Supreme Court of the Philippines Wanda is an Austrian who lives in

Spain. Moreover, the testator

provided for substitutions.

197 Phil. 647 Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino

national, died in Spain on December
SECOND DIVISION 11, 1964, with only his widow as
compulsory heir. His will was
admitted to probate by the Court of
G.R. No. L-27952, February
First Instance of Manila, Branch X,
15, 1982 on July 27, 1965. Maria Luisa
TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE
Palacios was appointed
EUGENIO RAMIREZ, MARIA administratrix of the estate. In due
LUISA PALACIOS, time she submitted an inventory of
ADMINISTRATRIX, the estate as follows:
PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS.
MARCELLE D. VDA. DE "INVENTARIO
RAMIREZ, ET AL., OPPOSITORS,
JORGE AND ROBERTO Una sexta parte (1/6) pro-indivisa de
RAMIREZ, LEGATEES, un terreno, con sus mejoras y
OPPOSITORS-APPELLANTS. edificaciones, situado en la Escolta,
Manila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DECISION P 500,000.00
ABAD SANTOS, J.: Una sexta parte (1/6) pro-indivisa de
dos parcelas de terreno situadas en
The main issue in this appeal is the
Antipolo, Rizal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
manner of partitioning the testate
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658.34
estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez
among the principal beneficiaries, Cuatrocientos noventa y un (491)
namely: his widow Marcelle acciones de la 'Central Azucarera de
Demoron de Ramirez; his two la Carlota' a P17.00 por accion . . . . .
grandnephews Roberto and Jorge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,347.00
Ramirez; and his companion Wanda
de Wrobleski. Diez mil ochocientos seiz (10,806)
acciones de la 'Central Luzon Milling
The task is not trouble-free because Co.', disuelta y en liquidacion, a
the widow Marcelle is a French who P0.15 por accion . . . . . . 1,620.90
lives in Paris, while the companion
Cuenta de Ahorros en el Philippine aquellos continuadores del apellido
Trust Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ramirez.
. . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 350.73
"B.- Y en usufructo a saber: -
TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . P
512,976.97 a. - En cuanto a una tercera parte, a
favor de la esposa del testador, Da.
MENOS: Marcelle Ramirez, domiciliada en IE
PECO, caIle del General Gallieni,
Deuda al Banco de las Islas Filipinas, No. 33, Seine, Francia, con
garantizada con prenda de las sustitucion vulgar u fideicomisaria a
acciones de La Carlota . . . . . . . . P favor de Da. Wanda de Wrobleski,
5,000.00 de Palma de Mallorca, Son Rapiña,
Avenida de los Reyes 13,
VALOR LIQUIDO . . . . . .
P507,976.97" b. - Y en cuanto a las dos terceras
partes restantes, a favor de la
The testamentary dispositions are as nombrada Da. Wanda de Wrobleski,
follows: con sustitucion vulgar y
fideicomisaria, a saber: -
"A. - En nuda propiedad, a D.
Roberto y D. Jorge Ramirez, ambos "En cuanto a la mitad de dichas dos
menores de edad, residentes en terceras partes, a favor de D. Juan
Manila, I. F., calle Wright, No. 1818, Pablo Jankowski, de Son Rapiña,
Malate, hijos de su sobrino D. Jose Palma de Mallorca; y en cuanto a la
Ma. Ramirez, con sustitucion vulgar mitad restante, a favor de su sobrino,
a favor de sus respectivos D. Horace V. Ramirez, San Luis
descendientes, y, en su defecto, con Building, Florida St. Ermita, Manila,
sustitucion vulgar reciproca entre I.F.
ambos.
"A pesar de las sustituciones
"El precedente legado en nuda fideicomisarias precedentemente
