[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
123 views1 page

Crisologo Vs Singson

This document summarizes a court case regarding a property dispute between heirs. The testator, Leona Singson, left property to her grandniece Consolacion Florentino in her will. The will also included a clause stating that upon Consolacion's death, the property would be given to Leona's brothers. The court had to determine if this created a fideicommissary substitution, where Consolacion would only have usufructuary rights and the brothers would have naked ownership. The court found that the will did not expressly create such a substitution or impose an obligation on Consolacion to preserve and transmit the property. It merely stated who would receive the property upon her death. Therefore,

Uploaded by

Jessette Amihope CASTOR
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
123 views1 page

Crisologo Vs Singson

This document summarizes a court case regarding a property dispute between heirs. The testator, Leona Singson, left property to her grandniece Consolacion Florentino in her will. The will also included a clause stating that upon Consolacion's death, the property would be given to Leona's brothers. The court had to determine if this created a fideicommissary substitution, where Consolacion would only have usufructuary rights and the brothers would have naked ownership. The court found that the will did not expressly create such a substitution or impose an obligation on Consolacion to preserve and transmit the property. It merely stated who would receive the property upon her death. Therefore,

Uploaded by

Jessette Amihope CASTOR
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CONSOLACION FLORENTINO DE CRISOLOGO, ET AL.

, plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
DR. MANUEL SINGSON, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-13876             February 28, 1962

Facts:
Action for partition commenced by the spouses Consolacion Florentino and
Francisco Crisologo against Manuel Singson in connection with a residential lot. Their
complaint alleged that Singson owned one-half pro-indiviso of said property and that
Consolacion Florentino owned the other half by virtue of the provisions of the duly
probated last will of Dña. Leona Singson, the original owner.

Defendant's defense was that Consolacion Florentino was a mere usufructuary


of, and not owner of one-half pro-indiviso of the property in question, and that,
therefore, she was not entitled to demand partition thereof.

Dña. Leona Singson, who died single on January 13, 1948, was the owner of the
property in question at the time of her death. At the time of the execution of the will,
her nearest living relatives were her brothers Evaristo, Manuel and Dionisio Singson,
her nieces Rosario, Emilia and Trinidad, and her grandniece Consolation, all surnamed
Florentino.
Clause IX of her last will provides that the particular testamentary clause under
consideration provides for a substitution of the heir named therein in this manner: that
upon the death of Consolacion Florentino — whether this occurs before or after that of
the testatrix — the property bequeathed to her shall be delivered ("se dara") or shall
belong in equal parts to the testatrix's three brothers, Evaristo, Manuel and Dionisio, or
their forced heirs, should anyone of them die ahead of Consolacion Florentino.

Issue:
Whether the testamentary disposition above-quoted provided for a sustitucion
fideicomisaria?

Held:
No, as Manresa says, if the fiduciary did not acquire full ownership of the
property bequeathed by will, but mere usufructuary rights thereon until the time came
for him to deliver said property to the fideicomisario, it is obvious that the nude
ownership over the property, upon the death of the testatrix, passed to and was
acquired by another person, and the person cannot be other than the fideicomisario (6
Manresa p. 145).

It seems to be of the essence of a fideicommissary substitution that an obligation


be clearly imposed upon the first heir to preserve and transmit to another the whole or
part of the estate bequeathed to him, upon his death or upon the happening of a
particular event. For this reason, Art. 785 of the old Civil Code provides that a
fideicommissary substitution shall have no effect unless it is made expressly either by
giving it such name, or by imposing upon the first heir the absolute obligation to deliver
the inheritance to a substitute or second heir.

A careful perusal of the testamentary clause under consideration shows that the
substitution of heirs provided for therein is not expressly made of the fideicommissary
kind, nor does it contain a clear statement to the effect that appellee, during her lifetime,
shall only enjoy usufructuary rights over the property bequeathed to her, naked
ownership thereof being vested in the brothers of the testatrix. As already stated, it
merely provides that upon appellee's death — whether this happens before or after that
of the testatrix — her share shall belong to the brothers of the testatrix.

You might also like