance of Albay, and in concluding that total intestacy
resulted there from. 3
Directly challenged is the jurisdiction of the lower Court, in an action for recognition: 1) to declare
ZONIA as an illegitimate child of SOLANO; 2) to order the division of the estate in the same action
despite the pendency of Special Proceedings No. 842; and 3) to declare null and void the institution
of heir in the Last Win and Testament of SOLANO, which was duly probated in the same Special
Proceedings No. 842, and concluding that total intestacy resulted.
It is true that the action below was basically one for recognition. However, upon notice of SOLANO's
death, the Trial Court ordered his substitution by ZONIA, "the only surviving heir ... as of as of
now" 4 In her "Appearance of Substitute Defendant Zonia Ana T. Solano ... Sole and Universal Heir",
ZONIA specifically prayed that she be 6 allowed to assume her duties as executrix and
administratrix of the probated will and testament of the late Dr. Meliton Solano, under Special
Proceedings No. 842, which is already final and executory, with least interference from the plaintiffs
(GARCIAS) who may be classified for the moment as only pretenders to be illegitimate children". In
other words, ZONIA did not only rely upon SOLANO's Answer already of record but asserted new
rights in her capacity as sole and universal heir, "executrix and administratrix, "and challenged the
right of the GARCIAS to recognition. Thus, she was not defending the case as a mere representative
of the deceased but asserted rights and defenses in her own personal capacity. So it was that the
GARCIAS filed a "Reply to Appearance of ZONIA ... and Supplemental Cause of Action ...
"vigorously denying that ZONIA was SOLANO's sole and universal heir; that ZONIA could not legally
be considered as SOLANO's acknowledged natural child because of a legal impediment; that the
admission to probate of SOLANO's Will was merely conclusive as to its due execution; that the
supposed recognition under a notarial instrument of ZONIA as an acknowledged natural child was
fraudulent and a product of misrepresentation; that ZONIA's recognition in the Will as an
acknowledged natural child is subject to nullification and that at most ZONIA is, like them, an
adulterous child of SOLANO with Trinidad Tuagnon.
During the trial, the GARCIAS presented evidence to prove their allegations not only in their main
complaint but also in their "Reply to Appearance and Supplemental Cause of Action". ZONIA
presented no objection to the presentation by the GARCIAS of their oral and documentary evidence
and even cross-examined their witnesses. ZONIA, for her part, presented her own testimonial and
documentary evidence, denied the relationship of the GARCIAS' to SOLANO and presented the
notarial recognition in her favor as an acknowledged natural child by SOLANO and Trinidad
Tuagnon (Exhibit "Q"). Thus, as raised by the parties in their own pleadings and pursuant to their
respective evidence during the trial, the litigation was converted into a contest between the
GARCIAS and ZONIA precisely as to their correct status as heirs and their respective rights as such.
No error was committed by either the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, therefore, in resolving the
issue of ZONIA's status.
ZONIA additionally assails the jurisdiction of the Trial Court in declaring null and void the institution
of heir in SOLANO's will; in concluding that total intestacy resulted therefrom; and distributing the
shares of the parties in SOLANO's estate when said estate was under the jurisdiction and control of
the Probate Court in Special Proceedings No. 842.
Normally, this would be the general rule. However, a peculiar situation is thrust upon us here. It
should be recalled that SOLANO himself instituted the petition for probate of the Will during his
lifetime. That proceeding was not one to settle the estate of a deceased person that would be
deemed terminated only upon the final distribution of the residue of the hereditary estate. With the
Will allowed to probate, the case would have terminated except that it appears that the parties, after
SOLANO's death, continued to file pleadings therein. Secondly, upon motion of the GARCIAS, and
over the objection of ZONIA, the Trial Court ordered the impleading of the estate of SOLANO and
proceeded on that basis. In effect, therefore, the two cases were consolidated. The records further
disclose that the action for recognition (Civil Case No. 3956) and Spec. Procs. No. 842 were pending
before the same Branch of the Court and before the same presiding Judge. Thirdly, it is settled that
the allowance of a Will is conclusive only as to its due execution.5 A probate decree is not concerned
with the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions of the Will. 6
Thus, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had jurisdiction to conclude that, upon the facts, the
GARCIAS and ZONIA were in the same category as illegitimate children; that ZONIA's
acknowledgment as a "natural child" in a notarial document executed by SOLANO and Trinidad
Tuagnon on December 22, 1943 was erroneous because at the time of her birth in 1941, SOLANO
was still married to Lilly Gorand, his divorce having been obtained only in 1943, and, therefore, did
not have the legal capacity to contract marriage at the time of ZONIA's conception, 7 that being
compulsory heirs, the GARCIAS were, in fact, pretended from SOLANO's Last' Will and Testament;
and that as a result of said preterition, the institution of ZONIA as sole heir by SOLANO is null and
void pursuant to Article 854 of the Civil Code. têñ.£îhqwâ£
The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct
line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of
the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be
valid insofar as they are not inofficious. ... 8
As provided in the foregoing provision, the disposition in the Will giving the usufruct in favor of
Trinidad Tuagnon over the five parcels of land in Bantayan, Tabaco, Albay, is a legacy, recognized
in Article 563 of the Civil Code, 9and should be respected in so far as it is not inofficious. 10
So also did the Trial Court have jurisdiction in resolving the issue of the hereditary shares of the
