Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The fourteen usufructuaries leased the fishpond first to HELD: Yes. Appellants argue that it is the surviving
one Gil P. Policarpio who used to give them usufructuaries who are entitled to receive the shares of
proportionately the usufruct corresponding to them. the deceased by virtue of Article 611 of the Civil Code
During the term of the lease, however, three of the which provides "A usufruct constituted in favor of several
usufructuaries died, namely, Francisco Lorenzo, Leoncio persons living at the time of its constitution shall not be
M. Perez and Servillano Perez, and so, upon their death, extinguished until the death of the last survivor." On the
both the naked owner and the remaining usufructuaries other hand, appellee contends that the most a usufruct
claimed the shares corresponding to the deceased can endure if constituted in favor of a natural person is
usufructuaries in the amount of P10,714.26. Because of the lifetime of the usufructuary, because a usufruct is
these conflicting claims, the lessee withheld said extinguished by the death of the usufructuary unless a
amount. contrary intention clearly appears (Article 603, Civil
Code). Hence, appellee argues, when the three
Subsequently, on May 31, 1962, the surviving usufructuaries died, their usufructuary rights were
usufructuaries leased the fishpond to one Batas Riego extinguished and whatever rights they had to the fruits
de Dios who, after executing the contract of lease, came reverted to the naked owner.
to know of the existing conflicting claims, and not
knowing to whom of the claimants the shares of the If the theory of appellee in the sense that the death of
deceased usufructuaries should be paid, said lessee the three usufructuaries has the effect of consolidating
was also constrained to withhold the corresponding part their rights with that of the naked owner were correct,
of the usufruct of the property. So on November 15, Article 611 of the Civil Code would be superfluous,
1962, the two lessees commenced the present action for because Article 603 already provides that the death of
interpleader against both the naked owner and surviving the usufructuary extinguishes the usufruct unless the
usufructuaries to compel them to interplead and litigate contrary appears. Furthermore, said theory would cause
their conflicting claims. a partial extinction of the usufruct, contrary to the
provisions of Article 611 which expressly provides that
Defendant Jose V. Salamat avers as special defense the usufruct shall not be extinguished until the death of
that he is the successor-in-interest of Teodorica de la the last survivor. The theory of appellee cannot,
Cruz and as such he is entitled to the shares therefore, be entertained.
corresponding to the three deceased usufructuaries
inasmuch as the usufruct in their favor was automatically The well-known Spanish commentators on the
extinguished by death and became merged with the counterpart of Article 611 we have copied above which
naked owner. implicitly provides that the share of a usufructuary who
dies in the meantime inures to the benefit of the
The surviving usufructuaries, on the other hand, adhere surviving usufructuaries, also uphold the view we here
to the theory that since the usufructuaries were instituted express.
simultaneously by the late Damasa Crisostomo, the
death of the three usufructuaries did not extinguish the It, therefore, appears that the Spanish commentators on
usufruct, hence, the surviving usufructuaries are entitled the subject are unanimous that there is accretion among
to receive the shares corresponding to the deceased usufructuaries who are constituted at the same time
usufructuaries, the usufruct to continue until the death of when one of them dies before the end of the usufruct.
the last usufructuary. The only exception is if the usufruct is constituted in a
last will and testament and the testator makes a contrary
When the case was called for hearing, the parties provision. Here there is none. On the contrary, the
agreed to submit the case for decision upon the testatrix constituted the usufruct in favor of the children
submission of their respective memoranda considering of her three cousins with the particular injunction that
that the issue involved was purely legal in nature, and on they are the only ones to enjoy the same as long as they
March 29, 1963, the trial court rendered decision the live, from which it can be implied that, should any of
dispositive part of which reads as follows: them die, the share of the latter shall accrue to the
surviving ones. These provisions of the will are clear.
They do not admit of any other interpretation.
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring defendant Jose V. Salamat entitled to
the sum of P10,714.25 representing the shares Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The
of the three deceased usufructuaries in the lease eleven surviving usufructuaries are hereby declared to
rental due from plaintiff Gil Policarpio, ordering be entitled to the shares of the three deceased
usufructuaries and, hence, as a corollary, appellees Gil the decedent. In this connection attention is directed to
P. Policarpio and Batas Riego de Dios are hereby article 764 of the Civil Code wherein it is declared,
ordered to pay to them the money withheld by them among other things, that a will may be valid even though
respectively representing the shares of the deceased the person instituted as heir is disqualified to inherit. Our
usufructuaries. No costs. attention is next invited to article 912 wherein it is
declared, among other things, that legal succession
Torres v. Lopez takes place if the heir dies before the testator and also
when the heir instituted is disqualified to succeed. Upon
these provisions an argument is planted conducting to
FACTS: On January 3, 1924, Tomas Rodriguez executed
the conclusion that the will of Tomas Rodriguez was
his last will and testament, in the second clause of which
valid, notwithstanding the fact that one of the individuals
he declared:
named as heirs in the will was disqualified to take, and
that as a consequence Margarita Lopez’s entitled to
I institute as the only and universal heirs to all inherit the share of said disqualified heir.
