VITUG, J.:
By virtue of a codicil appended to her will, Aleja Belleza devised a 511,856-square meter parcel of land in Bacolod City, denominated Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastral Survey, to Jorge Ravadilla (predecessor-in-interest of petitioner),1 [The will, along with the codocil, was probated and admitted in Special Proceedings No. 4046 before the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.] carrying with it an obligation to deliver to private respondent, Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza, one hundred piculs of sugar per crop year during her lifetime. The portions of the codicil, pertinent to the instant controversy, read:
"FIRST
"I give, leave and bequeath the following property owned by me to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, resident of 141 P. Villanueva, Pasay City:
"(a) Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002(10942), which is registered in my name according to the records of the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental.
"(b) That should Jorge Rabadilla die ahead of me, the aforementioned property and the rights which I shall set forth hereinbelow, shall be inherited and acknowledged by the children and spouse of Jorge Rabadilla.
"x x x....x x x ....x x x.
"FOURTH
"(a) It is also my command, in this my addition (codicil), that should I die and Jorge Rabadilla shall have already received the ownership of the said Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002(10942), and also at the time that the lease of Balbinito Guanzon of the said lot shall expire, Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation until he dies, every year to give to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, Seventy (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and Twenty Five (25) piculs of Domestic sugar, until the said Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza dies.
"FIFTH
"(a) Should Jorge Rabadilla die, his heir to whom he shall give Lot No. 1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4002(10942), shall have the obligation to still give yearly, the sugar as specified in the Fourth paragraph of this testament, to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza on the month of December of each year.
"SIXTH
"I command, in this my addition (Codicil) that the Lot No. 1392, in the event that the one to whom I have left and bequeathed, and his heir shall later sell, lease, mortgage this said Lot, the buyer, lessee, mortgagee, shall have also the obligation to respect and deliver yearly ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, on each month of December, SEVENTY FIVE (75) piculs of Export and TWENTY FIVE (25) piculs of Domestic, until Maria Marlina shall die, lastly should the buyer, lessee, or the mortgagee of this lot, not have respected my command in this my addition (codicil), Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza, shall immediately seize this Lot No. 1392 from my heir and the latter’s heirs, and shall turn it over to my near descendants,2 [Relative to the intimation that the term "near descendants" of the testatrix is too indefinite and opposed to the requirement of Article 843 of the Code, attention might be invited to the provisions of Article 845, in relation to Article 959, of the Code that can permit proper identification by some means other than the given name and surname of the intended testate heirs enough to render the institution valid and effective. The ponencia, in any case, states that the testatrix "died single and without issue."] and the latter shall then have the obligation to give the ONE HUNDRED (100) piculs of sugar until Maria Marlina shall die. I further command in this my addition (Codicil) that my heir and his heirs of this Lot No. 1392, that they will obey and follow that should they decide to sell, lease, mortgage, they cannot negotiate with others than my near descendants and my sister."3 [Rollo, pp. 34-35.]
Pursuant to the above provisions of the codicil, ownership of Lot No. 1392 was transferred to Jorge Rabadilla and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-44498 was issued in his name.
Sometime in 1983, Jorge Rabadilla died, survived by his wife, Rufina, and their children Johnny, Aurora, Ofelia and Zenaida.
On 21 August 1989, on account of the failure of the heirs of Jorge Rabadilla to comply with the obligation under the codicil, private respondent filed an action, docketed Civil Case No. 5588, against the Rabadilla heirs before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, of Bacolod City for the reconveyance of Lot 1392 to the heirs of Aleja Belleza and the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 44498 covering the property in the name of Jorge Rabadilla.
The trial court dismissed the complaint "without prejudice."4 [The trial court opined that the action was premature since no cause of action had as yet arisen in favor of private respondent and noted that the banking institutions, mortgagees of the property, were not privies to the obligation of Jorge Rabadilla under the Belleza codicil.] On appeal taken by private respondent to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court set aside the appealed decision and held:
"Therefore, the evidence on record having established plaintiff-appellant's right to receive 100 piculs of sugar annually out of the produce of Lot No. 1392; defendants-appellees' obligation under Aleja Belleza's codicil, as heirs of the modal heir, Jorge Rabadilla, to deliver such amount of sugar to plaintiff-appellant; defendants-appellees' admitted non-compliance with said obligation since 1985; and, the punitive consequences enjoined by both the codicil and the Civil Code, of seizure of Lot No. 1392 and its reversion to the estate of Aleja Belleza in case of such non-compliance, this Court deems it proper to order the reconveyance of title over Lot No. 1392 from the estate of Jorge Rabadilla to the estate of Aleja Belleza. However, plaintiff-appellant must institute separate proceedings to re-open Aleja Belleza's estate, secure the appointment of an administrator, and distribute Lot No. 1392 to Aleja Belleza's legal heirs in order to enforce her right, reserved to her by the codicil, to receive her legacy of 100 piculs of sugar per year out of the produce of Lot No. 1392 until she dies.
