G.R. No. 56249. May 29, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED REV. FATHER TEODORO ARANAS, RAMONA B. VDA. DE ARANAS, ADELIA B. ARANAS-FERNANDEZ, HEIRS OF THE LATE RODULFO B. ARANAS, ETC., …
PARAS, J.:
THIS IS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH SEEKS TO DECLARE
THE ORDERS OF RESPONDENT JUDGE DATED JULY
16, 1980 AND SEPTEMBER 23,
1980 AS AN EXERCISE OF A GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION, BY RULING THAT THE PROPERTIES UNDER GROUP C OF THE
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE FR. TEODORO ARANAS ARE SUBJECT TO REMUNERATIVE
LEGACIES.
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
FR. TEODORO ARANAS, A PRIEST OF THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH,
DIED ON JANUARY 19, 1953. HE
HAD EXECUTED ON JUNE 6, 1946 HIS LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT WHICH WAS
ADMITTED TO PROBATE ON AUGUST 31, 1956. IN
SAID LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, FR. TEODORO ARANAS STIPULATED THE FOLLOWING:
A.
THE RETURN TO ANICETO ARANAS OR
HIS HEIRS OF ALL PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY FR. ARANAS FROM HIS BROTHER ANICETO
ARANAS AND TEN (10) PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE WILL INHERITED BY THE
TESTATOR FROM HIS PARENTS.
B.
THE RETURN TO CARMELO ARANAS OR
HIS HEIRS OF ALL PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY FR. ARANAS FROM HIS BROTHER CARMELO ARANAS AND TEN (10) PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE
WILL INHERITED BY THE TESTATOR FROM HIS PARENTS.
C.
THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE
REMAINDER OF THE ESTATE OF THE TESTATOR BY VICENTE ARANAS, A FAITHFUL AND
SERVICEABLE NEPHEW AND DESIGNATING HIM ALSO AS RECIPIENT OF ½ OF THE PRODUCE OF
SAID PROPERTIES AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENSES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE
OTHER ½ OF THE PRODUCE TO BE GIVEN TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR THE ETERNAL
REPOSE OF THE TESTATOR’S SOUL. SAID
PERTINENT PROVISION[1]
READS AS FOLLOWS:
“FOURTH. IT IS MY WILL
THAT THE LANDS I HAD BOUGHT FROM
OTHER PERSONS SHOULD BE CONVERGED AND PLACED UNDER A ‘SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR’. THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THESE LANDS, FOR
HIS OFFICE, SHOULD RECEIVE ONE HALF OF ALL THE PRODUCE FROM WHICH SHALL BE
DEDUCTED THE EXPENSES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THE OTHER HALF OF THE
PRODUCE SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SHOULD BE SPENT FOR
MY SOUL. VICENTE B. ARANAS (TINGTING), BECAUSE HE IS A FAITHFUL AND SERVICEABLE
NEPHEW, SHOULD BE THE FIRST SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF SAID PROPERTIES, WITHOUT
BOND, UNTIL HIS DEATH OR UNTIL HE SHOULD NOT WANT TO HOLD THE SAID OFFICE ANYMORE. ANYONE OF THE SONS OF MY BROTHER CARMELO
ARANAS CAN HOLD THE SAID OFFICE OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, AND NONE OTHER THAN
THEY. THEIR FATHER, MY BROTHER CARMELO
ARANAS SHALL BE THE ONE TO DECIDE WHO AMONG THEM SHALL HOLD THE SAID OFFICE,
BUT UPON THE DEATH OF MY SAID BROTHER CARMELO ARANAS, HIS SAID SONS WILL HAVE
POWER TO SELECT THE ONE AMONG THEMSELVES.
THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION IS PERPETUAL.”
THE LOWER COURT IN ITS ORDER[2]
DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1977 RULED,
UPON PETITIONERS’ (IN SP. PROC. NO.
303) “MOTION FOR THE DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND PARTITION; AND FOR
REMOVAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR (VICENTE ARANAS) AND/OR FOR HIS PERMISSION TO
RESIGN, AND APPOINTMENT OF HIS SUCCESSOR” THAT THE “PERPETUAL
INALIENABILITY AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PORTION OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE REV.
