Johnny S.
Rabadilla v CA, and Maria Marlena Cocolluela y Belleza composite price of sugar during each sugar crop year which amounts to P
[G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000, J. Purisima, First Division]
FACTS
In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja Belleza, Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla was instituted as a devisee of 511,855sqm of a parcel of land surveyed in the Bacolod
Cadastre. The codicil was probated and admitted before the CFI of Negros Occidental. It
contained the following provisions:
 Dr. Jorge Rabadilla was to inherit: Lot No. 1329 of the Bacolod Cadastre and that
should Jorge Rabadilla die before the testatrix, the property and rights shall be
inherited and acknowledged by his children and spouse.
 If the testatrix should die and Jorge Rabadilla have already received ownership, and
also at the time that the lease of Balbinito G. Guanzon of the said lot shall expire,
Jorge shall have the obligation until he dies to give Maria Marlina Coscolluela y
Belleza 75 piculs of Export sugar and 25 piculs of Domestic sugar until Maria Marlina
dies.
 If Jorge RAbadilla dies, his heir whom he shall give Lot 1392 shall have the obligation
to give yearly, the sugar specified in the 4th paragraph.
 That in the event an heir shall later steal, lease, mortgage the Lot, the buyer, lessee,
mortgagee into an obligation to respect and deliver the sugar until Maria Marlina shall
die. She shall immediately seize Lot 1392 and shall turn it over to the testatrix’s near
descendants. The descendants shall have the obligation to give 100 piculs of sugar
until Maria Marlina died. Heirs and their heirs will obey and follow they decide to sell,
lease, mortgage. They cannot negotiate with others other than the testatrix’s near
descendants and sisiter.
Lot 1392 was transferred to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. A TCT was issued in his name.
Dr. Rabadilla died and was survived by his wife Rufine and children, all named Rabadilla.
Maria Marlena brought a complaint before the RTC of Bacolod, against the heirs of Dr. Rabadilla
to enforce the provisions of subject Council.
The complaint alleged that the defendant-heirs violated the conditions in the hospital:
 Lot 1392 was mortgaged to Philippine National Bank when testatrix gave a specific
instruction to sell, lease, or mortgage only to the near descendants and sister of
testatrix.
 Heirs failed to comply with obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar to Maria Marlena
from sugar crop years 1985 up to the filing of the complaint
 The banks failed to comply with the provision providing that in case of the sale, lease,
or mortgage of the property, the buyer, lessee, or mortgagee shall likewise have the
obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar per crop year to Maria MArlena.
Maria Marlena prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant-heirs (Dr. Rabadilla’s
heirs) to reconvey or return Lot No 1392 to the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza, the
cancellation of the TCT in the name of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, and the issuance of a new certificate
of title in the names of the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza.
During pre-trial, the parties admitted that
 On November 15, 1998, Maria Marlena and a certain Alan Azurin, son-in-law of the
petitioner who was lessee of property and acting as attorney-in-fact of defendant heirs
arrived at an amicable statement and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on
the obligation to deliver one hundred piculs of sugar. The parties agreed to the
following:
o 75 piculs of A sugar and 25 piculs of B sugar, in Azucar Sugar Central; and
this is considered compliance of the annuity
o The above stated annuity for crop year 1985-86, 1986=87, and 1987, and
1987-99, will be complied in cash equivalent taking into consideration the
105,000.00
o The amount will be paid or delivered on a staggered cash installment.
P26,250 for each year from 1985-1989.
 There was no compliance with the MOA except for a partial delivery of 50.80 piculs of
sugar.
RTC dismissed the complaint as the action is prematurely filed as no cause of action against the
defendants.
CA reversed the RTC – We start with Heirs of Dr. Rabadilla
This is a petition for review of the decision of the CA.
ISSUES
WON the lot should be reconveyed – YES
Petitioner: CA erred in resolving the appeal in accordance with Art 882 of the NCC on modal
institutions and in deviating from the sole issue which si the absence or prematurity of the cause
of action. Article 882 does not find application because there was not modal institution and the
testatrix intended a mere simple substitution. Also, theorizing further, petitioner says that there
can eve no substitutinality, there can be no valid substitution
Court: It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are transmitted
from the moment of death of the decedent and compulsory heirs are called to succeed by
operation of law. The legitimate children and descendants, in relation to their legitimate parents,
and the widow or widower, are compulsory heirs. Thus, the petitioner, his mother and sisters, as
compulsory heirs of the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter by operation of
law, without need of further proceedings, and the successional rights were transmitted to them
from the moment of death of the decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code, inheritance includes all the property, rights and
obligations of a person, not extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla had by virtue of subject Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his
death. And since obligations not extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the
decedent; corollarily, the obligations imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death.
Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person or persons to take the place of the heir
or heirs first instituted. Under substitutions in general, the testator may either (1) provide for the
designation of another heir to whom the property shall pass in case the original heir should die
before him/her, renounce the inheritance or be incapacitated to inherit, as in a simple
substitution, or (2) leave his/her property to one person with the express charge that it be
transmitted subsequently to another or others, as in a fideicommissary substitution. The Codicil
sued upon contemplates neither of the two.
In simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by reason
of incapacity, predecease or renunciation.
 ITC, the provisions of subject Codicil do not provide that should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla
default due to predecease, incapacity or renunciation, the testatrix's near descendants
would substitute him. What the Codicil provides is that, should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or
his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil, the property referred to shall
be seized and turned over to the testatrix's near descendants. Neither is there a
fideicommissary substitution here and on this point, petitioner is correct.
In a fideicommissary substitution, the first heir is strictly mandated to preserve the property and
to transmit the same later to the second heir. In the case under consideration, the instituted heir
is in fact allowed under the Codicil to alienate the property provided the negotiation is with the
near descendants or the sister of the testatrix. Thus, a very important element of a
fideicommissary substitution is lacking; the obligation clearly imposing upon the first heir the
preservation of the property and its transmission to the second heir. "Without this obligation to
preserve clearly imposed by the testator in his will, there is no fideicommissary substitution."
A "mode" imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of his
rights to the succession. On the other hand, in a conditional testamentary disposition, the
condition must happen or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator.
The condition suspends but does not obligate; and the mode obligates but does not suspend. To
some extent, it is similar to a resolutory condition.

