(With Resolution of Nov. 29, 1966)

Blas de Buenaventura versus Santos

The Case

This is the story of Flora Blas de Buenaventura, a devisee named in the will of the deceased Maxima Santos, who opposed the probate of that will and then withdrew her opposition before she had finished presenting her evidence. The executrix, Rosalina Santos, then invoked the will's no-contest and forfeiture clause — a testamentary condition that strips any heir, devisee, or legatee who contests the will of everything left to them — and asked the probate court to declare Flora's devise forfeited. The case matters because the Supreme Court, without striking down the clause as void, reads it strictly against forfeiture and holds that a timely, good-faith withdrawal of an opposition is no violation at all. It is the leading local authority on how a no-contest clause is construed, and on the fruits that follow a specific devise.

Procedural History

Rosalina Santos filed a petition for probate of the will before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Flora Blas de Buenaventura and Justo Garcia opposed it. Flora later withdrew her opposition, and the trial court admitted the will to probate in an order that became final and executory. Flora then petitioned for delivery of the fishpond devised to her. Rosalina opposed, invoking the forfeiture clause. The trial court sustained the clause, denied delivery, and declared the devise forfeited in favor of the residuary heirs; it denied reconsideration. Flora appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as raising questions purely of law. The Supreme Court decided the appeal in September 1966, and amended its decision in a resolution of November 1966.

Facts

Maxima Santos, a resident of Malabon, Rizal, died in October 1956. In October 1956, Rosalina Santos, a niece of the deceased, filed a petition for the probate of a will allegedly executed on September 22, 1956. Among the devisees was Flora Blas de Buenaventura, who was not related by blood to the deceased but had been reared and educated by her. In November 1956, Flora and Justo Garcia opposed the probate, alleging defective execution, undue pressure, fraud, and mental incapacity of the testatrix.

After the proponent and the oppositors had presented their evidence, but before the oppositors could close theirs, Flora filed a manifestation in November 1957 withdrawing her opposition and joining the proponent in seeking probate. The record shows she had sold her house to pay for stenographic notes, and that at a gathering called to settle the case amicably, the proponent's lawyer persuaded her to withdraw and take her legacy. The trial court allowed the will to probate in December 1957, and that order became final.

In February 1958, Flora asked for delivery of the fishpond devised to her. Rosalina opposed, relying on the fourteenth clause of the will, which forfeits the share of anyone who contests the probate or the carrying out of its provisions. The trial court upheld the clause, found Flora's opposition unjustified, and declared the devise forfeited. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Flora had strong grounds for doubt: she stood to receive more under an earlier will; the testatrix was over 86 years old and gravely ill, receiving several blood transfusions, including two on the very day the will was signed; documents executed near that date were merely thumbmarked while the will appeared signed; the three attesting witnesses were the lawyers of the executrix and compadres of the assistant executrix; and a nurse testified that no one was in the testatrix's room at the precise time the witnesses claimed they were there.

Issues

• Whether or not Flora's acts, under the facts and circumstances, amounted to a violation of the no-contest and forfeiture clause of the will.
• Whether or not the no-contest and forfeiture provision of the will is valid.
• Whether or not Flora is entitled to the fruits or rents of the devised fishpond accruing after the death of the testatrix.
• Whether or not Flora is entitled to interest on those fruits or rents, and to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

The fourteenth clause of the will, as translated from the Tagalog, provides:

Anyone of them who contests or opposes the probate of my will or the carrying out of its provisions shall lose any right to receive any inheritance or benefit under my will, and their inheritance or share shall pertain to the other heirs who have not opposed.

The Court notes that the original speaks of a contest or opposition to the probate and the carrying out of the provisions, not to the probate alone, and this bears on the testatrix's true intention.

Article 948 of the Civil Code provides:

If the legacy or devise is of a specific and determinate thing pertaining to the testator, the legatee or devisee acquires the ownership thereof upon the death of the testator, as well as any growing fruits, or unborn offspring of animals, or uncollected income; but not the income which was due and unpaid before the latter's death.

This is the basis for awarding Flora the fruits and rents of the fishpond from the death of the testatrix.

Article 951 of the Civil Code provides:

The thing bequeathed shall be delivered with all its accessions and accessories and in the condition in which it may be upon the death of the testator.

This confirms that the devise carries its accessions, of which fruits and rents are part.

Article 1166 of the Civil Code provides:

The obligation to give a determinate thing includes that of delivering all its accessions and accessories, even though they may not have been mentioned.

This is why the fruits need not have been expressly prayed for in the petition for delivery.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Flora did not violate the clause. Her opposition was justified: she had reasonable doubts grounded on the earlier will, the testatrix's grave condition, the thumbmarked documents, the relationships among the witnesses, and the nurse's testimony. More importantly, she withdrew her opposition before she rested her case, and a timely withdrawal in good faith is as if there had been no opposition at all, so far as the purpose of the clause is concerned. The Court read the clause in light of the testatrix's intention, which was to secure the carrying out of her dispositions, and Flora's withdrawal served rather than defeated that intention.

On the second issue, the Court found no need to rule on the validity of the clause, since it was not violated in this case.

On the third issue, in its resolution, the Court held that a devisee of a specific thing acquires it, with its fruits and rents, from the death of the testatrix, and ordered an accounting before the trial court.

On the fourth issue, the Court denied interest, because there is no delay on the part of the administratrix until the court orders delivery, and denied moral and exemplary damages for insufficiency of evidence and because the appeal raised only questions of law. It awarded attorney's fees of 5,000 pesos.

Doctrine

A no-contest and forfeiture clause in a will is construed strictly against forfeiture and in favor of the testator's intention, which is the carrying out of the testamentary dispositions. A devisee who opposes probate in good faith, on reasonable grounds, and who withdraws that opposition before resting his case, does not violate the clause; the withdrawal is treated as though no opposition had been filed. A devise of a specific and determinate thing carries with it the fruits and rents accruing after the death of the testator, under Articles 948, 951, and 1166 of the Civil Code, even if not expressly prayed for. Interest does not run against the executrix until the court orders delivery, there being no delay before that.

Disposition

The Court reversed the trial court's orders, remanded the case, and directed the executrix to deliver the fishpond to Flora with all fruits and rents from the death of the testatrix, to render an accounting, and to pay her 5,000 pesos in attorney's fees.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a timely withdrawal of a good-faith opposition to probate is no violation of a no-contest and forfeiture clause. Examiners use this case to test the construction of no-contest clauses and the rule that a specific devise carries its fruits and accessions from the death of the testator.