Facts:

The case involves a dispute over a nine-hectare parcel of land located in Marilao, Bulacan, which is contested between Severo Valenzuela, the surviving husband of the deceased Generosa Agustines, and the relatives of Generosa, namely Josefa Agustines, Encarnacion Agustines, Jose Agustines, Lourdes Agustines, Estela Agustines, and Abelardo Agustines, who are the petitioners. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila intervened in the case. Generosa Agustines passed away in August 1934, leaving behind a will that named Severo Valenzuela as the universal heir while also specifying certain bequests. Following the death, the will was submitted for probate in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan under special proceedings No. 4944. The will included a provision directing Valenzuela to donate a portion of her estate, not exceeding nine hectares, to the Catholic Church of Polo for masses in her memory.

On February 8, 1935, the relatives of Generosa executed an extrajudicial partiti...

Facts:

Estate and Testament of Generosa Agustines

• In August 1934, Generosa Agustines died and left a will naming her surviving husband, Severo Valenzuela, as the universal heir, with specific bequests.
• Among the testamentary directions was a provision directing that after receiving all the assets, Valenzuela should donate “a portion that does not exceed nine (9) hectares” of the Quiririt farm in Bulacan to the Catholic Church of Polo for the purpose of funding masses in sustenance of her soul.

Extrajudicial Partition and Judicial Approval

• Despite initial opposition, the relatives of the decedent (including petitioners Josefa, Encarnacion, Jose, Lourdes, Estela, and Abelardo Agustines) and Severo Valenzuela executed an extrajudicial partition on February 8, 1935.
• The partition expressly reaffirmed respect for the decedent’s testamentary directions and stipulated the following:
• A segregation of the estate where a specific portion of the Quiririt farm, namely a nine-hectare parcel directed for the Church, was to be excluded from the heirs’ shares.
• An additional allocation of three hectares was expressly reserved for Severo Valenzuela himself, with the understanding that both parcels should be contiguous with a piece of land described as “pesquera” in the inventory.
• This extrajudicial agreement was submitted for approval and was confirmed by the probate court on October 31, 1936, thereby finalizing the distribution of the decedent’s assets after accounting for applicable inheritance taxes. No subsequent appeal was made against this order.

Subsequent Developments and Donation Controversy

• Years later, Severo Valenzuela failed to deliver the nine-hectare lot to the intended beneficiary, the Church of Polo, effectively breaching the trust contained in the partition.
• In May 1944, petitioners initiated a civil action (Civil Case No. 153) seeking the return of the disputed nine-hectare lot, alleging that Valenzuela’s conduct was a breach of trust.
• In response, in September 1944, Valenzuela moved in the pending testamentary proceedings (Special Proceedings No. 4944) asserting that he possessed the discretion under the will to determine which portion of the property to donate. He chose to assign a parcel cultivated by a tenant (approximately one hectare) to the Polo church as full compliance with the directive.

Judicial Orders and Subsequent Motions

• The court approved Valenzuela’s assignment on December 2, 1944, thereby issuing an order that effectively altered the original partition’s clear mandate that a nine-hectare portion be donated to the Church.
• After the liberation and upon becoming aware of his action, the petitioners sought reconsideration, arguing that the December 2, 1944 order effectively amended the final and executory partition of October 31, 1936.
• Their primary contention was based on the extrajudicial partition, which had fixed the Church’s share at nine hectares and was considered final by all parties for nearly eight years.

Participation of the Intervenor and Dissenting Views

• The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila intervened, supporting the petitioners’ position that under the partition the Church was entitled to the nine-hectare lot.
• The intervenor maintained that no valid renunciation of the legacy had been effected.
• A concurring and dissenting opinion expressed procedural concerns, noting that the underlying issue should properly be addressed in the pending civil case (Civil Case No. 158) rather than through the certiorari proceedings.

Issue:

Determination of the Church’s Share

• What is the proper extent of the land donation intended for the Church of Polo under the will and the extrajudicial partition?
• Does the phrase “a discrecion de su esposo” (at the discretion of her husband) allow Valenzuela significant latitude to fix an area other than the nine hectares specified?

Validity of the Court’s Order

• Given that the partition approved on October 31, 1936, was final and executed eight years prior, is the December 2, 1944 order approving a modification (assignment of one hectare) legally valid?
• Does the later order amount to an impermissible alteration of the finalized distribution of the decedent's estate?

Appropriate Remedy Under the Law

• With the partition being final, is certiorari the proper judicial remedy to annul the subsequent order restricting the donation to one hectare?
• Are there alternative, more appropriate remedies which should have been pursued, particularly in light of the pending civil case?

Constitutional Considerations on Land Acquisition

• Whether the donation made by Severo Valenzuela to the Church of Polo (or the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila) is constitutionally valid, given the limitations under Article XIII of the Constitution on land acquisition by non-Filipino entities or corporations.
• Specifically, whether the Church or the Archbishop qualifies as a Filipino citizen or meets the requisite criteria for acquiring landed property.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)