Title
Blas vs. Santos
Case
G.R. No. L-14070
Decision Date
Mar 29, 1961
Simeon Blas’ heirs sued Maxima Santos’ estate for failing to fulfill her promise in Exhibit "A" to leave half her conjugal share to them. The Supreme Court ruled the promise was enforceable, ordering compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-14070)

The Promise in Exhibit A and Its Circumstances

On December 26, 1936, Simeon directed the preparation of Exhibit A, signed by Maxima Santos, in which she acknowledged her husband’s will and promised on her honor to devise, in her own testament, one-half of her conjugal share to the heirs and legatees named in Simeon’s will. The document was executed to prevent litigation over the unliquidated first conjugal partnership.

Proceedings Below and Trial Court Ruling

Plaintiffs sued the administratrix of Maxima’s estate to enforce the promise in Exhibit A and recover P50,000 in damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that Exhibit A lacked consideration, was not a valid contract or will, dealt with future inheritance, and was unenforceable. Counterclaims and cross-claims were likewise dismissed.

Issues on Appeal: Nature and Enforceability of Exhibit A

The Supreme Court faced the question whether Exhibit A constituted:

  1. A valid compromise or contract with sufficient consideration to avoid litigation over conjugal assets;
  2. A prohibited pactum successorium on future inheritance as barred by Article 1271 of the old Civil Code;
  3. A basis for specific performance and damages.

Exhibit A as Compromise under Article 1809, Spanish Civil Code

The Court held that Exhibit A is a compromise agreement: each party relinquished certain claims (the first-marriage heirs abandoned liquidation proceedings, and Maxima bound herself to future disposition). This pact avoided protracted litigation and had adequate consideration—the mutual forbearance of rights over existing conjugal properties acquired by Simeon.

No Violation of the Prohibition on Contracts Over Future Inheritance

Article 1271 prohibits contracts on the universal or fractional estate “to be acquired” at death. Exhibit A, however, concerned specific, existing conjugal assets defined in Simeon’s will; it did not contemplate an indefinite future estate. Consequently, it fell outside the statutory ban on agreements over future inheritance.

Partition Proceedings and Prescription Do Not Bar the Action

The heirs by the first marriage failed to contest the partition of Simeon’s estate—approved in 1939—because they relied on Exhibit A. Their cause of action to enforce Exhibit A arose only upon Maxima’s death in 1956, when she failed to carry out her promise. The complaint, filed on December 27, 1956, was timely under Article 1969 (old Civil Code), and the partition decree did not extinguish the contractual obligation.

Non-Compliance and Remedy Ordered

Analys

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.