IN RE ESTATE OF JOSE MACROHON TIAHUA. FRANCISCO BARRIOS, ADMINISTRATOR AND APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDA ENRIQUEZ ET AL., HEIRS AND APPELLANTS. IGNACIO MACROHON, APPELLANT.

This is an appeal taken by Eduarda Enriquez, surviving spouse
of the deceased Jose Macrohon Tiahua, and the latter’s legitimate children on
the one side, and Ignacio Macrohon, his adulterous son, on the other, from an
order of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, laying down the following
conclusions of law: (1) That an adulterous child may be instituted heir within
the limits provided by law; (2) that in making Ignacio Macrohon an heir under
his will, the testator did not observe the limitations prescribed by law; (3)
that the institution of Ignacio Macrohon as heir under the will ought not to be
declared absolutely void, but he should so share in the inheritance as not to
prejudice the legitime of the other heirs; (4) that as Exhibit 1 deals with
certain acts contrary to law, such as not presenting the will to the court, and
as some minors took part in it through their guardian without the latter being
authorized by the court to enter into the transaction in their behalf, said
exhibit cannot bind the parties, nor do the admissions made by them therein
constitute estoppel; whereupon it disapproved the scheme of partition presented
by the administrator and ordered him to file another in consonance with the
conclusions therein laid down.

In support of their appeal, Eduarda Enriquez, widow of Jose
Macrohon Tiahua, and the latter’s legitimate children, assign the following
alleged errors as committed by the trial court in its judgment, to wit:

“Now come the herein surviving spouse, Eduarda Enriquez, and
the legitimate heirs of Jose Macrohon Tiahua, deceased, by their undersigned
attorney, and allege that under the law and the evidence in the above-entitled
proceeding, the lower court committed the following errors:

“I. In not approving the project of distribution of the estate
of the herein deceased, Jose Macrohon Tiahua, as submitted by the herein
executor, Francisco Barrios.

“II. In holding that the deceased, Jose Macrohon Tiahua, had
any right to institute and name his bastard son, Ignacio Macrohon, as an heir in
his will, together and in a like manner with his legitimate descendants and
heirs.

“III. And in holding that the said bastard son, Ignacio
Macrohon, having been so instituted and named in the will of the said Jose
Macrohon Tiahua, deceased, said Ignacio Macrohon had a right under the terms of
the will and the law, to inherit a portion of the estate of the deceased, to the
prejudice of the legitimate descendants and heirs of the said Jose Macrohon
Tiahua, deceased.”

Ignacio Macrohon, adulterous son of the deceased Jose Macrohon
Tiahua in turn, assigns the following alleged errors as committed by the trial
court in its judgment, in support of his appeal, to wit:

“Comes now the appellant Ignacio Macrohon, thru the undersigned
attorneys, and to this Honorable Court respectfully submits that the lower court
erred, as follows:

“1. In holding that its order dated November 10, 1926, did not
constitute res adjudicata as to question of the right of the appellant Ignacio
Macrohon to inherit from his deceased father, Jose Macrohon Tiahua, under and in
accordance with the will of the latter.

“2. In not holding that the right of the said Ignacio Macrohon
as heir of said deceased cannot, by reason of the doctrine of estoppel, be
questioned by the other heirs.

“3. In holding that the manner the institution of the heirs was
made in the will of the testator herein falls under, or is the case contemplated
by, article 765 of the Civil Code.

“4. In not allowing said Ignacio Macrohon the full share
allotted to him in and by the will of the testator, that is, a portion equal to
that granted in said will to each of the legitimate children of the deceased, or
one-tenth of the whole hereditary estate.”

The questions, all of law, raised by the respective parties in
their respective appeals, may be reduced to the following:

(1) Did the deceased Jose Macrohon Tiahua have a right to
dispose of a part of his estate by will in favor of his adulterous son? (2) If
so, has the deceased Jose Macrohon Tiahua infringed the limitations prescribed
by the law in putting his adulterous son Ignacio Macrohon on the same footing as
his legitimate children by giving him a share equal to that of each of the
latter?

