Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > March 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 39796 March 9, 1934 - ANTONIO GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON, ET AL.

059 Phil 631:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 39796. March 9, 1934.]

In the matter of the estate of the deceased Francisco Varela Calderon. ANTONIO GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO, administrator-appellee, v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON ET AL., Oppositors-Appellants.

Avelino, Yatco & Samaniego for Appellants.

Eduardo Gutierrez Repide for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; RIGHT OF TESTATOR WITHOUT FORCED HEIRS TO DISPOSE FREELY OF HIS PROPERTY; INTERVENTION BY THOSE WHO ARE NOT FORCED HEIRS. — The appellants in this case are not forced heirs of the deceased and therefore have no right to any part of the property left by the testator, once he had disposed of the same by will. If any of them were forced heirs they would be entitled to intervene in this case and protect their interest in so far as they may have been prejudiced by the will. It is evident therefore that they have not been injured or prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. Only forced heirs whose rights have been prejudiced have a right to intervene in a case of this character.


D E C I S I O N


GODDARD, J.:


The Court of First Instance of Manila issued, in this case, the following orders:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Llamado a vista el proyecto de particion y adjudicacion presentado pro el administrador judicial, este, por medio de su abogado, se opuso a que se considere la oposicion interpuesta por Miguel Varela Calderon, Angel Varela Calderon, Jesus Varela Calderon, Trinidad Varela Calderon, Paula Varela Calderon, Pilar Valera Calderon y Maria Valera Calderon, a la aprobacion de dicho proyecto y a que se admita o reciba cualquiera prueba que los mencionados opositores desearen presentar en apoyo de su oposicion, bajo el fundamento de que los mismos no son herederos forzosos del finado Dr. Francisco Valera Calderon y no tienen, por tal motivo, ningun interes o participacion en los bienes dejados por dicho finado y de los cuales este ha dispuesto por testamento que ha sido legalizado y aprobado por este Juzgado, cuya decision ha sido confirmada por el Tribunal Supremo en apelacion.

"Habiendo la representacion tanto del administrador judicial como de los opositores admitido como hechos indiscutibles que el finado Dr. Francisco Valera Calderon fallecio soltero y sin dejar ningun ascendiente y que los opositores son hermanos legitimos del mismo, es manifiesto que los mencionados opositores no tienen la condicion de herederos forzosos (art. 807, Codigo Civil) y, por tanto, no tienen derecho a intervenir en la consideracion de bienes, ni impugnar la institucion de herederos hecha por el citado finado en su testamento, toda vez que este, por ser soltero y no tener herederos forzosos, podia disponer por testamento de todos sus bienes o de parte de ellos en favor de cualquiera persona que tenga capacidad para adquirirlos (art. 763, Codigo Civil).

"Por tanto, SE DESESTIMA la oposicion interpuesta por los mencionados opositores y se declara que estos no tienen derecho a intervenir en la consideracion del proyecto de particion y adjudicacion de los bienes del finado Dr. Francisco Valera Calderon, la cual queda aplazada para el dia 29 de noviembre de 1932, a las 8:30 a. m. Asi se ordena.

"Asi se ordena.

"Manila, noviembre 17, 1932.

"E. P. REVILLA

"Juez"

"Visto el proyecto de particion y adjudicacion de beines relictos del finado Don Francisco Valera Calderon presentado por el administrador de esta testamentaria el 10 de noviembre de 1932; examinado el mismo y apareciendo que se halla de acuerdo con las disposiciones contenidas en el testamento otorgado por el finado y debidamente legalizado por este Juzgado; y no existiendo motivos ni razones que se opongan a su aprobacion;

"Por la presente, se aprueba el referido proyecto de particion y adjudicacion de bienes, el cual se hace parte integrante de esta orden.

"Se requiere al administrador que, dentro del plazo de diez dias a partir de la fecha en que fuere notificado de esta orden, pague el correspondiente impuesto sobre herencia y proceda a la entrega de los bienes adjudicados a los herederos instituidos en el testamento conforme al proyecto de particion y adjudicacion de bienes aqui aprobado, dando cuenta dentro del mismo plazo del cumplimiento do los terminos de esta orden, a fin de que pueda ordenarse el cierre y archivo definitivo de este expediente. Asi se ordena.

"Manila, I. F., 29 de noviembre de 1932.

