Aranas Vs Aranas

#2 SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-56249. May 29, 1987

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED
REV. FATHER TEODORO ARANAS, RAMONA B. VDA. DE
ARANAS, ADELIA B. ARANAS-FERNANDEZ, HEIRS OF THE LATE
RODULFO B. ARANAS, ETC., ET AL., Petitioners,
vs
VICENTE B. ARANAS AND HON. LUIS B. MANTA, Respondents.
PONENTE: PARAS, J.
Facts:
The testator left a will which was admitted to probate in 1956.
The will provides that: (1) the remainder of the estate will be
under the the special administration of Vicente Aranas, his
faithful and serviceable nephew, until his death or until he
resigns; (2) that the sons of testators brother [Carmelo] can
hold said office of special administrator, and none other than
they, if Vicente dies or resigns; (3) the special administration
is perpetual; and (4) that Vicente will receive 1/2 of the
produce of said properties, and the other 1/2 of the produce to
be given to the Catholic Church.
In 1977, respondent Judge in SP:303 [Motion for Declaration

of Heirs and Partition and for Removal of the Administrator]
ruled in petitioners favor that the perpetual inalienability and
administration by Vicente is null and void after 20 years from
1954. Vicente moved to reconsider alleging that said order
was violative of due process because only the issue for the
removal of administrator was heard. Thus, the court set aside
its earlier order. Petitioners moved to reconsider, but was
denied. Hence, the present petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not the testamentary dispositions [right of
usufructuary and right to hold as special administrator] is null
and void for being perpetual, that is, more than 20 years.
[NO]
Ruling:
Petition is Dismissed.
The court ruled in its questioned order that this particular

group of properties (Group "C") is subject to the
following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. Remunerative legacy by way of usufruct of the net

proceeds of 1/2 of the estate after deducting expenses for
administration in favor of Vicente Aranas, during his lifetime
and shall continue an administrator of the estate, and, who,
upon his death or refusal to continue such usufruct, may be
succeeded by any of the brothers of the administrator as
selected by their father, Carmelo Aranas, if still alive or one
selected by his sons if, he, Carmelo, is dead; Pursuant to the
Will. (Article 562, 563, 564 and 603 of the New Civil Code).
"2. Legacy in favor of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly

the Archbishop diocese of Cagayan de Oro City Represented
by the Reverend Archbishop Patrick H. Cronin over one-half of
the proceeds of the properties under Group "C." (Article 603,
New Civil Code) and to last for a period of Fifty years from the
effective date of the legacy, Article 605, New Civil Code)."
(Annex "L-14," p. 87, Rollo)
Assailing the aforementioned ruling, petitioners rely heavily

on the doctrine laid down in Art. 870 of the New Civil Code to
wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Art. 870. The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part

of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are
void."cralaw virtua1aw library
A cursory reading of the English translation of the Last Will and

Testament shows that it was the sincere intention and desire
of the testator to reward his nephew Vicente Aranas for his
faithful and unselfish services by allowing him to enjoy
one-half of the fruits of the testators third group of properties
until Vicentes death and/or refusal to act as administrator in
which case, the administration shall pass to anyone chosen by
Carmelo Aranas among his sons and upon Carmelos death,
his sons will have the power to select one among themselves.
Vicente Aranas therefore as a usufructuary has the right to
enjoy the property of his uncle with all the benefits which
result from the normal enjoyment (or exploitation) of
anothers property, with the obligation to return, at the
designated time, either the same thing, or in special cases its
equivalent. This right of Vicente to enjoy the fruits of the
properties is temporary and therefore not perpetual as there is
a limitation namely his death or his refusal. Likewise his
designation as administrator of these properties is limited by
his refusal and/or death and therefore it does not run counter
to Art. 870 of the Civil Code relied upon by the petitioners. Be
it noted that Vicente Aranas is not prohibited to dispose of the
fruits and other benefits arising from the usufruct. Neither are
the naked owners (the other heirs) of the properties, the
usufruct of which has been given to Vicente Aranas prohibited
from disposing of said naked ownership without prejudice of
course to Vicentes continuing usufruct. To void the
designation of Vicente Aranas as usufructuary and/or
administrator is to defeat the desire and the dying wish of the
testator to reward him for his faithful and unselfish services
rendered during the time when said testator was seriously ill
or bed-ridden. The proviso must be respected and be given
effect until the death or until the refusal to act as such of the
instituted usufructuary/administrator, after which period, the
property can be properly disposed of, subject to the limitations
provided in Art. 863 of the Civil Code concerning a
fideicommissary substitution, said Article
says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the

fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation
to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part
of the inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect, provided
such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir
originally instituted, and provided further, that the fiduciary or
first heir and the second heir are living at the time of the death
of the testator."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is contended by petitioners that the ruling made by

respondent court dated November 17, 1977 was already final
and not subject to correction as what was set aside and to be
reheard was only regarding the determination of additional
heirs. Such contention is not worthy of credence. Respondents
in their Memorandum allege and it is not disputed by
petitioners that the order of November 17, 1977 has not yet
become final because it was received only on January 12,
1978 by the counsel for respondent Vicente Aranas and the
Motion for Reconsideration and to declare testamentary and
intestate heirs dated January 17, 1978 was filed by the said
respondent within the reglementary period. Besides the
validity or invalidity of the usufructuary dispositions would
affect the determination of heirs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
As to petitioners allegation that the order of July 16, 1980 is

without basis, the record shows that during the hearing of the
urgent motion for reconsideration and to declare testamentary
and intestate heirs, it was proven conclusively by the said
respondent Vicente B. Aranas that he was instituted as a
remunerative legatee per mandate of the Last Will and
Testament by way of usufructuary. Likewise the right of the
Roman Catholic Church as the other usufructuary legatee for
the duration of the statutory lifetime of a corporation, that is,
50 years from the date of the effectivity of said legacy, was
also established. 7
- Digested 30 September 2017, 21:59
***

Aranas Vs Aranas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aranas Vs Aranas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aranas Vs Aranas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#2 SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-56249. May 29, 1987

In 1977, respondent Judge in SP:303 [Motion for Declaration

The court ruled in its questioned order that this particular

"1. Remunerative legacy by way of usufruct of the net

"2. Legacy in favor of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly

Assailing the aforementioned ruling, petitioners rely heavily

"Art. 870. The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part

A cursory reading of the English translation of the Last Will and

"A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the

It is contended by petitioners that the ruling made by

As to petitioners allegation that the order of July 16, 1980 is

- Digested 30 September 2017, 21:59

You might also like