AMBROSIA POSTIGO VS.

DOLORES BORJAL [MARCH 23, 1909]

FACTS:

Enrique Borjal husband of Ambrosia Postigo (petitioner) executed a will and testament declaring that his
properties shall be administered by his wife for the space of 4 years in order to satisfy all of their debts
and at the expiration of the 4 years his wife shall transfer the parcels to his sister Dolores Borjal
(respondent)

CFI appointed commissioners to appraise the property of the deceased and published notices
summoning all creditors who had claims against property but no claims were presented by the creditors

Respondent was placed in possession of that portion of the inheritance corresponding to her without
the necessity of waiting for the 4 years stipulated in the will

ISSUE:

Whether the clause which provided for the retention by the widow of the said property which the
deceased willed to his sister may be considered as set aside and the usufruct of the said property
bequeathed to his widow should be considered as having terminated

RULING:

NO.

The will of the testator is the primary and principal law governing wills and testaments, and when the
testamentary provisions are clearly and positively stated, questions arising in the courts in connection
with the execution of and compliance therewith shall be adjusted in harmony with the plain and literal
meaning of the language of the testator, except where it clearly appears that his intention was other
than that actually expressed.

In this case, the testator provided that his wife should administer the said parcels of land for 4years, in
order that she might pay his debts. The fact that no creditor ever appeared to collect them is no reason
why the widow and executrix should be deprived of the usufruct of said properties before the lapse of
the said 4 years. Such deprivation would be in violation of the special law that governs the matter, that
is, the will of the testator, by which his property must be administered, according to the legal provisions
and settled rules herein before cited.

VDA. DE VILLANUEVA vs. JUICO

4 SCRA 550

FACTS:

Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a will in Spanish in his own handwriting, devising and bequeathing in favor
of his wife, Dona Faustina ½ of all his real and personal properties giving the other half to his brother
Don Fausto.
Petitioner filed an action against the administrator contending that upon the widow’s death, she
became vested with the ownership of the properties bequeathed under clause 7 pursuant to its 8th
clause of the will.

ISSUE:

WON the petitioner is entitled to the ownership of the properties upon the death of Dona Faustina.

HELD:

The intention of the testator here was to merely give usufructuary right to his wife Doňa Fausta because
in his will he provided that Doňa Fausta shall forfeit the properties if she fails to bear a child and because
she died without having begotten any children with the deceased then it means that Doňa Fausta never
acquired ownership over the property. Upon her death, because she never acquired ownership over the
property, the said properties are not included in her estate. Those properties actually belong to
Villaflor. That was the intention of the testator. Otherwise, if the testator wanted to give the
properties to Doňa Fausta then he should have specifically stated in his will that ownership should
belong to Doňa Fausta without mentioning any condition.

Rodriguez vs CA

Caguioa vs Calderon

Samson vs Quintin
Part 2. Notarial will + cases
9am po ang start ng class later.