Published — June 1, 2022
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
After being knowledgeable if an heir can be substituted, you may also read: WHO ARE CONSIDERED HEIRS UNDER THE LAW (PART II)
-
An heir may refuse to accept inheritance
-
A testator may impose conditions when designating a person to inherit his property
-
A testator may appoint another heir to substitute the first heir
Substitution is the designation by the testator of a person to take the place of the heir first instituted. It is the appointment by the testator of another heir so that he may inherit the property or right in case the first heir refused to or cannot inherit.
Generally, a testator may provide for the designation of another heir to whom the property shall be transmitted in case the first heir should die before him, renounce the inheritance, or be incapacitated to inherit. The testator may also leave his property to one person with the express direction that said property be transmitted subsequently to another.
How is substitution of heirs differ from modal institution of heir?
The law says:
Modal institution is the institution of an heir made for a certain purpose or cause and is within the purview of Article 882 of the New Civil Code.
For a better understanding of the difference between substitution of heir and modal institution, let us take the case of Johnny S. Rabadilla vs. Court of Appeals and Maria Marlena Coscoluella Y Belleza Villacarlos, G.R.No. 113725, June 29, 2000.
The facts are as follows:
The person who has executed a Last Will and Testament and supplemented the same by way of Codicil is Aleja Belleza (testator). In her Codicil, she instituted Dr. Jorge Rabadilla (Dr. Jorge) to receive a parcel of land (lot).
In the same Codicil, the testator stated that in case Dr. Jorge die ahead of her, the lot shall be inherited by the children and spouse of Dr. Jorge. In instituting Dr. Jorge as her heir, a condition was imposed by the testator. Once he has already received ownership of the said lot, he is obligated to give Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Beleza (Marlina) a specified amount of sugar. His obligation is yearly until Marlina dies.
If Dr. Jorge dies, his heir to whom he shall give the lot has the same obligation to still give the same specified amount of sugar to Marlina on the month of December each year.
In addition, should the heir of Dr. Jorge later sell, lease, mortgage the lot, the buyer, lessee, or mortgagee shall assume the obligation to respect and deliver the specified amount of sugar to Marlina until she dies.
In case, Dr. Jorge or his heirs failed to respect and comply with the conditions imposed by the testator, Marlina shall immediately seize the lot and turn it over to the testator’s near descendants.
In effect, it can be gleaned from the Codicil of the testator that she intended to have three set of heirs who may inherit the lot successively in case of non-compliance by the first heir of the conditions imposed upon him. It is clear from the intention of the testator that the order as to who may inherit the lot shall be in the following manner:
- Jorge
- Jorge’s children and Spouse
- Testator’s “near descendants”
Do note that the above-mentioned heirs are not intended by the testator to simultaneously inherit the lot. They are to succeed each other depending on the compliance or non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the testator.
When Dr. Jorge died, he was survived by his children and spouse. After some time, Marlina filed a complaint against the heirs of Dr. Jorge for the return of the lot. This is because the heirs of Dr. Jorge violated the conditions given by the testator. Eventually, the Court of Appeals has ordered the heirs of Dr. Jorge to return or reconvey the lot to the estate of the testator. The Court of Appeals stated that this is a case of modal institution which is within the purview of Article 882 of the New Civil Code. Also, it should be understood that the return of the lot is in accordance still with the will of the testator as one of the conditions she set forth in her Codicil.
Johnny, one of the children and heirs of Dr. Jorge, questioned the decision of the Court of Appeals. He filed a petition before the Supreme Court saying this is not a case of modal substitution. Johnny believes that this is a case of substitution of heir. He is also convinced that the substitution of heir is not valid. According to him, they (heirs of Dr. Jorge) cannot be substituted by the “near descendants” of the testator. To his understanding, the term “near descendants” is without a definite identity or reference as to who are the “near descendants”. Thus, the lot should not be taken away from them.
Is Johnny correct in saying that this is a case of substitution?
The Supreme Court says:
No.
Going back to the conditions stated in the Codicil of the testator, she donated a lot to Dr. Jorge on the condition that he will yearly deliver a specified amount of sugar to Marlina. When Dr. Jorge died, the ownership of the lot was transferred to his children and spouse who are his compulsory heirs. When the lot was transferred to the children and spouse of Dr. Jorge, the obligation of Dr. Jorge to give a certain amount of sugar to Marlina was also transferred to them. In this case, Marlina has a right to demand the performance of such obligation from the heirs of Dr. Jorge.
Johnny is not correct in saying that this is a case of substitution. The Supreme Court stated that in simple substitutions, the second heir takes the inheritance in case the first heir does not want to receive the inheritance, or dies ahead of the testator, or is incapacitated to accept the inheritance.
Apparently, the Codicil of the testator did not provide that should Dr. Jorge cannot inherit because he died ahead of the testator, or refuses to receive the lot, or incapacitated to accept the inheritance, the testator’s near descendants would substitute him.
What is clear from the Codicil is that in case of non-fulfillment of the conditions imposed by the testator, the lot shall be returned to her near descendants.
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]