June 29, 2000
Ponente: Purisima, J.
FACTS:
·
Aleja Belleza, the owner of
Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, left a Last Will and Testament. Appended
to such Will was a Codicil (supplement), which instituted Dr. Jorge Rabadilla
as devisee of 511,855 square meters of the said property. (Note: There was no mention of Belleza's relation to Rabadilla.)
The Codicil included the following salient provisions:
- Dr. Jorge Rabadilla is instituted as devisee of the said property;
- Should Dr. Rabadilla die ahead of Belleza, said property shall be inherited by Dr. Rabadilla's chilren and spouse;
- Once Dr. Rabadilla shall have already received the ownership of the said property, he shall have the obligation until he dies, every year to give to Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza, 75 piculs of export sugar and 25 piculs of domestic sugar (or 100 piculs of sugar in total) until the said Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza dies;
- Should Dr. Rabadilla die, his heir to whom he shall give the subject property shall have the obligation to still give yearly, 100 piculs of sugar as specified in the testament, to Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza on the month of December of each year;
- In the event that Dr. Rabadilla or his heirs shall later sell, lease, mortgage the subject property, the buyer, lessee, mortgagee, shall also have the obligation to respect and deliver yearly 100 piculs of sugar to Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza, on each month of December until Maria Marlena shall die; and
- Should Dr. Rabadilla or his heirs or the buyer, lessee, or mortgagee of the said property fail to deliver 100 piculs of sugar to Maria Marlena, the latter shall immediately seize the property and turn it over to Belleza's near descendant.
·
Pursuant to the same Codicil.
the property was transferred to Dr. Rabadilla, who subsequently died in 1983,
leaving the property to his wife Rufina and children Johnny (petitioner),
Aurora, Ofelia, and Zenaida.
·
In 1989, Maria Marlena
brought a complaint before the Bacolod RTC against the heirs of Dr. Rabadilla
to enforce the provisions of the Codicil. The Complaint alleged that the
Rabadillas violated the conditions of the Codicil, to wit:
- 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.
- 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 from sugar crop years 1985 up to the filing of the complaint as mandated by the Codicil, despite repeated demands for compliance.
- The banks failed to comply with 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 Maria Marlena.
·
RTC: Dismissed the complaint for being prematurely filed as no cause of
action against the Rabadillas has as yet arose in favor of Maria Marlena.
·
CA: Reversed RTC. Evidence on record established Maria Marlena's right to
receive 100 piculs of sugar annually from the Rabadillas, which right was
violated by the Rabadillas' failure to comply with the terms of the Codicil.
Consequently, the subject property is seized and ordered to be reconveyed back
to the estate of Aleja Belleza to be distributed to her legal heirs.
RULING:
Whether
the heirs of Dr. Rabadilla were under an obligation to deliver 100 piculs of
sugar to Maria Marlena as per the Codicil in Aleja Belleza's Will. – YES.
·
Successional rights are transmitted from the
moment of death of the decedent 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. Thus,
Johnny Rabadilla, his mother and sisters, as compulsory heirs of the instituted
heir, Dr. 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. Rabadilla.
·
The inheritance left by Dr. Rabadilla included
all his property, rights and obligations not extinguished by his death.
Whatever rights Dr. 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.
Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death.
·
In the said Codicil, Aleja Belleza devised Lot
No. 1392 to Dr. Rabadilla, subject to the condition that 100 piculs of sugar
would be delivered to Maria Marlena every year. Upon the death of Dr.
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 Maria Marlena. Such obligation of the instituted
heir reciprocally corresponds to the right of Maria Marlena 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, Maria Marlena has a
cause of action against the Rabadillas and the trial court erred in dismissing
her complaint..
Whether
the institution of Dr. Rabadilla as heir under the Codicil in question is in
the nature of a modal institution. – YES.
·
The institution of Dr. Rabadilla under subject
Codicil is in the nature of a modal
institution. From the provisions of the subject Codicil, it can be gleaned
unerringly that Belleza intended the subject property to be inherited by Dr.
Rabadilla. It is likewise clearly worded that Belleza imposed an obligation on
Dr. Rabadilla and his successors-in-interest to deliver 100 piculs of sugar to
Maria Marlena, during the lifetime of the latter. However, Belleza did not make
Dr. 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 Belleza's near descendants. The manner of institution of Dr.
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.
·
The Court also held that Rabadilla was wrong
in arguing that Maria Marlena had 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.
ON
MODAL INSTITUTION
·
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. A
"mode" imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not
affect the efficacy of his rights to the succession. 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. To
some extent, it is similar to a resolutory condition.
Whether a
Will can be the subject of a compromise agreement. – NO.
·
Rabadilla: In 1988, Maria Marlena and a lessee
of the property had entered into a memorandum of agreement where instead of
sugar, the equivalent amount in cash shall be paid in increments. By virtue of
such settlement, the obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar has been assumed
by the lessee, and whatever obligation the Rabadillas had became the obligation
of the lessee; that the Rabadillas are deemed to have made a substantial and
constructive compliance with their
obligation through the consummated settlement between the lessee and
Maria Marlena, and having consummated a settlement with the lessee, the recourse
of Maria Marlena is the fulfillment of the obligation under the amicable
settlement and not the seizure of subject property.
·
SC: A Will is a personal, solemn,
revocable and free act by which a person disposes of his property, to take
effect after his death. Since the Will expresses the manner in which a person
intends how his properties be disposed, the wishes and desires of the testator
must be strictly followed. Thus, a Will cannot be the subject of a compromise
agreement which would thereby defeat the very purpose of making a Will.