W5

XI. Substitution of Heirs (Devisees, And Legatees), Art 857

Article 857. Substitution is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the
inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted. (n)

A. Kinds, Art 858

Article 858. Substitution of heirs may be:

(1) Simple or common;

(2) Brief or compendious;

(3) Reciprocal; or

(4) Fideicommissary. (n)

 
1. Simple or Common, Art 859

Article 859. The testator may designate one or more persons to substitute the heir or heirs
instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before him, or should not wish, or should be
incapacitated to accept the inheritance.

A simple substitution, without a statement of the cases to which it refers, shall comprise the
three mentioned in the preceding paragraph, unless the testator has otherwise provided.
(774)

 
2. Brief or Compendious, Art 860

Article 860. Two or more persons may be substituted for one; and one person for two or
more heirs. (778)
 
3. Reciprocal, Art 861, Art 862

Article 861. If heirs instituted in unequal shares should be reciprocally substituted, the
substitute shall acquire the share of the heir who dies, renounces, or is incapacitated, unless
it clearly appears that the intention of the testator was otherwise. If there are more than one
substitute, they shall have the same share in the substitution as in the institution. (779a)

Article 862. The substitute shall be subject to the same charges and conditions imposed
upon the instituted heir, unless and testator has expressly provided the contrary, or the
charges or conditions are personally applicable only to the heir instituted. (780)

 
4. Fideicommissary, Art 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869
Article 863. A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first heir
instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the
whole or part of the inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect, provided such
substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted, and provided
further, that the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are living at the time of the death of
the testator. (781a)

Article 864. A fideicommissary substitution can never burden the legitime. (782a)

Article 865. Every fideicommissary substitution must be expressly made in order that it may
be valid.

The fiduciary shall be obliged to deliver the inheritance to the second heir, without other
deductions than those which arise from legitimate expenses, credits and improvements, save
in the case where the testator has provided otherwise. (783)

Article 866. The second heir shall acquire a right to the succession from the time of the
testator's death, even though he should die before the fiduciary. The right of the second heir
shall pass to his heirs. (784)

Article 867. The following shall not take effect:

(1) Fideicommissary substitutions which are not made in an express manner, either
by giving them this name, or imposing upon the fiduciary the absolute obligation to
deliver the property to a second heir;

(2) Provisions which contain a perpetual prohibition to alienate, and even a

temporary one, beyond the limit fixed in article 863;

(3) Those which impose upon the heir the charge of paying to various persons
successively, beyond the limit prescribed in article 863, a certain income or pension;

(4) Those which leave to a person the whole or part of the hereditary property in
order that he may apply or invest the same according to secret instructions
communicated to him by the testator. (785a)

Article 868. The nullity of the fideicommissary substitution does not prejudice the validity of
the institution of the heirs first designated; the fideicommissary clause shall simply be
considered as not written. (786)

Article 869. A provision whereby the testator leaves to a person the whole or part of the
inheritance, and to another the usufruct, shall be valid. If he gives the usufruct to various
persons, not simultaneously, but successively, the provisions of article 863 shall apply.
(787a)

 
                             Ramirez v Vda de Ramirez, GR L-27952, February
15,1982

https://pdfcoffee.com/succession-ramirez-vs-ramirez-cases-pdf-free.html

PCIB v Escolin, GR L-27860 and L-27896, March 29, 1974

Paras p. 247

Crisologo v Singson, GR L-13876, February 28, 1962

 
Crisologo vs. Singson
G.R. No. L-13876, February 28, 1962
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.

It is clear 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. If this clause created what is known
as sustitucion vulgar, the necessary result would be that Consolacion Florentino, upon the
death of the testatrix, became the owner of one undivided half of the property, but if it
provided for a sustitution fideicomisaria, she would have acquired nothing more than
usufructuary rights over the same half. In the former case, she would undoubtedly be entitled
to partition, but not in the latter. 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 

t 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 ("de una manera expresa") either by giving it such
name, or by imposing upon the first heir the absolute obligation ("obligacion terminante") to
deliver the inheritance to a substitute or second heir. In this connection Manresa says: .

For the substitution to be a trustee, it is necessary according to art. 781, which is

ordered or entrusted to the first heir, when such, to preserve and transmit to a third
person or entity the whole apart from the inheritance. Or what is the same, the
trustee substitution, as declared by the resolutions of June 25, 1895, February 10,
1899 and July 19, 1909, requires three requirements:.

1st A first heir called to the enjoyment of the assets preferably.

2nd Obligation clearly imposed on the same to preserve and transmit to a third party
all or part of the flow.

3rd a second heir.

To these requirements, the sentence of November 18, 1918, adds another, that of
which the trustee has the right to the assets of the inheritance from the moment of
the death of the testator, since it has to succeed him and not the trustee.

Therefore, when the deceased is limited to instituting two heirs, and due to the death
of both or of either of them, he assigns the part of the deceased or deceased, to the
legitimate heirs or to other people, there is only a vulgar substitution, because the
requirement is missing. If the obligation to preserve and transfer the assets has been
imposed on the first heirs, and article 789, in its first paragraph, prevents the
substitution from being express, by giving the testator the name of trustee
substitution, and by imposing the final obligation on the substituted to preserve and
transfer the assets to a 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.

Hence vulgar subs

B. Time Limitations on Alienability, Art 870

Article 870. The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for
more than twenty years are void. (n)

 XII. LEGITIMES
 
A. Definition, Art 886
Article 886. Legitime is that part of the testator's property which he cannot dispose of
because the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs.
(806)
 
Francisco v Francisco-Alfonso, GR 138774, March 8, 2001
https://mclaw08.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/cases-in-succession/

Spouses Joaquin v CA, GR 126376, November 20, 2003

https://legitdigest.wordpress.com/2018/12/01/spouses-buenaventura-and-joaquin-et-al-v-
court-of-appeals/

Spouses Manongsong v Estimo, GR L-13876, February 28, 1962

http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/12/case-digest-manongsong-v-estimo/