CONSOLACION FLORENTINO DE CRISOLOGO, ET AL.

, plaintiffs-
appellees, 
vs.
DR. MANUEL SINGSON, defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. L-13876             February 28, 1992

DIZON, J.:

FACTS:
The spouses Consolacion Florentino and Francisco Crisologo commenced
an action for partition against Manuel Singson in connection with a residential lot
located at Plaridel St., Vigan, Ilocos Sur, with an area of approximately 193 square
meters, and the improvements existing thereon, covered by Tax No. 10765-C.
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, and the
project of partition submitted to, and approved by the Court of First Instance of
Ilocos Sur in special Proceeding No. 453; that plaintiffs had made demands for the
partition of said property, but defendant refused to accede thereto, thus compelling
them to bring action. It is admitted that Dña. Leona Singson, who died single on
January 13, 1948, was the owner of the property in question at the time of her
death. On July 31, 1951 she executed her last will which was admitted to probate
in Special Proceeding No. 453 of the lower court whose decision was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals in G.R. No. 3605-R. 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. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs.Defendant appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the testamentary disposition provided for what is called
substitucion vulgar or for a sustitucion fideicomisaria.

RULING:
The last will of the deceased Dña. Leona Singson, established a mere
sustitucion vulgar, the substitution Consolacion Florentino by the brothers of the
testatrix to be effective or to take place upon the death of the former, whether it
happens before or after that of the testatrix.The substitution of heirs provided for in
the will 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.The appealed
judgment is affirmed, with costs.