The tenor of the decision notwithstanding it is important to note the provision

The tenor of the decision notwithstanding it is

This preview shows page 8 - 10 out of 28 pages.

rather than a distribution in the nature of devises.The tenor of the decision notwithstanding, it isimportant to note the provision of Article 886 whichreads: "Legitime is that part of the testator's propertywhich he cannot dispose of because the law hasreserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, calledcompulsory heirs." Article 886 is couched upon anegative prohibition "cannot dispose of". In the willunder consideration, the testatrix disposed of practicallyher entire estate by designating a beneficiary for eachproperty. Necessarily, the testamentary dispositionsincluded that portion of the estate called "legitime." It isthus imperative to reconcile the tenor of Article 10808 | P a g e MEOW NOTES | 2018 SUCCESSION – SECOND EXAM
Image of page 8
(which is the basis of the following decision) with Article 886. Onesima Belen v BPI and Milagros Belen De Olaguera SUMMARY: Benigno Diaz made a codicil naming Filomena Diaz as one of the legatees. Benigno died and his will was admitted for probate and the estate was put under the administration of BPI as trustee. When Filomena died, she left two children – Milagros Belen v de Olaguera (married with 7 legitimate children) and Onesima Belen (single). Onesima filed a petition praying that BPI be ordered to deliver to her one-half of her share. She contends that the estate of Filomena under a codicil should only be divided between her and Milagros, to the exclusion of the 7 children. CFI held that the children should be included. Onesima invokes Art 959 where “a distribution made in general terms in favor of the testator shall be understood as made in favor of those nearest in degree.” The Court ruled that the words “sus descendientes legitimos” in the codicil of Benigno Diaz refer to all living descendants and not only to descendants nearest in degree. DOCTRINE: The word “descendant” must be interpreted, in the absence of other indications of contrary intent, in that the proper rule to apply is that the testator, by designating a class or group of legatees, intended all members to succeed per capita. FACTS: On September 29, 1944, Benigno Diaz executed a codicil which provides that: (Loose google translation HUHUHELP) o 9.0 - In case of death of some or all legatees appointed(?) by me, beneficiaries or legacies in favor only legitimate descendants and ascendants, spouses but not widowers. o 10.0 - Ten or fifteen years after my death all my properties, movable or immovable, rights and advantageous, they can proceed with the sale of all giving preference to the legatees and their total amount thousand pesos (P1,000) is deducted for four children of my late brother Fabian, all expenses and reserving enough and well cover calcumada(??) to the following people who still vuiven(??) or their legitimate descendants distribute: Isabel M. de Santiago - (50%) Domingo Legarda children - (30%) Filomena Diaz - (10%) Nestor M. Santiago - (10%) When Diaz died, the codicil was admitted to probate. The estate was thereafter put under the administration of BPI as trustee for the benefit of the legatees. Ten years later, Filomena Diaz died, leaving two legitimate children, Milagros Belen de Olaguera
Image of page 9
Image of page 10

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 28 pages?

  • Spring '16
  • Mumdani

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture