FILOMENA PECSON, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF FLORENCIO PECSON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. ROSARIO MEDIAVILLO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

It appears from the record that some time prior to the 17th day of September,
1910, the last will and testament of Florencio Pecson was presented to the Court
of First Instance of the Province of Albay for probate, Mr. Tomas Lorayes, an
attorney at law, opposed the legalization of the will on the ground that it had
not been authorized nor signed by the deceased, in accordance with the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. After hearing the respective parties,
the Honorable Percy M. Moir, judge, found that the will had been signed and
executed in accordance with the provisions of law, and denied the opposition on
the 17th day of September, 1910.

On the 18th day of September, 1910, the said Tomas Lorayes, representing
Basiliso Mediavillo and Rosario Mediavillo, presented a motion in the words
following:

“1. That Rosario Mediavillo is and Joaquin Mediavillo was a legitimate child
of the deceased Teresa Pecson, who also was a daughter of the testator,
Florencio Pecson, and therefore the first mentioned is and the second was a
grandchild of the latter.

“2. That the said granddaughter, Rosario Mediavillo y Pecson, was
disinherited by her grandfather, the testator Florencio Pecson, according to
clause 3 of the will, because she failed to show him due respect and on a
certain occasion raised her hand against him.

“3. That the interested party did not commit such an act, and if perhaps she
did, it was due to the derangement of her mental faculties which occurred a long
time ago and from which she now suffers in periodical attacks.

“By reason of all the foregoing and because the disinheriting clause 3 of the
will is unfounded, the undersigned prays the court to annul the said clause and
to make the testator’s grandchildren, Rosario and Joaquin Mediavillo (the latter
died without succession, but is represented now by his father, Basiliso
Mediavillo), participants in the estate left by their grandfather; and, finally,
that the court grant such other relief as it may deem just and
equitable.”

After a consideration of the question presented by said motion, the lower
court, on the 22d day of September, 1911, rendered the following decision:

“This case has come up today for a hearing on the declaration of heirs of the
deceased Florencio Pecson, who died in Daraga, about the year 1910.

“From the evidence it appears that the deceased had eight children by his
wife Nicolasa Manjares, likewise deceased, which children are those named
Emerenciano, Teresa, Filomena, Asuncion, Rufino, Zoila, Emiliano, and Perfecto,
all surnamed Pecson. It also appears that Rufino Pecson absented himself from
these Islands twenty-five years ago, going to Australia, and that nothing has
been heard of him for the past twenty years. The said Rufino Pecson left no
children in the Philippines and was unmarried when he emigrated. As nothing has
been heard of him for twenty years, it is presumed that he died and it is held
that the part of this estate to which he was entitled must be divided among the
other heirs.

“It also appears from the evidence that Teresa Pecson married Basiliso
Mediavillo’, by whom she had two children, Joaquin and Rosario Mediavillo.
Teresa also died, leaving these two children and her husband, Basiliso
Mediavillo. Her son Joaquin died, unmarried and childless, before the death of
the testator, Florencio Pecson. Rosario is the only living daughter of Teresa
and the latter’s husband, Basiliso Mediavillo, is also living. The evidence
shows that this girl Rosario became insane in 1895, when she went to Nueva
Caceres to study in college, and it has been proved that it was previous to this
date that she disobeyed her grandfather and raised her hand against him, and, as
the testator states in the third paragraph of his will, he disinherited her.
This court understands that this Rosario, who was then 14 years of age, and who
shortly afterwards became insane, was not responsible for her acts and should
not have been disinherited by her grandfather.

“The court therefore decrees that this part of the will is contrary to law
and sets it aside as being of no force or value whatever. The court further
holds that Rosario Mediavillo, the daughter of Teresa Pecson, is the heiress of
the one-half of the share of this estate pertaining to the said Teresa, and that
her father, as the heir of his son Joaquin, also. Teresa’s son, is the heir of
the other one-half of the said share pertaining to Teresa—that is, of the
one-seventh of this estate that pertains to the latter. Moreover, the court
decrees that, besides the two heirs just above mentioned, Emerciano, Filomena,
Asuncion, Zoila, Emiliano, and Perfecto, surnamed Pecson, and the children of
Teresa, are also heirs of the estate of Florencio Pecson.”

