Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

 

Home of Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

www.chanrobles.com

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14070. March 29, 1961. ]

MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, MANUEL GERVACIO BLAS, LEONCIO GERVACIO BLAS and LOIDA GERVACIO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROSALINA SANTOS, in her capacity as Special Administratrix of the Estate of the deceased MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS, in Sp. Proc. No. 2524, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Defendant-Appellee. MARTA GERVACIO BLAS and DR. JOSE CHIVI, Defendants-Appellants.

Teofilo Sison and Nicanor Sison, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

De los Santos, Caluag, Pascual and Felizardo for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. WILLS AND TESTAMENTS; FUTURE INHERITANCE; WHEN AGREEMENT TO TRANSMIT ONE-HALF OF THE CONJUGAL SHARE NOT DEEMED A CONTRACT ON FUTURE INHERITANCE. — A document signed by the testator’s wife, promising that she would respect and obey all the dispositions in the latter’s will, and that she would hold one-half of her share in the conjugal assets in trust for the heirs and legatees of her husband in his will, with the obligation of conveying the same to such of his heirs or legatees as she might choose in her last will and testament, is a compromise and at the same time a contract with sufficient cause or consideration.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION UPON DEATH. — The action to enforce the wife’s promise to convey in her testament, upon her death, one-half of the conjugal properties she would receive as her share in the conjugal properties, did not arise until and after her death when it was found that she did not comply with her promise. (Article 1969, old Civil Code).

3. ID.; ID.; DEFINITION. — Future inheritance is any property or right not in existence or capable of determination at the time of the contract, that a person may in the future acquire by succession.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This action was instituted by plaintiffs against the administratrix of the estate of Maxima Santos, to secure a judicial declaration that one-half of the properties left by said Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, the greater bulk of which are set forth and described in the project of partition presented in the proceedings for the administration of the estate of the deceased Simeon Blas, had been promised by the deceased Maxima Santos to be delivered upon her death and in her will to the plaintiffs, and requesting that the said properties so promised be adjudicated to the plaintiffs. The complaint also prays for actual damages in the a mount of P50,000. (Record on Appeal, pp. 1-65.) The alleged promise of the deceased Maxima Santos is contained in a document executed by Maxima Santos on December 26, 1936 attached to the complaint as Annex "H" and introduced at the trial as Exhibit "A." (Ibid., pp. 258-259.) The complaint also alleges that the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit certain properties enumerated in paragraph 3 thereof, situated in Malabon, Rizal and Obando, Bulacan, but which properties have already been included in the inventory of the estate of the deceased Simeon Blas and evidently partitioned and conveyed to his heirs in the proceedings for the administration of his (Simeon Blas) estate.

Defendant, who is the administratrix of the estate of the deceased Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, filed an answer with a counterclaim, and later, an amended answer and a counterclaim. The said amended answer admits the allegations of the complaint as to her capacity as administratrix; the death of Simeon Blas on January 3, 1937; the fact that Simeon Blas and Marta Cruz begot three children, only one of whom, namely, Eulalia Blas, left legitimate descendants; that Simeon Blas contracted a second marriage with Maxima Santos on June 28, 1898. She denies, for lack of sufficient information and belief, knowledge of the first marriage of Simeon Blas to Marta Cruz, the averment that Simeon Blas and Marta Cruz acquired properties situated in Obando, Bulacan, that said properties were utilized as capital, etc. As special defenses, she alleges that the properties of the spouses Blas and Santos had been settled and liquidated in the project of partition of the estate of said Simeon Blas; that pursuant to the project of partition, plaintiffs and some defendants had already received the respective properties adjudicated to them; that the plaintiffs and the defendants Marta Gervacio and Jose Chivi are estopped from impugning the validity of the project of partition of the estate of the deceased Simeon Blas and from questioning the ownership in the properties conveyed in the project of partition to Maxima Santos as her own exclusive property; that the testament executed by Maxima Santos is valid, the plaintiffs having no right to recover any portion of Maxima Santos’ estate now under administration by the court. A counterclaim for the amount of P50,000 as damages is also included in the answer, as also a cross-claim against Marta Gervacio Blas and Jose Chivi.

Trial of the case was conducted and, thereafter, the court, Hon. Gustavo Victoriano, presiding, rendered judgment dismissing the complaint, with costs against plaintiff, and dismissing also the counterclaim and cross-claim filed by the defendants. From this decision, the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.

