Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-32344 March 31, 1930
VIVENCIO LEGASTO, s!c"a# a$%"&"s'ra'or o( 'h! I&'!s'a'! !s'a'! o( Sa)"&a
A#%a$"&, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARIA VER*OSA, ET AL, defendants-appellants.
Felipe Agoncillo for appellants.
Guevara, Francisco and Recto for appellee.
VILLA-REAL, J.:
This is an appeal taken by the defendants, Maia !e"osa et al., fo# the $ud%#ent of the Cout
of &ist 'nstance of (a%una, the dispositive pat )heeof is as follo)s*
+heefoe, the cout heeby odes the defendants to delive to the plaintiff, as
ad#inistato of the estate of ,abina Al#adin, the pacels of land descibed in paa%aph
- of this a#ended co#plaints .eply/ dated 0anuay 1, 2343, as said paa%aph is a#ended
on pa%es, e5cludin% the lots descibed in cetificates to title Nos. 611-, 6117 and 6113 of
the (a%una e%isty of deeds, )hich ae heeby declaed to be the absolute popety of
!ictoia !e"osa, )ife to 0ose Caasco. +ithout e5pess ponounce#ent as to costs.
'n suppot of thei appeal, the appellants assi%n the follo)in% alle%ed eos as co##itted by the
cout belo) in its decision, to )it*
2. he cout belo) eed in odein% the defendants to #ake delivey of the popety in
liti%ation to the plaintiff as special ad#inistato of the decedent ,abina Al#adin8s
intestate estate.
4. The cout belo) eed in holdin% that public instu#ents 4, 92, :4, and -9, ae deeds of
%ift of the popety in liti%ation #ade by ,abina Al#adin to the defendants.
9. The cout belo) eed in holdin% that said donation is void pe se, inas#uch as it does
not appea upon said docu#ents that the defendants accepted and ackno)led%ed it
acceptance to the dono, ,abina Al#adin.
:. The cout belo) eed in denyin% the defendants8 #otion fo a ne) tial.
1. The cout belo) eed in failin% to hold that the defendants ae the sole and la)ful
o)nes of the popety in liti%ation.
The elevant facts poved at the tial )hich ae essential to the solution of the ;uestions aised by
the instant appeal ae as follo)s*
<n May 29, 2341, ,abina Al#adin e5ecuted a )ill .E5hibit A-4/, devisin% cetain pacels of land
belon%in% to he, to he fou nieces, Maia !e"osa, <liva !e"osa, Toibia !e"osa, and Rupeta
Pal#a, dau%htes of he siste Catalina Al#adin, desi%natin% the pacels to be %iven to each.
<n Au%ust 7, 2341, ,abina Al#adin patitioned he popety a#on% he afoesaid siste and
nieces, e5ecutin% a deed to he niece, Maia !e"osa, assi%nin% and #akin% ove to he thee
pacels of he land theein descibed .E5hibit 4/. <n ,epte#be 49, 2341, Maia !e"osa and
,abina Al#adin appeaed befoe the deputy povincial assesso and #unicipal secetay of
Bi=an, (a%una, and #ade t)o s)on state#ents, E5hibits 9 and 1, )heein the fo#e stated that
she had puchased the pacels of land descibed in the assi%n#ent E5hibit 4, fo# ,abina
Al#adi#, and the latte in tun declaed that she had sold the# to Maia !e"osa, and that said
vendee had aleady clai#ed the# as he popety fo the pay#ent of the land ta5.
<n the sa#e day, Au%ust 7, 2341, ,abina Al#adin e5ecuted a deed .E5hibit 92/ in favo of he
niece <liva !e"osa, assi%nin% to he t)o pacels of land descibed in said instu#ent, and on
<ctobe 2:, 2341, assi%no and assi%nee appeaed befoe the afoesaid deputy povincial assesso
and #unicipality secetay of Bi=an, (a%una, and subscibed t)o s)on state#ents .E5hibits 94
and 9:/, the fo#e statin% that she had sold the t)o pacels of land descibed in the deed of
assi%n#ent, E5hibit 92, to the latte, and the latte in tun statin% that she had puchased of the
fo#e the sa#e pacels of land, the o)neship of )hich has aleady been clai#ed by <liva
!e"osa by a ta5 declaation in he o)n na#e on ,epte#be 41, and <ctobe 29, 2341,
espectively.
<n the said day Au%ust 7, 2341, ,abina Al#adin e5ecuted a deed, E5hibit :1, in favo of he
niece Toibia !e"osa, assi%nin% to he the fou pacels of land theein descibed> and ,epte#be
49, 2349, assi%no and assi%nee appeaed befoe the afoesaid deputy povincial assesso and
#unicipal secetay of Bi=an, (a%una, and subscibed a s)on state#ent, E5hibit :7, the fo#e
statin% that she has sold to Toibia !e"osa the pacel of land descibed theein .E5hibit :1/,
beain% ta5 e%isty No. 3-61, and the latte statin% that she had puchased said pacel of the
fo#e and declaed it to be he o)n popety fo the pay#ent of the land ta5.
A%ain on the said day, Au%ust 7, 2341, ,abina Al#adin e5ecuted a deed .E5hibit -9/ to he niece
Rupeta Pal#a assi%nin% to he thee pacels of land descibed theein> and on ,epte#be 49,
2341, assi%no and assi%nee appeaed befoe the deputy povincial assesso and #unicipal
secetay of Bi=an, (a%una, and subscibed t)o s)on state#ents .E5hibit -: and -6/ )heein
the fo#e stated that she had sold to the latte the pacels of land descibed in the deed of
assi%n#ent .E5hibit -9/ and the latte stated that she had puchased said pacels of the fo#e,
and had declaed the# to be he o)n popety fo the pay#ent of the land ta5 .E5hibits -1 and
--/.
The assi%nees, Maia !e"osa, Toibia !e"osa, <liva !e"osa, and Rupeta Pal#a, took
possession of thei espective pacels thus ceded by ,abina Al#adin, and have to this day been
cultivatin% the# as e5clusive o)nes theeof.
,abina Al#adin passed a)ay on &ebuay 44, 2346 and on Mach 24th the sa#e yea, he siste,
Catalina Al#adin, pesented by Attoney &edeico Maino, popounded he )ill, E5hibit A-4,
#entioned above, fo pobate. By vitue of the decision endeed by the Cout of &ist 'nstance of
(a%una on ?ece#be 44, 2346 .E5hibit A-:/, affi#ed by this cout on appeal .E5hibit ?/, said
)ill )as not ad#itted to pobate.
2
!ivencio (e%asto, then, the special ad#inistato appointed by
said Cout of &ist 'nstance of (a%una to take cha%e of ,abina Al#adin8s estate, filed the
co#plaint )hich oi%inated this case, clai#in% the delivey of the pacels of land descibed in
paa%aph - of this afoesaid co#plaint as a#ended. The fist ;uestion to decide in the instant
appeal is )hethe the patition #ade by ,abina Al#adin of he popety a#on% he nieces, the
defendants and appellants heein, )as valid enfoceable.
Aticle 2@16 of the Civil Code Povides*
ART. 2@16. 'f the testato should #ake a patition of his popety by an act inte vivos, o
by )ill, such patition shall stand in so fa as it does not pe$udice the le%iti#e of the
foced heis.
The ,upe#e Cout of ,pain, in a decision endeed on 0une 29, 23@9, laid do)n the follo)in%
doctine*
Considein% that the lan%ua%e of aticle 2@16 cannot be intepeted to #ean that a peson
#ay, by actsinter vivos, patition his popety efeed to in the section )heein said
aticle is found, )ithout the authoity of a testa#ent containin% an e5pession of his last
)ill, o the authoity of la), fo, othe)ise, a patition thus #ade )ould be tanta#ount to
#akin% a )ill in a #anne not povided fo, authoi"ed, no included in the chapte
efein% to testa#ents, and especially, to the fo#s theeof, )hich is entiely diffeent
fo# the le%al conse;uences of a fee disposition #ade by paents duin% thei lifeti#e,
)heeby they %ive to thei childen the )hole o a pat of thei popety>
Considein% that, inas#uch as the second paa%aph of aticle 24-2 #akes efeence to
the afoesaid aticle, in povidin% that no contacts #ay be enteed into )ith espect to
futue inheitances e5cept those the ob$ect of )hich is to #ake a division inte vivos of
the estate in accodance )ith aticle 2@16, it is evident that said diffeence like)ise leads
to the conclusion that a patition thus #ade should be on the basis of a teste#antay o
le%al succession and should be #ade a confo#ity )ith the funda#ental ules theeof and
the ode of the heis entitled to the estate, because neithe of the t)o povisions could be
%iven a )ide #eanin% o scope than that they si#ply povide fo the division of the
estate duin% the lifeti#e of the o)ne, )hich, othe)ise, )ould have to be done upon the
death of the testato in ode to cay into effect the patition of the estate a#on% the
pesons inteested.
