Johnny S. Rabadilla vs.

Court of Appeals and Maria Marlena

Coscoluella y Belleza Villacarlos
Facts:
1. In the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla was instituted as a devisee of 511, 855 sq. meters of
land.
2. The Last Wil, which was duly probated contained the following
provisions:

a) That should Jorge Rabadilla die ahead of me, the aforementioned

property and the rights which I shall set forth hereinbelow, shall
be inherited and acknowledged by the children and spouse of
Jorge Rabadilla.
b) It was also stated in the Will that Jorge Rabadilla, having receive
the property, shall have the obligation until he dies, to give to
Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, 75 piculs of Export sugar
and 25 piculs of Domestic sugar, every year until Maria Marlina
Coscolluela y Belleza dies.
c) Also, that should Jorge Rabadilla die, his her to whom he shall
give the land shall have the obligation to give sugar to Maria
Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza on the month of December of each
year.
d) In the event that person to whom the land is bequeathed shall
later sell, lease, mortgage the lot, the buyer, lessee, mortgagee,
shall have also the obligation to respect and deliver yearly the
100 piculs of sugar to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza.
e) Lastly, should the buyer, lessee or mortgagee of the lot not have
respected the command, Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza,
shall immediately seize the lot from my (Aleja Belleza) heir or
from the latters heir, and shall turn it over to my near
descendants, and the latter shall have the obligation to deliver
the sugar until Maria Marlina dies. Should my heir or his heir
decide to sell, lease, mortgage the lot, they cannot negotiate
with others, other than my near descendants and my sister.

3. Pursuant to the Will, the said lot was transferred to Jorge

Rabadilla.
4. However, Jorge Rabadilla died and was survived by his wife and
children Johnny (Petitioner), Aurora, Ofelia and Zenaida Rabadilla.
5. On August 21, 1989, Maria Marlena brought a complaint against
heirs (Johnny Rabadilla etc.) of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, to enforce the
provisions of the Will alledging that:
a) The lot was mortgaged to PNB and Republic Planters
Bank not to the near descendants and sisters of the
Aleja Belleza, testatrix.
b) The heirs failed to comply with their obligation to
deliver 100 piculs of sugar.
c) The banks as the mortgagee likewise failed to deliver
100 piculs of sugar per crop year.

6. Maria Marlena then prayed that Johnny Rabadilla to reconvey the

lot to the surviving heirs of Aleja Belleza.
7. The defendant-heirs (Johnny Rabadilla) were declared in default.
8. During the pre-trial, the parties admitted that Maria Marlena and
the son-in-law of Johnny Rabadilla named, Alan Azurin, who was
a lessee of the property and acted as attorney-in-fact of the
defendant heirs, entered into an amicable settlement on the
obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar: That for crop year 198889, the annuity will be delivered not later than January of 1989.
9. However, there was no compliance with the Agreement except
for a partial delivery of 50.80 piculs of sugar corresponding to
sugar crop year 1988-1989.
10.
RTC: dismissed the complaint since the action was
prematurely filed as no cause of action against the defendants
has as yet arose in favor of plaintiff.
11.
CA: reversed the decision of the trial court ratiocinating
that the heirs of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla admitted non-compliance
with the obligation thus, the reversion of the lot to the estate of
Aleja Belleza is deem proper.
12.
Johnny Rabadilla filed a petition for review to the SC
alleging that CA erred in ruling that the testamentary institution
of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla is a modal institution and not a simple
institution thus became the basis for the reversion of the Lot to
the estate of Aleja Belleza.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a modal institution.
Ruling:
1. Yes.
Art. 882. The statement of the object of the institution or the
application of
the property left by the testator, or the charge imposed on 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.
Art. 883. When without the fault of the heir, an institution

referred to in the
preceding article cannot take effect in the exact manner stated
by the
testator, it shall be complied with in a manner most analogous to
and in
conformity with his wishes.
2. 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.
3. The testatrix did not make Dr. Jorge Rabadillas 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 the testatrixs near descendants.
4. The manner of institution of Dr. Jorge 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 intstitution.
5. 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.
6. The non-performace of the said obligation is thus with the
sanction of seizure of the property and reversion thereof to the
testatrixs near descendants.
7. The Will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free act, it cannot
be the subject of a compromise agreement which would thereby
defeat the very purpose of making a Will.

