View full case

JOHNNY S. RABADILLA v. CA

FACTS:

In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of Aleja Belleza, Lot No. 1392 was bequeathed to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, with certain conditions stated in the Codicil. However, after Dr. Jorge Rabadilla's death, his heirs, including petitioner Johnny S. Rabadilla, violated the testatrix's specific instructions by mortgaging Lot No. 1392 and failing to deliver the specified amount of sugar to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza. Consequently, Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza Villacarlos filed a complaint against the defendant-heirs to enforce the provisions of the Codicil. The plaintiff sought the reconveyance of Lot No. 1392 and the cancellation of the transfer certificate of title in the name of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla. The defendant-heirs were initially declared in default but the order of default was lifted for the petitioner, who filed his answer. During the pre-trial, it was admitted that the plaintiff and Alan Azurin, the son-in-law of the petitioner, entered into a lease agreement regarding the lot.

The case pertains to a disagreement concerning the delivery of sugar, which was part of an agreement between the private respondent and the son-in-law of the petitioner, acting as attorney-in-fact of the defendant-heirs. The agreement specified that for crop year 1988-89, 75 piculs of 'A' sugar and 25 piculs of 'B' sugar would be delivered, and for the crop years 1985-86, 1986-87, and 1987-88, the annuity would be fulfilled in the cash equivalent of the mentioned piculs. However, there was no compliance with the agreement except for a partial delivery of 50.80 piculs of sugar for crop year 1988-1989. The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the complaint stating that no cause of action had arisen and the plaintiff could initiate intestate proceedings instead. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed this decision and ordered the reconveyance of the property and its fruits and interests to the estate of Aleja Belleza. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the testamentary institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla is a modal institution within the purview of Article 882 of the New Civil Code.

  2. **Whether private respondent has a cause of action against the petitioner for non-compliance with the obligation imposed by the Codicil."

RULING:

  1. The institution of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla under the Codicil is in the nature of a modal institution under Article 882 of the New Civil Code. The Supreme Court found that the testatrix intended for Lot No. 1392 to be inherited by Dr. Jorge Rabadilla with the obligation to deliver one hundred piculs of sugar to Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza. This obligation is modal in nature because it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir but does not affect the efficacy of such institution.

  2. Private respondent has a cause of action against the petitioner for non-compliance with the obligation imposed by the Codicil. The Supreme Court found that the obligation imposed by the Codicil on the instituted heir was transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death. The non-fulfillment of this obligation resulted in the right of the private respondent to seize the property and have it turned over to the testatrix's near descendants.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Article 882 of the New Civil Code The statement of the object of the institution or the application of the property left by the testator, or the charge imposed on him, shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention. What has been left in this manner may be claimed at once, provided that security is given for compliance with the wishes of the testator.

  • Modal Institution An institution that imposes an obligation on the heir without affecting the efficacy of his right to the succession.

  • Substitution vs. Modal Institution Substitution involves replacing an heir in certain situations (e.g., predecease, incapacity, renunciation), whereas a modal institution involves a charge or obligation imposed on the heir that does not suspend his right to the inheritance.

  • Interpretation of Wills When ambiguity arises, the intention of the testator is ascertained from the words of the Will, considering the circumstances under which it was made, and such a construction should sustain and uphold the testator's wishes.