The facts essential to an understanding of the issues involved in the case may be briefly summarized as follows: Simeon Blas contracted a first marriage with Marta Cruz sometime before 1898. They had three children, only one of whom, Eulalia, left children, namely, Maria Gervacio Blas, one of the plaintiffs, Marta Gervacio Blas, one of the defendants, and Lazaro Gervacio Blas. Lazaro died in 1953 and is survived by three legitimate children who are plaintiffs herein, namely, Manuel Gervacio Blas, Leoncio Gervacio Blas and Loida Gervacio Blas. Marta Cruz died in 1898, and the following year, Simeon Blas contracted a second marriage with Maxima Santos. At the time of this second marriage, no liquidation of the properties acquired by Simeon Blas and Marta Cruz was made. Three of the properties left are fishponds located in Obando, Bulacan. Maxima Santos does not appear to have apportioned properties to her marriage with Simeon Blas.

On December 26, 1936, only over a week before his death on January 9, 1937, Simeon Blas executed a last will and testament. In the said testament Simeon Blas makes the following declarations:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


"2. Sa panahon ng aking pangalawang asawa, MAXIMA SANTOS DE BLAS, ay nagkaroon ako at nakatipon ng mga kayamanan (bienes) at pag-aari (propiedades) na ang lahat ng lupa, palaisdaan at iba pang pag-aari ay umaabot sa halagang ANIM NA RAAN PITONG PU’T WALONG DAAN LIBO WALONG DAAN AT WALONG PUNG PISO (678,880.00) sang-ayon sa mga halaga sa amillarimento (valor Amillarado.)"

II


"1. Ang kalahati ng lahat ng aming pag-aari, matapos mabayaran ang lahat ng aking o aming pag-kakautang na mag-asawa, kung mayroon man, yayamang ang lahat ng ito ay kita sa loob ng matrimonio (bienes gananciales) ay bahagi ng para sa aking asawa, Maxima Santos de Blas, sang-ayon sa batas." (Record on Appeal, pp. 250-251.)

The above testamentary provisions may be translated as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


"2. During my second marriage with Maxima Santos de Blas, I possessed and acquired wealth and properties, consisting of lands, fishponds and other kinds of properties, the total assessed value of which reached the amount of P678,880.00."cralaw virtua1aw library

II


"1. One-half of our properties, after the payment of my and our indebtedness, all these properties having been acquired during marriage (conjugal properties), constitutes the share of my wife Maxima Santos de Blas, according to the law."cralaw virtua1aw library

At the time of the execution of said will, Andres Pascual, a son- in-law of the testator, and Avelino Pascual and others, were present. Andres Pascual had married a descendant by the first marriage. The will was prepared by Andres Pascual, with the help of his nephew Avelino Pascual. The testator asked Andres Pascual to prepare a document which was presented in court as Exhibit "A", thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Was there anybody who asked you to prepare this document?

A Don Simeon Blas asked me to prepare this document (referring to Exhibit `A’)." (t.s.n., Sarmiento, p. 24).

The reason why the testator ordered the preparation of Exhibit "A" was because the properties that the testator had acquired during his first marriage with Marta Cruz had not been liquidated and were not separated from those acquired during the second marriage. Pascual’s testimony is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q To whom do you refer with the word `they’?

A Simeon Blas and his first wife, Marta Cruz. When Marta Cruz died they had not made a liquidation of their conjugal properties and so all those properties were included all in the assets of the second marriage, and that is the reason why this document was prepared." (t.s.n., Sarmiento, p. 36.)

The above testimony is fully corroborated by that of Leoncio Gervacio, son-in-law of Simeon Blas:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Please state to the Court?

A My children were claiming from their grandfather Simeon Blas the properties left by their grandmother Marta Cruz in the year 1936.

x       x       x


"Q And what happened with that claim of your children against Simeon Blas regarding these assets or properties of the first marriage that were left after the death of Marta Cruz in 1936?

A The claim was not pushed through because they reached into an agreement whereby the parties Simeon Blas, Maxima Santos, Maria Gervacio Blas, Marta Gervacio Blas and Lazaro Gervacio Blas agreed that Simeon Blas and Maxima Blas will give one-half of the estate of Simeon Blas." (t.s.n., Sarmiento, pp. 143-144).