Manesa co##ents on the sa#e aticle as follo)s*
A distinction #ust be #ade bet)een the disposition of popety and its division> and the
povision of aticle 2@16 authoi"in% the testato to dispose of his popety by acts inter
vivos o by last )ill, #ust be undestood in accodance )ith this distinction. The idea is
to divide the estate a#on% the heis desi%nated by the testato. This desi%nation
constitutes the disposition of the popeties to take effect afte his death, and said act #ust
necessaily appea in the testa#ent because it is the e5pession of the testato8s last )ill
and #ust be suounded by appopiate fo#alities. Then co#es the second pat, to )it,
the division in confo#ity )ith that disposition, and the testato #ay #ake this division
in the sa#e )ill o in anothe )ill, o by an act inter vivos. +ith these )ods the la), in
aticle 2@16 as )ell as in aticle 2@1-, )hich )e shall heeafte e5a#ine, #akes allusion
to the fo#s o #anne of #akin% the patition and not to the effects theeof, )hich
#eans that, fo the puposes of patition the fo#al sole#nities )hich #ust acco#pany
evey testa#ent o last )ill ae not necessay. Neithe is it necessay to obseve the
special fo#alities e;uied in case of donations, because it is not a #atte of disposin%
%atuitously of popeties, but of dividin% those )hich aleady have been le%ally disposed
of.
't is thus seen that both the ,panish ,upe#e Cout and the leaned and authoitative
co##entato, Manesa, ae of opinion that a testato #ay, by an act inte vivos, patition his
popety, but he #ust fist #ake a )ill )ith all the fo#alities povided fo by la). And it could
not be othe)ise, fo )ithout a )ill thee can be no testato> )hen the la), theefoe, speaks of
the patition inte vivos #ade by a testato of his popety, it necessaily efes to that popety
)hich he has devised to his heis. A peson )ho disposes of his popety %atis inte vivos in not
called a testato, but a dono. 'n e#ployin% the )od Atestato,A the la) evidently desied to
distin%uish bet)een the one )ho feely donates his popety in life and one )ho disposes of it by
)ill to take effect his death.
,abina Al#adin #ust have been a)ae of the necessity of a pio )ill, since befoe #akin% the
patition of he popety a#on% he nieces, the defendants heein, she e5ecuted a )ill %ivin% to
each of the# the sa#e pacels of land )hich she late tansfeed to the# %atuitously.
No), then, section 641 of the Code of Civil Pocedue povides*
,EC. 641. Allowance necessary, and conclusive as to execution. B No )ill shall pass
eithe the eal o pesonal estate, unless it is poved and allo)ed in the Cout of &ist
'nstance, o by appeal to the ,upe#e Cout> and the allo)ance by the cout of a )ill of
eal and pesonal estate shall be conclusive as to its due e5ecution.
As ,abina Al#adin8s )ill )as disallo)ed fo the eason that it did not contain all the essential
e;uisites povided by la) fo its validity, can the afoesaid patition of he estate #ade by said
testati5 a#on% he nieces be dee#ed validC Cetainly not> fo it is an indispensable condition
pecedent to a testato patitionin% his estate inte vivos that he have #ade a valid )ill disposin%
of said estate a#on% his heis> and if this )ill be declaed null and void, the patition #ade by the
testato in pusuance of its povisions is like)ise null and void, fo )hee these povisions cease
to e5ist, the patition #ade in confo#ity thee)ith also beco#es null and void, as the cessation
of the cause i#plies the cessation of the effect.
And since ,abina Al#adin8s )ill is null and void fo lack of the le%al e;uisites, conse;uently,
the patition )hich she #ade of he estate a#on% he nieces the defendants-appellants heein,
duin% he lifeti#e is like)ise null and void.
The second ;uestion to be decided is )hethe o not the conveyances #ade by ,abina Al#adin
of the pacels of land in liti%ation, in favo of he nieces, espectively, by vitue of the
instu#ents E5hibits 4, 92, :- and -9 can be consideed valid and enfoceable.
Aticle 699 of the Civil Code povides that in ode that a donation of eal popety be valid, it
#ust be #ade by public instu#ent, in )hich the popety donated #ust be specifically
descibed, and that the acceptance #ay be #ade in the sa#e deed of %ift o in a sepaate
instu#ent, but in the latte case notice theeof should be %iven the dono in due fo#, and a note
to that effect inseted in both instu#ents.
Thee is no ;uestion that the docu#ents E5hibits 4, 92, :4, and -9 contain all the e;uisites fo
public instu#ents. Do)eve, they do not sho) the acceptance of the espective donees.
't is contended that the s)on state#ents E5hibits 9, 1, 94, 9:, :7, -: and -6 si%ned by ,abina
Al#adin in )hich it appeas that she has assi%ned to each of he nieces, espectively, the pacels
of land in liti%ation, and )heein each of said nieces states that she has puchased the sa#e
pacels of land fo# he aunt ,abina Al#adin, constitute a %ift and an acceptance at the sa#e
ti#e.
But it appeas that said s)on state#ents befoe a sale and not to a %ift and cannot, theefoe, be
consideed as public instu#ents of %ifts sho)in% the acceptance of the donees.
't is also contended that said s)on state#ents constitute sepaate deeds of acceptance> but even
if that )ee so, thee is still lackin% the le%al e;uisite of notification in due fo# to the dono of
the donee8s acceptance, and the annotation theeof in the deed of %ift and in the instu#ent of
acceptance. The fo#al notice calls fo the a%ency of the sa#e notay )ho authenticated the
acceptance and he should unde his authoity #ake the annotation of said notice, as indicated .1
Manesa, pp. 24@, 242/.
&uthe#oe, the afoesaid s)on state#ents ae not deeds tansfein% title but #ee
ackno)led%#ents #ade unde oath of the fact of the tansfe, e;uied by the la) in ode that
the povincial assesso #ay #ake the pope tansfe of the ta5 declaations of the vendo to the
vendee, )hee the tansfe has not been ecoded in the e%isty of deeds.
'n vie) of all the foe%oin%, )e ae of opinion and so hold* .2/ That the patition #ade by a
testato inte vivos in pusuance of a )ill )hich has been disallo)ed is null and void> and .4/ that
the %ift of ealty #ade in a public instu#ent )hich fails to sho) the acceptance, o )heein the
fo#al notice of the acceptance is eithe not %iven to the dono o else not noted in the deed of
%ift and in the sepaate acceptance, is null and void.
+heefoe, findin% no eo in the $ud%#ent appealed fo#, the sa#e is heeby affi#ed in its
entiety, )ith costs a%ainst the appellants. ,o odeed.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3404 Ar"# 2, 19+1
ANGELA I. TUASON, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ANTONIO TUASON, ,R., a&$ GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., defendants-appellees.
Alcuaz & Eiguren for appellant.
Araneta & Araneta for appellees.
MONTEMA-OR, J..
'n 23:2 the sistes An%ela '. Tuason and Nieves Tuason de Baeto and thei bothe Antonio
Tuason 0., held a pacel of land )ith an aea of 6:,347.6 s;. #. coveed by Cetificate of Title
No. 6@322 in ,a#paloc, Manila, in co##on, each o)nin% an undivided 2E9 potion. Nieves
)anted and asked fo a patition of the co##on popety, but failin% in this, she offeed to sell
he 2E9 potion. The shae of Nieves )as offeed fo sale to he siste and he bothe but both
declined to buy it. The offe )as late #ade to thei #othe but the old lady also declined to buy,
sayin% that if the popety late inceased in value, she #i%ht be suspected of havin% taken
advanta%e of he dau%hte. &inally, the shae of Nieves )as sold to Fe%oio Aaneta 'nc., a
do#estic copoation, and a ne) Cetificate of Title No. 62-42 )as issued in lieu of the old title
No. 6@322 covein% the sa#e popety. The thee co-o)nes a%eed to have the )hole pacel
subdivided into s#all lots and then sold, the poceeds of the sale to be late divided a#on% the#.
This a%ee#ent is e#bodied in a docu#ent .E5h. 6/ entitled AMe#oandu# of A%ee#entA
consistin% of ten pa%es, dated 0une 9@, 23:2.
Befoe, duin% and afte the e5ecution of this contact .E5h. 6/, Atty. 0. Antonio Aaneta )as
actin% as the attoney-in-fact and la)ye of the t)o co-o)nes, An%ela '. Tuason and he bothe
Antonio Tuason 0. At the sa#e ti#e he )as a #e#be of the Boad of ?iecto of the thid co-
o)ne, Aaneta, 'nc.
The petinent te#s of the contact .E5h. 6/ #ay be biefly stated as follo)s* The thee co-
o)nes a%eed to i#pove the popety by fillin% it and constuctin% oads and cubs on the sa#e
and then subdivide it into s#all lots fo sale. Aaneta 'nc. )as to finance the )hole develop#ent
and subdivision> it )as pepae a schedule of pices and conditions of sale, sub$ect to the sub$ect
to the appoval of the t)o othe co-o)nes> it )as invested )ith authoity to sell the lots into
)hich the popety )as to be subdivided, and e5ecute the coespondin% contacts and deeds of
sale> it )as also to pay the eal estate ta5es due on the popety o of any potion theeof that
e#ained unsold, the e5penses of suveyin%, i#pove#ents, etc., all advetisin% e5penses,
salaies of pesonnel, co##issions, office and le%al e5penses, includin% e5penses in institutin%
all actions to e$ect all tenants o occupants on the popety> and it undetook the duty to funish
each of the t)o co-o)nes, An%ela and Antonio Tuason, copies of the subdivision plans and the
#onthly sales and ents and collections #ade theeon. 'n etun fo all this undetakin% and
obli%ation assu#ed by Aaneta 'nc., paticulaly the financial buden, it )as to eceive 1@ pe
cent of the %oss sellin% pice of the lots, and any ents that #ay be collected fo# the popety,
)hile in the pocess of sale, the e#ainin% 1@ pe cent to be divided in e;ual potions a#on% the
thee co-o)nes so that each )ill eceive 26.99 pe cent of the %oss eceipts.
Because of the i#potance of paa%aphs 3, 22 and 21 of the contact .E5h. 6/, fo puposes of
efeence )e ae epoducin% the# belo)*
.3/ This contact shall e#ain in full foce and effect duin% all the ti#e that it #ay be
necessay fo the PARTG <& TDE ,EC<N? PART to fully sell the said popety in s#all
and subdivided lots and to fully collect the puchase pices due theeon> it bein%
undestood and a%eed that said lots #ay be ented )hile thee ae no puchases theeof>
.22/ The PARTG <& TDE ,EC<N? PART .#eanin% Aaneta 'nc./ is heeby %iven full
po)e and authoity to si%n fo and in behalf of all the said co-o)nes of said popety all
contacts of sale and deeds of sale of the lots into )hich this popety #i%ht be
subdivided> the po)es heein vested to the PARTG <& TDE ,EC<N? PART #ay, unde
its o)n esponsibility and isk, dele%ate any of its po)es unde this contact to any of its
offices, e#ployees o to thid pesons>
.21/ No co-o)ne of the popety sub$ect-#atte of this contact shall sell, alienate o
dispose of his o)neship, inteest o paticipation theein )ithout fist %ivin% pefeence
to the othe co-o)nes to puchase and ac;uie the sa#e unde the sa#e te#s and
conditions as those offeed by any othe pospective puchase. ,hould none of the co-
o)nes of the popety sub$ect-#atte of this contact e5ecise the said pefeence to
ac;uie o puchase the sa#e, then such sale to a thid paty shall be #ade sub$ect to all
the conditions, te#s, and dispositions of this contact> povided, the PART'E, <& TDE
&'R,T PART .#eanin% An%ela and Antonio/ shall be bound by this contact as lon% as
the PARTG <& TDE ,EC<N? PART, na#ely, the FREF<R'< ARANETA, 'NC. is
contolled by the #e#bes of the Aaneta fa#ily, )ho ae stockholdes of the said
copoation at the ti#e of the si%nin% of this contact andEo thei la)ful heis>
<n ,epte#be 26, 23::, An%ela '. Tuason evoked the po)es confeed on he attoney-in-fact
and la)ye, 0. Antonio Aaneta. Then in a lette dated <ctobe 23, 23:6, An%ela notified Aaneta,
'nc. that because of alle%ed beach of the te#s of the AMe#oandu# of A%ee#entA .E5h. 6/
and abuse of po)es %anted to it in the docu#ent, she had decided to escind said contact and
she asked that the popety held in co##on be patitioned. (ate, on Nove#be 4@, 23:6, An%ela
filed a co#plaint in the Cout of &ist 'nstance of Manila askin% the cout to ode the patition of
the popety in ;uestion and that she be %iven 2E9 of the sa#e includin% ents collected duin%
the ti#e that the sa#e includin% ents collected duin% the ti#e that Aaneta 'nc., ad#inisteed
said popety.
The suit )as ad#inisteed pincipally a%ainst Aaneta, 'nc. Plaintiff8s bothe, Antonio Tuason 0.,
one of the co-o)nes evidently did not a%ee to the suit and its pupose, fo he evidently did not
a%ee to the suit and its pupose, fo he $oined Aaneta, 'nc. as a co-defendant. Afte heain% and
afte considein% the e5tensive evidence intoduce, oal and docu#entay, the tial cout pesided
ove by 0ud%e E#ilio Pe=a in a lon% and consideed decision dis#issed the co#plaint )ithout
ponounce#ent as to costs. The plaintiff appealed fo# that decision, and because the popety is
valued at #oe than P1@,@@@, the appeal ca#e diectly to this Cout.
,o#e of the easons advanced by appellant to have the #e#oandu# contact .E5h. 6/ declaed
null and void o escinded ae that she had been ticked into si%nin% it> that she )as %iven to
undestand by Antonio Aaneta actin% as he attoney-in-fact and le%al advise that said contact
)ould be si#ila to anothe contact of subdivision of a pacel into lots and the sale theeof
enteed into by Fe%oio Aaneta 'nc., and the heis of ?. Tuason, E5hibit A(A, but it tuned out
that the t)o contacts )idely diffeed fo# each othe, the te#s of contact E5h. A(A bein%
elatively #uch #oe favoable to the o)nes theein the less favoable to Aaneta 'nc.> that Atty.
Antonio Aaneta )as #oe o less dis;ualified to act as he le%al advise as he did because he
)as one of the officials of Aaneta 'nc., and finally, that the defendant co#pany has violated the
te#s of the contact .E5h. 6/ by not peviously sho)in% he the plans of the subdivision, the
schedule of pices and conditions of the sale, in not intoducin% the necessay i#pove#ents into
the land and in not delivein% to he he shae of the poceeds of the ents and sales.
+e have e5a#ined E5h. A(A and co#paed the sa#e )ith the contact .E5h. 6/ and )e a%ee
)ith the tial cout that in the #ain the te#s of both contacts ae si#ila and pactically the
sa#e. Moeove, as coectly found by the tial cout, the copies of both contacts )ee sho)n to
the plaintiff An%ela and he husband, a boke, and both had evey oppotunity to %o ove and
co#pae the# and decide on the advisability of o disadvanta%e in entein% into the contact
.E5h. 6/> that althou%h Atty. Antonio Aaneta )as an official of the Aaneta 'nc.> bein% a #e#be
of the Boad of ?iectos of the Co#pany at the ti#e that E5hibit A6A )as e5ecuted, he )as not
the paty )ith )hich An%ela contacted, and that he co##itted no beach of tust. Accodin% to
the evidence Aaneta, the petinent papes, and sent to he checks covein% he eceive the sa#e>
and that as a #atte of fact, at the ti#e of the tial, Aaneta 'nc., had spent about P22-,@@@ in
i#pove#ent and had eceived as poceeds on the sale of the lots the espectable su# of
P2,461,197.:7. +e ;uote )ith appoval that potion of the decision appealed fo# on these
points*
The evidence in this case points to the fact that the actuations of 0. Antonio Aaneta in
connection )ith the e5ecution of e5hibit 6 by the paties, ae above boad. De co##itted
nothin% that is violative of the fiduciay elationship e5istin% bet)een hi# and the
plaintiff. The act of 0. Antonio Aaneta in %ivin% the plaintiff a copy of e5hibit 6 befoe
the sa#e )as e5ecuted, constitutes a full disclosue of the facts, fo said copy contains all
that appeas no) in e5hibit 6.
Plaintiff cha%es the defendant Fe%oio Aaneta, 'nc. )ith infin%in% the te#s of the
contact in that the defendant copoation has failed .2/ to #ake the necessay
i#pove#ents on the popety as e;uied by paa%aphs 2 and 9 of the contact> .4/ to
sub#it to the plaintiff fo# ti#e to ti#e schedule of pices and conditions unde )hich
the subdivided lots ae to be sold> and to funish the plaintiff a copy of the subdivision
plans, a copy of the #onthly %oss collections fo# the sale of the popety.
The Cout finds fo# the evidence that he defendant Fe%oio Aaneta, 'ncopoated has
substantially co#plied )ith obli%ation i#posed by the contact e5hibit 6 in its paa%aph
2, and that fo i#pove#ents alone, it has disbused the a#ount of P22-,26-.@3. 't has
like)ise paid ta5es, co##issions and othe e5penses incidental to its obli%ations as
denied in the a%ee#ent.
+ith espect to the cha%ed that Fe%oio Aaneta, 'ncopoated has failed to sub#it to
plaintiff a copy of the subdivision plains, list of pices and the conditions %ovenin% the
sale of subdivided lots, and #onthly state#ent of collections fo# the sale of the lots, the
Cout is of the opinion that it has no basis. The evidence sho)s that the defendant
copoation sub#itted to the plaintiff peiodically all the data elative to pices and
conditions of the sale of the subdivided lots, to%ethe )ith the a#ount coespondin% to
he. But )ithout any $ustifiable eason, she efused to accept the#. +ith the indiffeent
attitude adopted by the plaintiff, it )as thou%ht useless fo Fe%oio Aaneta,
'ncopoated to continue sendin% he state#ent of accounts, checks and othe thin%s. ,he
had sho)n on vaious occasions that she did not )ant to have any futhe dealin%s )ith
the said copoation. ,o, if the defendant copoation poceeded )ith the sale of the
subdivided lots )ithout the appoval of the plaintiff, it )as because it )as unde the
coect i#pession that unde the contact e5hibit 6 the decision of the #a$oity co-
o)nes is bindin% upon all the thee.
The Cout feels that ecission of the contact e5hibit 6 is not #ino violations of the te#s
of the a%ee#ent, the %eneal ule is that Aecission )ill not be pe#itted fo a sli%ht o
casual beach of the contact, but only fo such beaches as ae so substantial and
funda#ental as to defeat the ob$ect of the paties in #akin% the a%ee#entA .,on% &o H
Co. vs. Da)aiian-Philippine Co., :- Phil. 742/.
As e%ads i#pove#ents, the evidence sho)s that duin% the 0apanese occupation fo# 23:4
and up to 23:6, the Aaneta 'nc. althou%h )illin% to fill the land, )as unable to obtain the
e;uip#ent and %asoline necessay fo fillin% the lo) places )ithin the pacel. As to sales, the
evidence sho)s that Aaneta 'nc. puposely stopped sellin% the lots duin% the 0apanese
occupantion, kno)in% that the puchase pice )ould be paid in 0apanese #ilitay notes> and Atty.