"E. P. REVILLA

"Juez"

The appellants duly excepted to both of these orders and upon appeal to this court make the following assignments of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. The trial court erred in refusing to admit and to consider the opposition filed by the oppositors-appellants to the approval of the project of partition, not being the forced heirs of the late Francisco Varela Calderon, and refused them to present their proofs in support of their contention.

"II. The trial court erred in approving the partition and adjudication of the properties of the late Francisco Varela Calderon in favor of the supposed heirs mentioned in the probated will Exhibit B, disregarding completely the rights of the oppositors-appellants to inherit all the said properties."cralaw virtua1aw library

The judicial administrator of the estate of Francisco Varela Calderon, deceased, submitted a project of partition for the approval of the lower court. The appellants filed an opposition to the approval of said project. The administrator objected to the intervention of the appellants in this case.

Qu�re: Did the trial court err in refusing to allow the appellants to intervene? If this question is answered in the affirmative there will be no necessity for considering the second assignment of error.

It is admitted that Francisco Varela Calderon was a bachelor, a citizen of the Philippine Islands, and at the time he made his will was residing temporarily in France and that at the time of his death he left no ascendants. The appellants are brothers and sisters of full blood of the deceased and therefore they are not his forced heirs. Article 763 of the Civil Code reads: "Any person who has no forced heirs may dispose by will of all his property or any part of it in favor of any person qualified to acquire it. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The appellants contend that the beneficiaries under the will of Francisco Varela Calderon are illegitimate children and that they are not qualified to inherit from the deceased. This court has held in Barrios v. Enriquez (52 Phil., 509), that "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 behavior he has become unworthy of such consideration."cralaw virtua1aw library

Manresa commenting on article 763 of the Civil Code says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Como expusimos al comentar los articulos 752 al 754, discuten los autores si los hijos naturales no reconocidos pueden ser instituidos herederos por sus padres en el todo o parte de la herencia de libre disposicion, por entender algunos que no tienen capacidad para adquirir por testamento, y el articulo 763 exige expresamente esa capacidad. No creemos que exista fundamento alguno serio que pueda motivar esa duda: los hijos naturales no reconocidos, aun los adulterinos y sacrilegos, no tienen incapacidad alguna para adquirir, ni puede señalarse articulo alguno que la establezca; no tienen derecho a legitima, segun el articulo 845, esto es todo. En cuanto a su capacidad para adquirir en general o por testamento la parte en su caso, de libre disposicion, los hijos naturales no reconocidos, no son ante la ley de peor condicion que las personas extrañas." (Comentarios al Codigo Civil Español, por Manresa, Tomo 6, pag. 94, edicion 5. a).

From the above citations it is apparent that the beneficiaries under the will of Francisco Varela Calderon, granting that they are illegitimate children, are not incapacitated to take property under the will of their father.

In a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of December 24, 1913, it was held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Que la facultad de impugnar la legitimacion y el reconocimiento otorgados a favor de hijos que no tengan la condicion legal de naturales, consignada en los articulos 128 y 138 del Codigo Civil, de modo claro y preciso se establece y confiere a los que se crean perjudicados o realmente lo hayan sido en sus derechos:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Que no asiste derecho para oponerse al reconocimiento al que no tenga el caracter de heredero forzoso de la persona que hizo aquel." (Jurisprudencia Civil, Tomo 128, pags. 1087 y 1088.)

In that case the court commented as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considerando que la facultad de impugnar la legitimacion y el reconocimiento otorgados a favor de hijos que no tengan la condicion legal de naturales, consignada en los articulos 128 y 138 del Codigo Civil, de modo claro y preciso se establece y confiere a los que se crean perjudicados o realmente lo hayan sido en sus derechos, y atendido que la actora asienta la accion ejercitada y funda su demanda en el hecho de ser sobrina carnal del difunto D. Anastasio Martin, basta tomar en cuenta este parentesco, base primordial de la presente litis, para diducir como indudable consecuencia, que no siendo Doña Manuela de Pablo Martin heredera forzosa de su citado tio el testador fallecido, no la asiste derecho a oponerse a lo por aquel dispuesto." (Jurisprudencia Civil, Tomo 128, pags. 1094, 1095.)

Article 806 of the Civil Code reads: "The legitime is that part of his property of which the testator can not dispose because the law has reserved it for certain heirs, called, on that account, force heirs."cralaw virtua1aw library

As stated above the appellants in this case are not forced heirs of the deceased and therefore have no right to any part of the property left by the testator, once he had disposed of the same by will. If any of them were forced heirs they would be entitled to intervene in this case and protect their interest in so far as they may have been prejudiced by the will. It is evident therefore that they have not been injured or prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. Only forced heirs whose rights have been prejudiced have a right to intervene in a case of this character.

For the foregoing reasons no error was committed by the lower court in the orders appealed from. Both orders are affirmed with costs against the appellants.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 37986 March 1, 1934 - EUFEMIA MERCADO v. MUN. PRES. OF MACABEBE

    059 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 36699 March 3, 1934 - HEIRS OF DATU PENDATUN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 40468 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO M. SIOJO

    059 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 40512 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PERFECTO TAYAG, ET AL.

    059 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 40592 March 3, 1934 - APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 40895 March 5, 1934 - TEOFILO HAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 37602 March 7, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RAFAEL FERNANDEZ

    059 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 39633 March 7, 1934 - HENRY HERMAN v. LA URBANA

    059 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 39433 March 9, 1934 - CLEMENTE A. LAZARO, ET AL. v. FELICIANA MARIANO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 39796 March 9, 1934 - ANTONIO GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON, ET AL.

    059 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 38736 March 10, 1934 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF NUEVA ECIJA v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    059 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 39209 March 10, 1934 - HIPOLITO ANDALIS v. LUCIA PULGUERAS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 39806 March 10, 1934 - LA URBANA v. SUSANA VILLASOR, ET AL.

    059 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 40309 March 10, 1934 - BERNARDINO QUITORIANO, ET AL. v. ROQUE M. CENTENO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 40327 March 10, 1934 - DIONISIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL. v. PNB

    059 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 39797 March 12, 1934 - FRANCISCO SEBASTIAN v. IRENE PAÑGANIBAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. 39679 March 13, 1934 - GENATO COMM’L. CORP. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 39440 March 14, 1934 - RAFAEL VILLANUEVA v. AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA

    059 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 39801 March 14, 1934 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. JUAN POSADAS, JR.

    059 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 37671 March 15, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TANSIOCO, ET AL. v. FELICIANO RAMOSO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 40177 March 15, 1934 - LI SENG GIAP & CO. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    059 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 39389 March 16, 1934 - LUIS MIRASOL v. MARIA LIM

    059 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 40147 March 16, 1934 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO ITALIA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 712

  • G.R. Nos. 339303-39305 March 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FELIPE KALALO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 40480 March 17, 1934 - GABINO ABALA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 40561 March 17, 1934 - LEE CHIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 39670 March 20, 1934 - ROSARIO OÑAS v. CONSOLACION JAVILLO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 39799 March 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO NARVAES

    059 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 39681 March 21, 1934 - BONIFACIO LUMANLAN v. JACINTO R. CURA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 39883 March 21, 1934 - ODUS C. HORNEY v. SOUTHERN TRANS. & TRADING CO.

    059 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 39596 March 23, 1934 - GOTAUCO & CO. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAYABAS

    059 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. 39587 March 24, 1934 - ALEKO E. LILIUS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    059 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 40935 March 26, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. APRONIANO DIAZ

    059 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. 40315 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. AUSTIN TAXICAB CO.

    059 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 40316 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. PANFILO SABELLANO

    059 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. 40317 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. E. VESNAN

    059 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. 40319 March 27, 1934 - ESMERALDA VESNAN v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. 40425 March 27, 1934 - RAMON SILOS v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 36657 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. 36701 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. ORIENT INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. 37757 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 39746 March 28, 1934 - LA URBANA v. AIMEE SARGENT VIUDA DE ALEGRE

    059 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 39842 March 28, 1934 - IMUS ELECTRIC CO. v. MUN. OF IMUS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. 39996 March 28, 1934 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. FERNANDO GREY, JR., ET AL.

    059 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. 41433 March 28, 1934 - NATALIO AREVALO v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 839

  • G.R. Nos. 36811, 36827, 36840 & 36872 March 31, 1934 - ANTONIO MA. R. BARRETTO, ET AL. v. AUGUSTO H. TUASON Y DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

    059 Phil 845