Gonzales vs. Court of First Instance of Manila

(The names in this case are really confusing, kaya nilagyan ko nalang
ng mga palatandaan. Haha! Concentrate nalang.)
Facts:

1. Benito Legarda y De la Paz (Father), the son of Benito Legarda y

Tuason (Lolo), died in Manila on June 17, 1933.
2. Benito Legarda y De la Paz(Father) was survived by his wife,
Filomena Roces Vda. De Legarda (mother), and their seven
children: Filomena(daughter), Beatriz(petitioner), Rosario, Teresa,
Benito(son), Alejandro and Jose.
3. On July 12, 1939, the real properties left by Benito Legarda y
Tuason(Lolo) were partitioned by the heirs of his son, Benito
Legarda y De la Paz(Father) together with his(Lolos) daughters:
Consuelo and Rita.
4. Filomena(daughter) died intestate. Her sole heiress was her
mother, Filomena Roces Vda. De Legarda(mother).
5. Filomena Roces(mother) executed an affidavit adjudicating
extrajudicially to herself the properties which she inherited form
her deceased daughter.
6. (mother) also executed two handwritten identical documents
wherein she disposed of the properties, which she inherited from
her daughter, in favor of the children of her sons, Benito,
Alejandro and Jose (16 grandchildren in all)
7. As a result of the affidavit of adjudication, Filomena
Roces(mother) succeeded her daughter, Filomena Legarda as coowner of the properties held pro-indiviso by her six children
Beatriz(petitioner), Rosario, Teresa, benito, alejandro and jose).
8. Filomena(mother) and her six children partitioned the properties.
9. Filomena(mother) died on September 22, 1967. Her will was
admitted to probate as a holographic will.
10.
Beatriz Legarda Gonzales filed a motion to exclude from
the inventory of her mothers estate the properties which she
inherited from Filomena(daughter), on the ground that said
properties are reservable properties should be inherited by
Filomena Legardas (daughter) three sisters and three brothers
and not by the children of Benito, Alejandro and Jose.
11.
That motion was opposed by the administrator, Benito F.
Legarda(son).
12.
Lower Court: dismissed the action of Mrs. Gonzales.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the properties in question are subject to reserva
troncal.
RULING:
ART. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any
property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title
from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to
reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of
law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree

and who belong to the line from which said property came.
In reserve troncal (1) a descendant inherited or acquired by
gratuitous title property from an ascendant or from a brother or sister;
(2) the same property is inherited by another ascendant or is acquired
by him by operation of law from the said descendant, and (3) the said
ascendant should reserve the said property for the benefit of relatives
who are within the third degree from the deceased descendant
(prepositus) and who belong to the line from which the said property
came.
So, three transmissions are involved: (I) a first transmission by
lucrative title (inheritance or donation) from an ascendant or brother or
sister to the deceased descendant; (2) a posterior transmission, by
operation of law (intestate succession or legitime) from the deceased
descendant (causante de la reserve) in favor of another ascendant, the
reservor or reservista, which two transmissions precede the
reservation, and (3) a third transmissions of the same property (in
consequence of the reservation) from the reservor to the reservees
(reservatarios) or the relatives within the third degree from the
deceased descendant belonging to the line of the first ascendant,
brother or sister of the deceased descendant.
Reserva troncal contemplates legitimate relationship. Illegitimate
relationship and relationship by affinity are excluded.
The reserva creates two resolutory conditions, namely, (1) the
death of the ascendant obliged to reserve and (2) the survival, at the
time of his death, of relatives within the third degree belonging to the
line from which the property came.
The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the reservable
property but subject to the resolutory condition that such title is
extinguished if the reservor predeceased the reservee. The reservor is
a usufructuary of the reservable property. He may alienate it subject to
the reservation. The transferee gets the revocable and conditional
ownership of the reservor. The transferee's rights are revoked upon the
survival of the reservees at the time of the death of the reservor but
become indefeasible when the reservees predecease the reservor.
The reservor's alienation of the reservable property is subject to
a resolutory condition, meaning that if at the time of the reservor's
death, there are reservees, the transferee of the property should
deliver it to the reservees. lf there are no reservees at the time of the
reservor's death, the transferee's title would become absolute.