As to the first question, while it is true that article 845 of
the Civil Code provides that “illegitimate children who have not the status of
natural children shall be entitled to support only,” and therefore cannot demand
anything more of those bound by law to support them, it does not prohibit said
illegitimate children from receiving, nor their parents from giving them,
something more than support, so long as the legitimate children are not
prejudiced. If the law permits a testator to dispose of the free third of his
hereditary estate in favor of a stranger (art. 808 of the Civil Code), there is
no legal, moral or social reason to prevent him from making over that third to
his illegitimate son who has not the status of a natural son. On the contrary,
by reason of blood, the son, although illegitimate, has a preferential right
over a stranger unless by his behaviour he has become unworthy of such
consideration.

For these reasons, we are of opinion and so hold, that Jose
Macrohon Tiahua could dispose of the free third of his estate in favor of his
adulterous son, Ignacio Macrohon.

With respect to the second question of law, Jose Macrohon
Tiahua states the following in his will:

“After all my debts, obligations, and funeral expenses have
been paid, I hereby bequeath and devise all my property, real, personal, and
mixed, as follows, to wit:

“One-half (1/2) pro indiviso of my whole estate to my wife
Eduarda Enriquez, and the other half (1/2) in equal parts pro indiviso to each
of my children, including Fernando Quintas and Julia Quintas, son and daughter,
respectively, of my deceased daughter, Gregoria Macrohon, who shall receive the
portion corresponding to the share of my said daughter, that is, 1/44 for each
of the two.”

Included among the childden mentioned by the testator in said
will, and to whom he gave the one-half of the property corresponding to him from
the conjugal partnership, is the herein appellant Ignacio Macrohon, his
adulterous son. Dividing this half, that is ten-twentieth parts (10/20), among
his nine legitimate children and his adulterous son, Ignacio Macrohon, into
equal parts, each of them will be entitled to one-twentieth of the whole estate.

Now then, does the twentieth part corresponding to the share of
Ignacio Macrohon impair the legitime corresponding to each of the nine
legitimate children?

According to article 808 of the Civil Code, the legitime of
legitimate children and descendants consists of two-thirds of the hereditary
estate of the father and of the mother, the latter being allowed to dispose of
one of said two parts in order to give it as a betterment to their legitimate
children or descendants. In the present case the testator has not disposed of
any of the two parts forming the legitime in order to give it as betterment to
any of his children, and the said legitime therefore remains intact, and
according to article 806 of the same Code, is by the law reserved for the forced
heirs and the testator cannot dispose of it in any other way.

Hence, the nine legitimate children are entitled to twothirds
of said half, or two-sixths of the whole, which, divided equally among them
would give to each, two fiftyfourths or one twenty-seventh of the whole estate.
When Jose Macrohon Tiahua, therefore, provided in his will that the one-half of
the conjugal property belonging to him was to be divided equally among his nine
legitimate children and one adulterous son, each to receive one-twentieth part,
he did not go beyond the limits provided by law for such cases, because,
one-twentieth for each of his legitimate children is more than each of his
legitimate children should receive as his legitime, which only amounts to one
twenty-seventh. In other words, since Jose Macrohon Tiahua could dispose of the
free third of his hereditary estate in favor of his adulterous son, Ignacio
Macrohon, and as he only gave a part of said free third to the latter, he did
not infringe any legal prohibition and his testamentary disposition to this
effect is valid and effective.

Having arrived at these conclusions there is no need to discuss
the other questions of law raised by the parties in their respective assignments
of error.

By virtue whereof, the order appealed from is modified and it
is ordered that the dispositions made by Jose Macrohon Tiahua in his last will
and testament be strictly complied with, without special pronouncement of costs.
So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand,
Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.