Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28734)
Facts:
Emeterio A. Rodriguez (in substitution of Rufino A. Rodriguez, who died during the pendency of this case in the Court of Appeals, and Jose Ayala, executors-petitioners) vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Petra Rodriguez, Antonia Rodriguez and Rosa Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-28734. March 28, 1969, Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arises from the last will and testament of Margarita Rodriguez, dated September 30, 1951. She died on July 19, 1960 in Manila. The will was legalized (probated) by the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 23, 1960 without opposition, so its extrinsic validity was not in question. On August 27, 1962 the executors presented a project of partition, which the trial court approved again without opposition.
The executors (petitioners) sought and obtained an order of trusteeship under clause ten of the will; private respondents (who claimed to be first cousins) objected to the creation of the trust and contested its intrinsic validity before the trial court. The trial court overruled the objections and granted letters of trusteeship to the executors. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated January 18, 1967, affirmed the trial court's approval and, implicitly, the validity of the contested clause.
After a motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals on January 8, 1968 set aside its January 18, 1967 decision only insofar as the validity of clause ten was concerned. The CA held that clause ten — which ordered certain testatrix properties to be administered in perpetuity and expressly prohibited their alienation "kailan man" (at any time) — violated the Civil Code provisions against perpetuities and against making hereditary estate inalienable for more than twenty years (citing Article 867 and Article 870, Civil Code). The CA declared the trust a nullity, adjudged intestate succession as to those properties, and remanded to the trial court.
Petitioners sought review in this Court by petition for certiorari asking that the CA resolution of January 8, 1968 be set aside and the CA's earlier January 18, 1967 decision (which affirmed the trial court order of May 11, 1964) be reinstated. The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory rule on inalienability and the authorities on will interpretation and, reversing the CA's January 8, 1968 resolution, held the challenged clause valid insofar as it prohibited alienation for the first twenty years, thereby reinstating the CA's January 18, 1967 decision.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly set aside its earlier decision and declare clause ten of the will void as creating a perpetual prohibition of alienation in violation of the Civil Code, thus rendering the trust a nullity and ordering intestate succession?
- If clause ten contains an express prohibition of alienation "kailan man," is the provision invalid in whole, or does Article 870, Civil Code permit the prohibition to be effective for the first twenty years and render only the excess (beyond twenty years) void?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)