Succession: Section 4 — Conditional Testamentary Dispositions and Testamentary Dispositions With a Term

 SUCCESSION

SECTION 4
Conditional Testamentary Dispositions and Testamentary Dispositions With a Term

Article 871. The institution of an heir may be made conditionally, or for a certain purpose or cause.

Three kinds of testamentary dispositions: 

1. conditional dispositions;
2. dispositions with a term; 
3. dispositions with a mode (modal dispositions).

Article 872. The testator cannot impose any charge, condition, or substitution whatsoever upon the legitimes prescribed in this Code. Should he do so, the same shall be considered as not imposed.

 Conditions 

Article 873. Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good customs shall be considered as not imposed and shall in no manner prejudice the heir, even if the testator should otherwise provide.

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.

Article 875. Any disposition made upon the condition that the heir shall make some provision in his will in favor of the testator or of any other person shall be void.

 
Article 876. Any purely potestative condition imposed upon an heir must be fulfilled by him as soon as he learns of the testator's death.

This rule shall not apply when the condition, already complied with, cannot be fulfilled again.

Article 877. If the condition is casual or mixed, it shall be sufficient if it happen or be fulfilled at any time before or after the death of the testator, unless he has provided otherwise.

Should it have existed or should it have been fulfilled at the time the will was executed and the testator was unaware thereof, it shall be deemed as complied with.

If he had knowledge thereof, the condition shall be considered fulfilled only when it is of such a nature that it can no longer exist or be complied with again.

Potestative condition

• A potestative condition is a condition where the fulfillment of an obligation is dependent on the will of the obligated party. 

Causal condition

A casual condition is one which depends altogether upon chance, and not in the power of the obligor.

Terms

Article 878. A disposition with a suspensive term does not prevent the instituted heir from acquiring his rights and transmitting them to his heirs even before the arrival of the term.

Article 879. If the potestative condition imposed upon the heir is negative, or consists in not doing or not giving something, he shall comply by giving a security that he will not do or give that which has been prohibited by the testator, and that in case of contravention he will return whatever he may have received, together with its fruits and interests.

Article 880. If the heir be instituted under a suspensive condition or term, the estate shall be placed under administration until the condition is fulfilled, or until it becomes certain that it cannot be fulfilled, or until the arrival of the term.

The same shall be done if the heir does not give the security required in the preceding article. (801a)

Article 881. The appointment of the administrator of the estate mentioned in the preceding article, as well as the manner of the administration and the rights and obligations of the administrator shall be governed by the Rules of Court.

Modes

Article 882. The statement of the object of the institution, or the application of the property left by the testator, or the charge imposed by him, shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention.

That which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give security for compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he or they may receive, together with its fruits and interests, if he or they should disregard this obligation.

• A mode must be clearly imposed as an obligation in order to be considered as one. 
• Mere preferences or wishes expressed by the testator are not modes.
• A mode functions similarly to a resolutory condition. In fact, modes could very well have been absorbed in the concept of resolutory conditions.

Rabadilla vs. CA, G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000, Modes

• Aleja Belleza instituted Dr. Jorge Rabadilla as a devisee of a parcel of land in a Codicil appended to her Last Will and Testament, subject to specific provisions including:
• The obligation to deliver sugar annually to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza until her death; 
• Dr. Jorge Rabadilla's heirs or any subsequent owner of the land would inherit this obligation; and
• Non-compliance would lead to property seizure by Maria Marlina and transfer to the testator's near descendants.
• After the death of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, Maria Marlena brought a complaint against his heirs to enforce the conditions of the Codicil. Defendant-heirs were initially declared in default but was later lifted after one of the defendants, Johnny S. Rabadilla, filed an answer. The plaintiff entered into a compromise agreement but full compliance did not occur.
• RTC-Bacolod: Dismissed the complaint, finding it premature.
• CA: reversed the decision, ordering the reconveyance of the property title from Jorge Rabadilla's estate to Aleja Belleza's estate.

1. WoN the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the appeal in accordance with Article 882 of the New Civil Code on modal institutions in deviating from the sole issue raised which is the absence or prematurity of the cause of action. NO

• The disquisition made on modal institution was, precisely, to stress that the private respondent had a legally demandable right against the petitioner pursuant to subject Codicil.
• In the said Codicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No. 1392 to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the condition that the usufruct thereof would be delivered to the herein private respondent every year. Upon the death of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and title over the said property, and they also assumed his (decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot involved to herein private respondent. Such obligation of the instituted heir reciprocally corresponds to the right of private respondent over the usufruct, the fulfillment or performance of which is now being demanded by the latter through the institution of the case at bar. Therefore, private respondent has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint below.

2. WoN the Article 882 of the New Civil Code on modal institutions is not applicable because what the testatrix intended was a substitution - Dr. Jorge Rabadilla was to be substituted by the testatrix's near descendants should there be noncompliance with the obligation to deliver the piculs of sugar to private respondent. NO

• 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 the case under consideration, 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, as 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.  Also, the near descendants' right to inherit from the testatrix is not definite. The property will only pass to them should Dr. Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the obligation to deliver part of the usufruct to private respondent.  A fideicommissary substitution is also void if the first heir is not related by first degree to the second heir. In the case under scrutiny, the near descendants are not at all related to the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
• 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.
• 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.
• The testatrix did not make Dr. Jorge Rabadilla's inheritance and the effectivity of his institution as a devisee, dependent on the performance of the said obligation. It is clear, though, that should the obligation be not complied with, the property shall be turned over to the testatrix's near descendants. The manner of institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under subject Codicil is evidently modal in nature because it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without, however, affecting the efficacy of such institution.
• In case of doubt, the institution should be considered as modal and not conditional.

Article 883. When without the fault of the heir, an institution referred to in the preceding article cannot take effect in the exact manner stated by the testator, it shall be complied with in a manner most analogous to and in conformity with his wishes.

If the person interested in the condition should prevent its fulfillment, without the fault of the heir, the condition shall be deemed to have been complied with.

Article 884. Conditions imposed by the testator upon the heirs shall be governed by the rules established for conditional obligations in all matters not provided for by this Section.

Article 885. The designation of the day or time when the effects of the institution of an heir shall commence or cease shall be valid.

In both cases, the legal heir shall be considered as called to the succession until the arrival of the period or its expiration. But in the first case he shall not enter into possession of the property until after having given sufficient security, with the intervention of the instituted heir.