Case Digest: Villaflor Vda. de Villanueva vs. Juico, G.R. No. L-15737, February 28, 1962

Art. 790 | Succession, Construction, Conditions

Provisions:

Article 790. The words of a will are to be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense, unless a clear intention to use them in another sense can be gathered, and that other can be ascertained.

Article 791. 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 one is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy.

Article 874. An absolute condition not to contract a first or subsequent marriage shall be considered as not written unless such condition has been imposed on the widow or widower by the deceased spouse, or by the latter's ascendants or descendants.

Nevertheless, the right of usufruct, or an allowance or some personal prestation may be devised or bequeathed to any person for the time during which he or she should remain unmarried or in widowhood.

Ponente:
Reyes, JBL J.

Petitioner:  Leonor Villaflor Vda. de Villanueva

Respondent: Delfin N. Juico

In His Capacity as Judicial Administrator of the Testate Estateo Fausta Nepomuceno

Facts:

In 1908, Don Nicolas Villaflor, a wealthy man of Castillejos, Zambales, executed a will in Spanish. 

He left half of his properties to his wife, Doña Fausta Nepomuceno, and the other half to his brother, Don Fausto Villaflor. 

Translation of the Will:

SIXTH: — By virtue of the powers granted to me by the laws, I appoint my brother, Mr. Fausto Villaflor, and my wife, Mrs. Fausta Nepomuceno, as my sole and universal heirs to all my rights and actions, to divide equally all my belongings that belong to me, after my death, except for the donations and legacies that, at my most spontaneous will, I make in the following manner:

SEVENTH: — I bequeath, after my death, to my wife, Mrs. Fausta Nepomuceno, as a token of my love and affection, the properties, jewelry, and furniture listed below:

EIGHTH: — These legacies, my aforementioned wife, Mrs. Fausta Nepomuceno, shall enjoy the use and possession of them while she is alive and does not enter into a second marriage; otherwise, these said legacies shall become the property of my grandniece, Leonor Villaflor.

However, the 12th clause of the will provided that Clauses 6th and 7th thereof would be deemed annulled from the moment he bore any child with Doña Fausta Nepomuceno. Said Clause 12th reads as follows:

TWELFTH: — Paragraphs 6.0 and 7.0 of this will, which deal with the institution of heirs and the legacies that will be made after my death in favor of my wife, are annulled the moment I am fortunate enough to have legitimate or legitimated children, as these, according to the law, shall be my heirs.

In 1922, Don Nicolas passed away without having children with Doña Fausta. She became the judicial administratrix of his estate and submitted a project of partition that granted her ownership and possession of substantial real and personal estate, including properties mentioned in Clause 7th.

In 1956, Doña Fausta Nepomuceno died, unmarried and childless. 

The plaintiff, Leonor Villaflor Vda. de Villanueva, who was mentioned in the will as "sobrina nieta" (grandniece), claimed that she should inherit the properties mentioned in Clause 7th upon Doña Fausta's death, based on the conditions in Clause 8th of the will.

Issue:

WoN Leonor Villaflor should inherit the properties mentioned in Clause 7th. YES

Held:

Leonor Villaflor Vda. de Villanueva is declared entitled to the ownership and fruits of the properties described in Clause 7th of the will or testament, from the date of the death of Doña Fausta Nepomuceno. 

We agree with appellant that the plain desire and intent of the testator, as manifested in Clause 8th of his testament, was to invest his widow with only a usufruct or life tenure in the properties described in the seventh clause, subject to the further condition that if the widow remarried, her rights would thereupon cease, even during her own lifetime. 

That the widow was meant to have no more than a life interest in those properties, even if she did not remarry at all, is evident from the expressions used by the deceased "use and possession while alive." The testator plainly did not give his widow the full ownership of these particular properties, but only the right to their possession and use or enjoyment during her lifetime. This is in contrast with the remainder of the estate in which she was instituted universal heir together with the testator's brother.

The court below, in holding that the appellant Leonor Villaflor, as reversionary legatee, could succeed to the properties bequeathed by Clause 7th of the testament only in the event that the widow remarried, has unwarrantedly discarded the expression "mientras viva," and considered the words "uso y posesion" as equivalent to "dominio" (ownership). 

Speculation as to the motives of the testator in imposing the conditions contained in Clause 7th of his testament should not be allowed to obscure the clear and unambiguous meaning of his plain words, which are over the primary source in ascertaining his intent. It is well to note that if the testator had intended to impose as sole condition the non-remarriage of his widow, the words "uso y posesion mientras viva" would have been unnecessary, since the widow could only remarry during her own lifetime.

Technical words in a will are to be taken in their technical sense, unless the context clearly indicates a contrary intention, or unless it satisfactorily appears that the will was drawn solely by the testator, and that he was unacquainted with such technical sense. 

As already shown, the testament of Don Nicolas Villaflor clearly and unmistakably provided that his widow should have the possession and use of the legacies while alive and did not remarry. It necessarily follows that by the express provisions of the 8th Clause of his will, the legacies should pass to the testator's "sobrinanieta", appellant herein, upon the widow's death, even if the widow never remarried in her lifetime. Consequently, the widow had no right to retain or dispose of the aforesaid properties, and her estate is accountable to the reversionary legatee for their return, unless they had been lost due to fortuitous event, or for their value should rights of innocent third parties have intervened.