March 29, 1911

G.R. No. 5939

JOSE MARIN, administrator-appellant,
vs.
VALENTINA NACIANCENO, claimant-appellee.
Sanz and Opisso for appellant.
Ariston Estrada for appellee.
MORELAND, J.:
This is a proceeding to compel the payment o a legacy. The legacy over !hich this action
arose !as "e#$eathed to %elisa &ernande', !ho died "eore the testatri(, leaving s$rviving
her the petitioners in this case her only heirs at la! and ne(t o )in. The testatri( did not
alter her !ill in respect to this legacy ater the death o the legatee, altho$gh she !as
cogni'ant thereo, the deceased legatee "eing a near relation.
*pposition to the payment o this legacy !as made "y the e(ec$tor o the !ill $pon the
gro$nd that the legacy having "een to %elisa &ernande' and she having died "eore the
testatri(, the legacy necessarily lapsed "eca$se, $nder the provisions o the +ivil +ode, the
heirs and the ne(t o )in o a deceased person ta)e only s$ch property as !as vested in the
deceased at the time o his death, that the legacy not having vested "eore the death o the
legatee s$ch legatee had no interest therein !hich co$ld pass to her heirs and ne(t o )in.
The petitioners rely or relie, and or escape rom said provisions o the +ivil +ode, $pon
section -5. o the +ode o +ivil /roced$re. That section reads as ollo!s0
When a device or a legacy is made to a child or other relation to the testator, and the
devisee or legatee dies before the testator, leaving issue surviving the testator, such issue
shall take the estate so given as the devisee or legatee would have done, if he had survived
the testator, unless a dierent disposition is re!uired by law.
The e(ec$tor asserts that this provision o the code is inapplica"le "y reason o the act that
it is in direct opposition to e(press provisions o the +ivil +ode a"ove reerred to, and that
said section having as a part thereo the sentence, 1$nless a dierent disposition is re#$ired
"y la!,2 indicates clearly and necessarily that it !as the intention o said section to e(cl$de
rom its operation said provisions o the +ivil +ode.
3n o$r opinion this constr$ction !o$ld repeal and ann$l the section a"sol$tely. The sole and
!hole o"4ect o the section is to avoid the eects o the very provisions o the +ivil +ode
reerred to. No other p$rpose i possi"le. 3t co$ld not have "een, then, the intention o the
legislat$re to destroy "y said section the orce o said provisions and, in the very section
destroying those provisions, incorporate a sentence res$scitating them. 3t !o$ld amo$nt to
an a"s$rdity to say that the legislat$re enacted a la! and repealed it at the same time.
3 the petitioners are not entitled to the payment o this legacy, then section -5. has
a"sol$tely no val$e and can prod$ce no res$lts. 3t might as !ell never have "een !ritten. 3t
is a most lagrant violation o the r$les o stat$tory constr$ction to give to a stat$te a
meaning !hich, in eect and in reality, repeals it altogether, !here any other reasona"le
constr$ction is possi"le. 5%armers 6an) vs. &ale, 59 N.7. 53, 59, 8$therland, 8tat$tory
+onstr$ction, paragraph 221.9
:e do not no! decide !hat is the meaning o the phrase reerred to, nor to !hat it reers.
That is $nnecessary to a decision o the case "eore $s. :e no! simply hold that it !ill not
"ear the constr$ction given to it "y the opponents o the motion "eore $s.
:e are o the opinion that the order o the co$rt "elo! re#$iring the payment o the legacy
as petitioned is correct $nder the la! and m$st "e airmed.
The 4$dgment appealed rom is, thereore, airmed, !ith costs.
"arson and #rent, $$., concur.
$ohnson, $., concurs in the result.