propiedad de la participacion indivisa ordinadas, las usufructuarias
de la finca Santa-Cruz Building, lo nombradas conjuntamente con los
ordena el testador a favor de los nudo propietarios, podran en
legatarios nombrados, en atencion a cualquier momento vender a tercero
que dicha propiedad fue creacion del los bienes objeto delegado, sin
querido padre del otorgante y por ser intervencion alguna de los titulares
fideicomisarios."
On June 23, 1966, the administratrix Cruz (Escolta) Building between the
submitted a project of partition as widow Marcelle, and the appellants,
follows: the property of the deceased violates the testator's express will to
is to be divided into two parts. One give this property to them.
part shall go to the widow "en pleno Nonetheless, the lower court
dominio" in satisfaction of her approved the project of partition in
legitime; the other part or "free its order dated May 3, 1967. It is this
portion" shall go to Jorge and order which Jorge and Roberto have
Roberto Ramirez "en nuda appealed to this Court.
propriedad." Furthermore, one third
(1/3) of the free portion is charged 1. The widow's legitime.
with the widow's usufruct and the
remaining two-third (2/3) with a The appellant's do not question the
usufruct in favor of Wanda. legality of giving Marcelle one-half of
the estate in full ownership. They
Jorge and Roberto opposed the admit that the testator's dispositions
project of partition on the grounds: impaired his widow's legitime.
(a) that the provisions for vulgar Indeed, under Art. 900 of the Civil
substitution in favor of Wanda de Code "If the only survivor is the
Wrobleski with respect to the widow or widower, she or he shall
widow's usufruct and in favor of be entitled to one-half of the
Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio hereditary estate." And since
V. Ramirez, with respect to Wanda's Marcelle alone survived the
usufruct are invalid because the first deceased, she is entitled to one-half
heirs (Marcelle and Wanda) survived of his estate over which he could
the testator; (b) that the provisions impose no burden, encumbrance,
for fideicommissary substitutions are condition or substitution of any kind
also invalid because the first heirs are whatsoever. (Art. 904, par. 2, Civil
not related to the second heirs or Code.)
substitutes within the first degree, as
provided in Article 863 of the Civil It is the one-third usufruct over the
Code; (c) that the grant of a usufruct free portion which the appellants
over real property in the Philippines question and justifiably so. It appears
in favor of Wanda Wrobleski, who is that the court a quo approved the
an alien, violates Section 5, Article usufruct in favor of Marcelle because
XIII of the Philippine Constitution; the testament provides for a usufruct
and that (d) the proposed partition in her favor of one-third of the
of the testator's interest in the Santa estate. The court a quo erred for
Marcelle who is entitled to one-half in case such heir or heirs should die
of the estate "en pleno dominio" as before him, or should not wish, or
her legitime and which is more than should be incapacitated to accept the
what she is given under the will is inheritance.
not entitled to have any additional
share in the estate. To give Marcelle "A simple substitution, without a
more than her legitime will run statement of the cases to which it
counter to the testator's intention for refers, shall comprise the three
as stated above his dispositions even mentioned in the preceding
impaired her legitime and tended to paragraph, unless the testator has
favor Wanda. otherwise provided."

