LAW ON SUCCESSION | TORRES VS. LOPEZ, G.R. NO. 25966, NOVEMBER 1, 1926
TORRES
VS. LOPEZ,
G.R.
NO. 25966, NOVEMBER 1, 1926
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
In playing
the provisions of the Code it is the duty of the court to harmonize its
provisions as far as possible, giving due effect to all; and in case of
conflict between two provisions the more general is to be considered as being
limited by the more specific.
FACTS
This appeal
involves a controversy over one-half of the estate of Tomas Rodriguez,
decedent. The appellant, Margarita Lopez, claims said half by the intestate succession
as next of kin and nearest heir; while the appellee, Luz Lopez de Bueno, claims
the same by accredition and in the character of universal heir the will of the
decedent. The trial court decided the point of controversy in favor of Luz
Lopez de Bueno, and Margariat Lopez appealed.
The
facts necessary to an understanding of the case are these: On January 3, 1924,
Tomas Rodriguez executed his last will and testament, in the second clause of
which he declared:
I institute as the only and universal
heirs to all my property, my cousin Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter Luz Lopez
de Bueno.
Prior to the
time of the execution of this will the testator, Tomas Rodriguez, had been
judicially declared incapable of taking care of himself and had been placed
under the care of his cousin Vicente F. Lopez, as guardian. On January 7, 1924,
or only four days after the will above-mentioned was made, Vicente F. Lopez
died; and the testator, Tomas Rodriguez, died on February 25, 1924, thereafter.
At the time the will was made Vicente F. Lopez had not presented his final
accounts as guardian, and no such accounts had been presented by him at the
time of his death. Margariat Lopez was a cousin and nearest relative of the
decedent. The will referred to, and after having been contested, has been
admitted to probate by judicial determination (Torres and Lopez de Bueno vs.
Lopez, 48 Phil., 772).
ISSUE
Whether the will is valid.
Whether Lopez and his daughter
has the right to inherit.
RULING
Yes.
The court ruled that the argument in favor of the appellant supposes that
there has supervened a partial intestacy with respect to the half of the estate
which was intended for Vicente F. Lopez and that this half has descended to the
appellant, Margarita Lopez, as next of kin and sole heir at law of the
decedent. In this connection attention is directed to article 764 of the Civil
Code wherein it is declared, among other things, that a will may be valid even
though the person instituted as heir is disqualified to inherit. Our attention
is next invited to article 912 wherein it is declared, among other things, that
legal succession takes place if the heir dies before the testator and also when
the heir instituted is disqualified to succeed. Upon these provisions an
argument is planted conducting to the conclusion that the will of Tomas
Rodriguez was valid, notwithstanding the fact that one of the individuals named
as heirs in the will was disqualified to take, and that as a consequence
Margarita Lopez s entitled to inherit the share of said disqualified heir.
Yes, appellee has a better
right.
The court ruled that in playing the provisions of the Code it is the duty
of the court to harmonize its provisions as far as possible, giving due effect
to all; and in case of conflict between two provisions the more general is to
be considered as being limited by the more specific. As between articles 912
and 983, it is obvious that the former is the more general of the two, dealing,
as it does, with the general topic of intestate succession while the latter is
more specific, defining the particular conditions under which accretion takes
place. In case of conflict, therefore, the provisions of the former article
must be considered limited by the latter.
We now pass
to article 982 of the Civil Code, defining the right of accretion. It is there
declared, in effect, that accretion take place in a testamentary succession,
first when the two or more persons are called to the same inheritance or the
same portion thereof without special designation of shares; and secondly, when
one of the persons so called dies before the testator or renounces the
inheritance or is disqualifying to receive it. In the case before us we have a
will calling Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter, Luz Lopez de Bueno, to the same
inheritance without special designation of shares. In addition to this, one of
the persons named as heir has predeceased the testator, this person being also
disqualified to receive the estate even if he had been alive at the time of the
testator's death. This article (982) is therefore also of exact application to
the case in hand; and its effect is to give to the survivor, Luz Lopez de
Bueno, not only the undivided half which she would have received in conjunction
with her father if he had been alive and qualified to take, but also the half
which pertained to him. There was no error whatever, therefore, in the order of
the trial court declaring Luz Lopez de Bueno entitled to the whole estate.
In conclusion
it may be worth observing that there has always existed both in the civil and
in the common law a certain legal intendment, amounting to a mild presumption,
against partial intestacy. In Roman law, as is well known, partial testacy
systems a presumption against it, — a presumption which has its basis in the
supposed intention of the testator.