The document which was thus prepared and which is marked as Exhibit "A" reads in Tagalog, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"MAUNAWA NG SINO MANG MAKABABASA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Na akong si MAXIMA SANTOS DE BLAS, nasa hustong gulang kasal kay SIMEON BLAS, taga bayan ng Malabon, Rizal, Philippines, sa pamamagitan ng kasulatang ito ay malaya kong ipinahahayag:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Na aking nabasa at naunawa ang testamento at huling kalooban na nilagdaan ng aking asawa, SIMEON BLAS, at ipinahahayag ko sa ilalim ng aking karangalan at sa harap ng aking asawa na igagalang at pagpipitaganan ang lahat at bawa’t isang bahagi ng nabanggit na testamento at ipinangangako ko pa sa pamamagitan ng kasulatang ito na ang lahat ng maiiwang pag-aari at kayamanan naming mag-asawa, na nauukol at bahaging para sa akin sa paggawa ko naman ng aking testamento ay ipagkakaloob ko ang kalahati (1/2 sa mga herederos at legatarios o pinamamanahan ng aking nabanggit na asawa, SIMEON BLAS, sa kaniyang testamento, na ako’y makapipili o makahihirang sa kahi’t kangino sa kanila ng aking pagbibigyan at pamamanahan sang-ayon sa paggalang, paglilingkod, at pakikisama na gagawin sa akin.

SA KATUNAYAN NG LAHAT NG ITO, ay nilagdaan ko ang kasulatang ito ngayon ika 26 ng Diciembre ng taong 1936, dito sa San Francisco del Monte, San Juan, Rizal, Philippines." (Exh. "A", pp. 29-30 Appellant’s brief).

(Fdo.) MAXIMA SANTOS DE BLAS

and which, translated into English, reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That I Maxima Santos de Blas, of legal age, married to Simeon Blas, resident of Malabon, Rizal, Philippines, voluntarily state:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That I have read and knew the contents of the will signed by my husband, Simeon Blas, (2) and I promise on my word of honor in the presence of my husband that I will respect and obey all and every disposition of said will (3) and furthermore, I promise in this document that all the properties my husband and I will leave, the portion and share corresponding to me when I make my will, I will give one-half (1/2) to the heirs and legatees or the beneficiaries named in the will of my husband, (4) and that I can select or choose any of them to whom I will give depending upon the respect, service and treatment accorded to me.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this document this 26th day of December, 1936 at San Francisco del Monte, San Juan, Rizal, Philippines." (Exh. `A’, pp. 30-31, Appellant’s brief).

(Sgd.) MAXIMA SANTOS DE BLAS

The court below held that said Exhibit "A" has not created any right in favor of plaintiffs which can serve as a basis of the complaint; that neither can it be considered as a valid and enforceable contract for lack of consideration and because it deals with future inheritance. The court also declared that Exhibit "A" is not a will because it does not comply with the requisites for the execution of a will; nor could it be considered as a donation, etc.

Both the court below in its decision and the appellees in their brief before us, argue vehemently that the heirs of Simeon Blas and his wife Marta Cruz can no longer make any claim for the unliquidated conjugal properties acquired during said first marriage, because the same were already included in the mass of properties constituting the estate of the deceased Simeon Blas and in the adjudications made by virtue of his will, and that the action to recover the same has prescribed. This contention is correct. The descendants of Marta Cruz can no longer claim the conjugal properties that she and her husband may have acquired during their marriage although no liquidation of such properties and delivery thereof to the heirs of Marta Cruz have been made, no action to recover said properties having been presented in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Simeon Blas.

But the principal basis for the plaintiffs’ action in the case at bar is the document Exhibit "A." It is not disputed that this document was prepared at the instance of Simeon Blas for the reason that the conjugal properties of his first marriage had not been liquidated; that it was prepared at the same time as the will of Simeon Blas on December 26, 1936, at the instance of the latter himself. It is also not disputed that the document was signed by Maxima Santos and one copy thereof, which was presented in court as Exhibit "A", was kept by plaintiffs’ witness Andres Pascual.