Torres, J., dissenting0
Tho$gh the $ndersigned respects the ma4ority opinion concerning this most important
#$estion o la! decided in the preceding decision, he can not "e convinced that, "y section
-5. o the +ode o +ivil /roced$re, vario$s articles o the +ivil +ode ; a collection o
s$"stantive la!s !hich comprises an entire, complete system o legislation on the testate
and intestate s$ccession o a deceased person and on the rights esta"lished "y stat$te, as
!ell those pertaining to heirs "y orce o la!, to vol$ntary heirs, and to dierent )inds o
legatees recogni'ed "y la! ; !ere repealed.
The said section o the +ode o +ivil /roced$re provides0
%evisee dying before testator. & When a device or a legacy is made to a child or other
relation to the testator, and the devisee or legatee dies before the testator, leaving issue
surviving the testator such issue shall take the estate so given as the devisee or legatee
would have done, if he had survived the testator, unless a dierent disposition is re!uired by
law.
3n none o the sections o the said +ode o /roced$re does there e(ist, in my opinion, any
provision !hatever contrary to that o the a"ove section, "$t there are in orce vario$s
articles o the +ivil +ode !hich are entirely opposed to the provisions, partly, o said section
-5., and 3 say partly "eca$se 3 do not !ish to reer to the legacy let "y a testator to his
son, inasm$ch as this latter, according to the +ivil +ode, is his heir "y orce o la!.
My o"4ection concerns that other relative and legatee !ho sho$ld die "eore the testator
and !hose descendants s$rviving him are entitled, according to the said section -5., to
inherit rom the said testator and to s$cceed him in his estate, as i they themselves !ere
his legatees, "eca$se this provision is entirely opposed to vario$s articles o the +ivil +ode
!hich sho$ld "e respected, as ordered in that very section -5. "y the !ords 1$nless a
dierent disposition is re#$ired "y la!,2 therein contained.
The plaintis !ho claim the legacy made "y the testatri(, <icenta &ernande', in "ehal o
their mother, %elisa &ernande', a niece o the ormer, e(ercise the right o the heirs or
s$ccessors o the said legatee, and not that o the s$ccessors o the testatri(, and as the
said legatee died "eore the testatri( and, thereore, co$ld not have ac#$ired any right
!hatever to the said legacy, on acco$nt o her having died "eore the testatri(, it is not
$nderstood ho! the aorementioned plaintis have "een a"le to ac#$ire a right to the
legacy "e#$eathed to their mother, !hen she hersel, d$ring her lietime, co$ld not ac#$ire
s$ch a right to the said legacy, inasm$ch as no provision !as made in the !ill that, in case
o the death o the legatee, her children sho$ld s$cceed her in the legacy as i they !ere
legatees themselves. The right o the legatee is e#$al to that o the vol$ntary heir, and
article -== o the +ivil +ode prescri"es0
A voluntary heir, who should die before the testator, the person dis!uali'ed to inherit, and
the person who renounces the inheritance, do not transmit any rights to their heirs,
e(cepting the provisions of articles )*+ and ,-).
These e(ceptions do not reer to the case o an heir !ho dies "eore the testator.
8o that the legatee !ho dies "eore the testator, as he ac#$ired no right !hatever to the
legacy, co$ld not in t$rn transmit s$ch a right to his heirs, he co$ld, !hile he lived, have
entertained the hope o receiving the legacy ater the death o the testator, "$t, in the case
at "ar, that hope co$ld not "e converted into reali'ation "eca$se, !hen the legatee died, the
o!ner o the property o$t o !hich the legacy !as to "e made, still lived, and the premat$re
death o the legatee invalidated her right and she !as $na"le to transmit it to her
s$ccessors, in this case the children o %elisa &ernande' !ho claim the legacy o the /2,>>>,
to !hich legacy their deceased mother !as $na"le to ac#$ire any right !hatever, and,
thereore, co$ld transmit none to them, or the testatri( !as still living.
:ith respect to the right o representation, article 92? o the +ivil +ode provides0
#he right which all the relatives of a person have to succeeded him in all the rights which he
would have if alive, or which he might have inherited, is called the right of representation.