GARCIAS and ZONIA. However, contrary to the conclusions of the Courts below, holding that the
entire Will is void and intestacy ensues, the pretention of the GARCIAS should annul the institution
of ZONIA as heir only insofar as the legitime of the omitted heirs is impaired. The Will, therefore, is
valid subject to that limitation. 11 It is a plain that the intention of the testator was to favor ZONIA with
certain portions of his property, which, under the law, he had a right to dispose of by Will, so that the
disposition in her favor should be upheld as to the one-half (1/2) portion of the property that the
testator could freely dispose of. 12 Since the legitime of illegitimate children consists of one half (1/2)
of the hereditary estate, 13 the GARCIAS and ZONIA each have a right to participation therein in the
proportion of one-third (1/3) each. ZONIA's hereditary share will, therefore, be 1/2 + (1/3 of 1/2) or
4/6 of the estate, while the GARCIAS will respectively be entitled to 1/3 of 1/2 or 1/6 of the value of
the estate.
As heretofore stated, the usufruct in favor of Trinidad Tuagnon over the properties indicated in the
Will is valid and should be respected.
The case of Nuguid vs. Nuguid, et al., 14 reiterating the ruling in Neri, et al. vs. Akutin, et al., 15 which
held that where the institution of a universal heir is null and void due to pretention, the Will is a
complete nullity and intestate succession ensues, is not applicable herein because in the Nuguid
case, only a one-sentence Will was involved with no other provision except the institution of the sole
and universal heir; there was no specification of individual property; there were no specific legacies
or bequests. It was upon that factual setting that this Court declared: têñ.£îhqw â£
The disputed order, we observe, declares the will in question 'a complete nullity.
Article 854 of the Civil Code in turn merely nullifies 'the institution of heir'.
Considering, however, that the will before us solely provides for the institution of
petitioner as universal heir, and nothing more, the result is the same. The entire will
is null." (at p. 459)
In contrast, in the case at bar, there is a specific bequest or legacy so that Article 854 of the Civil
Code, supra, applies merely annulling the "institution of heir".
Lastly, it should be pointed out that the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court was
never questioned before either Court. ZONIA herself had gone, without objection, to trial on the
issues raised and as defined by the Trial Court. Neither had ZONIA assigned lack of jurisdiction of
the Trial Court as an error before the Appellate Court. She should now be held estopped to
repudiate that jurisdiction to which she had voluntarily submitted, after she had received an
unfavorable judgment, The leading case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 16 on this point, declared: têñ.£îhqw â£
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question the same
jurisdiction. The question whether the court has jurisdiction either of the subject
matter of the action or of the parties is not because the judgment or order of the court
is valid and conclusive as an adjudication but for the reason that such practice
cannot be tolerated obviously for reasons of public policy. After voluntarily submitting
a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the
loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court.
WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby modified in that the hereditary share in the
estate of the decedent of petitioner Zonia Ana T. Solano is hereby declared to be (1/2 + (1/3 of 1/2)
or 4/6 of said estate, while that of private respondents, Bienvenido S. Garcia and Emeteria S.
Garcia, shall each be (1/3 of 1/2) or (1/6) of the estate. The usufruct in favor of Trinidad Tuagnon
shall be respected. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. No costs.
SO ORDERED. 1äw phï1.ñët
Plana, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions
The record shows that the probate proceeding (Sp. Proc. No. 842) was not one for settlement of
estate of a deceased but one instituted by the testator himself, Dr. Meliton Solano, for the allowance
of the will during his lifetime under Article 838 of the Civil Code. Such allowance was granted and
this terminated the proceeding, although as noted in the Court's opinion, the parties continued to file
some pleadings therein after Dr. Solano's death. But the issues between the parties as to their status
and hereditary shares in view of the probated will naming petitioner as sole heir were expressly
delineated, tried and determined in the action for recognition (Civil Case No. 3956) filed by
respondents Garcias against their father Dr. Solano who was substituted by petitioner as defendant
(and sole heir of the estate under the probated will) after his death. In effect, therefore, the two cases
(assuming that the probate proceeding could be deemed as having continued notwithstanding its
termination with the allowance in vitam of Dr. Solano's will) which were pending before the same
judge and the same branch of the trial court could be correctly said to have been. consolidated.
Finally, petitioner is now stopped, after getting an adverse verdict, from repudiating belatedly the
jurisdiction of the trial and appellate courts to which she had submitted without question her cause.
Separate Opinions
The record shows that the probate proceeding (Sp. Proc. No. 842) was not one for settlement of
estate of a deceased but one instituted by the testator himself, Dr. Meliton Solano, for the allowance
of the will during his lifetime under Article 838 of the Civil Code. Such allowance was granted and
this terminated the proceeding, although as noted in the Court's opinion, the parties continued to file
some pleadings therein after Dr. Solano's death. But the issues between the parties as to their status
and hereditary shares in view of the probated will naming petitioner as sole heir were expressly
delineated, tried and determined in the action for recognition (Civil Case No. 3956) filed by
respondents Garcias against their father Dr. Solano who was substituted by petitioner as defendant
(and sole heir of the estate under the probated will) after his death. In effect, therefore, the two cases
(assuming that the probate proceeding could be deemed as having continued notwithstanding its