Aaneta clai#s that fo this, plaintiff should be thankfull because othe)ise she )ould have
eceived these notes as he shae of the eceipts, )hich cuency late beca#e valueles.
But the #ain contention of the appellant is that the contact .E5h. 6/ should be declaed null and
void because its te#s, paticulaly paa%aphs 3, 22 and 21 )hich )e have epoduced, violate
the povisions of At. :@@ of the Civil Code, )hich fo the puposes of efeence )e ;uote belo)*
ART. :@@. No co-o)ne shall be obli%ed to e#ain a paty to the co##unity. Each #ay,
at any ti#e, de#and the patition of the thin% held in co##on.
Nevetheless, an a%ee#ent to keep the thin% undivided fo a specified len%th of ti#e, not
e5ceedin% ten yeas, shall be valid. This peiod #ay be a ne) a%ee#ent.
+e a%ee )ith the tial cout that the povisions of At. :@@ of the Civil Code ae not applicable.
The contact .E5h., 6/ fa fo# violatin% the le%al povision that fobids a co-o)ne bein%
obli%ed to e#ain a paty to the co##unity, pecisely has fo its pupose and ob$ect the
dissolution of the co-o)neship and of the co##unity by sellin% the pacel held in co##on and
dividin% the poceeds of the sale a#on% the co-o)nes. The obli%ation i#posed in the contact to
peseve the co-o)neship until all the lots shall have been sold, is a #ee incident to the #ain
ob$ect of dissolvin% the co-o)nes. By vitue of the docu#ent E5h. 6, the paties theeto
pactically and substantially enteed into a contact of patneship as the best and #ost e5pedient
#eans of eventually dissolvin% the co-o)neship, the life of said patneship to end )hen the
ob$ect of its ceation shall have been attained.
This aspect of the contact is vey si#ila to and )as pehaps based on the othe a%ee#ent o
contact .E5h. A(A/ efeed to by appellant )hee the paties theeto in e5pess te#s enteed
into patneship, althou%h this ob$ect is not e5pessed in so #any )ods in E5h. 6. +e epeat that
)e see no violation of At. :@@ of the Civil Code in the paties entein% into the contact .E5h. 6/
fo the vey eason that At. :@@ is not applicable.
(ookin% at the case fo# a pactical standpoint as did the tial cout, )e find no valid %ound fo
the patition insisted upon the appellant. +e find fo# the evidence as )as done by the tial cout
that of the 6:,347.6 s;. #. )hich is the total aea of the pacel held in co##on, only 2,6@@ s;. #.
o 4.1 pe cent of the entie aea e#ained unsold at the ti#e of the tial in the yea 23:-, )hile
the %eat bulk of 3-.1 pe cent had aleady been sold. As )ell obseved by the cout belo), the
patneship is in the pocess of bein% dissolved and is about to be dissolved, and even assu#in%
that At. :@@ of the Civil Code )ee applicable, unde )hich the paties by a%ee#ent #ay a%ee
to keep the thin% undivided fo a peiod not e5ceedin% 2@ yeas, thee should be no fea that the
e#ainin% 2,6@@ s;. #. could not be disposed of )ithin the fou yeas left of the ten-yeas peiod
fi5ed by At. :@@.
+e dee# it unnecessay to discuss and pass upon the othe points aised in the appeal and )hich
counsel fo appellant has e5tensively and ably discussed, citin% nu#eous authoities. As )e
have aleady said, )e have vie)ed the case fo# a pactical standpoint, bushin% aside
technicalities and dise%adin% any #ino violations of the contact, and in decidin% the case as
)e do, )e ae fully convinced that the tial cout and this Tibunal ae cayin% out in a pactical
and e5peditious )ay the intentions and the a%ee#ent of the paties contained in the contact
.E5h. 6/, na#ely, to dissolve the co##unity and co-o)neship, in a #anne #ost pofitable to
the said paties.
'n vie) of the foe%oin%, the decision appealed fo# is heeby affi#ed. Thee is no
ponounce#ent as to costs.
,o odeed.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
,EC<N? ?'!','<N
G.R. No. L-2/0++ Ar"# 11, 1909
2RANCISCO GARCIA, PA* GARCIA, a&$ MARIA GARCIA, petitiones,
vs.
,OSE CALALIMAN, PACIENCIA TRA3A4ILLO 5 6ON. COURT O2 APPEALS,
Th"r$ 4"7"s"o&, espondents.
Jose Gaton for petitioners.
Ricardo Q. astro for respondents.

PARAS, J.:
This is a petition fo evie) on cetioai of the decision I of the Cout of Appeals in CA-F.R.
No. 442-3-R, po#ul%ated on Au%ust 92, 2366, evesin% the decision of the Cout of &ist
'nstance of 'loilo II in Civil Case No. 9:73, and endein% a ne) one dis#issin% the co#plaint
of petitione heein, the dispositive potion of )hich eads as follo)s*
+DERE&<RE, the $ud%#ent appealed fo# is heeby evesed and anothe
enteed, dis#issin% plaintiff8s co#plaint. No ponounce#ent as to costs. .p. 43
Rollo/
The facts of the case ae as follo)s*
<n &ebuay 22, 23:6, one Felacio Facia died intestate, leavin% a pacel of une%isteed land
about 9-4 s;. #etes, situated in the Municipality of Tubun%an, Povince of 'loilo .E5hibits, p.
23/. <n his death the popety )as inheited by his nephe)s, nieces, %andnephe)s )ho ae the
descendants of his late bothes, Pedo, ,i#eon, Buenaventua and Macos .T,N, ,ept. 6,2316,
p. 9/.
<n ?ece#be 9, 231:, the heis, 0uanita Beto#o, 0oa;uin Facia, Pofiio Facia, ?ioscoo
Facia, &loa Facia, Consolacion Facia, Re#edios Facia, Tinidad Facia, Balta"a Facia
si%ned a docu#ent entitled, AE5ta-$udicial Patition and ?eed of ,aleA .E5hibits, p. 23/. The
pacel of land sub$ect of the docu#ent )as descibed as follo)s*
A pacel of esidential land, about 9-4 s;uae #etes, lst class, 'dentified as
Assesso8s (ot No. 2@-, Block No. 7, bounded on the noth by Pa" and &edeal
,teets> on the south by Tabaosaes and Antonia Tacalina> on the East by Piedad
,teet> and on the +est by Pa" ,teet. This pacel of land has no concete
#onu#ents to indicate its boundaies but thee ae dikes, stones and te#poay
fences used as land#aks and bounday si%nals. This pacel of land is coveed by
Ta5 ?eclaation No. 22:3, ,. of 23:-, in the na#e of Felacio Facia, and its
assessed value of P22@.@@. .p. 23, E5hibits/
The last paa%aph of the sa#e docu#ent states*
That fo and in consideation of the su# of &'!E DJN?RE? PE,<, .P1@@.@@/,
Philippine Cuency, to us in hand paid by the spouses, 0<,E CA(A('MAN, and
PAC'ENC'A TRABA?'((<, all of le%al a%e, &ilipinos and esidents of the
#unicipality of Tubun%an, povince of 'loilo, Philippines, eceipt of )hich )e
heeby ackno)led%ed and confessed to ou entie satisfaction, do by these
pesents, cede, sell, convey and tansfe the above-descibed pacel of land unto
the said spouses, 0ose Calali#an and Paciencia Tabadillo, thei heis, successos
and assi%ns fee fo# all liens and encu#bances )hateve. .p. 23, E5hibits/
The docu#ent )as inscibed in the Re%iste of ?eeds of 'loilo on &ebuay 4:,2311, 'nsciption
No. 4@72:, Pa%e 4-@, !ol. 6: .E5hibits, p. 4@/.
<n ?ece#be 2-, 231: anothe %oup of heis, Rosaio Facia, Ma%aita Facia, ?oloes
Rufino, Resueccion Ta%aao, ,eafin Ta%aao, Buenaventua Ta%aao, &otunata Facia and
,i#eon Facia, all esidents of 'sabela, Ne%os <ccidental, also sold to the spouses 0ose
Calali#an and Paciencia Tabadillo thou%h thei attoney-in-fact, 0uanito Beto#o, thei shaes,
i%hts, inteest and paticipation in the sa#e pacel of land. The ?eed of ,ale )as e%isteed in
the Re%iste of ?eeds of 'loilo also on ?ece#be 44, 231:, 'nsciption No. 4@6:@, p. 77, !ol. 6:
.E5hibits, p. 4244/.
