Onesima Belen v BPI and Milagros Belen De Olaguera  The Court denied this petition and held that
d this petition and held that the share of Filomena should also be
October 31, 1960| Reyes, J.B.L., J. | Legacies and Devises
Digester: Anna Mickaella Lingat
SUMMARY: Benigno Diaz made a codicil naming Filomena Diaz as one of the
legatees. Benigno died and his will was admitted for probate and the estate was put
under the administration of BPI as trustee. When Filomena died, she left two children –
Milagros Belen v de Olaguera (married with 7 legitimate children) and Onesima Belen
(single). Onesima filed a petition praying that BPI be ordered to deliver to her one-half
of her share. She contends that the estate of Filomena under a codicil should only be
divided between her and Milagros, to the exclusion of the 7 children. CFI held that the
children should be included. Onesima invokes Art 959 where “a distribution made in
general terms in favor of the testator shall be understood as made in favor of those
nearest in degree.” The Court ruled that the words “sus descendientes legitimos” in the
codicil of Benigno Diaz refer to all living descendants and not only to descendants
nearest in degree.
DOCTRINE: The word “descendant” must be interpreted, in the absence of other
indications of contrary intent, in that the proper rule to apply is that the testator, by
designating a class or group of legatees, intended all members to succeed per capita.
FACTS:
 On September 29, 1944, Benigno Diaz executed a codicil which provides that:
(Loose google translation HUHUHELP)
o 9.0 - In case of death of some or all legatees appointed(?) by me, beneficiaries
or legacies in favor only legitimate descendants and ascendants, spouses but
not widowers.
o 10.0 - Ten or fifteen years after my death all my properties, movable or
immovable, rights and advantageous, they can proceed with the sale of all
giving preference to the legatees and their total amount thousand pesos
(P1,000) is deducted for four children of my late brother Fabian, all expenses
and reserving enough and well cover calcumada(??) to the following people
who still vuiven(??) or their legitimate descendants distribute:
 Isabel M. de Santiago - (50%)
 Domingo Legarda children - (30%)
 Filomena Diaz - (10%)
 Nestor M. Santiago - (10%)
 When Diaz died, the codicil was admitted to probate. The estate was thereafter put
under the administration of BPI as trustee for the benefit of the legatees.
 Ten years later, Filomena Diaz died, leaving two legitimate children, Milagros Belen
de Olaguera (married with 7 legitimate children) and Onesima Belen (single).
 Onesima filed a petition in Special Proceedings contending that the estate of
Filomena under the codicil should only be divided between her and Milagros, to
the exclusion of the 7 legitimate children of Milagros. Onesima, as legatee, prayed
that BPI be ordered to deliver her one-half of whatever share is due to Filomena
Diaz.
distributed among her grandchildren. Descendientes include not only children but also
grandchildren. One may be a descendant but not yet an heir and vice versa.
 Onesima appealed to this Court and argued that:
o The interpretation of Clause 10 of the codicil of the will of Benigno Diaz has
not been affirmed in the previous case Arguelles v Belen de Olaguera.
o 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. In this case, they are her two daughters (Milagros and Onesima);
thereby excluding the seven grandchildren of said legatee.
RULING: Judgment is affirmed
Whether the words “sus descendientes legitimos” (their legitimate descendants) refer
conjointly to all living descendant (children and grandchildren) of the legatee, as
a class (or do they refer to the descendants nearest in degree)? – YES, it refers to
all living descendants.
 Onesima argues: the phrase should be taken to mean the relatives nearest in degree.
She 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.
 Art 959 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.
 Manresa: la razon y la logica ha cen fundadamente suponer que, al procurar este
favorecer a sus parientes, habria de ajustarse mas a ligadas al mismo (testador) por
los vinculos de la sanger y de la familia
o Translated: by reason and logic, we can reasonably assume that, in seeking this
favor their relatives, would have to conform more to come with it (testator) by
the ties of family and sanger(?)
 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.
 There are various reasons against applying Art 959 by analogy.
o Under this article, the nearest of exclude all the farther relatives and right of
representation does not operate.
o The history of Art 751 (of 1889 Code) shown that the right of representation
was deliberately suppressed.
 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 same 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.
 It is suggested that "descendientes legitimos" could mean the nearest descendant
but with the right of representation in favor of the more distant relatives. The
testator was at liberty to provide a series of successive substitutions in the order of
proximity of relationship to the original legatee. And he, likewise, was free to
ordain that the more distant descendants should enjoy the right of representation as
in intestate succession.
 However, it is necessary that the testator had:
o (a) Rejected, or intended to reject, the right of accretion among co-heirs and
co-legatees, as established for testamentary successions by Articles 1016 (old
Art. 982) and 1019, and intended to replace such accretion with representation;
o (b) Refused, likewise, the rule of Article 846 (reproduced from Article 765 of
the Code of 1889) providing that: Heirs instituted without designation of
shares shall inherit in equal parts, which would not obtain if the right of
representation were to apply;
o (c) Rejected finally the rule of Article 1022 (old Art. 986), that vacancies in the
free part should be filed according to the rules of accretion or substitution (not
representation); and in default of these two, ultimately inherited by the
testator's own heirs intestate.
 There is no doubt that, the testator's intention being the cardinal rule of succession
in the absence of compulsory (forced) heirs, he could have rendered inoperative all
the articles mentioned, if he had so desired.
 But without any other supporting circumstances, the Court deemed the expression
"o a sus desecendientes legitimos," the testator Benigno Diaz did intend to
circumvent all the legal provisions heretofore quoted. It was incumbent upon
appellant to prove such intention on the part of the testator; yet she has not done
so.
 Wyeth, et al., vs. Crane: The meaning of the word "descendants", when used in a will
or deed to designate a class to take property passing by the will or deed, has been
frequently considered and decided by the Court of England and the United States.
o They established rule in England from an early date was that the word
"descendants" or the word "issued" unexplained by anything in the context of
the instrument, means all persons descending lineally from another, to the
remotest degree, and includes persons descended, even though their parents
are living, and that such descendants take per capita stripes.
 In the absence of other indications of contrary intent, the proper rule to apply in
the instant case is that the testator, by designating a class or group of legatees,
intended all members thereof to succeed per capita, in consonance with article 846.
 So that the original legacy to Filomena Diaz should be equally divided among her
surviving children and grandchildren.