termination with the allowance in vitam of Dr. Solano's will) which were pending before the same
judge and the same branch of the trial court could be correctly said to have been. consolidated.
Finally, petitioner is now stopped, after getting an adverse verdict, from repudiating belatedly the
jurisdiction of the trial and appellate courts to which she had submitted without question her cause.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-39247 June 27, 1975
In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Leodegaria Julian. FELIX BALANAY,
JR., petitioner,
vs.
HON. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch VI;
AVELINA B. ANTONIO and DELIA B. LANABAN, respondents.
Roberto M. Sarenas for petitioner.
Jose B. Guyo for private respondents.
AQUINO, J.:
Felix Balanay, Jr. appealed by certiorari from the order of the Court of First Instance of Davao dated
February 28, 1974, declaring illegal and void the will of his mother, Leodegaria Julian, converting the
testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding and ordering the issuance of the corresponding
notice to creditors (Special Case No. 1808). The antecedents of the appeal are as follows:
Leodegaria Julian, a native of Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur, died on February 12, 1973 in Davao City at the
age of sixty-seven. She was survived by her husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and by their six legitimate
children named Felix Balanay, Jr., Avelina B. Antonio, Beatriz B. Solamo, Carolina B. Manguiob,
Delia B. Lanaban and Emilia B. Pabaonon.
Felix J. Balanay, Jr. filed in the lower court a petition dated February 27, 1973 for the probate of his
mother's notarial will dated September 5, 1970 which is written in English. In that will Leodegaria
Julian declared (a) that she was the owner of the "southern half of nine conjugal lots (par. II); (b) that
she was the absolute owner of two parcels of land which she inherited from her father (par. III), and
(c) that it was her desire that her properties should not be divided among her heirs during her
husband's lifetime and that their legitimes should be satisfied out of the fruits of her properties (Par.
IV).
Then, in paragraph V of the will she stated that after her husband's death (he was eighty-two years
old in 1973) her paraphernal lands and all the conjugal lands (which she described as "my
properties") should be divided and distributed in the manner set forth in that part of her will. She
devised and partitioned the conjugal lands as if they were all owned by her. She disposed of in the
will her husband's one half share of the conjugal assets. *
Felix Balanay, Sr. and Avelina B. Antonio opposed the probate of the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence,
preterition of the husband and alleged improper partition of the conjugal estate. The oppositors claimed that Felix Balanay, Jr. should collate
certain properties which he had received from the testatrix.
Felix Balanay, Jr., in his reply to the opposition, attached thereto an affidavit of Felix Balanay, Sr.
dated April 18, 1973 wherein he withdrew his opposition to the probate of the will and affirmed that
he was interested in its probate. On the same date Felix Balanay, Sr. signed an instrument
captioned "Conformation (sic) of Division and Renunciation of Hereditary Rights" wherein he
manifested that out of respect for his wife's will he "waived and renounced' his hereditary rights in
her estate in favor of their six children. In that same instrument he confirmed the agreement, which
he and his wife had perfected before her death, that their conjugal properties would be partitioned in
the manner indicated in her will.
Avelina B. Antonio, an oppositor, in her rejoinder contended that the affidavit and "conformation" of
Felix Balanay, Sr. were void. The lower court in its order of June 18, 1973 "denied" the opposition
and reset for hearing the probate of the will. It gave effect to the affidavit and conformity of Felix
Balanay, Sr. In an order dated August 28, 1973 it appointed its branch clerk of court as special
administrator of the decedent's estate.
Mrs. Antonio moved for the reconsideration of the lower court's order of June 18, 1973 on the
grounds (a) that the testatrix illegally claimed that she was the owner of the southern half of the
conjugal lots and (b) that she could not partition the conjugal estate by allocating portions of the nine
lots to her children. Felix Balanay, Jr., through his counsel, Hermenegildo Cabreros, opposed that
motion. The lower court denied it in its order of October 15, 1973.
In the meanwhile, another lawyer appeared in the case. David O. Montaña, Sr., claiming to be the
lawyer of petitioner Felix Balanay, Jr. (his counsel of record was Atty. Cabreros), filed a motion dated
September 25, 1973 for "leave of court to withdraw probate of alleged will of Leodegaria Julian and
requesting authority to proceed by intestate estate proceeding." In that motion Montaña claimed to
be the lawyer not only of the petitioner but also of Felix Balanay, Sr., Beatriz B. Solamo, Carolina B.
Manguiob and Emilia B. Pabaonon.
Montaña in his motion assailed the provision of the will which partitioned the conjugal assets or
allegedly effected a compromise of future legitimes. He prayed that the probate of the will be
withdrawn and that the proceeding be converted into an intestate proceeding. In another motion of
the same date he asked that the corresponding notice to creditors be issued.
Avelina B. Antonio and Delia B. Lanaban, through Atty. Jose B. Guyo, in their comments dated
October 15, 1973 manifested their conformity with the motion for the issuance of a notice to
creditors. They prayed that the will be declared void for being contrary to law and that an intestacy
be declared.
The lower court, acting on the motions of Atty. Montaña, assumed that the issuance of a notice to
creditors was in order since the parties had agreed on that point. It adopted the view of Attys.
Montaña and Guyo that the will was void. So, in its order of February 28, 1974 it dismissed the
petition for the probate, converted the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding, ordered the
issuance of a notice to creditors and set the intestate proceeding for hearing on April 1 and 2, 1974.
