ORENDAIN vs. TRUSTEESHIP OF THE ESTATE OF DOA MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ

HILARION, JR. and ENRICO ORENDAIN, represented by FE D. ORENDAIN vs. TRUSTEESHIP OF THE ESTATE OF DOA MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ
G.R. No. 168660 June 30, 2009
NACHURA, J.:

Facts:
The decedent, Doa Margarita Rodriguez, died in Manila, leaving a last will and testament. The will was admitted to probate. The CFI Manila approved the project of partition presented by the executor of Doa Margarita Rodriguezs will. At the time of her death, the decedent left no compulsory or forced heirs and, consequently, was completely free to dispose of her properties, without regard to legitimes, as provided in her will. Some of Doa Margarita Rodriguezs testamentary dispositions contemplated the creation of a trust to manage the income from her properties for distribution to beneficiaries.
As regards Clause 10 of the will which explicitly prohibits the alienation or mortgage of the properties specified therein, we had occasion to hold, in Rodriguez, etc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., that the clause, insofar as the first twenty-year period is concerned, does not violate Article 870 of the Civil Code.
Almost four decades later, herein petitioners Hilarion, Jr. and Enrico Orendain, heirs of Hilarion Orendain, Sr. who was mentioned in Clause 24 of the decedents will, moved to dissolve the trust on the decedents estate, which they argued had been in existence for more than twenty years, in violation of Articles 867 and 870 of the Civil Code, and inconsistent with our ruling in Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals.

Issue:
Whether the trusteeship over the properties left by Doa Margarita Rodriguez can be dissolved applying articles 867 and 870 of the civil code

Ruling:
The court held in Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals that the perpetual prohibition was valid only for twenty (20) years. We affirmed the CAs holding that the trust stipulated in the decedents will prohibiting perpetual alienation or mortgage of the properties violated Articles 867 and 870 of the Civil Code.
However, we reversed and set aside the CAs decision which declared that that portion of the decedents estate, the properties listed in Clause 10 of the will, ought to be distributed based on intestate succession, there being no institution of heirs to the properties covered by the perpetual trust. Thus, at present, there appears to be no more argument that the trust created over the properties of the decedent should be dissolved as the twenty-year period has, quite palpably, lapsed.

Adjudication:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990 Facts: Alma T. Aggabao filed  with the RTC, an information against private respondents Elvino Aggabao and Villa Suratos for the crime of concubinage. Upon being arraigned, private respondents entered a plea of not guilty. During the trial, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.  They argued that concubinage, under Art. 334 of the RPC is punishable with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, which is equivalent to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months, well within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, and not of the RTC The prosecution filed an opposition to the motion contending that the RTC has jurisdiction over the crime of concubinage...
Read more

DE PEREZ vs. GARCHITORENA

CARMEN G. DE PEREZ vs. MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO G.R. No. L-31703 February 13, 1930 ROMUALDEZ, J.: Facts: The question here raised is confined to the scope and meaning of the institution of heirs made in the will of the late Ana Maria Alcantara already admitted to probate, and whose legal force and effect is not in dispute. The clauses of said will relevant to the points in dispute, between the parties are the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, quoted below: Ninth. Being single and without any forced heir, to show my gratitude to my niece-in-law, Carmen Garchitorena, of age, married to my nephew, Joaquin Perez Alcantara, and living in this same house with me, I institute her as my sole and universal heiress to the remainder of my estate after the payment of my debts and legacies, so that upon my death and after probate of this will, and after the report of the committee on claims and appraisal has been rendered and approved, she will receive from my executrix and...
Read more

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, JULIAN L. TEVES VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG AND HILARIA CADAYDAY G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005 TINGA, J.: Facts: Don Julian L. Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena, and after her death, with Milagros Donio Teves. Don Julian had two children with Antonia, namely: Josefa Teves Escaño and Emilio Teves. He had also four (4) children with Milagros Donio, namely: Maria Evelyn Donio Teves, Jose Catalino Donio Teves, Milagros Reyes Teves and Pedro Reyes Teves. The present controversy involves a parcel of land. When Antonia died, the land was among the properties involved in an action for partition and damages, the second wife of Don Julian, participated as an intervenor. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the partition of all the properties of Don Julian. Paragraph 13 of the Compromise Agreement, at the heart of the present dispute, lays down the effect of the eventual ...
Read more