Plaintiffs-appellants argue before us that Exhibit "A" is both a trust agreement and a contract in the nature of a compromise to avoid litigation. Defendants-appellees, in answer, claim that it is neither a trust agreement nor a compromise agreement. Considering that the properties of the first marriage of Simeon Blas had not been liquidated when Simeon Blas executed his will on December 26, 1936, and the further fact that such properties were actually included as conjugal properties acquired during the second marriage, we find, as contended by plaintiffs-appellants, that the preparation and execution of Exhibit "A" was ordered by Simeon Blas evidently to prevent his heirs by his first marriage from contesting his will and demanding liquidation of the conjugal properties acquired during his first marriage, and an accounting of the fruits and proceeds thereof from the time of the death of his first wife.

Exhibit "A", therefore, appears to be the compromise defined in Article 1809 of the Civil Code of Spain, in force at the time of the execution of Exhibit "A", which provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Compromise is a contract by which each of the parties in interest, by giving, promising, or retaining something avoids the provocation of a suit or terminates one which has already been instituted." (Italics supplied.)

Exhibit "A" states that the maker (Maxima Santos) had read and knew the contents of the will of her husband Simeon Blas — she was evidently referring to the declaration in the will (of Simeon Blas) that his properties are conjugal properties and one-half thereof belongs to her (Maxima Santos) as her share of the conjugal assets under the law. The agreement or promise that Maxima Santos makes in Exhibit "A" is to hold one half of her said share in the conjugal assets in trust for the heirs and legatees of her husband in his will, with the obligation of conveying the same to such of his heirs or legatees as she may choose in her last will and testament. It is to be noted that the conjugal properties referred to are those that were actually existing at that time, December 26, 1936. Simeon Blas died on January 9, 1937. On June 2, 1937, an inventory of the properties left by him, all considered conjugal, was submitted by Maxima Santos herself as administratrix of his estate. A list of said properties is found in Annex "E", the complete inventory submitted by Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, as administratrix of the estate of her husband, dated March 10, 1939. The properties which were given to Maxima Santos as her share in the conjugal properties are also specified in the project of partition submitted by said Maxima Santos herself on March 14, 1939. (Record on Appeal, pp. 195-241.) Under Exhibit "A", therefore, Maxima Santos contracted the obligation and promised to give one-half of the above indicated properties to the heirs and legatees of Simeon Blas.

Counsel for the defendant-appellee claims Exhibit "A" is a worthless piece of paper because it is not a will nor a donation mortis causa nor a contract. As we have indicated above, it is a compromise and at the same time a contract with a sufficient cause or consideration. It is also contended that it deals with future inheritance. We do not think that Exhibit "A" is a contract on future inheritance. It is an obligation or promise made by the maker to transmit one-half of her share in the conjugal properties acquired with her husband, which properties are stated or declared to be conjugal properties in the will of the husband. The conjugal properties were in existence at the time of the execution of Exhibit "A" on December 26, 1936. As a matter of fact, Maxima Santos included these properties in her inventory of her husband’s estate of June 2, 1937. The promise does not refer to any properties that the maker would inherit upon the death of her husband. The document refers to existing properties which she will receive by operation of law on the death of her husband, because it is her share in the conjugal assets. That the kind of agreement or promise contained in Exhibit "A" is not void under Article 1271 of the old Civil Code, has been decided by the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of October 8, 1915, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Que si bien el art. 1271 del Codigo civil dispone que sobre la herencia futura no se podra celebrar otros contratos que aquellos cuyo objeto sea practicar entre vivos la division de un caudal, conforme al articulo 1056, esta prohibicion no es aplicable al caso, porque la obligacion que contrajo el recurrido en contrato privado de otorgar testamento é instituir heredera a su sobrina de los bienes que adquirio en virtud de herencia, procedentes de su finada consorte que le quedasen sobrantes después de pagar las deudas, y del ganancial que se expresa, asi como de reconocer, ademas, con alguna cosa a otros sobrinos, se refiere a bienes conocidos y determinados existentes cuando tal compromiso se otorgo, y no a la universalidad de una herencia que, segun el art. 659 del citado Codigo civil, se determina a muerte del causante, constituyendola todos los bienes, derechos y obligaciones que por ella no se hayan extinguido: . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)

It will be noted that what is prohibited to be the subject matter of a contract under Article 1271 of the Civil Code is "future inheritance." To us future inheritance is any property or right not in existence or capable of determination at the time of the contract, that a person may in the future acquire by succession. The properties subject of the contract Exhibit "A" are well-defined properties, existing at the time of the agreement, which Simeon Blas declares in his testament as belonging to his wife as her share in the conjugal partnership. Certainly his wife’s actual share in the conjugal properties may not be considered as future inheritance because they were actually in existence at the time Exhibit "A" was executed.