The lower court did not abrogate its prior orders of June 18 and October 15, 1973. The notice to
creditors was issued on April 1, 1974 and published on May 2, 9 and 16 in the Davao Star in spite of
petitioner's motion of April 17, 1974 that its publication be held in abeyance.
Felix Balanay, Jr., through a new counsel, Roberto M. Sarenas, in a verified motion dated April 15,
1974, asked for the reconsideration of the lower court's order of February 28, 1974 on the ground
that Atty. Montaña had no authority to withdraw the petition for the allowance of the will. Attached to
the motion was a copy of a letter dated March 27, 1974 addressed to Atty. Montaña and signed by
Felix Balanay, Jr., Beatriz V. Solamo, Carolina B. Manguiob and Emilia B. Pabaonon, wherein they
terminated Montaña's services and informed him that his withdrawal of the petition for the probate of
the will was without their consent and was contrary to their repeated reminder to him that their
mother's will was "very sacred" to them.
Avelina B. Antonio and Delia B. Lanaban opposed the motion for reconsideration. The lower court
denied the motion in its order of June 29, 1974. It clarified that it declared the will void on the basis of
its own independent assessment of its provisions and not because of Atty. Montaña's arguments.
The basic issue is whether the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will,
before ruling on its allowance or formal validity, and in declaring it void.
We are of the opinion that in view of certain unusual provisions of the will, which are of dubious
legality, and because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate (which the lower court
assumed to have been filed with the petitioner's authorization), the trial court acted correctly in
passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been established. The
probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void.
Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even
before it is probated, the court should meet the issue (Nuguid vs. Nuguid, 64 O.G. 1527, 17 SCRA
449. Compare with Sumilang vs. Ramagosa, L-23135, December 26, 1967, 21 SCRA 1369; Cacho
vs. Udan, L-19996, April 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 693). 1äwphï1.ñët
But the probate court erred in declaring, in its order of February 28, 1974 that the will was void and
in converting the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding notwithstanding the fact that in its
order of June 18, 1973 , it gave effect to the surviving husband's conformity to the will and to his
renunciation of his hereditary rights which presumably included his one-half share of the conjugal
estate.
The rule is that "the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the
invalidity of the other dispositions, unless it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made
such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made" (Art. 792, Civil Code).
"Where some of the provisions of a will are valid and others invalid, the valid parts will be upheld if
they can be separated from the invalid without defeating the intention of the testator or interfering
with the general testamentary scheme, or doing injustice to the beneficiaries" (95 C.J.S. 873).
The statement of the testatrix that she owned the "southern half of the conjugal lands is contrary to
law because, although she was a coowner thereof, her share was inchoate and proindiviso (Art. 143,
Civil Code; Madrigal and Paterno vs. Rafferty and Concepcion, 38 Phil. 414). But That illegal
declaration does not nullify the entire will. It may be disregarded.
The provision of the will that the properties of the testatrix should not be divided among her heirs
during her husband's lifetime but should be kept intact and that the legitimes should be paid in cash
is contrary to article 1080 of the Civil Code which reads:
ART. 1080. Should a person make a partition of his estate by an act inter vivos, or by
will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of
the compulsory heirs.
A parent who, in the interest of his or her family, to keep any agricultural, industrial,
or manufacturing enterprise intact, may avail himself of the right granted him in this
article, by ordering that the legitime of the other children to whom the property is not
assigned be paid in cash. (1056a)
The testatrix in her will made a partition of the entire conjugal estate among her six children (her
husband had renounced his hereditary rights and his one-half conjugal share). She did not assign
the whole estate to one or more children as envisaged in article 1080. Hence, she had no right to
require that the legitimes be paid in cash. On the other hand, her estate may remain undivided only
for a period of twenty years. So, the provision that the estate should not be divided during her
husband's lifetime would at most be effective only for twenty years from the date of her death unless
there are compelling reasons for terminating the coownership (Art. 1083, Civil Code).
Felix Balanay, Sr. could validly renounce his hereditary rights and his one-half share of the conjugal
partnership (Arts. 179[1] and 1041, Civil Code) but insofar as said renunciation partakes of a
donation of his hereditary rights and his one-half share in the conjugal estate (Art. 1060[1] Civil
Code), it should be subject to the limitations prescribed in articles 750 and 752 of the Civil Code. A
portion of the estate should be adjudicated to the widower for his support and maintenance. Or at
least his legitime should be respected.
Subject to the foregoing observations and the rules on collation, the will is intrinsically valid and the
partition therein may be given effect if it does not prejudice the creditors and impair the legitimes.
The distribution and partition would become effective upon the death of Felix Balanay, Sr. In the
meantime, the net income should be equitably divided among the children and the surviving spouse.
It should be stressed that by reason of the surviving husband's conformity to his wife's will and his
renunciation of his hereditary rights, his one-half conjugal share became a part of his deceased
wife's estate. His conformity had the effect of validating the partition made in paragraph V of the will