From that decision the plaintiff appealed to this court and made the
following assignments of error:

“FIRST ERROR.

“The lower court erred in finding’ that the part of the will which
disinherits Rosario Mediavillo is contrary to law, and in setting it aside as
being of no force or value whatever.

“SECOND ERROR.

“The lower court erred by decreeing that Basiliso Mediavillo, the father of
Joaquin Mediavillo, is the heir by representation of the one-half of the
one-seventh of this estate pertaining to Joaquin Mediavillo.”

With reference to the first assignment of error it may be said that from the
record it appears that during the lifetime of Florencio Pecson he had been
married to Nicolasa Manjares, with whom he had eight children, named Filomena,
Asuncion, Zoila, Emerenciano, Emiliano, Perfecto, Rufino and Teresa Pecson; that
before the death of Florencio Pecson he executed and delivered the will in
question. The will made no provision for the said Rufino Pecson, neither was
there any provision in the will for the said Teresa. All of the other children
were named as heirs in said will. It appears that Teresa had been married with
one Basiliso Mediavillo, and that some time before the making of the will in
question she died, leaving her husband and two children, Joaquin Mediavillo and
Rosario Mediavillo, as her heirs. It also appears from the record that Joaquin
Mediavillo died without heirs, leaving as the only heirs of the said Teresa
Pecson, her husband, Basiliso Mediavillo and the said Rosario Mediavillo. The
said Joaquin Mediavillo died before his grandfather, Florencio Pecson, and
probably before the will in question was made.

Paragraph 3 of the will disinherited Rosario Mediavillo in the following
language:

“I declare that one of my daughters, named Teresa, now deceased, left a
legitimate daughter named Rosario Mediavillo. I also declare that I disinherit
my granddaughter, the said Rosario Mediavillo, because she was grossly
disrespectful to me and because on one occasion, when it was I do not remember,
she raised her hand against me. Therefore, it is my will that the said Rosario
Mediavillo shall have no share in my property.”

The defendant, Rosario Mediavillo, in the motion which she presented and
which is copied above, alleges that she was disinherited without cause, Upon a
consideration of that question, the lower court found that she had been
disinherited without cause and annulled said paragraph 3 of the will. That order
of the lower court constitutes the error complained of by the appellant in her
first assignment of error.

By reference to said paragraph 3 above quoted, it will be seen that Florencio
Pecson disinherited the said Rosario Mediavillo “because she was grossly
disrespectful to me and because on one occasion, when it was I do not remember,
she raised her hand against me. Therefore it is my will that she, the said
Rosario Mediavillo, shall have no share in my property.”

The lower court admitted proof upon the question of the responsibility of the
said Rosario Mediavillo at the time she offered the offense to her grandfather,
Florencio Pecson. After hearing the proof, the lower court reached the following
conclusion:

“The evidence shows that this girl Rosario became insane in 1895, when she
went to Nueva Caceres to study in college, and it has been proved that it was
previous to this date that she disobeyed her grandfather and raised her hand
against him, and, as the testator states in the third paragraph of his will, he
disinherited her. This court understands that this Rosario, who was then 14
years of age, and who shortly afterwards became insane, was not responsible for
her acts and should not have been disinherited by her
grandfather.”

The first assignment of error presents the question whether or not the
courts, when a parent disinherits his children, may inquire into the cause of
the disinheritance and decide that there was or was not ground for such
disinheritance. The Civil Code (art. 848) provides that disinheritance shall
only take place for one of the causes expressly fixed by law. In
accordance with the provisions of that article (848) we find that articles 756
and 853 provide the cases or causes for disinheritance; or, in other words, the
cases or causes. in which the ancestors may by will disinherit their heirs.
Article 849 of the Civil Code provides that the disinheritance can only
be effected by the testament, in which shall be mentioned the legal grounds or
causes for such disinheritance. If it is true that heirs can be disinherited
only by will, and for causes mentioned in the Civil Code, it would seem
to follow that the courts might properly inquire whether the disinheritance has
been made properly and for the causes provided for by law. The right of the
courts to inquire into the causes and whether there was sufficient cause for the
disinheritance or not, seems to be supported by express provisions of the Civil
Code. Article 850 provides that “the, proof of the truthfulness of the reason
for disinheritance shall be established by the heirs of the testator, should the
disinherited person deny it.” It would appear then that if the person
disinherited should deny the truthfulness of the cause of disinheritance, he
might be permitted to support his allegation by proof. The right of the court to
inquire whether or not the disinheritance was made for just cause is also
sustained by the provisions of article 851, which in part provides that :

“Disinheritance made without statement of the reason, or for a cause the
truth of which, if contradicted, should not be proven * * * shall annul the
designation of heirship, in so far as it prejudices the person
disinherited.”