<n May -, 2311 the heis &ancisco Facia, Pa" Facia, and Maia Facia, petitiones heein,
filed a%ainst the spouses 0ose Calali#an and Paciencia Tabadillo, pivate espondents heein,
Civil Case No. 9:73 )ith the Cout of &ist 'nstance of 'loilo, fo le%al ede#ption of the 9E:
potion of the pacel of land inheited by the heis fo# the late Felacio Facia, )hich potion
)as sold by thei co-heis to the defendants. 'n the co#plaint .Recod on Appeal, p. :/ plaintiffs
alle%ed, a#on% othes*
1. That, plaintiffs8 co-o)nes had neve offeed fo sale thei inteest and shaes
ove the said land to the plaintiffs pio to the sale in favo of the defendants, no
%iven notice of such intention on thei pat> and that, no notice in )itin% has been
%iven by said co-o)nes to the plaintiffs of the said sale, such that, plaintiffs ca#e
to lean of it only fo# othe souce>
6. That, plaintiffs )ould have puchased the inteest and shaes of thei co-o)nes
had the latte offeed the sa#e to the# pio to the sale theeof to the defendants>
and that, )ithin 9@ days afte leanin% of the sale #ade to the defendants unde
anne5es 8A8, 8B8 and 8B-l8, plaintiffs #ade epeated offe to the defendants to allo)
the# to edee# said inteest and shaes ac;uied by the defendants in accodance
)ith the i%ht %anted to the plaintiffs by la) in such a case, offein% a easonable
pice theeof of P9@@ takin% into consideation the fact that the defendants had
ac;uied only 9E: of the land of 9-4 s;uae #etes #oe o less, in aea )ith
assessed value of P22@ and a fai #aket value of 9-4 at Pl pe s;uae #ete, the
pice actually obtainin% in the locality at the ti#e of the sale theeof unde
Anne5es 8A8, 8B8 and 8B-l8> ho)eve, the defendants efused and have until the
pesent efused to %ant ede#ption theeof %ivin% no eason )hy othe than
challen%in% the plaintiffs to bin% thei case in cout*
-. That, the cicu#stances suoundin% the tansaction bet)een the defendants and
plaintiffs8 co-o)nes, the vendos, )ee such that defendants could not have
actually paid no the vendos actually eceived the total pice of P7@@ as
stipulated in the deeds Anne5es 8A8, 8B8 and 8B-l8 )hile the said pice fi5ed is
%ossly e5cessive and hi%hly e5a%%eated and pohibitive fo evidently ulteio
#otive*
7. That, the land heein descibed is an ancestal popety and plaintiffs have
actually a house standin% theeon and havin% lived theeon eve since, such that,
the defendants8 efusal to allo) ede#ption theeof has caused the plaintiffs
#ental totue, )oy and an5iety, focin% the# to liti%ate and etain sevices of
counsel, theefoe, plaintiffs de#and a%ainst the defendants P1@@ fo #oal
da#a%e, P1@@ fo e5e#play da#a%e, P9@@ fo attoney8s fees, aside fo# actual
e5penses incued> and, futhe#oe, P1 #onthly as easonable value of
defendants8 occupation of a potion of the pe#ises countin% fo# the filin% of
this co#plaint.
They payed that the tial cout ende $ud%#ent*
2. ?eclain% the plaintiffs to be entitled to edee# fo# the defendants fo the
pice of P9@@ o fo such easonable pice as #ay be dete#ined by this
Donoable Cout the inteest and shaes ove the land descibed in this co#plaint
of plaintiffs8 co-o)nes, 0oa;uin, Pofiio, &loa, ?ioscoo, Consolacion,
Re#edios, Tinidad, Balta"a, Rosaio, Ma%aita, ?oloes, &otunata and ,i#on,
all suna#ed Facia, and Resueccion, ,eafin and Buenaventua, all suna#ed
Ta%aao, sold by the# to the defendants unde the deeds of sale Anne5es 8A8, 8B8
and 8B-l8 of this co#plaint> and odein% the defendants to e5ecute the pope
instu#ent of econveyance o ede#ption theeof in favo of the plaintiffs> and,
odein% the# to vacate the pe#ises>
4. Conde#nin% the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs P1@@ fo #oal da#a%e>
P1@@ fo e5e#play da#a%e> P9@@ fo attoney8s fees and actual e5penses
incued> P1 #onthly fo# the filin% of this co#plaint as easonable value of
defendants8 occupation of a potion of the land> the costs of this action> and, fo
such othe elief and e#edy as #ay be le%al, $ust and e;uitable.A
<n the othe hand, the defendants, pivate espondents heein, alle%ed in thei ans)e the
follo)in% special affi#ative defenses .Recod on Appeal, p. 2:/*
2. That plaintiffs have no cause of action a%ainst the heein defendants>
4. That due notices in )itin% have been sent to plaintiff &ancisco Facia at his
esidence at 47-1 &eli5 Duetas ,t., ,ta. Cu", Manila, so#eti#e last 0une 2319,
in )hich plaintiff &ancisco Facia )as info#ed of his co-o)nes si%nified
intention to sell thei shaes, and like)ise, the othe plaintiffs Pa" and Maia
Facia )ee pesonally notified of the sa#e hence, fo that eason, they ae no)
baed to clai# le%al ede#ption of the land in ;uestion, havin% filed thei belated
clai# too late.A
The tial cout endeed $ud%#ent on ,epte#be 24, 231- in favo of the plaintiffs .Recod on
Appeal, p. 21/, the dispositive potion of )hich eads as follo)s*
+DERE&<RE, $ud%#ent is heeby endeed*
.a/ ,entencin% the defendants to esell the popety to the plaintiffs fo P7@@.@@
)hich is the total consideation of the t)o deeds of sale E5hibits A and B>
.b/ 'n the event that the defendants fail to e5ecute the deed of esale )ithin ten
days fo# the date this decision beco#es final, the Clek of Cout is heeby
odeed to e5ecute the coespondin% deed pusuant to the povisions of ,ection
2@ of Rule 93 of the Rules of Cout>
.c/ +ithout ponounce#ent as to costs.
<n <ctobe 2:, 231- plaintiffs filed thei notice of Appeal pedicated on A.a/ failue of the Cout
to ad$ud%e the eal o easonable pice of the sale o othe)ise the ede#ption value theeof> .b/
failue of the Cout to ad$ud%e da#a%es includin% attoney8s fees in favo of the plaintiffs and the
costs.A .Recod on Appeal, p. 27/.
?efendants filed thei o)n notice of appeal on <ctobe 21, 231- .Recod on Appeal, p. 23/.
<n appeal the Cout of Appeals in a decision po#ul%ated on Au%ust 92, 2366 evesed the
decision of the tial cout and endeed anothe one dis#issin% plaintiff8s co#plaint )ith no
ponounce#ent as to costs .Rollo, p. 44/.
The instant petition fo evie) by cetioai )as filed )ith the Cout on ?ece#be 24, 2366
.Rollo, p. 22/. The Cout at fist dis#issed the petition in a esolution dated ?ece#be 44, 2366,
fo insufficient suppotin% papes .Rollo, p. 91/ but econsideed the said Resolution of
?is#issal late in a Resolution dated &ebuay 7, 236- .Rollo, p. 3-/ as payed fo in a #otion
fo econsideation filed by petitiones on &ebuay 2, 236- .Rollo, p. 97/. The sa#e Resolution
of &ebuay 7, 236- %ave due couse to the petition.
The Bief fo the Petitiones )as filed on 0une 3,236- .Rollo, p. 2@6/> the Bief fo the
Respondents )as eceived in the Cout on Au%ust 92, 236- .Rollo, p. 223/.
Petitiones havin% #anifested they )ould not file eply bief on ,epte#be 2:,236- .Rollo, p.
244/ the Cout consideed the case sub#itted fo decision, in a Resolution dated ,epte#be 42,
236- .Rollo, p. 24:/.
Petitiones assi%n the follo)in% eos*
'. TDE D<N<RAB(E C<JRT <& APPEA(, ERRE? 'N ?EC(AR'NF TDAT
TDE 9@-?AG PER'<? PRE,CR'BE? 'N ART'C(E 2@77 <& TDE NE+ C'!'(
C<?E &<R A C<-DE'R T< EKERC',E D', R'FDT <& (EFA(
RE?EMPT'<N, DA? A(REA?G E(AP,E? +DEN TDE DERE'N
P(A'NT'&&, &'(E? TDE ACT'<N <N MAG -,2311.
''. TDE D<N<RAB(E C<JRT <& APPEA(, ERRE? 'N ?EC(AR'NF TDAT
TDERE +A, N< <&&ER T< RE'MBJR,E TDE ?E&EN?ANT, &<R TDE
P<RT'<N <& TDE (AN? 'N LJE,T'<N ,<(? T< TDEM BG TDE C<-
DE'R, <& TDE P(A'NT'&&,.
'''. TDE D<N<RAB(E C<JRT <& APPEA(, ERRE? 'N RE!ER,'NF TDE
0J?FMENT <& TDE (<+ER C<JRT, AN? 'N N<T A?0J?F'NF
?AMAFE,, ATT<RNEG8, &EE, AN? C<,T, 'N &A!<R <& TDE
P(A'NT'&&,.
.Bief fo the Petitiones, p. 2/
Thee is no ;uestion that the povision of la) applicable in the instant case is At. 2@77 of the
Ne) Civil Code .At. 2@6-, <ld Civil Code/ as the #atte concens heis and inheitance not yet
distibuted .+enceslao v. Cali#on, :6 Phil. 3@6 M2349N/. At. 2@77 states*
Aticle 2@77. ,hould any of the heis sell his heeditay i%hts to a stan%e befoe
the patition, any o all of the co-heis #ay be subo%ated to the i%hts of the
puchase by ei#busin% hi# fo the pice of the sale, povided they do so )ithin
the peiod of one #onth fo# the ti#e they )ee notified in )itin% of the sale by
the vendo.
Th! %a"& "ss8! "s 9h!'h!r or &o' !'"'"o&!rs 'oo: a## 'h! &!c!ssar; s'!s 'o !((!c'8a'! 'h!"r
!<!rc"s! o( 'h! r"=h' o( #!=a# r!$!%'"o& 9"'h"& 'h! !r"o$ ("<!$ ); Ar'. 1000 o( 'h! C"7"#
Co$!.