without prejudice, of course, to the rights of the creditors and the legitimes of the compulsory heirs.
Article 793 of the Civil Code provides that "property acquired after the making of a will shall only
pass thereby, as if the testator had it at the time of making the will, should it expressly appear by the
will that such was his intention". Under article 930 of the Civil Code "the legacy or devise of a thing
belonging to another person is void, if the testator erroneously believed that the thing pertained to
him. But if the thing bequeathed, though not belonging to the testator when he made the will,
afterwards becomes his, by whatever title, the disposition shall take effect."
In the instant case there is no doubt that the testatrix and her husband intended to partition the
conjugal estate in the manner set forth in paragraph V of her will. It is true that she could dispose of
by will only her half of the conjugal estate (Art. 170, Civil Code) but since the husband, after the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership, had assented to her testamentary partition of the conjugal
estate, such partition has become valid, assuming that the will may be probated.
The instant case is different from the Nuguid case, supra, where the testatrix instituted as heir her
sister and preterited her parents. Her will was intrinsically void because it preterited her compulsory
heirs in the direct line. Article 854 of the Civil Code provides that "the preterition or omission of one,
some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of
the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and
legacies, shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious." Since the preterition of the parents
annulled the institution of the sister of the testatrix and there were no legacies and devises, total
intestacy resulted (.Art. 960[2], Civil Code).
1äw phï1.ñët
In the instant case, the preterited heir was the surviving spouse. His preterition did not produce
intestacy. Moreover, he signified his conformity to his wife's will and renounced his hereditary rights.
.
It results that the lower court erred in not proceeding with the probate of the will as contemplated in
its uncancelled order of June 18, 1973. Save in an extreme case where the will on its face is
intrinsically void, it is the probate court's duty to pass first upon the formal validity of the will.
Generally, the probate of the will is mandatory (Art. 838, Civil Code; Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil.
479 and 98 Phil. 249; Fernandez vs. Dimagiba, L-23638, October 12, 1967, 21 SCRA 428).
As aptly stated by Mr. Justice Barredo, "the very existence of a purported testament is in itself prima
facie proof that the supposed testator has willed that his estate should be distributed in the manner
therein provided, and it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given
effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby" (Resolution, Vda. de Precilla vs.
Narciso, L-27200, August 18, 1972, 46 SCRA 538, 565).
To give effect to the intention and wishes of the testatrix is the first and principal law in the matter of
testaments (Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon, L-24561, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 554, 561). Testacy is
preferable to intestacy. An interpretation that will render a testamentary disposition operative takes
precedence over a construction that will nullify a provision of the will (Arts. 788 and 791, Civil Code).
Testacy is favored. Doubts are resolved in favor of testacy especially where the will evinces an
intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate. So compelling is the
principle that intestacy should be avoided and that the wishes of the testator should prevail that
sometimes the language of the will can be varied for the purpose of giving it effect (Austria vs.
Reyes, L-23079, February 27, 1970, 31 SCRA 754, 762).
As far as is legally possible, the expressed desire of the testator must be followed and the
dispositions of the properties in his will should be upheld (Estorque vs. Estorque, L-19573, June 30,
1970, 33 SCRA 540, 546).
The law has a tender regard for the wishes of the testator as expressed in his will because any
disposition therein is better than that which the law can make (Castro vs. Bustos, L-25913, February
28, 1969, 27 SCRA 327, 341).
Two other errors of the lower court may be noticed. It erred in issuing a notice to creditors although
no executor or regular administrator has been appointed. The record reveals that it appointed a
special administrator. A notice to creditors is not in order if only a special administrator has been
appointed. Section 1, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, in providing that "immediately after granting
letters of testamentary or of administration, the court shall issue a notice requiring all persons having
money claims against the decedent to file them in the office of the clerk of said court" clearly
contemplates the appointment of an executor or regular administrator and not that of a special
administrator.
It is the executor or regular administrator who is supposed to oppose the claims against the estate
and to pay such claims when duly allowed (See. 10, Rule 86 and sec. 1, Rule 88, Rules of Court).
We also take this occasion to point out that the probate court's appointment of its branch clerk of
court as special administrator (p. 30, Rollo) is not a salutary practice because it might engender the
suspicion that the probate Judge and his clerk of court are in cahoots in milking the decedent's
estate. Should the branch clerk of court commit any abuse or devastavit in the course of his
administration, the probate Judge might find it difficult to hold him to a strict accountability. A court
employee should devote his official time to his official duties and should not have as a sideline the
administration of a decedent's estate.
WHEREFORE, the lower court's orders of February 28, and June 29, 1974 are set aside and its
order of June 18, 1973, setting for hearing the petition for probate, is affirmed. The lower court is
directed to conduct further proceedings in Special Case No. 1808 in consonance with this opinion.
Costs, against the private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 72706 October 27, 1987
CONSTANTINO C. ACAIN, petitioner,

