UP Law F2021 026 Yambao v.

Gonzales
Succession Interpretation of Wills 1961 Bautista Angelo
(Arts. 788-794)

SUMMARY

Maria Gonzales left a will bequeathing her properties to Angelina Gonzales et.al. One of the provisions
provided that the heirs allow one Delfin Yambao to be a tenant of the Riceland for his lifetime, but the
heirs refused to honor this provision. The trial court ruled in favor of Angelina et al, saying that the
provision should be construed as merely suggestive, and not mandatory, based on the words used (esp
‘pahihintulutan’). The SC reversed, saying that the word, taken other word in the provision should be
interpreted as “to do” or “to carry out” which gave a ‘mandatory’ and not merely ‘suggestive’ meaning
to it.

FACTS

 On August 10, 1942, Maria Gonzales executed a will bequeathing to Angelina Gonzales and other
appellees all her properties situated in Sta Rosa, Laguna;
 Delfin Yambao went to Angelina to have the stipulation1 in Maria’s will that he become the tenant of
the riceland (one of Maria’s properties) enforced but Angelina refused;
 Yambao filed an action at the lower court praying for the enforcement of the said provision;
 Angelina et. al. opposed, averring that the provisions of the will relied upon by plaintiff were not
mandatory, that the same was merely a suggestion;
 Trial court sided with Angelina et al and dismissed the complaint for lack of sufficient cause of
action, saying that the provision was merely a suggestion and the defendant Angelina et al were not
legally compelled to follow the said suggestion, invoking Art. 797 (Old Civil Code; Art. 882 in NCC))
as authority;
 Trial court, to come up with its decision, heavily relied on its interpretation of the word
“pahihintulutan” as merely to permit or to allow, but not to direct appellees to appoint appellant as
tenant; that it merely contains suggestion to employ because the testatrix did not use the words
"ipinag-uutos ko" which she used in connection with other provisions of the will, so that there is no
clear indication that it was her intention to make such provision compulsory;
 Yambao appealed to the SC the lower court’s decision.

RATIO

W/N the contetsted stipulation was appropriately interpreted by the lower court
No.

Analyzing it carefully we will find that the same contains a clear directive to employ appellant as may be
seen from the words preceding the word "pahihintulutan" which say: "Dapat din naman malaman, ng
dalawa kong taga-pagmana na sila MARIA PABLO at ANGELINA GONZALES na sila ay may dapat
TUNGKULIN O GAMPANAN GAYA ng mga sumusunod." The words "dapat TUNGKULIN O GAMPANAN"
means to do or to carry out as a mandate or directive, and having reference to the word
"pahihintulutan", can convey no other meaning than to impose a duty upon appellees. To follow the
interpretations given by the trial court would be to devoid the wish of the testatrix of its real and true
meaning.

1
"Dapat din naman malaman, ng dalawa kong taga-pagmana na sila MARIA PABLO at ANGELINA GONZALES na sila ay may dapat
TUNGKULIN O GAMPANAN GAYA ng mga sumusunod:
Xxx
"(2) Pahihintulutan nila na si Delfin Yambao ang makapagtrabaho ng bukid habang panahon, at ang nasabing bukid ay isasailalim ng
pamamahala ng Albasea samantalang ang bukid ay nasa usapin at may utang pa."
 FALLO

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. Appellees are hereby ordered to employ appellant
as tenant immediately after this decision has become final. Costs against appellees.

Notes:

Art. 797 (Old Civil Code, Art 882 in NCC) The statement of the object of the institution, or the application of
the property left by the testator, or the charge imposed by 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.

Relevant to Discussion:

ARTICLE 788. If a testamentary disposition admits of different interpretations, in case of doubt, that
interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred. (n)

ARTICLE 790. The words of a will are to be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense, unless a clear
intention to use them in another sense can be gathered, and that other can be ascertained.

ARTICLE 791. The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some
effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative; and of two modes of
interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy. (n)