Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > July 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6087 July 14, 1954 - LUCIA MISE v. MERCEDES RODRIGUEZ

095 Phil 396:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6087. July 14, 1954.]

LUCIA MISE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. MERCEDES RODRIGUEZ, claimant-appellant.

Roman A. Cruz for Appellant.

N. Pimentel, Jr. for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. WILLS; SUCCESSION; NATURAL CHILDREN; THEIR RIGHT TO SUCCEED. — "Although article 945 of the Civil Code . . .does not mention acknowledgment, such a requirement is understood, since the section under which such article comes is entitled.’Acknowledged Natural Children,’ and deals with their right to succeed, and has nothing to do with the right of simple natural children who have not been acknowledged." (Puzon v. Ortega, 55 Phil., 756, 759.)


D E C I S I O N


JUGO, J.:


On September 7, 1935, the late Perfecto Gabriel executed his last will and testament, which was duly probated, in which he devised a certain parcel of land with the improvements thereon described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 5280, (now Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14316) located at Nos. 231, 233, and 235 Legarda Street, Sampaloc, Manila, to Soledad Rodriguez, Obdulia Rodriguez, and Lucia Mise, with a proviso that

"Es mi voluntad que, en caso de fallecimiento de cualquiera de mis legatarias Soledad, Obdulia y Lucia sin sucesion legitima, pase a las sobrevivientes la participacion de la que falleciere antes en las fincas, objeto de legado, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Lucia Mise, relying on the above provision of the will, and alleging that Soledad and Obdulia died without legitimate succession, asked that the shares of Soledad and Obdulia be adjudicated to her so that she would become the sole owner of the above described property. Mercedes Rodriguez opposed said petition on the ground that she was a legitimate successor of Soledad Rodriguez. The whole property was adjudicated by the Court of First Instance of Manila to Lucia Mise by virtue of the above provision. Mercedes appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to this Court for the reason that only a question of law was raised.

No question as to the validity and efficacy of the above quoted provision of the will was raised in the trial court, or in the Court of Appeals and is not raised in this Court now. The only question presented to this Court by Mercedes is whether or not she is the legitimate successor of Soledad Rodriguez. Obdulia died without any successor. The claim of Mercedes is based on the admitted fact that she and Soledad Rodriguez were the natural daughters of Trinidad Rodriguez, both having had the possession and enjoyment of the status of natural children of Trinidad, without, however, having been duly acknowledged. Mercedes contends that, being the natural sister of Soledad, she is the legitimate and collateral successor of the latter.

Article 945 of the Civil Code provides that "In default of natural ascendants, natural and legitimate children shall be succeeded by their natural brothers and sisters in accordance with the rules established for legitimate brothers and sisters."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case of Puzon v. Ortega, (55 Phil., 756, 759), this court held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Although article 945 of the Civil Code, . . ., does not mention acknowledgment, such a requirement is understood, since the section under which such article comes is entitled, "Acknowledged Natural Children," and deals with their right to succeed, and has nothing to do with the right of simple natural children who have not been acknowledged."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is clear, therefore, that Mercedes Rodriguez is not a legitimate successor of Soledad Rodriguez, and the testator could not have meant to include her in the phrase "sucesion legitima" in his will.

As already stated, no question has been raised by any party during the course of these proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila, in the Court of Appeals, and in this Court, now, as to the validity and efficacy of the above clause of the will.

In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is affirmed without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., 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






July-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6087 July 14, 1954 - LUCIA MISE v. MERCEDES RODRIGUEZ

    095 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-6585 July 16, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO LIBRIA

    095 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-7325 July 16, 1954 - MACARIO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO PANLILIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-5416 July 26, 1954 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO.

    095 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-6354 July 26, 1954 - EPIFANIO FARRALES v. ANTONIO FUENTECILLA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. L-6657 July 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL GALAPON, ET AL.

    095 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-7013 July 26, 1954 - ELISEO FERNANDO v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ETC., ET AL.

    095 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-7254 July 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS BUAMA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-7598 July 26, 1954 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. DEMETRIO ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-6671 July 27, 1954 - ESTANISLAO DE LA CRUZ v. APOLINARIO DEL PILAR

    095 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-7043 July 27, 1954 - LORENZO SIA v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    095 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-4301 July 29, 1954 - MAXIMO OMANDAM v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    095 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-6327 July 29, 1954 - BENJAMIN BUYCO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    095 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-6407 July 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL CASTRO

    095 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-6445 July 29, 1954 - TOMAS BAGALAY v. GENARO URSAL

    095 Phil 473

  • G.R. Nos. L-6687 y L-6688 July 29, 1954 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANG CHO KIO

    095 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. L-6600 July 30, 1954 - JUAN BONSATO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-6663 July 30, 1954 - REMIGIO PILLADO, ET AL. v. ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-6772 July 30, 1954 - ANTONIO UY v. JOSE RODRIGUEZ

    095 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-7220 July 30, 1954 - TEODORO VAÑO v. HIPOLITO ALO

    095 Phil 495

  • G.R. Nos. L-3087 & L-3088 July 31, 1954 - IN RE: SILVINO SUNTAY v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY

    095 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-5577 July 31, 1954 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-6335 July 31, 1954 - GLICERIA ROSETE v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ZAMBALES, ET AL.

    095 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. L-6552 July 31, 1954 - JULITA R. VILLAREAL, ET AL. v. JUAN FRANCO

    095 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. L-6574 July 31, 1954 - GOOD DAY TRADING CORPORATION v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    095 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-6768 July 31, 1954 - SALUD R. ARCA, ET AL. v. ALFREDO JAVIER

    095 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. L-7021 July 31, 1954 - JOSEPH FELDMAN v. DEMETRIO ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-7364 July 31, 1954 - MARCELA DIONISIO v. ROSARIO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. L-7524 July 31, 1954 - GASPAR M. LLAMAS v. SEGUNDO MOSCOSO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-7662 July 31, 1954 - MAXIMINO COMETA v. WENCESLAO ANDANAR

    095 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. L-7691 July 31, 1954 - EDILBERTO ESGUERRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 609