vs.
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (Third Special Cases Division), VIRGINIA A.
FERNANDEZ and ROSA DIONGSON, respondents.
PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision * of respondent. Court of Appeals in AC-G.R. SP No. 05744
promulgated on August 30, 1985 (Rollo, p. 108) ordering the dismissal of the petition in Special Proceedings No, 591 ACEB and its
Resolution issued on October 23, 1985 (Rollo, p. 72) denying respondents' (petitioners herein) motion for reconsideration.
The dispositive portion of the questioned decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and respondent Regional Trial Court of
the Seventh Judicial Region, Branch XIII (Cebu City), is hereby ordered to dismiss
the petition in Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB No special pronouncement is
made as to costs.
The antecedents of the case, based on the summary of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court
of Appeals, (Rollo, pp. 108-109) are as follows:
On May 29, 1984 petitioner Constantino Acain filed on the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City Branch
XIII, a petition for the probate of the will of the late Nemesio Acain and for the issuance to the same
petitioner of letters testamentary, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB (Rollo, p. 29), on
the premise that Nemesio Acain died leaving a will in which petitioner and his brothers Antonio,
Flores and Jose and his sisters Anita, Concepcion, Quirina and Laura were instituted as heirs. The
will allegedly executed by Nemesio Acain on February 17, 1960 was written in Bisaya (Rollo, p. 27)
with a translation in English (Rollo, p. 31) submi'tted by petitioner without objection raised by private
respondents. The will contained provisions on burial rites, payment of debts, and the appointment of
a certain Atty. Ignacio G. Villagonzalo as the executor of the testament. On the disposition of the
testator's property, the will provided:
THIRD: All my shares that I may receive from our properties. house, lands and
money which I earned jointly with my wife Rosa Diongson shall all be given by me to
my brother SEGUNDO ACAIN Filipino, widower, of legal age and presently residing
at 357-C Sanciangko Street, Cebu City. In case my brother Segundo Acain pre-
deceased me, all the money properties, lands, houses there in Bantayan and here in
Cebu City which constitute my share shall be given to me to his children, namely:
Anita, Constantino, Concepcion, Quirina, laura, Flores, Antonio and Jose, all
surnamed Acain.
Obviously, Segundo pre-deceased Nemesio. Thus it is the children of Segundo who are claiming to
be heirs, with Constantino as the petitioner in Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB
After the petition was set for hearing in the lower court on June 25, 1984 the oppositors
(respondents herein Virginia A. Fernandez, a legally adopted daughter of tile deceased and the
latter's widow Rosa Diongson Vda. de Acain filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds for
the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedings; (2) he is merely a universal heir
and (3) the widow and the adopted daughter have been pretirited. (Rollo, p. 158). Said motion was
denied by the trial judge.
After the denial of their subsequent motion for reconsideration in the lower court, respondents filed
with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction which was
subsequently referred to the Intermediate Appellate Court by Resolution of the Court dated March
11, 1985 (Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 3; Rollo, p. 159).
Respondent Intermediate Appellate Court granted private respondents' petition and ordered the trial
court to dismiss the petition for the probate of the will of Nemesio Acain in Special Proceedings No.
591 ACEB
His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed this present petition for the review
of respondent Court's decision on December 18, 1985 (Rollo, p. 6). Respondents' Comment was
filed on June 6, 1986 (Rollo, p. 146).
On August 11, 1986 the Court resolved to give due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 153).
Respondents' Memorandum was filed on September 22, 1986 (Rollo, p. 157); the Memorandum for
petitioner was filed on September 29, 1986 (Rollo, p. 177).
Petitioner raises the following issues (Memorandum for petitioner, p. 4):
(A) The petition filed in AC-G.R. No. 05744 for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction is not the proper remedy under the premises;
(B) The authority of the probate courts is limited only to inquiring into the extrinsic
validity of the will sought to be probated and it cannot pass upon the intrinsic validity
thereof before it is admitted to probate;
(C) The will of Nemesio Acain is valid and must therefore, be admitted to probate.
The preterition mentioned in Article 854 of the New Civil Code refers to preterition of
"compulsory heirs in the direct line," and does not apply to private respondents who
are not compulsory heirs in the direct line; their omission shall not annul the
institution of heirs;
(D) DICAT TESTATOR ET MERIT LEX. What the testator says will be the law;
(E) There may be nothing in Article 854 of the New Civil Code, that suggests that
mere institution of a universal heir in the will would give the heir so instituted a share
in the inheritance but there is a definite distinct intention of the testator in the case at
bar, explicitly expressed in his will. This is what matters and should be in violable.
(F) As an instituted heir, petitioner has the legal interest and standing to file the
petition in Sp. Proc. No. 591 ACEB for probate of the will of Nemesio Acain and
(G) Article 854 of the New Civil Code is a bill of attainder. It is therefore
unconstitutional and ineffectual.
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not private respondents have been pretirited.
Art. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in
the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the
death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devisees and legacies
shall be valid insofar as they are not; inofficious.
If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall he
effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation.
Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them either
nor are expressly disinherited (Nuguid v. Nuguid, 17 SCRA 450 [1966]; Maninang v. Court of
Appeals, 114 SCRA 478 [1982]). Insofar as the widow is concerned, Article 854 of the Civil Code
may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, although she is a compulsory
heir. Stated otherwise, even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir, there is no preterition even
if she is omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line. (Art. 854, Civil code) however,
the same thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia A. Fernandez, whose legal adoption
by the testator has not been questioned by petitioner (.Memorandum for the Petitioner, pp. 8-9).
Under Article 39 of P.D. No. 603, known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, adoption gives to the
adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes
the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. It cannot be denied that she has totally omitted and
preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at
least their legitime. Neither can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited. Hence, this is
a clear case of preterition of the legally adopted child.
Pretention annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate succession the
entire inheritance including "la porcion libre (que) no hubiese dispuesto en virtual de legado mejora o
donacion" Maniesa as cited in Nuguid v. Nuguid, supra; Maninang v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA
[1982]). The only provisions which do not result in intestacy are the legacies and devises made in
the will for they should stand valid and respected, except insofar as the legitimes are concerned.
The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sisters to the entire inheritance of
the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the nullification of such institution of
universal heirs-without any other testamentary disposition in the will-amounts to a declaration that