@rticle 925 o the same code prescri"es0
#he right of representation shall always take place in the direct descending line, but never in
the ascending.
.n the collateral line it shall take place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters,
whether they be of the whole or half blood.
The plaintis are children o the legatee, %elisa &ernande', a niece o the testatri(, and
thereore can not allege any right !hatever i representation !ith respect to the legacy
!hich their said mother, the legatee, co$ld not receive, "eca$se she died "eore the
testatri(, !ho !as only an a$nt o hers.
:ith regard to the #$estion at iss$e, it m$st "e "orne in mind that civil personality is
e(ting$ished "y the death o the persons. 5@rt. 32, +ivil +ode.9 The act "y !hich a person
disposes o all his property or o a part o it, to ta)e eect ater his death, is called a !ill.
5@rt. ==- o the same code.9 The rights to the s$ccession o a person are transmitted rom
the moment o his death. 5@rt. =5- o the same code.9 The plaintis !ere $na"le to allege
!hat right co$ld have "een transmitted to them "y their mother %elisa &ernande' at the
moment o her death, in s$pport o their present claim or the legacy let "y the testatri(
!ho s$rvived the said &ernande'.
The case at "ar concerns a p$re and simple legacy, !itho$t condition !hatever nor term or
its delivery, and, !ith respect to this class o legacies, article ..1 o the +ivil +ode
prescri"es0
A legatee ac!uires a right to the pure and simple legacy from the death of the testator, and
transmit it to his heirs.
The legatee, %elisa &ernande', having died "eore the testatri(, <icenta &ernande', she, the
ormer, co$ld not transmit to her children any right in the legacy o the /2,>>> !hich the
latter let in her !ill.
@ll the re#$irements o the said articles and others o the +ivil +ode, !hich are in perect
harmony one !ith another, and orm one methodic set o provisions relative to the testate
or intestate s$ccession o a deceased person and to the right to inherit "y !ill or "y orce o
la!, are those !hich !ere e(pressly respected "y the !ords 1$nless a dierent disposition is
re#$ired "y la!,2 contained in the said section -5. !hich, !hile it is in accord !ith the
s$"stantive la! as regards the legitimate s$ccessors o the child and recogni'es the right o
representation o the nephe! o the testator, appears to "e in maniest conlict !ith the said
la! as regards a relative, as in the case o %elisa &ernande' !here her children ater her
death, !hich occ$rred !hile the testatri( !as still living, no! claim to "e entitled to receive
the legacy let "y the latter, not to them, "$t to their mother, or !hom the la! allo!s no
right o representation in connection !ith the said legacy.
The said @ct No. 19> lac)s a pream"le, and even i it had one it !o$ld still "e ine(plica"le
"eca$se, immediately ollo!ing the provision contained in the said section -5., !hich
destroys categorical provisions o the +ivil +ode, and in the last lines thereo appear the
!ords 1$nless a dierent disposition is re#$ired "y la!.2 3 !e are to regard the sense and
meaning o these !ords, !e can not "$t $nderstand that provisions o the +ivil +ode m$st
"e o"served and complied !ith that are nota"ly contrary and opposed to that contained in
the ot-cited article -5. o the +ode o +ivil /roced$re, !hich code can not properly repeal
vario$s articles o the +ivil +ode "y the proviso contained at the end thereo. The plaintis
are not testamentary legatees "y virt$e o the aoresaid !ill o <icenta &ernande'.
%or the oregoing reasons it sho$ld have "een decided, in o$r opinion, and o$nd that, !ith
a reversal o the 4$dgment appealed rom, the plaintis, the children o %elisa &ernande',
are not entitled to receive "y right o representation the legacy let "y <icenta &ernande' in
her !ill, and, thereore, the plaintisA prayer sho$ld have "een denied, !itho$t special
inding as to costs.