IN RE WILL OF THE DECEASED FELISA JAVIER. SULPICIO RESURRECCION, ADMINISTRATOR AND APPELLEE, VS. AGUSTIN JAVIER ET AL., OPPOSITORS AND APPELLANTS.

Resurreccion versus Javier

The Case

This is a probate controversy over a legacy left to a man who was already dead when the will was written. Felisa Francisco Javier made a will naming her husband, Sulpicio Resurreccion, as universal heir and leaving a legacy of two thousand pesos to her brother, Gil Francisco Javier. Gil had in fact died years before the will was executed. The administrator of the estate asked the probate court to order the legacy returned to the estate, and Gil's children and heirs opposed, claiming the money as their own. The Supreme Court's answer settles a question every succession lawyer must know cold: what is the effect of a legacy in favor of a person who was already dead not only before the death of the testatrix but even before the will was made? The case matters because it fixes the rule that a dead legatee has no civil personality, acquires nothing, and transmits nothing to his heirs.

Procedural History

The will of Felisa Francisco Javier was probated in the Court of First Instance. In the course of the settlement proceedings, the administrator, Sulpicio Resurreccion, moved for an order on the legacy, and on October 12, 1933, the trial court, finding that Gil Francisco Javier had died in August 1930, before the testatrix even made her will, ordered that the legacy of two thousand pesos in his favor revert to the funds of the estate. Gil's children and heirs, claiming they were entitled to receive the legacy in their father's place, appealed from that resolution. The appeal went directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in October 1936, speaking through Chief Justice Avanceña.

Facts

On October 18, 1932, Felisa Francisco Javier executed her will. She instituted her husband, Sulpicio Resurreccion, as her universal heir and, among other dispositions, left a legacy of two thousand pesos in favor of her brother, Gil Francisco Javier. Unknown to the face of the will, Gil had died in August 1930, more than two years before the will was made.

The testatrix died on January 22, 1933, and her will was probated on March 8 of that same year. On October 12, 1933, the probate court, finding that Gil had predeceased the testatrix and even predeceased the making of the will, ordered that the legacy of two thousand pesos revert to the fund of the estate.

Gil's children and heirs appealed, insisting that they were entitled to receive the legacy in their father's stead. They also argued that the will should be read as intending the legacy for Gil's heirs, and they offered evidence that the testatrix knew Gil was already dead when she made her will. The only witness to that effect was Agustin Javier, Gil's brother, who said that in May 1931 he told the testatrix that their brother Gil had died leaving a widow and children. Against this, the testatrix's widower, Sulpicio Resurreccion, testified that Agustin had been in their house only once, in April or May 1930, before Gil's death, so he could not have delivered that news. The Court found the evidence insufficient, and added that if the testatrix had known of Gil's death and of his children, it could not be explained why she left the legacy to Gil and not to the children, especially as she knew one of them, Jose.

Issues

• Whether or not a legacy made in favor of a person who was already dead before the will was executed produces any legal effect.
• Whether or not the heirs of the deceased legatee may claim the legacy by representation or by transmission.
• Whether or not the will may be interpreted as intending the legacy for the heirs of the deceased legatee.

Applicable Provisions

Article 763 of the Civil Code, on the freedom of disposition of one who has no forced heirs, provides:

The testator, having no forced heirs, may dispose by will of all his property or any part thereof in favor of any person qualified to acquire it.

This is the source of the testatrix's power to leave her estate to anyone qualified, which makes the legatee's qualification the decisive point.

Article 32 of the Civil Code, on the extinction of civil personality by death, provides:

Civil personality is extinguished by death.

This is the provision the Court uses to hold that Gil, being dead, could not be the subject of a right and so could not inherit by will.

Article 766 of the Civil Code, on the legatee who dies before the testator, provides:

If the legatee should die before the testator, his right to the legacy shall be transmitted to his heirs.

The Court cites this article to show that a legatee who died before the testatrix could transmit nothing to his heirs, because he never acquired the legacy in the first place.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the legacy had absolutely no legal effect. The testatrix, having no forced heirs, could dispose of all her property in favor of any person qualified to acquire it. But upon being instituted as legatee, Gil Francisco Javier lacked civil personality, which is extinguished by death, and therefore lacked capacity to inherit by will, because he could not be the subject of a right. His institution as legatee was a nullity.

On the second issue, the Court held that Gil's heirs could not claim the legacy. They cannot claim by representation, because representation takes place only in intestate inheritance. Nor can they claim by transmission, because the legatee died before the testatrix and could transmit nothing to his heirs.

On the third issue, the Court refused to read the will as leaving the legacy to Gil's heirs. It found the evidence of the testatrix's knowledge of Gil's death insufficient, and it reasoned that in either case, whether she knew Gil was dead or was ignorant of it, since she left the legacy in favor of Gil, there is no reason to admit that it was nevertheless her intention to leave it to his children.

Doctrine

A legatee must have civil personality at the time of the institution. Since civil personality is extinguished by death, a legacy in favor of a person already dead when the will was made is void and produces no legal effect. The deceased legatee acquires no right, and having acquired nothing, transmits nothing to his own heirs. Representation cannot supply the defect, because representation operates only in intestate succession, never in testamentary succession. And a court will not rewrite a will to give a legacy to the legatee's heirs absent clear proof that such was the testator's intention; the plain designation of the legatee controls.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment ordering the legacy of two thousand pesos to revert to the funds of the estate, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a legacy to a person already dead when the will was made is void, and his heirs can claim neither by representation, which belongs only to intestate succession, nor by transmission, because a dead legatee transmits nothing. Examiners use this case to test capacity to succeed and the rule that representation has no place in testamentary succession.