Blas v. Santos (1961)

Blas v. Santos (1961)

Topic: Future Inheritance, except when authorized by law (Art. 1347)

PARTIES:

·       Petitioners/Appellants: Maria Gervacio Blas, Manuel Gervacio Blas, Leoncio Gervacio Blas and Loida Gervacio Blas

·       Respondents/Appellants: Rosalina Santos (in her capacity as Special Administratrix of the Estate of the deceased Maxima Santos Vda. De Blas)

FACTS:

·       Simeon Blas contracted a first marriage with Marta Cruz sometime in 1898. They had 3 children, only one of whom (Eulalio) left children Maria, Marta, Lazaro. Lazaro died in 1953 and is surived by 3 legitimate children: Manuel, Leoncio, Loida.

·       Marta died in 1898. Simeon Blas contracted a second marriage with Maxima Santos the following year. At the time of this second marriage, no liquidation of the properties acquired by Simeon Blas and Marta was made.

·       Three of the properties left are fishponds located in Obando, Bulacan. Maxima does not appear to have apported properties to her marriage with Simeon.

·       Dec. 26, 1936 – Simeon executed a last will and testament, stating the ff:

o   “During my second marriage with Maxima, I possessed and acquired wealth and properties, consisting of lands, fishponds and other kinds of properties, the total assessed value of which reached P678,880.00”

o   “1/2 of our properties, after the payment of my and our indebtedness, all these properties having been acquired during marriage (conjugal properties) constitutes the share of my wife Maxima, according to the law.”

·       At the time of the execution of the will, Andres Pascual (son-in-law of Simeon) and Avelina Pascual were present. The will was prepared by Andres Pascual with the help of his wife Avelino Pascual. Andres testified that Simeon asked him to prepare the document.

·       This action was instituted by plaintiffs (Blas) against the administrator of the estate of Maxima Santos, to secure a judicial declaration of 1/2 of the properties left by Maxima, the greater bulk of which are set forth “and described in the project of partition presented in the proceedings for the administration of the estate of the deceased Simeon Blas, had been promised by deceased Maxima to be delivered upon her death and in her will to the plaintiffs, and requesting that the said properties as promised be adjudicated to the plaintiffs.

·       The alleged promise of Maxima is contained in a document executed by her on Dec. 26, 1936 (Exh. A). The complaint also alleges that the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit certain properties enumerated therein, situated in Malabon, Rizal and Obando, Bulacan, but which properties have already been included in the inventory of the estate of the deceased Simeon Blas and evidently partitioned and conveyed to his heirs in the proceedings for Simeon Blas’s estate.

·       Rosalina Santos (administratrix) admitted the allegations of the complaint, that upon the death of Simeon Blas in 1937, Simeon and Marta Cruz begot 3 children, only one of whom (Eulalio) left legitimate descendants. Santos also admits that Simeon contracted a second marriage with Maxima in 1988. She does, however, for lack of sufficient information and belief, knowledge of the first marriage of Simeon and Marta the averment that Simeon and Marta acquired properties in Obando. Santos alleges, as a special defense, that the properties he spouses Blas and Santos had been settled and liquidated in the project of the partition of the estate of Simeon Blas. Pursuant to the project of partition, plaintiffs and some defendants had already received the respective properties adjudicated to them.

·       The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint.

·       The court below held that the will has not created any right in favor of plaintiffs which can serve as a basis for the complaint; neither can it be considered as a valid and enforceable contract for lack of consideration and because it deals with future inheritance.

·       The court declared that Ex. A is not a ‘will’ because it does not comply with the requisites for the execution of a will; nor could be considered as a donation.

ISSUE: W/N the will executed by Simeon is considered void for being a contract involving future inheritance.

·       It is not disputed that the document was prepared at the instance of Simeon for the reason that the conjugal properties of his first marriage had not been liquidated. It is also not disputed that the document was signed by Maxima and a copy was presented in court.

·       Plaintiffs argue that Exh. A is both a trust agreement and a contract in the nature of a compromise to avoid litigation. Defendants argue that it is neither a trust agreement nor a compromise agreement. Considering that the properties of the first marriage of Simeon had not been liquidated when Simeon executed his will, and that such properties were actually included as conjugal properties acquired during the second marriage.

·       However, the Court finds that the execution of the will was ordered by Simeon evidently to prevent his heirs by his first marriage from contesting his will and demanding liquidation of the conjugal properties acquired during the first marriage.

·       Therefore, Exh. A appears to be a compromise defined in Art. 1809 of the Civ. Code of Spain: “Compromise is a contract by which each of the parties in interest, by giving promising or retaining something avoids the provocation of a suit or terminates one which has already been instituted.”

·       Defendants argue that Exh. A is a worthless piece of paper because it is not a will nor a donation mortis causa nor a contract. However, the Court held that it is a compromise and at the same time a contract with sufficient cause or consideration.

·       The contention that it deals with future inheritance is likewise untenable. Exh. A is an obligation or promise made by the marker to transmit 1/2 of her share in the conjugal properties acquired with her husband, which properties are stated or declared to be conjugal properties in the will of the husband. The conjugal properties were in existence at the time of the execution of Exh. A. The promise does not refer to any properties that the marker would inherit upon the death of her husband. The document refers to existing properties which she will receive by operation of law on the death of her husband. That kind of agreement or promise contained in Exh. A is not void under Art. 1271.

·       It will be noted that what is prohibited to be the subject matter of a contract under Art. 1271 is “future inheritance.” Future inheritance is any property or right not in existence or capable of determination at the time of the contract, that a person may in the future acquire by succession.

·       The properties subject of the contract are well-defined properties excising at the time of the agreement, which Simeon Blas declares in his testament as belonging to his wife as her share in the conjugal partnership. Certainly his wife's actual share in the conjugal properties may not be considered as future inheritance because they were actually in existence at the time Exhibit "A" was executed.

·       Exh. A is a compromise to avoid litigation.

JUDGMENT: Judgment appealed from is reversed and the defendant administratrix is ordered to convey and deliver 1/2 of the properties adjudicated to Maxima as her share in the conjugal properties, to the heirs and legatees of her husband Simeon.