nothing at all was written. Carefully worded and in clear terms, Article 854 of the Civil Code offers no
leeway for inferential interpretation (Nuguid v. Nuguid), supra. No legacies nor devises having been
provided in the will the whole property of the deceased has been left by universal title to petitioner
and his brothers and sisters. The effect of annulling the "Institution of heirs will be, necessarily, the
opening of a total intestacy (Neri v. Akutin, 74 Phil. 185 [1943]) except that proper legacies and
devises must, as already stated above, be respected.
We now deal with another matter. In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate
proceeding he must have an interest iii the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it
either as executor or as a claimant of the estate and an interested party is one who would be
benefited by the estate such as an heir or one who has a claim against the estate like a creditor
(Sumilang v. Ramagosa, 21 SCRA 1369/1967). Petitioner is not the appointed executor, neither a
devisee or a legatee there being no mention in the testamentary disposition of any gift of an
individual item of personal or real property he is called upon to receive (Article 782, Civil Code). At
the outset, he appears to have an interest in the will as an heir, defined under Article 782 of the Civil
Code as a person called to the succession either by the provision of a will or by operation of law.
However, intestacy having resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child and the
universal institution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator. He has no legal standing
to petition for the probate of the will left by the deceased and Special Proceedings No. 591 A-CEB
must be dismissed.
As a general rule certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal, except when the questioned order is an
oppressive exercise of j judicial authority (People v. Villanueva, 110 SCRA 465 [1981]; Vda. de
Caldito v. Segundo, 117 SCRA 573 [1982]; Co Chuan Seng v. Court of Appeals, 128 SCRA 308
[1984]; and Bautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587 [1985]). It is axiomatic that the remedies of
certiorari and prohibition are not available where the petitioner has the remedy of appeal or some
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law (DD Comendador Construction
Corporation v. Sayo (118 SCRA 590 [1982]). They are, however, proper remedies to correct a grave
abuse of discretion of the trial court in not dismissing a case where the dismissal is founded on valid
grounds (Vda. de Bacang v. Court of Appeals, 125 SCRA 137 [1983]).
Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB is for the probate of a will. As stated by respondent Court, the
general rule is that the probate court's authority is limited only to the extrinsic validity of the will, the
due execution thereof, the testator's testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or
solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the Court
has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. Said court at this stage of the proceedings is
not called upon to rule on the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will (Nuguid v.
Nuguid, 17 SCRA 449 [1966]; Sumilang v. Ramagosa, supra; Maninang v. Court of Appeals, 114
SCRA 478 [1982]; Cayetano v. Leonides, 129 SCRA 522 [1984]; and Nepomuceno v. Court of
Appeals, 139 SCRA 206 [1985]).
The rule, however, is not inflexible and absolute. Under exceptional circumstances, the probate court
is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the
will (Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, supra). In Nuguid v. Nuguid the oppositors to the probate
moved to dismiss on the ground of absolute preteriton The probate court acting on the motion held
that the will in question was a complete nullity and dismissed the petition without costs. On appeal
the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the probate court, induced by practical considerations.
The Court said:
We pause to reflect. If the case were to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing
will be gained. On the contrary, this litigation will be protracted. And for aught that
appears in the record, in the event of probate or if the court rejects the will,
probability exists that the case will come up once again before us on the same issue
of the intrinsic validity or nullity of the will. Result: waste of time, effort, expense, plus
added anxiety. These are the practical considerations that induce us to a belief that
we might as well meet head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in
question. After all there exists a justiciable controversy crying for solution.
In Saguimsim v. Lindayag (6 SCRA 874 [1962]) the motion to dismiss the petition by the surviving
spouse was grounded on petitioner's lack of legal capacity to institute the proceedings which was
fully substantiated by the evidence during the hearing held in connection with said motion. The Court
upheld the probate court's order of dismissal.
In Cayetano v. Leonides, supra one of the issues raised in the motion to dismiss the petition deals
with the validity of the provisions of the will. Respondent Judge allowed the probate of the will. The
Court held that as on its face the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner the respondent judge
should have denied its probate outright. Where circumstances demand that intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions be passed upon even before the extrinsic validity of the will is resolved, the
probate court should meet the issue. (Nepomuceno v. Court of Appeals, supra; Nuguid v.
Nuguid, supra).
In the instant case private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition in Sp. Proceedings No.
591 ACEB of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu on the following grounds: (1) petitioner has no legal
capacity to institute the proceedings; (2) he is merely a universal heir; and (3) the widow and the
adopted daughter have been preterited (Rollo, p. 158). It was denied by the trial court in an order
dated January 21, 1985 for the reason that "the grounds for the motion to dismiss are matters
properly to be resolved after a hearing on the issues in the course of the trial on the merits of the
case (Rollo, p. 32). A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on
February 15, 1985 (Rollo, p. 109).
For private respondents to have tolerated the probate of the will and allowed the case to progress
when on its face the will appears to be intrinsically void as petitioner and his brothers and sisters
were instituted as universal heirs coupled with the obvious fact that one of the private respondents
had been preterited would have been an exercise in futility. It would have meant a waste of time,
effort, expense, plus added futility. The trial court could have denied its probate outright or could
have passed upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions before the extrinsic validity of
the will was resolved (Cayetano v. Leonides, supra; Nuquid v. Nuguid, supra. The remedies of
certiorari and prohibition were properly availed of by private respondents.
Thus, this Court ruled that where the grounds for dismissal are indubitable, the defendants had the
right to resort to the more speedy, and adequate remedies of certiorari and prohibition to correct a
grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, committed by the trial court in not
dismissing the case, (Vda. de Bacang v. Court of Appeals, supra) and even assuming the existence
of the remedy of appeal, the Court harkens to the rule that in the broader interests of justice, a
petition for certiorari may be entertained, particularly where appeal would not afford speedy and
adequate relief. (Maninang Court of Appeals, supra).
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the questioned
decision of respondent Court of Appeals promulgated on August 30, 1985 and its Resolution dated
October 23, 1985 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
inadvertence.
supplied).
pp. 174-175).
Separate Opinions
inadvertence.
supplied).
pp. 174-175).
Footnotes
* Penned by Justice Jose A. R. Melo and concurred in by Justices Milagros A.

