WILLS AND SUCCESSION

3B
VILLANUEVA, KRISTINE BERNADETTE F.
FINALS – CASE DIGEST

CARMEN G. DE PEREZ v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

G.R. No. 31703; 13 February 1930
Romualdez, J.

DOCTRINE:
FIDECOMISSARY HEIR – The institution of heirs made in the will in question is in the nature of a fideicommisum:
there is an heiress primarily called to enjoy the estate; an obligation clearly imposed upon her to preserve and
transmit the whole of the estate to certain third persons; and there are secondary heirs.

FACTS:
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, defendant Mariano Garchitorena.
The plaintiff, alleging that said deposit belongs to the fideicomissary heirs of the decedent Ana Maria Alcantara,
secured a preliminary injunction restraining the execution of the judgment. The defendants however, contends
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 fideicomissary heirs of Ana Maria Alcantara
and granted the final writ of injunction. The defendants filed an appeal contending that the clauses provided in
the will of the testatrix has ordered a simple substitution and not in the nature of a fideicommissary.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the institution of the heirs is in the nature of a fideicommissary.

HELD:
The clauses in the testator’s will provides that upon the death of the decedent, she institutes herein
plaintiff Carmen, a her sole and universal heiress to the remainder of her estate; that Carmen will receive the
properties and may enjoy them but should Carmen die, the decedent orders that the whole estate be pass to her
surviving children and that her estate shall never pass out of the hands of the heiress or her children. In simple
substitution, only the death of the instituted heiress before the testatrix would in the instant case give place to
such substitution. In the clauses provided, the substitution is ordered where the heiress instituted dies after the
testatrix, therefore this cannot be a simple substitution.
In one of the clauses provided in testator’s will, the testatrix institutes the plaintiff herein as her sole and
universal heiress, and provides that upon her death (the testatrix) and after probate of the will, said heiress shall
receive and enjoy the whole hereditary estate. 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 to the second heir. It should be noted that the heiress is
only vested with the right to enjoy the use of the property but not the right to dispose of the estate. The whole
estate should pass unimpaired to the heiress’s children, therefore the heiress is required to preserve it without
diminution in order to pass it on due time. This is an indication of the usufruct inherent in fideicomissary
substitution. That the heiress was instituted as first heir to enjoy the use of the estate. That an obligation was
imposed upon her to preserve said estate in order to pass it to the second heir. And that second heir was instituted
which is plaintiff’s children, who shall have the right of ownership over the said estate. By virtue of which, the
inheritance in question does not belong to heiress plaintiff Carmen, as her absolute property, but to her children,
from the moment of the death of the testatrix, Ana Maria Alcantara. Said inheritance, the amount referred to in
the beginning, which is the deposit with La Urbana in plaintiff’s name, 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.