THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. JOSe PURUGGANAN ET AL. DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

The plaintiff in this action seeks to recover from the defendants 38,000
manojos of rice or its money value, which he alleges to be P5,700, on the ground
that, as plaintiff alleges, these defendants are the heirs of one Dona Josef a
de la Rosa, deceased, and as such heirs have received from her estate certain
lands upon conditions which obligate them to deliver to plaintiff or his lawful
representatives 2,800 manojos of rice annually, and that they have
neglected and failed to make any such annual deliveries since the year 1903.

This charge, as plaintiff alleges, was placed on the lands inherited by
defendants by the twenty-fourth clause of the will of Dona Josef a de la Rosa,
deceased, which was executed in the year 1746. The clause of the will in
question is alleged to be as follows:

“CLAUSE 24.—Item.—I declare and direct my said administrator and
heir, as my last wish and for the good of my soul, that my said lands yielding
9,000 manojos be given in rental for the thirds that amount to 3,000
manojos, as I have always given them, to various persons and that he
continue it every year; and of said lands my said administrator and heir shall
deliver 2,000 manojos to whoever may be the very reverend father prior
of said Bantay, whom I request and pray in recompense from him that he order
celebrated four masses with their vigils for the good of my soul and that of my
said husband, and I charge my said brother with looking after and promptly
executing this said clause, doing so as my last, wish, with the declaration that
of the remainder for the completion of said 3,000 manojos, there be given 300
for Services for the dead, 500 he shall give and deliver to the steward of the
Confraternity of Our Lady of the said Bantay, and the 200 to complete the said
1,000 remaining he deliver to whoever may be the very reverend prior of said
pueblo, whom I likewise pray to order celebrated the masses that may be due
therefor to be applied to the souls alone in purgatory, and that it may be
recorded, I so declare.

“Item.—I declare and revoke and annul any other instruments,
codicils, testaments, and other dispositions that I may heretofore have made,
and solemnly provide that it is iny wish that none other than the present
prevail or be accepted in or out of court; so I sign, having as witnesses Don
Manuel de Jesus, the officers of this court with me as interpreters and my said
associates, and of that I bear witness.—Josef Verzosa, Juez Receptor.—Josefa de
la Rosa.— Dionisio Venegas.—Felipe Panlasiqui.—Cristobal de
Zales.”

Passing all questions as to the proper construction of the will and of its
effect as an alleged perpetual charge on the lands therein described, it is very
manifest that in no event could judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff
without proof that these defendants received the lands mentioned in the will
subject to the charge imposed by the above-cited clause 24. At the trial,
plaintiff undertook to prove that the defendant Don Jose Purugganan and his
co-defendants are the heirs of Dona Josefa de la Rosa, deceased; that Don Jose
Purugganan is the administrator of the lands mentioned in the will; that certain
lands now held by the defendants are the lands mentioned in the will; and that
these lands are and have been held by them subject to the annual charge imposed
by the will. After a careful review of the whole record we are satisfied that
the judgment entered in the trial court in favor of the defendants must be
sustained, the evidence introduced at the trial not being sufficient to sustain
any of these contentions.

As the trial judge well says, the most that can be said for the testimony
introduced by the plaintiff is that it tends. to prove that throughout the
latter half of the last century a considerable amount of rice was received
annually by the representatives of the church and credited as a donation under
the will of Dona Josef a de la Rosa, deceased; but the evidence introduced at
the trial fails utterly to establish the allegations of the complaint as to the
existence of an obligation imposed upon these defendants to make any such
deliveries.

Arellano, C. J., Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.