Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria, Tarlac vs. Rigor No. L-22036, 30 April 1979 Facts: This case is about the efficaciousness or the enforceability of a device of rice lands located at Guimbe, Nueva Ecija, with a total area of around 44 hectares. That estate was made in the will of the late Fr. Pascual Rigor, a native of Victoria, Tarlac, in favor of his nearest male relative who would study priesthood. The parish priest of Victoria who claimed to be a trustee of the said lands appealed to the SC from the decision of the CA affirming the order of the probate court, declaring that the said devise was inoperative (Rigor vs. Parish Priest of Roman Catholic Church of Victoria, Tarlac, CA-G.R. No, 24319-R, 1 August 1963). Fr. Rigor, a parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan, died on Aug. 9, 1935, leaving a will executed on Oct. 26, 1933 which was probated by the C. F. I. of Tarlac, In its order of Dec. 5, 1935, named as devises in the will were the testator’s nearest relatives, namely, his tree sisters: Florencia Rigor- Escobar, Belina Rigor-Manaloto and Nestora Rigor-Quiambao. The testator also gave a devise to his cousin, Fortunato Gamalinda. In addition the will contained the following controversial bequest: 1. That he bequeathed the rice lands to anyone of his nearest male relatives who would pursue an ecclesiastical career until his ordination as a priest. the devisee could not sell the rice lands That the devisee at the inception of his studies in sacred theology could enjoy and administer the rice lands, and once ordained as a priest, he could continue enjoying and administering the same up to the time of his death but the devisee would seize to enjoy and administer the rice lands if he discontinued his studied for the priesthood, 4, That if the devise became a priest, he would be obliged to celebrated every year twenty masses wit prayers for the repose of the soul of Fr. Rigor and his Parents. 5. That if the devisee is excommunicated, he would be divested of the legacy ad administration of the rice lands would pass to the incumbent parish priest of victoria and his successors. 6. That during the interval of time that there is not qualified devisee, as contemplated above, the administration of the rice lands would under the responsibility of the incumbent parish priest of Victoria and his successors, and 7. That the parish priest administrator of the rice lands would accumulate annually the product thereof, obtaining or getting from the annual produce five percent thereof for his administration and of his corresponding to the twenty masses with prayers that the parish priest would celebrate for each whyear, depositing the balance of the income of the devisee in the bank in the name of his bequest. To implement the foregoing bequest, the administratrix, in 1840 submitted the project of partition containing the ff. item LEGACY OF THE CHURCH “that it be adjudicated in favor of the legacy purported te be given to the nearest male relative who shall take the Priesthood, and in the interim to be administered by the actual Catholic priest of the Roman Catholic Church, of Victoria, Tarlac, Philippines, or his successors the real properties herein below indicated to wit: Judge Cruz in his order of Aug. 15, 1940 approving the project of partition, directed that after payment if the obligations of the estate (including the sum of P3,132.26 due to the Church of the ria Parish) the adt ratrix should deliver to the devisee their respective shares In as much as no nephew of the testator claimed the devise and as the administratrix and the legal heirs believed that the parish priest of Victoria had no right to administer the rice lands, the sale where not delivered to the ecclesiastic. The testate proceeding remained pending. About thirteen years after the approval of the project of partition, on Feb. 19, 1954, the petitioner filed in the pending testate proceeding a petition praying for the appointment of 3 new administrator (succeeding the deceased sdministratrix, Florencia Rigor), who should deliver to the church the said rice lands, and further praying that the possessors thereof be ordered to render an accounting of the fi The probate court granted the petition, On Jan, 31, 1957 the petitioner filed another petition for the delivery of rice lands to the church as trustee. Issue: Whether or not the will of Fr. Rigor can be rendered inoperative w of the testamentary provisions, it may be presumed that the testator really intends to hand down the Riceland to the nearest male relative who would become a priest, who is forbidden to sell the rice lands, who would lose the devise if he will discontinue to his studies for the priesthood, or having been ordained aS a priest was excommunicated, and who would be obliged to say twenty masses with prayers annually for he repose soul of the testator and his parents. On the other hand, it is clear that the parish priest of Victoria would administer the rice lands in two conditions: during the interval of time that no nearest relative of the testator would study for the priesthood and that in case the nearest relative being ordained a priest and was excommunicated. In 1935, when the testator died, his nearest legal heirs were his three sisters and second degree relatives: Mr. Escobar, Mrs. Manaloto and Mrs. Quiambao. When the testator specified his nearest male relative; he must have had in mind his nephew or a son of his sister, who would be his third degree relative, or possibly a grand nephew. But since he could not prognosticate the exact date of his death or state with certitude what category of nearest male relative would be living at the of his death he could not specify that his nearest male relative would be hisnephew or grand nephews (the son of his nephew or niece) and so he had to used the term “nearest male relative”. Under Article 1025, of the Civil Code, which states that “In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devise or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens, except in the case of representation, when it is proper”, this court held that the said bequest refers to the nearest male relative living at the time of his death and not anytime after his death. Moreover, it was contended by the legal heirs that the said devisee reality intended for the testators nephew and godchild, Ramon Quiambao, who was the son of his sister, Mrs. Nestora Quiambao. To prove the contention, the legal heir presented in the lower court an affidavit of Beatriz Gamalinda, the maternal grandmother of Edgardo Cunanan who exposed that after Fr. Rigor’s death, her own son, Valentin Gamalinda, Jr., did not claim the devise, although he was studying for the Priesthood at the san Carlos Seminary, because she (Beatriz) knew that Fr. Rigor had intended that devise for his nearest male relative belonging to the Rigor family. Moreover, Mrs. Gamalinda further stated that her own grandchild, Edgardo Cunanan, was not the one contemplated in Fr. Rigor’s will and that Edgardo’s father told her that he was not consulted by the parish priest of Victoria before the latter filed his second motion for reconsideration which was based on the ground that the testator’s grandnephew, Edgardo, was studying for the priesthood at the San Jose Seminary. Unfortunately, Edgardo ceased to be a seminarian in 1961 and for that reason the legal heirs informed the CA that the probate court's order adjudicating the rice land to the parish priest of Victoria had no more leg to stand up. Following the interpretation of the will, the question would be whether at the time Fr. Rigor died in 1935 he had a nephew who was studying for priesthood. That was answered in paragraph 4 of the appellant's petitions of February 19, 1954 and January 31, 1957 wherein he alleged that “ no nearest male relative of the late Fr. Rigor ha sever studied for the priesthood. Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was ineffectual or inoperative. Thus, the administration of the rice land by the parish priest of Victoria, as the envisaged in the will, was likewise inoperative. In connection to this, the CA correctly ruled that this case is covered by Art. 888 of the old Civil Code, now Art. 956, which provides that “if the bequest for any reasons should be inoperative, it shall be merged into the state, except in cases of substitution and those in which the right of accretion exists.” This case is also covered by Art. 912 (2) of the old Civil Code, now Art. 960 (2), which provides that legal succession takes place when the will (does not disposed of all that belongs to the testator). There being no substitution nor accretion as to the said rice lands, the same should be distributed among the testator’s legal heirs. The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition of the said rice lands.