EMETERIO A. RODRIGUEZ (in substitution of RUFINO A.

RODRIGUEZ,
who died during the pendency of this case in the Court of Appeals), and
JOSE AYALA, executors-petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
and PETRA RODRIGUEZ, ANTONIA RODRIGUEZ and ROSA RODRIGUEZ,
oppositors-respondents .

FACTS: Doña Margarita Rodriguez died leaving a last will and testament that said last
will and testament was legalized by virtue of the resolution or order of the Court of
First Instance of Manila. The extrinsic and intrinsic validity of the will was
substantially not in question. In the decision of the Court of Appeals that "at the time
of her death left no compulsory heirs or forced heirs and, consequently, [was] free to
dispose of her properties even to strangers at will as provided in her will." 3 It was
likewise noted therein that the testatrix created a trust which was objected to by
private respondents, who claimed to be first cousins of the deceased. Such an
objection was overruled by the lower court which granted letters of trusteeship to
petitioners, who were the executors under the will. Such an order of the lower court
was appealed by respondent to the Court of Appeals, which, in the original decision of
January 18, 1967, affirmed the action taken by the Court of First Instance.

A motion for reconsideration filed by private respondents resulted in a resolution of

January 8, 1968, which set aside its previous decision of January 18, 1967 and
modified the judgment appealed from. In the resolution setting aside the original
decision of January 18, 1967, the Court of Appeals held that the above "perpetual
prohibition to alienate" the property mentioned, constitutes a clear violation of Article
867 and Article 870 of the Civil Code. It was that “Ipinag uutos ko na ang mga pag-
aaring nasasabi sa CLausang ito ay pangangasiwaan habang panahon at lahat ng
pag-aaring nasabi ay hindi maiisanla o maipgbibili kailanman.

ISSUE: Whether or not such clause violates the prohibition to alienate for more than
20 years

HELD: No. atleast insofar as the 1st 20 years is concerned.

It does not admit of doubt that in the disputed clause the testatrix did make
clear her purpose not to mortgage or to sell forevermore (kailan man) certain
properties left by her. There would seem then some justification for the Court of
Appeals in the challenged resolution to deny force and effect to such a wish
considering that "a perpetual prohibition to alienate" is by the Civil Code forbidden. 9
The more controlling provision, however, as already made mention of is supplied by
Article 870. Its terms are clear: "The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of
the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void."cralaw virtua1aw library

Even with the purpose that the testatrix had in mind were not as unequivocal, still the
same conclusion emerges. There is no room for intestacy as would be the effect if the
challenged resolution of January 8, 1968 were not set aside. The wishes of the
testatrix constitute the law. Her will must be given effect. This is so even if there could
be an element of uncertainty insofar as the ascertainment thereof is concerned. In the
language of a Civil Code provision: "If a testamentary disposition admits of different
interpretations, in case of doubt, that interpretation by which the disposition is to be
operative shall be preferred." 11 Nor is this all. A later article of the Civil Code equally
calls for observance. Thus: "The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which
will give to every expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of the
expressions inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred
which will prevent intestacy." 12 The net result would be to reaffirm the conclusion
reached that the challenged resolution of January 8, 1968 is objectionable, in view of
its lack of fidelity to the controlling legal norms.
 CHUA VS CFI

FACTS: In the first marriage of Jose Frias Chua with Patricia Militar he sired
three children, namely: Ignacio, Lorenzo and Manuel. When Patricia S. Militar died,
Jose Frias Chua contracted a second marriage with Consolacion de la Torre with
whom he had a child by the name of Juanita Frias Chua. Manuel, one of the children
of Jose in his first marriage, died without leaving any issue. Jose Frias Chua died
intestate. In the intestate proceeding, Consolacion and Juanito got 1/2 each of Lot No.
399. Jose’s children in the first marriage got cash. Thereafter, JuanitoFrias Chua of
the second marriage died intestate without any issue. After his death, his mother
Consolacion de la Torre succeeded to his pro-indivisio share of Lot No. 399. Then
Consolacion de la Torre died intestate leaving no direct heir either in the descending or
ascending line except her brother and sisters.

In the “Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la Torre,” the petitioners

herein, Ignacio Frias Chua, of the first marriage and dominador and Remedios Chua,
the supposed legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo Frias Chua, also of
the first marriage filed the complaint praying that the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No.
399 which formerly belonged to JuanitoFrias but which passed to Consolacion de la
Torre upon the latter’s death, be declared as a reservable property. The RTC ruled
dismissing the complaint.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ignacio, Dominador and Remedios can get the land

HELD: Yes. In order that a property may be impressed with a reservable character the
following requisites must exist, to wit: (1) that the property was acquired by a
descendant from an asscendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title; (2) that
said descendant died without an issue; (3) that the property is inherited by another
ascendant by operation of law; and (4) that there are relatives within the third degree
belonging to the line from which said property came.

All of the foregoing requisites are present. Thus, as borne out by the records, Juanoito
Frias Chua of the second marriage died intestate in 1952; he died withour leaving any
issue; his pro-indiviso of 1/2 share of Lot No. 399 was acquired by his mother,
Consolacion de la Torre died, Juannnito Frias Chua who died intestate had relatives
within the third degree. These relatives are Ignacio Frias Chua and Dominador Chua
and Remidios Chua, the suppose legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo Frias
Chua, who are the petitioners herein
 VDA DE TUPAS V RTC

No. L-55800 | October 3, 1986 | Narvasa

FACTS: In 1978 Epifanio died, childless, leaving his widow, Partenza Lucerna, as his
only surviving compulsory heir. He also left a will dated May 18, 1976, which was
admitted to probate on September 30, 1980 in Special Proceedings No. 13994 of the
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Among the assets listed in his will were
lots Nos. 837, 838 and 839 of the Sagay Cadastre, admittedly his private capital.
However, at the time of his death, these lots were no longer owned by him, he having
donated them the year before (on August 2, 1977) to the Tupas Foundation, Inc.,
which had thereafter obtained title to said lots.

Claiming that said donation had left her practically destitute of any inheritance,
Tupas' widow brought suit against Tupas Foundation, Inc. in the same Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental (docketed as Civil Case No. 16089) to have the donation
declared inofficious insofar as it prejudiced her legitime,

The Trial Court did not see things her way and dismissed the complaint on the ground
that Art. 900 because the properties which were disposed of by way of donation one
year before the death of Epifanio Tupas were no longer part of his hereditary estate at
the time of his death on August 20, 1978.

ISSUE: Whether or not the donation is inofficious and can be reduced

HELD: Yes. A person’s prerogative to make donation is subject to certain limitations

I.E. Art 752, CC: He cannot give by donation more than he can give by will.

If he did so, what is donated as exceeds what he can give by will is deemed inofficious
and the donation is reducible to the excess (though without prejudice to its taking
effect in the donor’s lifetime or the donee’s appropriating the fruits of the thing
donated (Art 771)

Such a donation is also collationable. The value is imputed into the hereditary estate
of the donor at the time of his death for the purpose of determining the legitime of the
forced or compulsory heirs and the freely disposable portion of the estate