German and Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr.

Cases Succesion 9th Batch

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cases Succesion 9th Batch

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896 March 29, 1974

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, Administrator of the Testate Estate of

G.R. Nos. L-27936 & L-27937 March 29, 1974

URGENT EX-PARTE MOTION TO ALLOW OR AUTHORIZE PETITIONER TO

4. — That deceased Linnie Jane Hodges died leaving no descendants or

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that, petitioner C. N. Hodges (Charles

City of Iloilo, May 27, 1957. (Annex "D", Petition.)

City of Iloilo May 27, 1957. (Annex "E", Petition.)

MOTION TO APPROVE ALL SALES, CONVEYANCES, LEASES, MORTGAGES

Comes the Executor in the above-entitled proceedings, thru his undersigned

5. — That it is respectfully requested, all the sales, conveyances leases and

City of Iloilo, December 11, 1967.

(Annex "G", Petition.)

Iloilo City. December 14, 1957.

(Annex "H", Petition.)

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully prayed that, the statement of

City of Iloilo April 14, 1959.

(Annex "I", Petition.)

City of Iloilo April 21, 1959.

(Annex "J", Petition.)

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

Likewise the following:

"None, except for purposes of administering the Estate, paying debts,

URGENT EX-PARTE MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A

6. That in the meantime, it is imperative and indispensable that, an Administratrix be

7. That there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration, because

(Annex "O", Petition.)

On December 29, 1962, however, upon urgent ex-parte petition of respondent

4. Fees must be commensurate to the actual services rendered to the estate;

The administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges is hereby directed to be

SO ORDERED. (p. 248, Green Record on Appeal.)

In her brief as appellee, respondent Magno states:

Fernando Cano, Bacolod City, Occ. Negros

and cancellations of mortgages in favor of —

Pablo Manzano, Oton, Iloilo

And the prayer of this motion is indeed very revealing:

None of these assertions is denied in Petitioner's reply brief.

(Pp. 334-335, Green Record on Appeal.)

(Pp. 221-222, Green Record on Appeal.)

URGENT MOTION FOR AN ACCOUNTING AND DELIVERY TO

COMES NOW the co-administrator of the estate of C. N. Hodges, Joe Hodges,

(3) On July 1, 1957 this Honorable Court issued Letters Testamentary to C. N.

(p. 44, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307; emphasis supplied.)

(p. 46, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307; emphasis supplied.)

"That no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of

(pp. 77-78, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307; emphasis supplied.).

"That no person interested in the Philippines of the time and place of

(pp. 81-82. Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307; emphasis supplied.)

That no person interested in the Philippines be given notice, of the

(pp. 90-91. Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307; emphasis supplied.)

(8) On December 25, 1962, C.N. Hodges died.

"Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges and as Special Administratrix of

(p. 100. Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307)

"With full authority to take possession of all the property of said

(p. 102, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307)

(a) Avelina A. Magno as Administratrix of the estate of Linnie Jane Hodges;

(b) Avelina A. Magno as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Newton

(c) Joe Hodges as Co-Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Newton

(p. 43, Rec. Sp. Proc. 1307)

"... se autoriza a aquella (Avelina A. Magno) a firmar escrituras de

"Cada una de dichas escrituras que se otorguen debe ser sometida

[Par 1 (c), Reply to Motion For Removal of Joe Hodges]