The trial court held that the plaintiffs-appellants in the case at bar are concluded by the judgment rendered in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Simeon Blas for the reason that the properties left by him belonged to himself and his wife Maxima Santos; that the project of partition in the said case, adjudicating to Maxima Santos one-half as her share in the conjugal properties, is a bar to another action on the same subject matter, Maxima Santos having became absolute owner of the said properties adjudicated in her favor. As already adverted to above, these contentions would be correct if applied to the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants that said properties were acquired with the first wife of Simeon Blas, Marta Cruz. But the main ground upon which plaintiffs base their present action is the document Exhibit "A", already fully considered above. As this private document contains the express promise made by Maxima Santos to convey in her testament, upon her death, one-half of the conjugal properties she would receive as her share in the conjugal properties, the action to enforce the said promise did not arise until and after her death when it was found that she did not comply with her above-mentioned promise. (Art. 1969, old Civil Code.) The argument that the failure of the plaintiffs-appellants herein to oppose the project of partition in the settlement of the estate of Simeon Blas, especially that portion of the project which assigned to Maxima Santos one-half of all the conjugal properties, bars their present action, is, therefore, devoid of merit. It may be added that plaintiffs-appellants did not question the validity of the project of partition precisely because of the promise made by Maxima Santos in the compromise Exhibit "A" ; they acquiesced in the approval of said project of partition because they were relying on the promise made by Maxima Santos in Exhibit "A", that she would transmit one-half of the conjugal properties that she was going to receive as her share in the conjugal partnership, upon her death and in her will, to the heirs and legatees of her husband Simeon Blas.

Neither can the claim of prescription be considered in favor of the defendants. The right of action arose at the time of the death of Maxima Santos on October 5, 1956, when she failed to comply with the promise made by her in Exhibit "A." The plaintiffs-appellants immediately presented this action on December 27, 1956, upon learning of such failure on the part of Maxima Santos to comply with said promise. This defense is, therefore, also without merit.

It is next contended by the defendant-appellee that Maxima Santos complied with her above-mentioned promise, - that Andres Pascual, Tomasa Avelino, Justo Garcia, Ludovico Pimpin and Marta Gervacio Blas were given substantial legacies in the will and testament of Maxima Santos. To determine whether she had actually complied with the promise made in Exhibit "A", there is herein set forth a list only of the fishponds and their respective areas as contained in the list of properties she acquired as her share in the conjugal partnership, which list includes, besides, many ricelands as well as residential lots, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"31. Paco, Obando, Bulacan 5.8396 hectares

