TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ

G.R. No. L-27952, February 15, 1982

TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, MARIA LUISA PALACIOS, ADMINISTRATRIX VS. MARCELLE D. VDA. DE RAMIREZ, ET AL., OPPOSITORS, JORGE AND ROBERTO RAMIREZ, LEGATEES

FACTS: Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain with only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate in Manila. The administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows: the property of the deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part shall go to the in satisfaction of her legitime; the other part or "free portion" shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez. Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with the widow's usufruct and the remaining two-third (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda.

Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition on the ground that the provisions for fideicommissary substitutions are invalid because the first heirs are not related to the second heirs or substitutes within the first degree.

ISSUE: Whether the proposed partition is in accordance with law.

RULING: NO. It may be useful to recall that Substitution is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted. As regards the substitution in its fideicommissary aspect, the appellants are correct in their claim that it is void for the reason that the substitutes (Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace V. Ramirez) are not related to Wanda, the heir originally instituted. Art. 863 of the Civil Code validates a fideicommissary substitution "provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted."

From this, it follows that the fideicommissary can only be either a child or a parent of the first heir. These are the only relatives who are one generation or degree from the fiduciary. There is no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufruct to the substitutes as required by Arts. 865 and 867 of the Civil Code. In fact, the appellee admits "that the testator contradicts the establishment of a fideicommissary substitution when he permits the properties subject of the usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement of the usufructuaries and the naked owners.


Comments