"Accordingly, the decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and another one entered ordering defendants-appellees, as heirs of Jorge Rabadilla, to reconvey title over Lot No. 1392, together with its fruits and interests, to the estate of Aleja Belleza.
SO ORDERED."5 [Rollo, p. 73.]
Petitioner, in the instant petition for review, submits that the appellate court has erred in: (1) ordering the reversion of Lot 1392 to the estate of Aleja Belleza on the basis of paragraph six of the codicil, and (2) in ruling that the testamentary institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla is a modal institution within the purview of Article 882 of the Civil Code. Additionally, he avers that respondent court has improvidently deviated from the sole issue raised which is the prematurity of the action before the court a quo. Upon the other hand, respondent would have this Court sustain the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals contending that the appellate court is completely justified in delving into the nature of the institution in the codicil, the same having a direct significance on the issue of whether or not the complaint before the trial court has been prematurely filed. Private respondent adds that the institution in question is modal within the context of Article 882 of the Civil Code which gives her the right to seize the subject property.
I agree with my colleagues that "substitution" is not here apropos. Substitution is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted.6 [Article 857, New Civil Code.] Substitution is simple when the testator designates one or more persons to substitute the heir or heirs instituted in case the latter should die before him, or should not wish, or should be incapacitated to accept the inheritance, and a substitution without a statement of the cases to which it refers shall comprise all said three cases.7 [Article 859, New Civil Code.] There is no simple substitution that takes place where the heir originally instituted is able to succeed.8 [The codicil indicates that the testatrix clearly intended Jorge Rabadilla to have the ownership of the lot in question pass on to him upon her death.] Fideicommissary substitution, on the other hand, occurs when the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part of the inheritance.9 [Article 863, New Civil Code.] Every fideicommissary substitution should be expressly made in order that it may be valid.10 [Article 864, New Civil Code.] The term "fideicommissary substitution" need not, however, be used in the will; it is enough that there is a clear and unequivocal statement that one shall enjoy usufructuary or other rights, short of naked ownership or title, over certain property of the testator with the obligation to preserve the property and to transmit it to a second heir.11 [See Crisologo vs. Singson, 4 SCRA 491.] It is essential for the validity of a fideicommissary substitution that both heirs are living and qualified to succeed at the time of death by the testator and that the substitute does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted. The term "one degree" has been the subject of varied interpretation. One view is to the effect that the term means one transfer, citing the Supreme Tribunal of Spain and as advocated by eminent civilists as Justices J.B.L. Reyes, R. Puno, E. Caguioa, and D. Jurado. In Ramirez vs. Ramirez,12 [111 SCRA 704.] decided on 15 February 1982, the Court, however, adopted the literal view that "one decree" means relationship or generation as so advanced by equally eminent writers Dr. A. Padilla, Justice E. Paras and Dr. A. Tolentino. In the subsequent case of the Testate Estate case of Fr. Aranas,13 [29 May 1987.] however, the Court upheld the usufructuary right of the Roman Catholic Church under a legacy that now renders doubtful the continued validity of the Ramirez doctrine.
The institution of Jorge Rabadilla in the Belleza codicil partook the nature of an institution sub modo, rather than one of substitution, governed by the provisions of Article 882 of the Civil Code. This law provides:
"Art. 882. The statement of the object of the institution, or the application of the property left by the testator, or the charge imposed by him, shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention.
"That which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give security for compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he or they may receive, together with its fruits and interests, if he or they should disregard this obligation." (Emphasis supplied)
A mode is distinguished from a condition contemplated in the rules on succession in that the latter dictates the efficacy, either in a suspensive or resolutory manner, of a testamentary disposition while the former obligates the instituted heir to comply with the mandate made by the testator but does not prevent the heir from at once claiming the inheritance provided he gives a security to ensure compliance with the will of the testator and the return of the thing received together with its fruits and interests, "should (the heir) disregard this obligation." The obligation imposed upon the heir or legatee is deemed not to be a condition for his entry forthwith into the inheritance unless a contrary intention of the testator is evident. In case of doubt, the institution is considered modal, rather than conditional. Much of the variance in the legal effects of the two classes,14 [Morente vs .De la Santa, 9 Phil. 387; Chiong vs. Vaño, 8 Phil. 119.] however, is now practically theoretical and merely conceptual. Under the old Civil Code 15 [See Art. 797.] an institucion sub modo could be said to be more akin to an institution sub demonstratione, or an expression of a wish or suggestion of the testator that did not have any real obligatory force, that matter being left instead to the discretion of the heir, i.e., whether to abide by it or not. The amendatory provisions of the new Civil Code now hardly differentiates between the principal effect of the non-compliance with the mode and that of the occurrence of a resolutory condition expressed in the will. In both instances, the property must be returned to the estate of the decedent to then pass on under the rules on intestacy.
ACCORDINGLY, I also vote for the dismissal of the instant petition.
- 0 -