Case Summary (G.R. No. L-14474)
Procedural Background and Estate Administration
After probate in Special Proceedings No. 894 (Court of First Instance of Manila), the estate administration concluded in 1950. Thereafter, BPI acted as trustee to manage and distribute the residue to the codicil’s beneficiaries.
Death of Filomena Diaz and Subsequent Petition
Filomena Diaz died on February 8, 1954, survived by two daughters: Milagros and Onesima. Milagros had seven legitimate children. On March 19, 1958, Onesima petitioned in Special Proceedings No. 9226 to have Filomena’s 10 percent share divided equally between herself and Milagros, excluding Milagros’s children.
Trial Court’s Ruling and Ground for Denial
By order of May 23, 1958, the trial court denied Onesima’s petition. It held that the share “pertains to her legitimate descendants” and must be distributed among all legitimate descendants—children and grandchildren alike—citing its earlier September 28, 1959 resolution.
Appellant’s Arguments on Interpretation of “Descendientes Legítimos”
On appeal, Onesima argued (1) the lower court misread the Supreme Court’s February 28, 1958 decision in Arguelles v. Belen de Olaguéra, and (2) “sus descendientes legítimos” should be confined to descendants nearest in degree (Filomena’s two daughters), excluding grandchildren. She invoked Civil Code Art. 751 (old Art. 959) on general legacies to relatives.
Supreme Court’s Clarification of Prior Decision
The Supreme Court explained that its prior ruling did not settle the interpretation of Clause 10. It only held that the estate administrator was not the proper party to raise the issue. The meaning of “sus descendientes legítimos” remained undetermined until this appeal.
Application of Civil Code on Substitution and Representation
Clause 10 effects a vulgar substitution with multiple substitutes for each legatee, permitted by Art. 778 (old Art. 860). The question is whether “descendientes legítimos” designates the entire class of lineal descendants or only those nearest in degree.
Distinction between “Hijos” and “Descendientes” in Testator’s Intent
The Court observed that the testator distinguished between “hijos” and “descendientes” elsewhere in Clause 10—mentioning “cuatro hijos” of his brother and, separately, “sus descendientes legítimos.” This usage demonstrates the testator’s understanding that grandchildren (descendants) differ from children, indicating a broader class.
Consideration of Successive Substitutions and Accretion Rules
To construe “descendientes legítimos” as nearest with representation would imply the testator intended to override:
• Accretion among co-legatees (Arts. 982, 1016, 1019)
• Equal shares rule for legatees without designated shares (Art. 846)
• Filling of vacancies by accretion or by the testator’s heirs (Art. 986, 1022)
Absent clear evi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-14474)
Facts and Background
- In a codicil dated September 29, 1944, Benigno Diaz provided for substitution (“sustitucion vulgar”) of legatees in case of their death, excluding widowed spouses.
- Clause 10 of the codicil directed that, after 10–15 years post-mortem and upon advantageous sale of estate property, ₱1,000 be allocated to each of the four children of his deceased brother Fabian, expenses reserved for ten years of masses, and the remainder distributed:
• Isabel M. de Santiago – 50%
• Children of Domingo Legarda – 30%
• Filomena Diaz – 10%
• Nestor M. Santiago – 10% - Benigno Diaz died on November 7, 1944; his will and codicil were admitted to probate in Special Proceedings No. 894, CFI Manila.
- Administration of his estate closed in 1950; the Bank of the Philippine Islands was appointed trustee for the legatees.
- Filomena Diaz died February 8, 1954, leaving two legitimate children: Milagros Belen de Olaguera (married, with seven legitimate children) and Onesima D. Belen (single).
Procedural History
- On March 19, 1958, Onesima D. Belen filed a petition in Special Proceedings No. 9226 (CFI Manila), asserting that Filomena Diaz’s 10% legacy should be divided only between herself and Milagros, excluding Milagros’s seven children.
- On May 23, 1958, the trial court denied Onesima’s petition, relying on its September 28, 1959 resolution that “descendientes legitimos” includes grandchildren and that representation does not exclude more distant descendants.
- Onesima appeal