my property, my cousin Vicente F. Lopez and his
daughter Luz Lopez de Bueno.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellee clearly has the
better right
Prior to the time of the execution of this will the testator,
Tomas Rodriguez, had been judicially declared
HELD: Yes. We are the opinion that this contention is
incapable of taking care of himself and had been placed
untenable and that the appellee clearly has the better
under the care of his cousin Vicente F. Lopez, as
right. In playing the provisions of the Code it is the duty
guardian. On January 7, 1924, or only four days after the
of the court to harmonize its provisions as far as
will above-mentioned was made, Vicente F. Lopez died;
possible, giving due effect to all; and in case of conflict
and the testator, Tomas Rodriguez, died on February 25,
between two provisions the more general is to be
1924, thereafter. At the time the will was made Vicente F.
considered as being limited by the more specific. As
Lopez had not presented his final accounts as guardian,
between articles 912 and 983, it is obvious that the
and no such accounts had been presented by him at the
former is the more general of the two, dealing, as it does,
time of his death. Margariat Lopez was a cousin and
with the general topic of intestate succession while the
nearest relative of the decedent. The will referred to, and
latter is more specific, defining the particular conditions
after having been contested, has been admitted to
under which accretion takes place. In case of conflict,
probate by judicial determination.
therefore, the provisions of the former article must be
considered limited by the latter. Indeed, in subsection 3
Our discussion of the legal problem presented should of article 912 the provision with respect to intestate
begin with article 753 of the Civil Code which in effect succession is expressly subordinated to article 983 by
declares that, with certain exceptions in favor of near the expression "and (if) there is no right of accretion." It
relatives, no testamentary provision shall be valid when is true that the same express qualification is not found in
made by a ward in favor of his guardian before the final subsection 4 of article 912, yet it must be so understood,
accounts of the latter have been approved. This in view of the rule of interpretation above referred to, by
provision is of undoubted application to the situation which the more specific is held to control the general.
before us; and the provision made in the will of Tomas Besides, this interpretation supplies the only possible
Rodriguez in favor of Vicente F. Lopez was not any means of harmonizing the two provisions. In addition to
general incapacity on his part, but a special incapacity this, article 986 of the Civil Code affords independent
due to the accidental relation of guardian and ward proof that intestate succession to a vacant portion can
existing between the parties. only occur when accretion is impossible.
We now pass to article 982 of the Civil Code, defining The attorneys for the appellant direct attention to the fact
the right of accretion. It is there declared, in effect, that that, under paragraph 4 of article 912, intestate
accretion take place in a testamentary succession, first succession occurs when the heir instituted is disqualified
when the two or more persons are called to the same to succeed (incapaz de suceder), while, under the last
inheritance or the same portion thereof without special provision in paragraph 2 of article 982, accretion occurs
designation of shares; and secondly, when one of the when one of the persons called to inherit under the will is
persons so called dies before the testator or renounces disqualified to receive the inheritance (incapaz de
the inheritance or is disqualifying to receive it. In the recibirla). A distinction is then drawn between incapacity
case before us we have a will calling Vicente F. Lopez to succeed and incapacity to take, and it is contended
and his daughter, Luz Lopez de Bueno, to the same that the disability of Vicente F. Lopez was such as to
inheritance without special designation of shares. In bring the case under article 912 rather than 982. We are
addition to this, one of the persons named as heir has of the opinion that the case cannot be made to turn upon
predeceased the testator, this person being also so refined an interpretation of the language of the Code,
disqualified to receive the estate even if he had been and at any rate the disability to which Vicente F. Lopez
alive at the time of the testator's death. This article (982) was subject was not a general disability to succeed but
is therefore also of exact application to the case in hand; an accidental incapacity to receive the legacy, a
and its effect is to give to the survivor, Luz Lopez de consideration which makes a case for accretion rather
Bueno, not only the undivided half which she would have than for intestate succession.
received in conjunction with her father if he had been
alive and qualified to take, but also the half which
The opinions of the commentators, so far as they have
pertained to him. There was no error whatever,
expressed themselves on the subject, tend to the
therefore, in the order of the trial court declaring Luz
conclusion that the right of accretion with regard to
Lopez de Bueno entitled to the whole estate.
portions of an inheritance left vacant by the death or
disqualification of one of the heirs or his renunciation of
The argument in favor of the appellant supposes that the inheritance is governed by article 912, without being
there has supervened a partial intestacy with respect to limited, to the extent supposed in appellant's brief, by
the half of the estate which was intended for Vicente F. provisions of the Code relative to intestate succession
Lopez and that this half has descended to the appellant, (Manresa, Comentarios al Codigo Civil Español, 4th ed.,
Margarita Lopez, as next of kin and sole heir at law of vol. VII, pp. 310, 311; id., 34; 13 Mucius Scaevola, pp.
372, 373, 285-287; 16 Mucius Scaevola, 186). Says
Escriche: "It is to be understood that one of the coheirs
or colegatees fails if nonexistent at the time of the
making of the will, or he renounces the inheritance or
legacy, if he dies before the testator, if the condition be
not fulfilled, or if he becomes otherwise
incapacitated. . . . (Diccionario de Legislacion y
Jurisprudencia, vol. I, p. 225.)
Petitioner Sofia filed for the probate of the will but the
legal wife and her children opposed alleging that the will
was procured through improper and undue influence and
that there was an admission of concubinage with the
petitioner.