Also, the near descendants' right to inherit from the testatrix is not definite. The property will only The manner of institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under subject Codicil is evidently modal in
pass to them should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the obligation to deliver part of the nature because it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without, however, affecting the
usufruct to private respondent. Another important element of a fideicommissary substitution is efficacy of such institution. However, the testatrix did not make Dr. Jorge Rabadilla's inheritance
also missing here. Under Article 863, the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the and the effectivity of his institution as a devisee, dependent on the performance of the said
property is transmitted must not be beyond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciary. A obligation. It is clear, though, that should the obligation be not complied with, the property shall
fideicommissary substitution is therefore, void if the first heir is not related by first degree to the- be turned over to the testatrix's near descendants.
second heir. In the case under scrutiny, the near descendants are not at all related to the
instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. Since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality, an obligation imposed upon the
heir should not be considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the Will itself that such
Type of Definition ITC at bar was the intention of the testator. In case of doubt, the institution should be considered as modal
Substitution and not conditional.
simple Testator provide for the the provisions of subject Codicil do not
substitution designation of another heir to provide that should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla Private respondent’s right IS NOT only that of usufruct. In the interpretation of Wills, when an
whom the property shall pass in default due to predecease, incapacity or uncertainty arises on the face of the Will, as to the application of any of its provisions, the
case the original heir should die renunciation, the testatrix's near testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the Will, taking into consideration the
before him/her, renounce the descendants would substitute him. What circumstances under which it was made. Such construction as will sustain and uphold the Will in
inheritance or be incapacitated the Codicil provides is that, should Dr. all its parts must be adopted. Since the said obligation is clearly imposed by the testatrix, not
to inherit Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the only on the instituted heir but also on his successors-in-interest, the sanction imposed by the
conditions imposed in the Codicil, the testatrix in case of non-fulfillment of said obligation should equally apply to the instituted heir and
property referred to shall be seized and his successors-in-interest.
turned over to the testatrix's near
descendants. A Will cannot be the subject of a compromise agreement which would thereby defeat the very
fideicommissary Testator leave his/her property a very important element of a purpose of making a Will. Suffice it to state that a Will is a personal, solemn, revocable and free
substitution. to one person with the express fideicommissary substitution is lacking; act by which a person disposes of his property, to take effect after his death. Since the Will
charge that it be transmitted the obligation clearly imposing upon the expresses the manner in which a person intends how his properties be disposed, the wishes and
subsequently to another or other first heir the preservation of the property desires of the testator must be strictly followed.
and its transmission to the second heir.
Under Article 863, the second "Without this obligation to preserve [this part of the ratio edited from JF’s version]
heir or the fideicommissary to clearly imposed by the testator in his
whom the property is will, there is no fideicommissary  PETITION DISMISSED
transmitted must not be beyond substitution."
one degree from the first heir or
the fiduciary. A fideicommissary Also, the near descendants' right to
substitution is therefore, void if inherit from the testatrix is not definite.
the first heir is not related by The property will only pass to them
first degree to the second heir should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs
not fulfill the obligation to deliver part of
the usufruct to private respondent.

the near descendants are not at all

related to the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla.
Credits to: J.F.

The institution of an heir in the manner prescribed in Article 882 is what is known in the law of
succession as an institucion sub modo or a modal institution. In a modal institution, the testator
states
 (1) the object of the institution,
 (2) the purpose or application of the property left by the testator, or
 (3) the charge imposed by the testator upon the heir.