G.R. No. 9426 - People vs. Marasigan

Dona Margarita Rodriguez executed her last will and testament on September 30, 1951.
The will was duly probated on September 23, 1960, and a project of partition was approved by the lower court without opposition.
The will included a contested clause (Clausula Decima O Pang Sampu) which created a trust over a portion of the estate.
The disputed clause provided that certain properties were to be managed under a perpetual prohibition to alienate, except for a specific property which could be alienated under strict conditions.

Petitioners (Emeterio A. Rodriguez, in substitution of Rufino A. Rodriguez, and Jose Ayala as executors) sought to enforce the will as executed.
Private respondents, claimed to be first cousins of the deceased, objected to the creation of the trust and the restrictive provision in the will.
The lower court granted letters of trusteeship in favor of the petitioners based on the will’s trust creation, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals on January 18, 1967.
The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, prompting the Court of Appeals to modify its decision on January 8, 1968 concerning the validity of the trust clause, particularly the “perpetual prohibition to alienate” aspect.

At the time of her death, the testatrix had no compulsory or forced heirs, thus was free to dispose of her properties, including transferring them to strangers.
The disputed trust clause specifically prohibited the mortgaging or sale of the properties “forever,” which raised questions under Articles 867 and 870 of the Civil Code.
The original approval of the project of partition was taken to imply that the intrinsic validity of the will’s provisions could not be questioned; however, the later resolution by the Court of Appeals revisited this matter.
The matter led to a petition for certiorari seeking to review the January 8, 1968 resolution modifying the earlier decision.

The resolution of January 8, 1968 by the Court of Appeals challenged the validity of the trust clause by invoking the statutory prohibition against dispositions that render property inalienable for more than twenty years.
Petitioners contended that the trust clause, if interpreted to conform to the controlling legal norms, was valid for a period of twenty years before the prohibition would take effect.
The case ultimately necessitated an examination of whether the testatrix’s intention as expressed in her will should be given full effect, or whether it should be modified in light of the statutory limitations.

Whether the disputed clause in the will imposing a “perpetual prohibition to alienate” the property contravenes Articles 867 and 870 of the Civil Code.
Whether, if interpreted to limit the prohibition to the first twenty-year period, the provision is compliant with the law.

Whether the testatrix’s clear and unequivocal intention in the will should be given effect over judicial modifications.
How to reconcile the requirement to avoid intestacy with the need to respect a testator’s testamentary freedom.

Whether the modification of the lower court’s order by the resolution of January 8, 1968 is proper.
What impact the approved project of partition has on the dispute regarding the intrinsic validity of the will’s trust clause.