't is undisputed that no notification in )itin% )as eve eceived by petitiones about the sale of
the heeditay inteest of so#e of thei co-heis in the pacel of land they inheited fo# the late
Felacio Facia, althou%h in a lette dated 0une 49, 2319 petitione &ancisco Facia )ote one of
his co- heis, 0oa;uin Facia, )ho is an uncle of petitiones, poposin% to buy the heeditay
inteests of his co-heis in thei unpatitioned inheitance, .E5hibit, p. 9/. Althou%h said petitione
asked that his lette be ans)eed Ain ode that ' )ill kno) the esults of )hat ' have e;uested
you,A .E5hibit, p. 2:/ thee is no poof that he )as favoed )ith one.
Petitiones ca#e to kno) that thei co-heis )ee sellin% the popety on ?ece#be 9, 231: )hen
one of the heis, 0uanito Beto#o, asked Petitione Pa" Facia to si%n a docu#ent pepaed in the
Municipality of Tubun%an because the land they inheited )as %oin% to be sold to pivate
espondent, 0ose Calali#an .T,N, ,epte#be 6, 231-, p. 6@/. The docu#ent #entioned by
petitione Pa" Facia could be no othe than the one entitled AE5ta-0udicial Patition and ?eed
of ,aleA dated ?ece#be 9, 231: as it is in this docu#ent that the na#e of Pa" Facia, Maia
Facia and A#ado Facia appea unsi%ned by the# .E5hibits, p. 23/.
't is not kno)n )hethe the othe heis )hose na#es appea in the docu#ent had aleady si%ned
the docu#ent at the ti#e Pa" Facia )as appoached by 0uanito Beto#o. Pa" Facia, ho)eve,
testified that she i##ediately info#ed he bothe &ancisco that 0uanita Beto#o )anted to sell
the land to 0ose Calali#an .T,N, ,epte#be 6,231-, p. 64/. <n ?ece#be 46, 231: he )ote
espondents %ivin% the# notice of his desie to e5ecise the i%ht of le%al ede#ption and that he
)ill esot to cout action if denied the i%ht .E5hibits, p. 7/. The espondents eceived the lette
on 0anuay 29, 2311 but petitione &ancisco Facia did not %et any ans)e fo# the#. Neithe
did espondents sho) hi# a copy of the docu#ent of sale no info# hi# about the pice they
paid fo the sale )hen he )ent ho#e to Tubun%an fo# Manila so#eti#e in Mach 2311 and
)ent to see the espondent spouse about the #atte on Mach 4:,2311 .T,N, ,epte#be 6,231-,
p. 27/.
Because of the efusal of espondent 0ose Calali#an to sho) hi# the docu#ent of sale o eveal
to hi# the pice paid fo the pacel of land, petitione &ancisco Facia )ent to the <ffice of the
Re%iste of ?eeds on the sa#e date, Mach 4:,2311 and thee found t)o docu#ents of sale
e%adin% the sa#e pacel of land .T,N, !"id, p. 23/.
Petitiones filed the case fo le%al ede#ption )ith the tial cout on May -, 2311. Respondents
clai# that the 9@-day peiod pescibed in Aticle 2@77 of the Ne) Civil Code fo petitiones to
e5ecise the i%ht to le%al ede#ption had aleady elapsed at that ti#e and that the e;uie#ent of
Aticle 2@77 of the Ne) Civil Code that notice )ould be in )itin% is dee#ed satisfied because
)itten notice )ould be supefluous, the pupose of the la) havin% been fully seved )hen
petitione &ancisco Facia )ent to the <ffice of the Re%iste of ?eeds and sa) fo hi#self, ead
and undestood the contents of the deeds of sale .Bief fo espondents, p. 6/.
The issue has been s;uaely settled in the case of astillo v. #a$onte, )hee this Cout obseved*
Both the lette and spiit of the ne) Civil Code a%ue a%ainst any atte#pt to )iden
the scope of the notice specified in Aticle 2@77 by includin% theein any othe
kind of notice, such as vebal o by e%istation. 'f the intention of the la) had
been to include vebal notice o any othe #eans of info#ation as sufficient to
%ive the effect of this notice, then thee )ould have been no necessity o easons
to specify in Aticle 2@77 of the Ne) Civil Code that the said notice be #ade in
)itin% fo, unde the old la), a vebal notice o info#ation )as sufficient .2@6
Phil. 2@49 M236@N/.
'n the above-;uoted decision the Cout did not conside the e%istation of the deed of sale )ith
the Re%iste of ?eeds sufficient notice, #ost specially because the popety involved )as
une%isteed land, as in the instant case. The Cout took note of the fact that the e%istation of
the deed of sale as sufficient notice of a sale unde the povision of ,ection 12 of Act No. :36
applies only to e%isteed lands and has no application )hatsoeve to a case )hee the popety
involved is, ad#ittedly, une%isteed land.
Consistent )ith afoesaid ulin%, in the intepetation of a elated povision .Aticle 2649 of the
Ne) Civil Code/ this Cout had stessed that )itten notice is indispensable, actual kno)led%e of
the sale ac;uied in so#e othe #annes by the ede#ptione, not)ithstandin%. De o she is still
entitled to )itten notice, as e5acted by the Code, to e#ove all uncetainty as to the sale, its
te#s and its validity, and to ;uiet any doubt that the alienation is not definitive. The la) not
havin% povided fo any altenative, the #ethod of notifications e#ains e5clusive, thou%h the
Code does not pescibe any paticula fo# of )itten notice no any distinctive #ethod fo
)itten notification of ede#ption .Cone$eo et al. v. Cout of Appeals et al., 26 ,CRA --1
M2366N> Etcuban v. Cout of Appeals, 2:7 ,CRA 1@- M237-N> Cabea v. !illanueva, F.R. No.
-1@63, Apil 21,2377/.
Petitiones fault the appellate cout in not a)adin% the# da#a%es, attoney8s fees and costs.
Afte findin% in favo of espondent spouses and a%ainst petitiones heein it is untenable fo
petitiones to e5pect that the appellate cout )ould a)ad da#a%es and attoney8s fees and costs.
Do)eve as aleady discussed, petitiones have not lost thei i%ht to edee#, fo in the absence
of a )itten notification of the sale by the vendos, the 9@-day peiod has not even be%un to un.
Petitiones clealy can clai# attoney8s fees fo bad faith on the pat of espondents, fist, fo
efusin% ede#ption, and secondly fo declain% the entie land as theis, althou%h they kne)
so#e heis had not sold thei shaes.
PREM',E, C<N,'?ERE?, the decision of the Cout of Appeals is RE!ER,E? and the
decision of the tial cout is RE'N,TATE? )ith the #odification that petitiones be a)aded
da#a%es, attoney8s fees and costs in the a#ount payed fo.
,< <R?ERE?.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
,EC<N? ?'!','<N
G.R. No. L-2203/ Ar"# 30, 1919
TESTATE ESTATE O2 T6E LATE REVEREN4 2AT6ER PASCUAL RIGOR. T6E
PARIS6 PRIEST O2 T6E ROMAN CAT6OLIC C6URC6 O2 VICTORIA,
TARLAC, petitione-appellant,
vs.
3ELINA RIGOR, NESTORA RIGOR, 2RANCISCA ESCO3AR 4E RIGOR a&$ ,OVITA
ESCO3AR 4E 2AUSTO,espondents-appellees.
%. &a'edo, Jr. for appellants.
J. (alanca, #r. for appellee.

A>UINO, J.:
This case is about the efficaciousness o enfoceability of a devise of icelands located at
Fui#ba, Nueva Eci$a, )ith a total aea of aound foty- fou hectaes That devise )as #ade in
the )ill of the late &athe Pascual Ri%o, a native of !ictoia Talac, in favo of his neaest #ale
elative )ho )ould study fo the piesthood.
The paish piest of !ictoia, )ho clai#ed to be a tustee of the said lands, appealed to this Cout
fo# the decision of the Cout of Appeals affi#in% the ode of the pobate cout declain% that
the said devise )as inopeative .Ri%o vs. Paish Piest of the Ro#an Catholic Chuch of
!ictoia, Talac, CA-F.R. No. 4:923-R, Au%ust 2, 2369/.
The ecod discloses that &athe Ri%o, the paish piest of Pulilan, Bulacan, died on Au%ust 3,
2391, leavin% a )ill e5ecuted on <ctobe 43, 2399 )hich )as pobated by the Cout of &ist
'nstance of Talac in its ode of ?ece#be 1, 2391. Na#ed as devisees in the )ill )ee the
testatos neaest elatives, na#ely, his thee sistes* &loencia Ri%o-Escoba, Belina Ri%o-
Manaloto and Nestoa Ri%o-Luia#bao. The testato %ave a devise to his cousin, &otunato
Fa#alinda.
'n addition, the )ill contained the follo)in% contovesial be;uest .paa%aphin% supplied to
facilitate co#pehension of the testa#entay povisions/*
?oy y de$o co#o le%ado CJATR< .:/ PARCE(A, de teeno palayeos situados
en el #unicipiooo de Fui#ba de la povinciaaa de NJE!A EC'0A, cuyo nu#. de
CERT'&'CA?< ?E TRAN,&ERENC'A ?E T'TJ(< ,<N> B Titulo Nu#.