2. The substitutions. The fideicommissary substitution is

described in the Civil Code as
It may be useful to recall that follows:
"Substitution is the appointment of
another heir so that he may enter "ART. 863. A fideicommissary
into the inheritance in default of the substitution by virtue of which the
heir originally instituted." (Art. 857, fiduciary or first heir instituted is
Civil Code.) And that there are entrusted with the obligation to
several kinds of substitutions, preserve and to transmit to a second
namely: simple or common, brief or heir the whole or part of inheritance,
compendious, reciprocal, and shall be valid and shall take effect,
fideicommissary. Art. 858, Civil provided such substitution does not
Code.) According to Tolentino, go beyond one degree from the heir
"Although the Code enumerates originally instituted, and provided
four classes, there are really only two further that the fiduciary or first heir
principal classes of substitutions: the and the second heir are living at time
simple and the fideicommissary. The of the death of the testator."
others are merely variations of these
two." (III Civil Code, p. 185 [1973].) It will be noted that the testator
provided for a vulgar substitution in
The simple or vulgar is that provided respect of the legacies of Roberto
in Art. 859 of the Civil Code which and Jorge Ramirez, the appellants,
reads: thus: "con sustitucion vulgar a favor
de sus respectivos descendientes, y,
"ART. 859. The testator may en su defecto, con substitucion
designate one or more persons to vulgar reciproca entre ambos." The
substitute the heir or heirs instituted appellants do not question the
legality of the substitution so (a) The substitutes (Juan Pablo
provided. Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez)
are not related to Wanda, the heir
The appellants question the originally instituted. Art. 863 of the
"sustitucion vulgar y fideicomisaria a Civil Code validates a
favor de Da. Wanda de Wrobleski" fideicommissary substitution
in connection with the one-third "provided such substitution does not
usufruct over the estate given to the go beyond one degree from the heir
widow Marcelle. However, this originally instituted."
question has become moot because
as We have ruled above, the widow What is meant by "one degree" from
is not entitled to any usufruct. the first heir is explained by
Tolentino as follows:
The appellants also question the
"sustitucion vulgar y fideicomisaria" "Scaevola, Maura, and Traviesas
in connection with Wanda's usufruct construe 'degree' as designation,
over two-thirds of the estate in favor substitution, or transmission. The
of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace Supreme Court of Spain has
V. Ramirez. decidedly adopted this construction.
From this point of view, there can
They allege that the substitution in be only one transmission or
its vulgar aspect is void because substitution, and the substitute need
Wanda survived the testator or not be related to the first heir.
stated differently because she did not Manresa, Morell, and Sanchez
predecease the testator. But dying Roman, however, construe the word
before the testator is not the only 'degree' as generation, and the
case for vulgar substitution for it also present Code has obviously followed
includes refusal or incapacity to this interpretation, by providing that
accept the inheritance as provided in the substitution shall not go beyond
Art. 859 of the Civil Code, supra. one degree 'from the heir originally
Hence, the vulgar substitution is instituted.' The Code thus clearly
valid. indicates that the second heir must
be related to and be one generation
As regards the substitution in its from the first heir.
fideicommissary aspect, the
appellants are correct in their claim "From this, it follows that the
that it is void for the following fideicommissary can only be either a
reasons: child or a parent of the first heir.
These are the only relatives who are the ground that the Constitution
one generation or degree from the covers not only succession by
fiduciary." (Op. cit., pp. 193-194.) operation of law but also
testamentary succession. We are of
(b) There is no absolute duty the opinion that the Constitutional
imposed on Wanda to transmit the provision which enables aliens to
usufruct to the substitutes as acquire private lands does not extend
required by Arts. 865 and 867 of the to testamentary succession for
Civil Code. In fact, the appellee otherwise the prohibition will be for
admits "that the testator contradicts naught and meaningless. Any alien
the establishment of a would be able to circumvent the
fideicommissary substitution when prohibition by paying money to a
he permits the properties subject of Philippine landowner in exchange
the usufruct to be sold upon mutual for a devise of a piece of land.
agreement of the usufructuaries and
the naked owners." (Brief, p. 26.) This opinion notwithstanding, We
uphold the usufruct in favor of
3. The usufruct of Wanda. Wanda because a usufruct, albeit a
real right, does not vest title to the
The appellants claim that the land in the usufructuary and it is the
usufruct over real properties of the vesting of title to land in favor of
estate in favor of Wanda is void aliens which is proscribed by the
because it violates the constitutional Constitution.
prohibition against the acquisition of
lands by aliens. IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, the estate of Jose
The 1935 Constitution which is Eugenio Ramirez is hereby ordered
controlling provides as follows: distributed as follows:
"SEC. 5. Save in cases of hereditary One-half (1/2) thereof to his widow
succession, no private agricultural as her legitime;
land shall be transferred or assigned
except to individuals, corporations, One-half (1/2) thereof which is the
or associations qualified to acquire free portion to Roberto and Jorge
or hold lands of the public domain Ramirez in naked ownership and the
in the Philippines." (Art. XIII.) usufruct to Wanda de Wrobleski
with a simple substitution in favor of
The court a quo upheld the validity Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V.
of the usufruct given to Wanda on Ramirez.
The distribution herein ordered
supersedes that of the court a quo.
No special pronoucement as to
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., De

Castro, Ericta, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., no part.

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org