Facts:
On December 19, 1907, the Supreme Court resolved a dispute between
Elena Morente, petitioner and appellant, and
Gumersindo de la Santa, respondent and appellee, arising from the probate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tayabas. The will of
Consuelo Morente directed, in substance, that all real estate belonging to her pass to her husband,
Gumersindo de la Santa, and further provided that her husband “shall not leave my brothers after my death, and that he shall not marry anyone.” The will also stated that the husband was to dwell in the camarin in which the bakery was located, one of the properties belonging to the testatrix. The second clause additionally contemplated a consequence only in the event that the husband had children, stating that should he have children by anyone, he shall not convey any portion of the property left by the testatrix except the one-third part, while the remaining two-thirds shall pass to her brother
Vicente or his children if any. After the death of the testatrix,
Gumersindo de la Santa remarried within four months.
Elena Morente, a sister of the deceased, then filed a petition in the ongoing probate proceeding, alleging the second marriage and praying that the legacy to the husband be annulled. The husband objected to the procedure, but the court below held that the proceeding was proper; the husband did not appeal that ruling. The court denied the petition, and explained that because the husband had remarried he still had rights to use the property during his life, and at his death two-thirds would pass to Vicente, while one-third could be disposed of by the husband. Elena Morente appealed, insisting that the husband lost all rights under the will merely by marrying again within the proscribed period. It was not alleged nor proven that children had been born to the husband since the death of the testatrix.
Issues:
Whether, by the husband’s remarriage within four months after the testatrix’s death, the legacy of all real estate granted in the will was forfeited absent an express testamentary condition attached to that remarriage.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: