Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > November 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 25966 November 1, 1926 - MANUEL TORRES, ET AL. v. MARGARITA LOPEZ

049 Phil 504:



[G.R. No. 25966. November 1, 1926. ]

In the matter of the estate of Tomas Rodriguez, deceased MANUEL TORRES, special administrator, and LOPEZ DE BUENO, heir, Appellees, v. MARGARITA LOPEZ, opponent-appellant.

Marcaida, Capili & Ocampo and Camus, Delgado & Recto for Appellant.

Araneta & Zaragoza for Appellees.


1. WILLS; JOINT HEIRS UNDER WILL; ACCRETION. — When one of two joint heirs called by will to an inheritance without special designation of shares dies before the testator, the part pertaining to such heir will, upon the subsequent death of the testator, go by accretion to the coheir; and the additional circumstance that the predeceasing heir was, at the time of the making of the will, disqualified to take, by reason of his being then the legal guardian of the testator with accounts unsettled, does not make a case for intestate succession as to his part of the estate.



This appeal involves a controversy over one-half of the estate of Tomas Rodriguez, decedent. The appellant, Margarita Lopez, claims said half by intestate succession as next of kin and nearest heir; while the appellee, Luz Lopez de Bueno, claims the same by accretion and in the character of universal heir under the will of the decedent. The trial court decided the point of controversy in favor of Luz Lopez de Bueno, and Margarita Lopez appealed.

The facts necessary to an understanding of the case are these: On January 3, 1924, Tomas Rodriguez executed his last will and testament, in the second clause of which he

" I institute as the only and universal heirs to all my property, my cousin Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter Luz Lopez de Bueno."cralaw virtua1aw library

Prior to the time of the execution of this will the testator, Tomas Rodriguez, had been judicially declared incapable of taking care of himself and had been placed under the care of his cousin Vicente F. Lopez, as guardian. On January 7, 1924, or only four days after the will above-mentioned was made, Vicente F. Lopez died; and the testator, Tomas Rodriguez, died on February 25, 1924, thereafter. At the time the will was made Vicente F. Lopez had not presented his final accounts as guardian, and no such accounts had been presented by him at the time of his death. Margarita Lopez was a cousin and nearest relative of the decedent. The will referred to, after having been contested, has been admitted to probate by judicial determination (Torres and Lopez de Bueno v. Lopez, 48 Phil., 772).

Our discussion of the legal problem presented should begin with article 753 of the Civil Code which in effect declares that, with certain exceptions in favor of near relatives, no testamentary provision shall be valid when made by award in favor of his guardian before the final accounts of the latter have been approved. This provision is of undoubted application to the situation before us; and the provision made in the will of Tomas Rodriguez in favor of Vicente F. Lopez must be considered invalid, owing to the incapacity of the latter. But it is obvious that the incapacity of Lopez was not any general incapacity on his part, but a special incapacity due to the accidental relation of guardian and ward existing between the parties.

We now pass to article 982 of the Civil Code, defining the right of accretion. It is there declared, in effect, that accretion takes place in a testamentary success when two or more persons are called to the same inheritance or the same portion thereof without special designation of shares; and, secondly, when one of the persons so called dies before the testator or renounces the inheritance or is disqualified to receive it. In the case before us we have a will calling Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter, Luz Lopez de Bueno, to the same inheritance without special designation of shares. In addition to this, one of the persons named as heir has predeceased the testator, this person being also disqualified to receive the estate even if he had been alive at the time of the testator’s death. This article (982) is therefore also of exact application to the case in hand; and its effect is to give to the survivor, Luz Lopez de Bueno, not only the undivided half which she would have received in conjunction with her father if he had been alive and qualified to take, but also the half which pertained to him. There was no error whatever, therefore in the order of the trial court declaring Luz Lopez de Bueno entitled to the whole estate.

The argument in favor of the appellant supposes that there has supervened a partial intestacy with respect to the half of the estate which was intended for Vicente F. Lopez and that this half has descended to the appellant, Margarita Lopez, as next of kin and sole heir at law of the decedent. In this connection attention is directed to article 764 of the Civil Code wherein it is declared, among other things, that a will may be valid even though the person instituted as heir is disqualified to inherit. Our attention is next invited to article 912 wherein it is declared, among other things, that legal succession takes place if the heir dies before the testator and also when the heir instituted is disqualified to succeed. Upon these provisions an argument is planted conducting to the conclusion that the will of Tomas Rodriguez was valid, notwithstanding the fact that one of the individuals named as heirs in the will was disqualified that as a consequence Margarita Lopez is inherit the share of said disqualified heir.

We are of the opinion that this contention is untenable the appellee clearly has the better right. In applying the provisions of the Code it is the duty of the court to harmonize its provisions as far as possible, giving due effect to all; and in case of conflict between two provisions the more general is to be considered as being limited by the more specific. As between articles 912 and 983, it is obvious that the former is the more general of the two, dealing, as it does with the general topic of intestate succession, while the latter is more specific, defining the particular conditions under which accretion takes place. In case of conflict, therefore, the provisions of the former article must be considered limited by the latter. Indeed, in subsection 3 of article 912 the provision with respect to intestate succession is expressly subordinated to article 983 by the expression "and (if) there is no right of accretion." It is that the same express qualification is not found in subsection 4 of article 912, yet it must be so understood, in view of the rule of interpretation above referred to, by which the more specific is held to control the general. Besides, this interpretation supplies the only possible means of harmonizing the two provisions. In addition to this, article 986 of the Civil Code affords independent proof that intestate succession to a vacant portion can only occur when accretion is impossible.

The attorneys for the appellant direct attention to the fact that, under paragraph 4 of article 912, intestate ,succession occurs when the heir instituted is disqualified to succeed (incapaz de suceder), while, under the last provision in paragraph 2 of article 982, accretion occurs when one of the persons called to inherit under the will is disqualified to receive the inheritance (incapaz de recibirla). A distinction is then drawn between incapacity to succeed incapacity to take, and it is contended that the disability of Vicente F. Lopez was such as to bring the case under article 912 rather than 982. We are of the opinion that the case cannot be made to turn upon so refined an interpretation of the language of the Code, and at any rate the disability to which Vicente F. Lopez was subject was not a general disability to succeed but an accidental incapacity to receive the legacy, a consideration which makes a case for accretion rather than for intestate succession.

The opinions of the commentators, so far as they have expressed themselves on the subject, tend to the conclusion that the right of accretion with regard to portions of an inheritance left vacant by the death or disqualification of one of the heirs or his renunciation of the inheritance is governed by article 912, without being limited, to the extent supposed in appellant’s brief, by the provisions of the Code relative to intestate succession (Manresa, Comentarios al Codigo Civil Español, 4th ed., vol. VII, pp. 310, 311; id., 34; 13 Mucius Scaevola, pp. 372, 373, 285-287; 16 Mucius Scaevola, 186). Says Escriche: "It is to be understood that one of the coheirs or colegatees fails if nonexistent at the time of the making of the will, or if he renounces the inheritance or legacy, if he dies before the testator, if the condition be not fulfilled, or if he becomes otherwise incapacitated. . . ." (Diccionario de Legislacion y Jurisprudencia, vol. I, p. 225.)

In conclusion it may be worth observing that there has always existed both in the civil and in the common law a certain legal intendment, amounting to a mild presumption, against partial intestacy. In Roman law, as is well known, partial testacy was not allowed and there has remained in the derived systems a presumption against it, — a presumption which has its basis in the supposed intention of the testator.

The judgment appealed from will be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the Appellant.

Avanceña, C.J., Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

November-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 25966 November 1, 1926 - MANUEL TORRES, ET AL. v. MARGARITA LOPEZ

    049 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 25706 November 2, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANUNCIACION ROSAL

    049 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 24084 November 3, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RAMIREZ

    048 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 24224 November 3, 1926 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON MAZA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 25241 November 3, 1926 - HARRIE S. EVERETT, ET AL. v. ASIA BANKING CORP., ET AL.

    049 Phil 512


    049 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 25795 November 6, 1926 - C. T. WILLIAMS v. TEOFULO SUÑER

    049 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 24914 November 6, 1926 - JEREMIAS YNUMERABLE v. ENRIQUE V. FILAMOR

    048 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 25888 November 6, 1926 - GERARDO GUSTILO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ

    049 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 25292 November 10, 1926 - HILADO & HILADO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROV. OF OCC. NEGROS

    049 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 25777 November 10, 1926 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CEBU v. PHIL. RAILWAY CO., ET AL.

    049 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. 26017 November 11, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ATANACIO JAGON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 25445 November 12, 1926 - SINGH v. JUAN SULSE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 563

  • G.R. Nos. 25642 & 25643 November 12, 1926 - BPI v. GABRIELA ANDREA R. DE COSTER, ET AL.

    049 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 26323 November 12, 1926 - AGAPITA VILLADOS, ET AL. v. EGMIDIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 25912 November 15, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. BENIGNO PALAMOS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 24794 November 17, 1926 - AURELIO CECILIO v. GABRIEL BELMONTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 26418 November 18, 1926 - AQUILINO CALVO, ET AL, v. Hon. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 26555 November 16, 1926 - BALDOMERO ROXAS, ET AL. v. Hon. MARIANO DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 25920 November 17, 1926 - M.W. STAIGHT v. A.D. HASKELL, ET AL.

    049 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 26284 November 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN TUBOG, ET AL.

    049 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 26130 November 18, 1926 - PEDRO RIVERA, ET AL. v. Hon. C. CARBALLO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 23999 November 21, 1926 - GREGORIO ZAGALA v. EUSTACIO S. ILUSTRE

    048 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 25254 November 22, 1926 - Mons. ALFREDO VERZOSA v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    049 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 25726 November 22, 1926 - PANTALEON E. DEL ROSARIO v. RESTITUTO VILLEGAS

    049 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 24804 November 24, 1926 - LEANDRA MANLAPAS, ET AL. v. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 298


    049 Phil 647