32. Pangjolo, Obando, Bulacan 3.5857 hectares

34. Batang Pirasuan, Lubao, Pampanga 11.9515 hectares

35. Calangian, Lubao, Pampanga 30.2059 hectares

38. Bakuling, Lubao, Pampanga 215.4325 hectares

39. Bakuling, Lubao, Pampanga 8.8763 hectares

40. Bangkal, Sinubli, Lubao Pampanga 23.0730 hectares

41. Tagulod, Lubao, Pampanga 6.8692 hectares

44. Bangkal Pugad, Lubao, Pampanga

(a) 84.2779 hectares

(b) 51.7919 hectares

(c) 2.5202 hectares

45. Magtapat, Bangkal, Lubao, Pampanga

(a) 18.0024 hectares

(b) 7.3265 hectares

(c) 53.5180 hectares

46. Pinanganakan, Lubao, Pampanga 159.0078 hectares

47. Emigdio Lingid, Lubao, Pampanga 34.5229 hectares

48. Propios, Lubao, Pampanga 30.6382 hectares

49. Batang Mabuanbuan, Sexmoan, Pampanga 43.3350 hectares

50. Binatang Mabuanbuan, Sexmoan, Pampanga 3.5069 hectares

51. Sapang Magtua, Sexmoan, Pampanga 56.8242 hectares

52. Kay Limpin, Sexmoan, Pampanga 5.0130 hectares

53. Calise Mabalumbum, Sexmoan, Pampanga 23.8935 hectares

54. Messapinit Kineke, Sexmoan, Pampanga

(a) 5.2972 hectares

(b) 4.9230 hectares

(c) 1.4633 hectares

(d) 1.4638 hectares

(e) 2.8316 hectare

(f) 10.4412 hectares

(g) 3.9033 hectares

(h) 11.8268 hectares

(i). 6.0574 hectares

55. Dalang, Banga, Sexmoan, Pampanga 23.3989 hectares

62. Alaminos, Alaminos, Pangasinan 47.1242 hectares

80. Mangasu, Sexmoan, Pampanga 10.0000 hectares

81. Don Tomas, Sexmoan, Pampanga 21.6435 hectares

82. Matikling, Lubao, Pampanga 16.0000 hectares

Total area 1,045.7863 hectares

————————

(See Record on Record

pp. 195-241.)

In her will, Maxima Santos devised to Marta Gervacio Blas the 80- hectare fishpond situated in Lubao, Pampanga. The fishpond devised is evidently that designated as "Propios" in Lubao, Pampanga, item No. 48 in the list of properties adjudicated to her in the project of partition. (Record on Appeal, p.215.) Considering that the total area of the fishpond amounts to 1,045.7863 hectares, the 80 hectares devised to Marta Gervacio Blas is not even one-tenth of the total area of the fishponds. Add to this the fact that in the will she imposed upon Marta Gervacio Blas de Chivi an existing obligation on said fishponds, namely, its lease in 1957 and the duty to pay out of the rentals thereof an obligation to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC). (Ibid., pp. 262-263.) Angelina Blas was given only a lot of 150 square meters in Hulong Duhat, Malabon, Rizal, and Leony Blas, the sum of P300.00 (Ibid., p. 264.)

It is evident from a consideration of the above figures and facts that Maxima Santos did not comply with her obligation to devise one- half of her conjugal properties to the heirs and legatees of her husband. She does not state that she had complied with such obligation in her will. If she intended to comply therewith by giving some of the heirs of Simeon Blas the properties mentioned above, the most that can be considered in her favor is to deduct the value of said properties from the total amount of properties which she had undertaken to convey upon her death.

All the issues in the pleadings of the parties and in their respective briefs, have now been fully discussed and considered. Reiterating what we have stated above, we declare that by Exhibit "A", a compromise to avoid litigation, Maxima Santos promised to devise to the heirs and legatees of her husband Simeon Blas, one-half of the properties she received as her share in the conjugal partnership of herself and her husband, which share is specified in the project of partition submitted by herself on March 14, 1939 in the settlement of the estate of her husband, and which is found on pages 195 to 240 of the record on appeal and on pages 27 to 46 of the project of partition, submitted by Maxima Santos herself before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. 6707, entitled "Testamentaria del Finado Don Simeon Blas, Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, Administradora" ; and that she failed to comply with her aforementioned obligation. (Exhibit "A").

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the defendant-appellee, administratrix of the estate of Maxima Santos, is ordered to convey and deliver one-half of the properties adjudicated to Maxima Santos as her share in the conjugal properties in said Civil Case No. 6707, entitled "Testamentaria del Finado Don Simeon Blas, Maxima Santos Vda. de Blas, Administradora", to the heirs and the legatees of her husband Simeon Blas. Considering that all said heirs and legatees, designated in the will of Simeon Blas as the persons for whose benefit Exhibit "A" had been executed, have not appeared in these proceedings, the record is hereby remanded to the court below, with instructions that, after the conveyance of the properties hereinabove ordered had been effected, the said heirs and legatees (of Simeon Blas) file adversary pleadings to determine the participation of each and every one of them in said properties. Costs against the defendant-appellee Rosalina Santos.

Padilla, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, C.J., reserves his vote.

Concepcion, J., took no part.

Separate Opinions


REYES, J.B.L., J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Labrador, and would only add that the doctrine in the decision of 8 October 1915 of the Supreme Court of Spain, applied in the main opinion, is not a mere accident nor an isolated instance, but one of a series of decisions reaffirming the legal proposition therein laid down. Thus, the Presiding Justice Castan of the Spanish Tribunal Supremo, in volume 3 of his Treaties on Civil Law (1951 Edition, page 344, footnote 2), observes that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(2) La sentencia de 16 de mayo de 1940 declara que seg
Top of Page