619@, #ide 26,4:3 #. cuadados de supeficie Titulo Nu#. 61:7, #ide 4:4,337
#. cuadados de supeficie y annual 6141, #ide 64,661 #. cuadados de
supeficie> y Titulo Nu#. 6142, #ide 223,412 #. cuadados de supeficie>
a cual)uier pariente $io varon $as cercano )ue estudie la carrera eclesiatica
*asta ordenarse de (res"iterado o sea #acerdote+ las condiciones de estate le%ado
son>
.2.a/ Pohibe en absoluto la venta de estos teenos aiba situados ob$ectos de
este le%ado>
.4.a/ Lue el le%ataio paiente #io #as cecano tenda deecho de e#pe"a a
%o"a y ad#inista de este le%ado al pincipia a cu"a la ,a%ada Teolo%io, y
odenado de ,acedote, hasta su #uete> peo ;ue piede el le%ataio este deecho
de ad#inista y %o"a de este le%ado al de$a de continua sus estudios paa
odenase de Pesbiteado .,acedote/.
Lue el le%ataio una ve" ,acedote ya estaa obli%ado a celeba cada a=o
!E'NTE .4@/ Misas e"adas en sufa%io de #i al#a y de #is pades difuntos, y si
el actual le%ataio, ;uedase e5co#ul%ado, 'P,< &ACT< se le despo$a este le%ado,
y la ad#inistacion de esto pasaa a ca%o del actual Paoco y sus sucesoes de la
'%lecia Catolica de !ictoia, Talac.
G en intevalo de tie#po ;ue no haya le%ataio acondicionado se%un lo aiba
;ueda e5pesado, pasaa la ad#inistacion de este le%ado a ca%o del actual
Paoco Catolico y sus sucesoes, de !ictoia, Talac.
El Paoco ad#inistado de estate le%ado, acu#ulaa, anual#ente todos los
poductos ;ue puede tene estate le%ado, %anando o sacando de los poductos
anuales el C'NC< .1/ po ciento paa su ad#inistacion, y los deechos
coespondientes de las !E'NTE .4@/ Misas e"adas ;ue debiea el Paoco
celeba cada a=o, depositando todo lo estante de los poductos de estate le%ado,
en un banco, a no#be de estate le%ado.
To i#ple#ent the foe%oin% be;uest, the ad#inistati5 in 23:@ sub#itted a po$ect containin% the
follo)in% ite#*
1. (EFACG <& TDE CDJRCD
That it be adjudicated in favor of the legacy purported to be given to the nearest
male relative who shall take the priesthood, and in the interim to be administered
by the actual Catholic Priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Victoria, Tarlac,
Philippines, or his successors, the real properties hereinbelow indicated, to wit:
Title
o!
"ot
o!
#rea in
$as!
Ta%
&ec!
#ss!
Value
T'
()*+
*((* ,!(-./ ,01.+ P
*.+!++
T'
().0
*..)
'C
-.!-//0 ,01*+ 1,-/+!
++
T'
()-)
*(1+ (!-(() ,01*( ,,00+!
++
T'
()-,
*((( ,,!/-), ,01** *,)0+!
++
Total amount and value 2 ..!,,(* P,*,+/+!++
0ud%e Ro#an A. Cu" in his ode of Au%ust 21, 23:@, appovin% the po$ect of patition,
diected that afte pay#ent of the obli%ations of the estate .includin% the su# of P9,294.46 due to
the chuch of the !ictoia paish/ the ad#inistati5 should delive to the devisees thei
espective shaes.
't #ay be noted that the ad#inistati5 and 0ud%e Cu" did not bothe to analy"e the #eanin% and
i#plications of &athe Ri%o8s be;uest to his neaest #ale elative )ho )ould study fo the
piesthood. 'nas#uch as no nephe) of the testato clai#ed the devise and as the ad#inistati5
and the le%al heis believed that the paish piest of !ictoia had no i%ht to ad#iniste the
icelands, the sa#e )ee not deliveed to that ecclesiastic. The testate poceedin% e#ained
pendin%.
About thiteen yeas afte the appoval of the po$ect of patition, o on &ebuay 23, 231:, the
paish piest of !ictoia filed in the pendin% testate poceedin% a petition payin% fo the
appoint#ent of a ne) ad#inistato .succeedin% the deceased ad#inistation &loencia Ri%o/,
)ho should delive to the chuch the said icelands, and futhe payin% that the possessos
theeof be odeed to ende an accountin% of the fuits. The pobate cout %anted the petition. A
ne) ad#inistato )as appointed. <n 0anuay 92, 231- the paish piest filed anothe petition fo
the delivey of the icelands to the chuch as tustee.
The intestate heis of &athe Ri%o counteed )ith a petition dated Mach 41, 231- payin% that
the be;uest be d inopeative and that they be ad$ud%ed as the pesons entitled to the said
icelands since, as ad#itted by the paish piest of !ictoia, Ano neaest #ale elative ofA the
testato Ahas eve studied fo the piesthoodA .pp. 41 and 91, Recod on Appeal/. That petition
)as opposed by the paish piest of !ictoia.
&indin% that petition to be #eitoious, the lo)e cout, thou%h 0ud%e Benabe de A;uino,
declaed the be;uest inopeative and ad$udicated the icelands to the testato8s le%al heis in his
ode of 0une 47, 231-. The paish piest filed t)o #otions fo econsideation.
0ud%e ?e A;uino %anted the espond #otion fo econsideation in his ode of ?ece#be 2@,
231- on the %ound that the testato had a %andnephe) na#ed Ed%ado F. Cunanan .the
%andson of his fist cousin/ )ho )as a se#inaian in the ,an 0ose ,e#inay of the 0esuit &athes
in Lue"on City. The ad#inistato )as diected to delive the icelands to the paish piest of
!ictoia as tustee.
The le%al heis appealed to the Cout of Appeals. 't evesed that ode. 't held that &athe Ri%o
had ceated a testa#entay tust fo his neaest #ale elative )ho )ould take the holy odes but
that such tust could e5ist only fo t)enty yeas because to enfoce it beyond that peiod )ould
violate Athe ule a%ainst pepetuities. 't uled that since no le%atee clai#ed the icelands )ithin
t)enty yeas afte the testato8s death, the sa#e should pass to his le%al heis, citin% aticles 777
and 324.4/ of the old Civil Code and aticle 7-@ of the ne) Civil Code.
The paish piest in this appeal contends that the Cout of Appeals eed in not findin% that the
testato ceated a public chaitable tust and in not libeally constuin% the testa#entay
povisions so as to ende the tust opeative and to pevent intestacy.
As efutation, the le%al heis a%ue that the Cout of Appeals d the be;uest inopeative because
no one a#on% the testato8s neaest #ale elatives had studied fo the piesthood and not because
the tust )as a pivate chaitable tust. Accodin% to the le%al heis, that factual findin% is bindin%
on this Cout. They point out that appellant piest8s chan%e of theoy cannot be countenanced in
this appeal .
'n this case, as in cases involvin% the la) of contacts and statutoy constuction, )hee the
intention of the contactin% paties o of the la)#akin% body is to be ascetained, the pi#ay
issue is the dete#ination of the testato8s intention )hich is the la) of the case .dicat testor et
erit lex. ,antos vs. Manaan%, 4- Phil. 4@3, 421> Rodi%ue" vs. Cout of Appeals, (-47-9:,
Mach 47, 2363, 4- ,CRA 1:6/.
The )ill of the testato is the fist and pincipal la) in the #atte of testa#ents. +hen his
intention is clealy and pecisely e5pessed, any intepetation #ust be in accod )ith the plain
and liteal #eanin% of his )ods, e5cept )hen it #ay cetainly appea that his intention )as
diffeent fo# that liteally e5pessed .!n re Estate of Caldeon, 46 Phil. 999/.
The intent of the testato is the cadinal ule in the constuction of )ills.A 't is Athe life and soul
of a )ill 't is Athe fist %eatest ule, the soveei%n %uide, the polesta, in %ivin% effect to a )illA.
.,ee ?issent of 0ustice Moeland in ,antos vs. Manaan%, 4- Phil. 4@3, 449, 49--7./
<ne canon in the intepetation of the testa#entay povisions is that Athe testato8s intention is to
be ascetained fo# the )ods of the )ilt takin% into consideation the cicu#stances unde
)hich it )as #adeA, but e5cludin% the testato8s oal declaations as to his intention .At. -73,
Civil Code of the Philippines/.
To ascetain &athe Ri%o8s intention, it #ay be useful to #ake the follo)in% e-state#ent of the
povisions of his )ill.
2. that he be;ueathed the icelands to anyone of his neaest #ale elatives )ho )ould pusue an
ecclesiastical caee until his odination as a piest.
4. That the devisee could not sell the icelands.
9. That the devisee at the inception of his studies in saced theolo%y could en$oy and ad#iniste
the icelands, and once odained as a piest, he could continue en$oyin% and ad#inistein% the
sa#e up to the ti#e of his death but the devisee )ould cease to en$oy and ad#iniste the
icelands if he discontinued his studies fo the piesthood.
:. That if the devisee beca#e a piest, he )ould be obli%ated to celebate evey yea t)enty
#asses )ith payes fo the epose of the souls of &athe Ri%o and his paents.
1. That if the devisee is e5co##unicated, he )ould be divested of the le%acy and the
ad#inistation of the iceland )ould pass to the incu#bent paish piest of !ictoia and his
successos.
