EMILIO NATIVIDAD, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED TIBURCIO SALVADOR Y REYES, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. BASILIA GABINO, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal, filed by the administrator of the estateof the decedent
Tiburcio Salvador y Reyes, from the order of August 21, 1915, by which the judge
of the Court of First Instance of Manila, interpreting the true wishes of the
testator, expressed the opinion that the ownership and dominion of the property
mentioned in clause 6 of the will should be awarded to Basilia Gabino, subject
to the reservation made in behalf of Lorenzo Salvador and Emilio Natividad.
Therefore the trial court ordered an amendment made to the fourth basis for the
proposed partition of the decedent’s estate, presented by the testamentary
executor, and, as soon as such be made, a day set for the hearing and approval
of the proposed amended partition.

The testator Salvador y Reyes contracted a valid and legal marriage with
Anselma Nicasio, who died in 1868, leaving a daughter named Higinia who married
Clemente Natividad. Higinia Salvador died in 1913, survived by two children
Emilio and Purificacion, both surnamed Natividad y Salvador. Tiburcio Salvador
disposed of all his property in the manner recorded in the will executed in
legal form on November 9, 1914, instituting as sole heirs his grandchildren
Emilio and Purificacion, both surnamed Natividad y Salvador. In the sixth clause
of this will the testator left to Basilia Gabino the legacy mentioned therein.
Literally, this clause is as follows:

“I bequeath to Dona Basilia Gabino the ownership and dominion of the urban
property, consisting of a house and lot situated on Calle Lavezares of the said
district of San Nicolas and designated by No. 520, and in addition eleven meters
by two meters of the lot designated by No. 419, situated on Calle Madrid. This
portion shall be taken from that part of the lot which is adjacent to the rear
of said property No. 520. If the said legatee should die, Lorenzo Salvador shall
be obliged to deliver this house, together with the lot on which it stands, to
my grandson Emilio Natividad, upon payment by the latter to the former of the
sum of four thousand pesos (P4,000), Philippine currency.”

The executor of the estate of the decedent is the decedent’s own heir, Emilio
Natividad, who in due season and by counsel presented to the court for its
approval a proposed partition of the property pertaining to the estate, setting
forth in the fourth basis the following relative to the legacy made to Basilia
Gabino:

“Summarizing the statements made in respect to this matter, we are of the
opinion that the sixth clause expresses in itself a right of usufruct, in favor
of Doña Basilia Gabino, of the house at No. 520 Calle Lavezares, and a general
legacy in favor of Lorenzo Salvador of the sum of P4,000 whenever Basilia should
die; but that the ownership of the property upon which this right and legacy are
established belongs to the heir Emilio Natividad who, by the express will of the
testator, has been made liable for these encumbrances.”

By a writing of August 5, 1915, counsel for the legatee Basilia Gabino
opposed the approval of the proposed partition with regard to the adjudication
to the legatee of the usufruct only of the property at No. 520 Calle Lavezares,
claiming that said legatee ought to be recognized as entitled to the dominion
and ownership of the same. For this and the other reasons set forth, her counsel
requested that the testamentary executor be ordered to amend the fourth basis of
the proposed partition in order that ownership and dominion, instead of usufruct
only, of said property be adjudicated to the objector-legatee, Basilia
Gabino.

After proper legal steps had been taken and the written briefs of the parties
and the schedule of the proposed partition filed by the testamentary executor
had been examined, the trial judge issued the order aforementioned. Appeal was
taken by counsel for the executor to this court, and a transcript of the record
of the proceedings below was forwarded to the clerk of this court.

The only question raised by this appeal and submitted to us for decision is:
What construction must be given to the above-quoted sixth clause of the will
executed by Tiburcio Salvador?

A person is entirely free to make his will in such manner as may best please
him, provided the testamentary provisions conform to law and meet its
requirements. He may impose conditions, either with respect to the institution
of heirs or to the designation of legatees and, when the conditions imposed upon
the former or the latter do not fall within the provisions of those articles of
the Civil Code touching heirs and legatees, they shall be governed by the rules
therein prescribed for conditional obligations. (Civ. Code, arts. 790 and
791.)

In the sixth clause of the will executed by the decedent Tiburcio Salvador y
Reyes, he bequeathed to Basilia Gabino the ownership and dominion of the
property therein specified as to its location and other circumstances, on
condition that if the legatee should die Lorenzo Salvador would be obliged, upon
the payment of P4,000 by the testator’s grandson and heir Emilio Natividad, to
hand over this property to the latter.

The condition imposed by the testator in the double legacy mentioned depends
upon the happening of the event constituting the condition, to wit, the death of
the legatee Basilia Gabino, a perfectly legal condition according to article
1114 of the Civil Code, as it is not impossible of performance and is not
contrary to law or public morals, as provided in article 1116 of said code.

The moment the legatee Gabino dies the other legatee, Lorenzo Salvador, is
obliged to deliver the property to the heir Emilio Natividad who, in his turn
and in exchange, must pay the legatee Salvador the sum of P4,000, thereby
fulfilling the double legacy contained in the said sixth clause of the will, the
first of these legacies being the voluntary reservation to Basilia Gabino of the
ownership of the said house, and the second, the conditional legacy of P4,000 to
Lorenzo Salvador, Making use of his right, the testator provided in his will
that the dominion, that is, the ownership and possession of his house situated
on Calle Lavezares, No. 520 together with a part of the lot at No. 419, should
be delivered as a legacy, provided that if the legatee should die, this property
instead of passing to her successor, would revert to the testators’s grandson
and heir, provided that he in turn would pay to Lorenzo Salvador the sum of
P4,000. It cannot be understood that the legacy conveyed only the usufruct of
the property because the plain and literal meaning of the words employed by the
testator in the said clause sixth clearly shows beyond all doubt the express
wishes of the testator who, establishing a voluntary reservation of the ulterior
and final disposition of the bequeathed property, ordered that the legatee’s
right of dominion should end at her death, and that on this occurrence his wish
was that the ownership of the property should pass to Emilio Natividad, provided
the latter in turn delivered said P4,000 to Lorenzo Salvador who appears to be
the son of the legatee Gabino.

If the provisions of article 675 of the Civil Code are to be complied with,
it cannot be understood that the testator meant to bequeath to Basilia Gabino
the mere usufruct of the property, inasmuch as, by unmistakable language
employed in the said sixth clause, he bequeathed her the ownership or dominion
of the said property—language which expresses without the slightest doubt his
wishes which should be complied with literally, because it is constant rule, of
jurisprudence that in matters of last wills and testaments the testators’s will
is the law.

It is true that the legatee could not make any disposal of the bequeathed
real property to be effective after her death, nor could the property be
acquired from her by her heir through testate or intestate succession; but if we
take into account that the institution of donations and legacies depends on the
full free will of the testator, and that if the testator intended no more than
that Basilia Gabino should enjoy the ownership of the property during her
lifetime, this testamentary provision is not contrary to law or to public
morals, inasmuch as the testator thereby intended that the property should
revert to its lawful heir, the latter being obliged to make a monetary
compensation to Lorenzo Salvador who appears to be the successor of the legatee
Gabino.

For the foregoing reasons, considering that the order appealed from is in
accordance with law and that the several features of the sole assignment of
error made thereto are without merit, the said order of August 21, 1915, must be
affirmed, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.
Moreland,
J., concurs in the result.