BELEN v.

BPI
October 31, 1960 | Reyes, J.B.L., J. | Legacies and Devises | TAN

PETITIONERS: ONESIMA D. BELEN

RESPONDENTS: BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and MILAGROS BELEN DE OLAGUERA

SUMMARY:

DOCTRINE:

FACTS:

Benigno Diaz executed a codicil, a portion of which read:

9.0 - In the event of death of any or all of the legatees appointed by me, they shall be beneficiaries or shall be the legacy of the
legitimate descendants and ascendants, but not the widowed spouses.

10.0 - After ten or fifteen years after my death all property, movable or immovable, rights and advantages, may proceed to the sale of
all giving preference to legatees and of their total amount will be deducted thousand pesos (P1,000) for the four children of my late
brother Fabian (para los cuartro hijos de mi difunto hermano Fabian), all the expenses and reserving a sufficient quantity and bein
calcumada (sorry di to natranslate idk) to suffer would be distributed to the following people who still vuiven, or their legitimate
descendants (descendientes legitimos):

To Isabel M. de Santiago - fifty percent (50%)

The children of Domingo Legarda (Los hijos de Domingo Legarda) - thirty percent (30%)

Filomena Diaz - ten percent (10%)

Nestor M. Santiago - ten percent (10%)

Benigno died in 1944 and the aforesaid codicil, together with the will was admitted to probate. The proceedings for the administration
of the estate of Benigno Diaz were closed in 1950 and the estate was thereafter put under the administration of the appellee Bank of
the Philippine Islands, as trustee for the benefit of the legatees.

In 1954, Filomena Diaz died leaving two legitimate children, Milagros Belen de Olsguera, married, with seven (7) legitimate children,
and Onesima D. Belen, single.

Onesima D. Belen filed a petition contending that the amount that would have appertained to Filomena Diaz under the codicil should
now be divided(equally) only between herself and Milagros Belen de Olaguera, as the surviving children of the said deceased, to the
exclusion, in other words, of the seven (7) legitimate children of Milagros Belen de Olaguera. The court denied saying that the
aforesaid share of Filomena Diaz should be distributed not only between her children, Milagros Belen de Olaguera and Onesima D.
Belen, but also among her other legitimate descendants, if any, for descendientes include not only children but also grandchildren, etc.

Onesima D. Belen has appealed to this Court, insisting that the term "sus descendeintes legitimos," as used in the codicil, should be
interpreted to mean descendants nearest in the degree to the original legatee Filomena Diaz. In the present case, they are her two
daughters (Milagros and Onesima Belen), thereby excluding the seven grandchildren of said legatee. As authority in support of her
thesis, appellant invokes Article 959 of the Civil Code of the Philippines: A distribution made in general terms in favor of the testator's
relatives shall be understood as made in favor of those nearest in degree.

ISSUES/HELD:
RATIO:
The argument fails to note that this article is specifically limited in its application to the case where the beneficiaries are relatives of
the testator, not those of the legatee. In such an event, the law assumes that the testator intended to refer to the rules of intestacy, in
order to benefit the relatives closest to him, because as Manresa observes:

reason and logic have reason to suppose that, in seeking to favor his relatives, he would have to adjust more closely to himself
(testator) by the ties of the sanger and the family
But the ratios legis (that among a testator's relative the closest are dearest) obviously does not supply where the beneficiaries are
relatives of another person (the legatee) and noot of the testator . There is no logical reason in this case to presume that the testator
intended to refer to the rules of intestacy, for he precisely made a testament and provided substitutes for each legatee; nor can it be
said that his affections would prefer the nearest relatives of the legatee to those more distant, since he envisages all of them in a group,
and only as mere substitutes for a preferred beneficiary.

Should Article 959 (old Art. 751) be applied by anology? There are various reasons against this. The most important one is that under
this article, as recognized by the principal commentators on the Code of 1889, the nearest of exclude all the farther relatives and right
of representation does not operate. Castan, in his monograph "El derecho de representacion y mecanimos jurididos afines en la
sucesion testamentaria" says on this question:

In the sub-group of Europe and America, although there are some exceptions, at least in principle, it has no place in the testamentary
succession. Thus, for example, it establishes the scientific doctrine in Portugal and in Argentina and has sanctioned the jurisprudence
in Cuba.

In the same sense, in the Spanish doctrine it is general opinion that the right of representation, within the Civil Code, takes place only
in the intestate succession, and in the testamentary in the part referring to the legitimate ones. MUCIUS SCAEVOLA judges that re-
presentation, attracted by the legitimate heritage, is repelled by the tested one, and points out, as the reason for this, that "the first rests
on the law of blood, on kinship with its consequent line attribute and degree, proper or indispensable elements for repretacion, while
the second is based exclusively on the will of the testator, diverse element, in the legal order, the nature or the sandre. And the teacher
of DIEGO, with anologian orientation, thinks that as the title of the trial tried is of voluntary origin and character personalism, it is
evident that there are no useful terms for the right of representation: the appeals are individual and the premoriencia of the instituted,
like their incapacity, annihilate the institution.

In the second place, the history of Article 751 (of the 1889 Code) shown that the right of representation was deliberately
suppressed. Says Castan (op. cit., 24):

In our country, I think GARCIA GOYENA, who should have the most representation, even when the testator openly calls the will of
the testator, must observe the order of legitimate succession, which is presumed to be tempered in everything else, Article 562 of 1851
is worded as follows: "The provision made simple and generally in favor of the relatives of the testator, is understood to have been
made in favor of the nearest ones in degree; but there shall be a right of representation with all its effects, in accordance with the
following title. "

With little success, in our opinion, the authors of the current Code have suppressed this proviso of the Project of 51, and with this they
have established a rigid norm, distanced from what demands of equity and what usually establish foreign codes. The commentaristas
agree that the suppression has been intentional, and therefore the purpose of the legaslador is that in this class of appeals does not give
the right, of representation. Manresa says that art. 751 "is favored with such an institution, not to the relatives of better right, but to the
next ones in degree and, therefore, the first degree exclude the second, and so on, since article 915 ". The same interpretation gives the
reference article NAVARRO AMANDI, MUCIUS SCAEVOLA, SANCHEZ ROMAN and VALVERDE.

The result would be that by applying to the descendants of Filorema Diaz the "nearest relatives" rule of Article 959, the inheritance
would be limited to her children, or anyone of them, excluding the grandchildren altogether. This could hardly be the intention of the
testator who, in the selfsame clause 10 of his council (ante), speaks of "cuatro hijos de mi difunto hermano Fabian" and of "los hijos
de Domingo Legarda," as well as of "descendientes legitimos" of the other legates, to us indicating clearly that he understood well that
hijos and descendientes are not synonymous terms. Observe that, in referring to the substitutes of Filomena Diaz, Nestor Santiago and
Isabel M. de Santiago, the testator, does not even use the description "sus hijos o descendientes," but only "descendientes".