CARMEN G.
DE PEREZ, trustee of the estate of Ana Maria Alcantara
vs.
MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO, Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
G.R. No. L-31703
February 13, 1930
TOPIC/DOCTRINE:FIDEICOMMISSARY SUBSTITUTION
WILLS; INSTITUTION OF HEIRS; FIDEICOMMISSARY HEIR. — The institution of heirs made in the
will in question is in the nature of a fideicommissum: there is an heiress primarily called to enjoy
the estate; an obligation clearly imposed upon her to preserve and transmit the whole of the
estate to certain third persons; and there are secondary heirs.
FACTS:
Ana Maria Acantara (+) died single without any forced heir. She left among others, a sum of
money in deposit with La Urbana in the name of Carmen de Perez, trustee of her estate. In her
will, it contains the following clauses:
9th- instituted Carmen Gachitorena, niece-in-law and married to Joaquin Perez-Alcantara, as the
sole and universal heiress to the remainder of the estate after payment of all the debts and
legacies, so that after probate of her will, she will receive from her executrix the property, that
she may enjoy them;
10th- should Carmen die, her whole estate shall pass unimpaired to her surviving children (in
such wise that my estate shall never pass unimpaired to my relatives;
11th- should Carmen die after her while her children are still minor, however estate shall be
administered by her executrix, Josefa Laplana.
The amount of P21,428.58 is on deposit in the plaintiff's name with the association known as La
Urbana in Manila, as the final payment of the liquidated credit of Ana Maria Alcantara, deceased,
whose heiress is said plaintiff, against Andres Garchitorena, also deceased, represented by his
son, the defendant Mariano Garchitorena.
And as said Mariano Garchitorena held a judgment for P7,872.23 against Joaquin Perez Alcantara,
husband of the plaintiff, Carmen G. de Perez, the sheriff pursuant to the writ of execution issued
in said judgment, levied an attachment on said amount deposited with La Urbana. The plaintiff,
alleging that said deposit belongs to the fideicommissary heirs of the decedent Ana Maria
Alcantara.
The appellants contend that in these clauses the testatrix has ordered a simple
substitution, while the appellee contends that it is a fideicommissary substitution.
ISSUE:
WON the deposited amount belong to the fideicommisary heirs of Ana Maria Alcantara.
HELD:
This will certainly provide for a substitution of heirs, and of the three cases that might give rise
to a simple substitution (art. 774, Civil Code). The testatrix institutes the plaintiff herein her sole
and universal heiress, and provides that upon her death (the testatrix's) and after probate of the
will and approval of the report of the committee on claims and appraisal, said heiress shall receive
and enjoy the whole hereditary estate. Although this clause provides nothing explicit about
substitution, it does not contain anything in conflict with the idea of fideicommissary
substitution.
The disposition contained in clause IX of the will, that said heiress shall receive and enjoy the
estate. In fact the enjoyment of the inheritance is in conformity with the idea of fideicommissary
substitution, by virtue of which the heir instituted receives the inheritance and enjoys it, although
at the same time he preserves it in order to pass it on the second heir.
It should also be noted that said clause IX vests in the heiress only the right to enjoy but not the
right to dispose of the estate. It says, she may enjoy it, but does not say she may dispose of it.
This is an indication of the usufruct inherent in fideicommissary substitution.
Another clear and outstanding indication of fideicommissary substitution in clause X is the
provision that the whole estate shall pass unimpaired to the heiress's children, that is to say the
heiress is required to preserve the whole estate, without diminution, in order to pass it on in due
time to the fideicommissary heirs.
