Case Summary (G.R. No. 31703)
Factual Background
Ana Maria Alcantara’s will (probated) named her niece-in-law, Carmen Garchitorena, as sole and universal heir. A deposit of ₱21,428.58, representing the final liquidation of Alcantara’s credit, was made in Carmen’s name at La Urbana, Manila. Mariano Garchitorena held a judgment for ₱7,872.23 against Joaquin Perez Alcantara (Carmen’s husband) and caused the sheriff to attach the La Urbana deposit.
Procedural History
Carmen secured a preliminary injunction preventing execution on the attached deposit, claiming it belonged to the fideicommissary heirs (her children). The trial court found in her favor, held that the deposit belonged to those children, dissolved the attachment, made the injunction permanent, and awarded costs against Mariano. Mariano appealed.
Applicable Law
Civil Code of the Philippines (Act No. 386), particularly provisions on testamentary substitution (Arts. 774, 781, 783) and fideicommissary substitution doctrine as expounded in prevailing jurisprudence and scholarly commentary.
Issue on Substitute Heir Institution
Whether the will’s clauses constitute a simple substitution (direct replacement of heirs) or a fideicommissary substitution (heir-fiduciary with obligation to preserve and transmit to second heir). The appellants argued for simple substitution; the appellee contended for fideicommissary substitution.
Interpretation of Clauses IX, X, and XI
• Clause IX instituted Carmen as sole and universal heir, entitled to enjoy the estate after debts and legacies.
• Clause X directed that, should Carmen die, the entire estate pass unimpaired to her surviving children, with accretion among them.
• Clause XI provided for administration of the estate if Carmen died while her children were minors.
Characterization as Fideicommissary Substitution
– A simple substitution could arise only if the heir died before the testatrix; here, clauses contemplate the heir’s death after the testatrix.
– Clause IX’s grant of enjoyment but silence on disposal aligns with the usufruct-like nature of a fideicommissary substitution.
– Clause X’s requirement that the whole estate remain unimpaired for the children, and its limitation to two degrees, confirms a fideicommissary intent.
– Clause XI’s detailed administrative provisions for post-testatrix heir death further demonstrate the trust-type arrangement.
Requirements under Civil Code and Jurisprudence
Per scholarly and jurisprudential authorities, a valid fideicommissary substitution requires:
- A primary heir called to enjoyment (Carmen under Clause IX).
- A clear obligation to preserve and transmit the estat
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 31703)
Facts
- Ana Maria Alcantara, now deceased, held a liquidated credit against Andres Garchitorena, which was finally paid and deposited—amounting to ₱21,428.58—with the La Urbana association in Manila in her name.
- Carmen G. de Perez, niece‐in‐law of Ana Maria Alcantara and wife of Joaquin Perez Alcantara, was instituted by will as sole and universal heiress of Ana Maria’s estate.
- Andres Garchitorena is deceased; his son Mariano Garchitorena represented his interests.
- Mariano Garchitorena held a separate money judgment of ₱7,872.23 against Joaquin Perez Alcantara.
- Pursuant to a writ of execution on Mariano’s judgment, Sheriff Jose Casimiro levied an attachment on the ₱21,428.58 deposit at La Urbana.
Procedural History
- Plaintiff secured a preliminary injunction restraining execution of Mariano’s judgment on the attached sum, alleging the deposit belonged to fideicommissary heirs of Ana Maria Alcantara.
- Defendants moved to dissolve the injunction, arguing plaintiff was universal heiress and entitled to the deposit as her own property.
- Trial court held the La Urbana deposit belonged to plaintiff’s children as fideicommissary heirs and issued a final writ of injunction.
- Defendants appealed, assigning errors:
• Denial of trust creation by will (Error 1)
• Misclassification of deposit as property of fideicommissary heirs (Error 2)
• Improperly making injunction permanent and awarding costs (Error 3)
Issue
- Whether the testamentary clauses instituting heirs constitute a fideicommissary substitution, thereby vesting ownership of the ₱21,428.58 deposit in the plaintiff’s children from the testatrix’s death, or whether they create a simple substitution or universal inheritance in the plaintiff alone.
Relevant Will Provisions
- Ninth Clause:
• Institutes Carmen G. de Perez as sole and universal heiress after debts and legacies.
• Directs executrix to deliver the hereditary estate for plaintiff’s enjoyment. - Tenth Clause:
• Substitutes plaintiff’s surviving children to receive