Dr. Jorge Rabadilla vs.

CA

Case Title : JOHNNY S. RABADILLA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND MARIA MARLENA
COSCOLUELLA Y BELLEZA VILLACARLOS, respondents.

Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class :Civil Law|Succession|Wills

Syllabi:

1. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills; Successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death
of the decedent and compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of law.-
It is a general rule under the law on succession that 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, 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.

2. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills;  Inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of
a person, not extinguished by his death.-
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.

3. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills;  Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or
persons to take the place of the heir or heirs first instituted.-
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, 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.

4. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills;  In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance
in default of the first heir by reason of incapacity, predecease or renunciation.-
In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by
reason of incapacity, predecease or renunciation. 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.

5. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills;  In a fideicommissary substitution, the first heir is strictly
mandated to preserve the property and to transmit the same later to the second heir; Without the
obligation to preserve clearly imposed by the testator in his will, there is no fideicommissary
substitution.-
In a fideicommissary substitution, the first heir is strictly mandated to preserve the
property and to transmit the same later to the second heir. 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
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla vs. CA

preservation of the property and its transmis- sion to the second heir. “Without this obligation to
preserve clearly imposed by the testator in his will, there is no fideicommissary substitution.” 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.

6. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills;  A fideicommissary substitution is therefore, void if the first
heir is not related by first degree to the second heir.-
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. In the case under
scrutiny, the near descendants are not at all related to the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.

7. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills;  Distinction between modal institution and conditional
testamentary disposition.-
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, the purpose or application of the property left by
the testator, or 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.

8. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills; In case of doubt, the institution should be considered as
modal and not conditional.-
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.

9. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills;  In the interpretation of Wills, when an uncertainty arises on
the face of the Will, the testator’s intention is to be ascertained from the words of the Will, taking
into consideration the circumstances under which it was made.-
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. Such construction
as will sustain and uphold the Will in all its parts must be adopted.

10. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills;  A Will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which
a person disposes of his property, to take effect after his death.-
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. 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.

11. Civil Law;  Succession;  Wills; There is no simple substitution that takes place where the
heir originally instituted is able to succeed.-
Substitution is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in
default of the heir originally instituted. Substitution is simple when the testator designates one or
more persons to substitute the heir or heirs instituted in case the latter should die before him, or
should not wish, or should be incapacitated to accept the inheritance, and a substitution without a
statement of the cases to which it refers shall comprise all said three cases. There is no simple
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla vs. CA

substitution that takes place where the heir originally instituted is able to succeed.
Fideicommissary substitution, on the other hand, occurs when 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
the inheritance. Every fideicommissary substitution should be expressly made in order that it may
be valid. The term “fideicommissary substitution” need not, however, be used in the will; it is
enough that there is a clear and unequivocal statement that one shall enjoy usufructuary or other
rights, short of naked ownership or title, over certain property of the testator with the obligation
to preserve the property and to transmit it to a second heir. It is essential for the validity of a
fideicommissary substitution that both heirs are living and qualified to succeed at the time of
death by the testator and that the substitute does not go beyond one degree from the heir
originally instituted. The term “one degree” has been the subject of varied interpretation.

Division: THIRD DIVISION

Dispositive Portion:
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.ACCORDINGLY, I also vote for the dismissal of the instant petition.