FR. TEODORO ARANAS, ADMINISTERED BY VICENTE ARANAS, IS NULL AND VOID AFTER
TWENTY YEARS FROM JANUARY 19, 1954x x x” AND DECLARED IN THE SAME ORDER THE HEIRS OF
THE LATE FR. TEODORO ARANAS. IT ALSO
DECLARED THAT “THE REMOVAL OF VICENTE ARANAS WILL, THEREFORE, NOT SERVE
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL THE HEIRS, PARTICULARLY
WITH RESPECT TO THE PORTION OF THE ESTATE TAKEN BY THE HEIRS OF ANICETO ARANAS,
REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AND THE REST OF THE HEIRS OF CARMELO,
REPRESENTED BY THE INTERVENORS, CO-HEIRS OF ADMINISTRATOR VICENTE ARANAS.”[3]
HOWEVER, THE ABOVESAID ORDER WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE UPON THE
“URGENT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO DECLARE TESTATE AND INTESTATE
HEIRS OF THE LATE FR. TEODORO ARANAS,” FILED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR VICENTE
ARANAS ON THE ALLEGATION THAT SAID ORDER WAS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS AND
WITHOUT LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS BECAUSE ONLY THE ISSUE FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR WAS HEARD AND NOT THE MATTER OF THE DECLARATION OF HEIRS. THUS, THE LOWER
COURT DECLARED IN ITS ORDER[4]
DATED JULY 16, 1980 THAT
THE ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1977 IS “SET ASIDE AND IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE, REOPENED IN ORDER THAT OTHER HEIRS,
SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST OF FELINO ARANAS,[5]
COULD LIKEWISE ASSERT THEIR CLAIMS, AS IN THE CASE OF THE HEIRS OF ANICETO
ARANAS AND CARMELO ARANAS.”[6]
THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION HAVING BEEN DENIED BY THE LOWER
COURT IN ITS ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 23,
1980, PETITIONERS NOW COME BEFORE US
BY CERTIORARI RAISING THE ISSUE THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
SETTING ASIDE ITS ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 17,
1977 AND IN NOT APPLYING THE
PROVISIONS ON USUFRUCT OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES
REFERRED TO AS GROUP “C” IN THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT.
THE COURT RULED IN ITS QUESTIONED ORDER THAT THIS PARTICULAR
GROUP OF PROPERTIES (GROUP “C”) IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
“1. REMUNERATIVE LEGACY BY WAY OF USUFRUCT OF THE
NET PROCEEDS OF ½ OF THE ESTATE
AFTER DEDUCTING EXPENSES FOR ADMINISTRATION IN FAVOR OF VICENTE ARANAS, DURING
HIS LIFETIME AND SHALL CONTINUE AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE, AND, WHO, UPON
HIS DEATH OR REFUSAL TO CONTINUE SUCH USUFRUCT, MAY BE SUCCEEDED BY ANY OF THE
BROTHERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AS SELECTED BY THEIR FATHER, CARMELO ARANAS, IF
STILL ALIVE OR ONE SELECTED BY HIS SONS IF, HE, CARMELO, IS DEAD; PURSUANT TO
THE WILL. (ARTICLE 562, 563, 564 AND 603 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE).
“2. LEGACY
IN FAVOR OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, PARTICULARLY THE ARCHBISHOP DIOCESE OF
CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY REPRESENTED BY THE REVEREND ARCHBISHOP PATRICK H. CRONIN OVER ONE-HALF OF THE
PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTIES UNDER GROUP “C”. (ARTICLE
603, NEW CIVIL CODE) AND TO LAST FOR A PERIOD OF FIFTY YEARS FROM THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LEGACY, ARTICLE 605,
NEW CIVIL CODE).” (ANNEX
“L-14”, P. 87, ROLLO)
ASSAILING THE AFOREMENTIONED RULING, PETITIONERS RELY HEAVILY ON
THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN ART. 870 OF
THE NEW CIVIL CODE TO WIT:
“ART. 870. THE DISPOSITIONS OF THE TESTATOR
DECLARING ALL OR PART OF THE ESTATE INALIENABLE FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS ARE
VOID.”
A CURSORY READING
OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT SHOWS THAT IT WAS THE
SINCERE INTENTION AND DESIRE OF THE TESTATOR TO REWARD HIS NEPHEW VICENTE
ARANAS FOR HIS FAITHFUL AND UNSELFISH SERVICES BY ALLOWING HIM TO ENJOY
ONE-HALF OF THE FRUITS OF THE TESTATOR’S THIRD GROUP OF PROPERTIES UNTIL
VICENTE’S DEATH AND/OR REFUSAL TO ACT AS ADMINISTRATOR IN WHICH CASE, THE
ADMINISTRATION SHALL PASS TO ANYONE CHOSEN BY CARMELO ARANAS AMONG HIS SONS AND
UPON CARMELO’S DEATH, HIS SONS WILL
HAVE THE POWER TO SELECT ONE AMONG THEMSELVES.
VICENTE ARANAS THEREFORE AS A USUFRUCTUARY HAS THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THE
PROPERTY OF HIS UNCLE WITH ALL THE BENEFITS WHICH RESULT FROM THE NORMAL
ENJOYMENT (OR EXPLOITATION) OF ANOTHER’S PROPERTY, WITH THE OBLIGATION TO
RETURN, AT THE DESIGNATED TIME, EITHER THE SAME THING, OR IN SPECIAL CASES ITS
EQUIVALENT. THIS RIGHT OF VICENTE TO
ENJOY THE FRUITS OF THE PROPERTIES IS TEMPORARY AND THEREFORE NOT PERPETUAL AS
THERE IS A LIMITATION NAMELY HIS DEATH OR HIS REFUSAL. LIKEWISE HIS DESIGNATION AS ADMINISTRATOR OF
THESE PROPERTIES IS LIMITED BY HIS REFUSAL AND/OR DEATH AND THEREFORE IT DOES
NOT RUN COUNTER TO ART. 870 OF
THE CIVIL CODE RELIED UPON BY THE PETITIONERS.