6. That duin% the inteval of ti#e that thee is no ;ualified devisee as conte#plated above, the
ad#inistation of the icelands )ould be unde the esponsibility of the incu#bent paish piest
of !ictoia and his successos, and
-. That the paish piest-ad#inistato of the icelands )ould accu#ulate annually the poducts
theeof, obtainin% o %ettin% fo# the annual poduce five pecent theeof fo his ad#inistation
and the fees coespondin% to the t)enty #asses )ith payes that the paish piest )ould
celebate fo each yea, depositin% the balance of the inco#e of the devise in the bank in the
na#e of his be;uest.
&o# the foe%oin% testa#entay povisions, it #ay be deduced that the testato intended to
devise the icelands to his neaest #ale elative )ho )ould beco#e a piest, )ho )as fobidden
to sell the icelands, )ho )ould lose the devise if he discontinued his studies fo the piesthood,
o havin% been odained a piest, he )as e5co##unicated, and )ho )ould be obli%ated to say
annually t)enty #asses )ith payes fo the epose of the souls of the testato and his paents.
<n the othe hand, it is clea that the paish piest of !ictoia )ould ad#iniste the icelands only
in t)o situations* one, duin% the inteval of ti#e that no neaest #ale elative of the testato )as
studyin% fo the piesthood and t)o, in case the testato8s nephe) beca#e a piest and he )as
e5co##unicated.
+hat is not clea is the duration of Ael intevalo de tie#po ;ue no haya le%ataio acondicionadoA,
o ho) lon% afte the testato8s death )ould it be dete#ined that he had a nephe) )ho )ould
pusue an ecclesiastical vocation. 't is that patent a#bi%uity that has bou%ht about the
contovesy bet)een the paish piest of !ictoia and the testato8s le%al heis.
'nte)oven )ith that e;uivocal povision is t*e ti$e w*en t*e nearest $ale relative w*o would
study for t*e priest*ood s*ould "e deter$ined. ?id the testato conte#plate only his neaest #ale
elative at t*e ti$e of *is deat*, < did he have in #ind any of his neaest #ale elatives
at anyti$e after *is deat*,
+e hold that the said be;uest efes to the testato8s neaest #ale elative living at t*e ti$e of *is
deat* and not to any indefinite ti$e t*ereafter. A'n ode to be capacitated to inheit, the hei,
devisee o le%atee #ust be livin% at the #o#ent the succession opens, e5cept in case of
epesentation, )hen it is popeA .At. 2@41, Civil Code/.
The said testa#entay povisions should be sensibly o easonably constued. To constue the#
as efein% to the testato8s neaest #ale elative at anyti$e after *is deat* )ould ende the
povisions difficult to apply and ceate uncetainty as to the disposition of his estate. That could
not have been his intention.
'n 2391, )hen the testato died, his neaest lea%al heis )ee his thee sistes o second-de%ee
elatives, Ms. Escoba, Ms. Manaloto and Ms. Luia#bao. <bviously, )hen the testato
specified his neaest #ale elative, he #ust have had in #ind his nephe) o a son of his siste,
)ho )ould be his thid-de%ee elative, o possibly a %andnephe). But since he could not
po%nosticate the e5act date of his death o state )ith cetitude )hat cate%oy of neaest #ale
elative )ould be livin% at the ti#e of his death, he could not specify that his neaest #ale
elative )ould be his nephe) o %andnephe)s .the son of his nephe) o niece/ and so he had to
use the te# Aneaest #ale elativeA.
't is contended by the le%al heis that the said devise )as in eality intended fo Ra#on
Luia#bao, the testato8s nephe) and %odchild, )ho )as the son of his siste, Ms. Luia#bao. To
pove that contention, the le%al heis pesented in the lo)e cout the affidavit of Beati"
Fa#alinda, the #atenal %and#othe of Ed%ado Cunanan, )ho deposed that afte &athe
Ri%o8s death he o)n son, !alentin Fa#alinda, 0., did not clai# the devise, althou%h he )as
studyin% fo the piesthood at the ,an Calos ,e#inay, because she .Beati"/ kne) that &athe
Ri%o had intended that devise fo his neaest #ale elative "eloning to t*e Rigor fa$ily .pp.
2@1-22:, Recod on Appeal/.
Ms. Fa#alinda futhe deposed that he o)n %andchild, Ed%ado F. Cunanan, )as not the one
conte#plated in &athe Ri%o8s )ill and that Ed%ado8s fathe told he that he )as not consulted
by the paish piest of !ictoia befoe the latte filed his second #otion fo econsideation )hich
)as based on the %ound that the testato8s %andnephe), Ed%ado, )as studyin% fo the
piesthood at the ,an 0ose ,e#inay.
Paenthetically, it should be stated at this $unctue that Ed%ado ceased to be a se#inaian in
2362. &o that eason, the le%al heis appised the Cout of Appeals that the pobate cout8s ode
ad$udicatin% the icelands to the paish piest of !ictoia had no #oe le% to stand on .p. 7:,
Appellant8s bief/.
<f couse, Ms. Fa#alinda8s affidavit, )hich is tanta#ount to evidence aliunde as to the
testato8s intention and )hich is heasay, has no pobative value. <u opinion that the said
be;uest efes to the testato8s nephe) )ho )as livin% at the ti#e of his death, )hen his
succession )as opened and the successional i%hts to his estate beca#e vested, ests on a
$udicious and unbiased eadin% of the te#s of the )ill.
Dad the testato intended that the Acual;uie paiente #io vaon #as cecano ;ue estudie la
ca#ea eclesiaticaA )ould include indefinitely anyone of his neaest #ale elatives "orn after *is
deat*, he could have so specified in his )ill De #ust have kno)n that such a boad povision
)ould suspend fo an unli#ited peiod of ti#e the efficaciousness of his be;uest.
+hat then did the testato #ean by Ael intevalo de tie#po ;ue no haya le%ataio
acondicionadoAC The easonable vie) is that he )as efein% to a situation )heeby his nephe)
livin% at the ti#e of his death, )ho )ould like to beco#e a piest, )as still in %ade school o in
hi%h school o )as not yet in the se#inay. 'n that case, the paish piest of !ictoia )ould
ad#iniste the icelands befoe the nephe) enteed the se#inay. But the #o#ent the testato8s
nephe) enteed the se#inay, then he )ould be entitled to en$oy and ad#iniste the icelands and
eceive the fuits theeof. 'n that event, the tusteeship )ould be te#inated.
&ollo)in% that intepetation of the )ill the in;uiy )ould be )hethe at the ti#e &athe Ri%o
died in 2391 he had a nephe) )ho )as studyin% fo the piesthood o )ho had #anifested his
desie to follo) the ecclesiastical caee. That ;uey is cate%oically ans)eed in paa%aph : of
appellant piest8s petitions of &ebuay 23, 231: and 0anuay 92, 231-. De une;uivocally alle%ed
theein that Anot #ale elative of the late .&athe/ Pascual Ri%o has eve studied fo the
piesthoodA .pp. 41 and 91, Recod on Appeal/.
'nas#uch as the testato )as not suvived by any nephe) )ho beca#e a piest, the unavoidable
conclusion is that the be;uest in ;uestion )as ineffectual o inopeative. Theefoe, the
ad#inistation of the icelands by the paish piest of !ictoia, as envisa%ed in the )ilt )as
like)ise inopeative.
The appellant in contendin% that a public chaitable tust )as constituted by the testato in is
favo assu#es that he )as a tustee o a substitute devisee That contention is untenable. A
eadin% of the testa#entay povisions e%adin% the disputed be;uest not suppot the vie) that
the paish piest of !ictoia )as a tustee o a substitute devisee in the event that the testato )as
not suvived by a nephe) )ho beca#e a piest.
't should be undestood that the paish piest of !ictoia could beco#e a tustee only )hen the
testato8s nephe) livin% at the ti#e of his death, )ho desied to beco#e a piest, had not yet
enteed the se#inay o, havin% been odained a piest, he )as e5co##unicated. Those t)o
contin%encies did not aise, and could not have aisen in this case because no nephe) of the
testato #anifested any intention to ente the se#inay o eve beca#e a piest.
The Cout of Appeals coectly uled that this case is coveed by aticle 777 of the old Civil
Code, no) aticle 316, )hich povides that if Athe be;uest fo any eason should be inopeative,
it shall be #e%ed into the estate, e5cept in cases of substitution and those in )hich the i%ht of
accetion e5istsA .Ael le%ado ... po ;ual;uie causa, no ten%a efecto se efundia en la #asa de la
heencia, fuea de los casos de sustitucion y deecho de aceceA/.
This case is also coveed by aticle 324.4/ of the old Civil Code, no) aticle 36@ .4/, )hich
povides that le%al succession takes place )hen the )ill Adoes not dispose of all that belon%s to
the testato.A Thee bein% no substitution no accetion as to the said icelands the sa#e should be
distibuted a#on% the testato8s le%al heis. The effect is as if the testato had #ade no disposition
as to the said icelands.
The Civil Code eco%ni"es that a peson #ay die patly testate and patly intestate, o that thee
#ay be #i5ed succession. The old ule as to the indivisibility of the testato8s )in is no lon%e
valid. Thus, if a conditional le%acy does not take effect, thee )ill be intestate succession as to
the popety ecoveed by the said le%acy .Macohon <n% Da# vs. ,aaveda, 12 Phil. 46-/.
+e find no #eit in the appeal The Appellate Cout8s decision is affi#ed. Costs a%ainst the
petitione.
,< <R?ERE?