It seems clear from the above-quoted provisions, that the courts may inquire
into the justice of a disinheritance such as was attempted in the present case,
and if they find that the disinheritance was without cause, that part of the
testament or will may be pronounced null and void. It remains, however, to be
seen whether the evidence adduced during the trial of the present cause was
sufficient to show that the disinheritance made in paragraph 3 of the will was
made for just cause. It appears from the record that when Rosario Mediavillo was
about 14 years of age, she had received some attentions from a young man—that
she had received a letter from him—and that her grandfather, Florencio Pecson,
took occasion to talk to her about the relations between her and the said young
man; that it was upon that occasion when, it is alleged, the disobedience and
disrespect were shown to her grandfather, and that was the cause for her
disinheritance by her grandfather. The record shows that very soon after said
event she lost the use of her mental powers and that she has never regained
them, except for very brief periods, up to the present time. The lower court,
taking into consideration her tender years, and the fact that she very soon
thereafter lost the use of her mental faculties, reached the conclusion that she
was probably not responsible for the disrespect and disobedience shown to her
grandfather in the year 1894 or 1895.

After a careful consideration of the record, we are inclined to believe that
the same supports the conclusions of the lower court and that he did not commit
the error complained of in the first assignment of error.

With reference to, the second assignment of error, it will be remembered that
Teresa Pecson, the mother of Rosario Mediavillo, at the time of her death left
two children, Rosario and Joaquin, and her husband Basiliso Mediavillo, and that
the said Joaquin Mediavillo died without heirs. The lower court gave one-half of
the inheritance of the said Teresa Pecson to Rosario Mediavillo and the share
that would have gone to Joaquin Mediavillo, to his father Basiliso Mediavillo.
In that conclusion of the lower court we think error was committed. The
appellant relies upon the provisions of article 925 of the Civil Code, in his
contention that the lower court committed an error. Article 925 provides
that:

“The right of representation shall always take place in the direct descending
line, but never in the ascending. In collateral lines, it shall take place only
in favor of the children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the whole or
half blood.”

The appellee, in support of the conclusions of the lower court, cites
articles 935 and 936 of the Civil Code. Article 935 provides that:

“In the absence of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his
ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of
collaterals.”

Article 936 provides that:

“The father and mother, if living, shall inherit share and share alike. If
one of them only survive, he or she shall succeed to the son’s entire
estate.”

It will be remembered that the whole argument of the appellants with
reference to the first assignment of error was that Rosario Mediavillo had been
disinherited and the court evidently believed that there were no “legitimate
children, descendants of the deceased, surviving,” and that therefore the father
or mother of said legitimate children would inherit as ascendants. Inasmuch,
however, as there was a descendant in the direct line, surviving, the
inheritance could not ascend, and for that reason the lower court committed an
error in declaring that Basiliso Mediavillo was entitled to inherit that share
of the estate that would have belonged to Joaquin Mediavillo, had he been
living. Therefore, and for all of. the foregoing, that part of the judgment of
the lower court nullifying and setting aside paragraph 3 of the will is hereby
affirmed, and that part of said judgment which decrees to Basiliso Mediavillo
one-half of the estate of Florencio Pecson, belonging to Teresa Pecson and which
would have been given to Joaquin Mediavillo, had he been surviving, is hereby
revoked. And without any finding as to costs, it is hereby ordered that the
cause be remanded to the lower court, with direction that judgment be entered in
accordance herewith, and that such further proceedings be had as the interested
parties may deem necessary, for the purpose of disposing of that part of the
inheritance of Teresa Pecson which would have belonged to Joaquin Mediavillo,
hud he been surviving.

Torres, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.

---

CONCURRING

ARELLANO, C. J.

I agree with the second part of the decision reversing the judgment appealed
from.

---

DISSENTING

ARAULLO, J.

I do not agree with that part of the decision which affirms the judgment
appealed from.