BE IT NOTED THAT VICENTE ARANAS IS NOT PROHIBITED TO DISPOSE OF THE
FRUITS AND OTHER BENEFITS ARISING FROM THE USUFRUCT. NEITHER ARE THE NAKED OWNERS (THE OTHER HEIRS) OF THE PROPERTIES, THE
USUFRUCT OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO VICENTE ARANAS PROHIBITED FROM DISPOSING OF
SAID NAKED OWNERSHIP WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF COURSE TO VICENTE’S CONTINUING
USUFRUCT. TO VOID THE DESIGNATION OF
VICENTE ARANAS AS USUFRUCTUARY AND/OR ADMINISTRATOR IS TO DEFEAT THE DESIRE AND
THE DYING WISH OF THE TESTATOR TO REWARD HIM FOR HIS FAITHFUL AND UNSELFISH
SERVICES RENDERED DURING THE TIME WHEN SAID TESTATOR WAS SERIOUSLY ILL OR
BED-RIDDEN. THE PROVISO MUST BE
RESPECTED AND BE GIVEN EFFECT UNTIL THE DEATH OR UNTIL THE REFUSAL TO ACT AS
SUCH OF THE INSTITUTED USUFRUCTUARY/ADMINISTRATOR, AFTER WHICH PERIOD, THE
PROPERTY CAN BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN
ART. 863 OF THE CIVIL CODE
CONCERNING A FIDEICOMMISSARY SUBSTITUTION, SAID ARTICLE SAYS:
“A FIDEICOMMISSARY
SUBSTITUTION BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE FIDUCIARY OR FIRST HEIR INSTITUTED IS
ENTRUSTED WITH THE OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE AND TO TRANSMIT TO A SECOND HEIR THE
WHOLE OR PART OF THE INHERITANCE, SHALL BE VALID AND SHALL TAKE EFFECT,
PROVIDED SUCH SUBSTITUTION DOES NOT GO BEYOND ONE DEGREE FROM THE HEIR
ORIGINALLY INSTITUTED, AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE FIDUCIARY OR FIRST HEIR
AND THE SECOND HEIR ARE LIVING AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR.”
IT IS CONTENDED BY PETITIONERS THAT THE RULING MADE BY RESPONDENT
COURT DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1977 WAS ALREADY FINAL AND NOT SUBJECT TO
CORRECTION AS WHAT WAS SET ASIDE AND TO BE REHEARD WAS ONLY REGARDING THE
DETERMINATION OF ADDITIONAL HEIRS. SUCH
CONTENTION IS NOT WORTHY OF CREDENCE.
RESPONDENTS IN THEIR MEMORANDUM ALLEGE AND IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY
PETITIONERS THAT THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 17,
1977 HAS NOT YET BECOME FINAL BECAUSE IT WAS RECEIVED ONLY ON JANUARY
12, 1978 BY THE COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT VICENTE ARANAS AND THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO DECLARE
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE HEIRS DATED JANUARY 17, 1978 WAS FILED BY THE SAID RESPONDENT WITHIN THE
REGLEMENTARY PERIOD. BESIDES THE
VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF THE USUFRUCTUARY DISPOSITIONS WOULD AFFECT THE
DETERMINATION OF HEIRS.
AS TO PETITIONERS’ ALLEGATION THAT THE ORDER OF JULY 16, 1980 IS WITHOUT BASIS, THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT DURING THE HEARING OF THE URGENT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO
DECLARE TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE HEIRS, IT WAS PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY BY THE
SAID RESPONDENT VICENTE B. ARANAS
THAT HE WAS INSTITUTED AS A REMUNERATIVE LEGATEE PER MANDATE OF THE LAST WILL
AND TESTAMENT BY WAY OF USUFRUCTUARY.
LIKEWISE THE RIGHT OF THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH
AS THE OTHER USUFRUCTUARY LEGATEE FOR THE DURATION OF THE STATUTORY LIFETIME OF
A CORPORATION, THAT IS, 50 YEARS
FROM THE DATE OF THE EFFECTIVITY OF SAID LEGACY, WAS ALSO ESTABLISHED.[7]
WHEREFORE, THE INSTANT PETITION IS HEREBY
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr.,
Padilla, Bidin, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.
[1]
ANNEX “B-4”, P. 23, ROLLO.
[2]
ANNEX “G”, PP. 59-70, ROLLO.
[3]
ANNEX “G”, P. 68, ROLLO.
[4]
ANNEX “I”, PP. 73-88, ROLLO.
[5]
THE OTHER DECEASED BROTHER OF FR. TEODORO ARANAS.
[6]
ANNEX “I”, P. 73, ROLLO.
[7]
ARTICLE 605, NEW CIVIL CODE.