JOHNNY S. RABADILLA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et.al.

[G.R. No. 11!"#. J$%e "&, "'''.(

PURISI)A, J.*
FACTS*
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, in a codicil (a supplement to a will; an
appendix) of Aleja Bellea, was instituted de!isee of "ot #o.
$%&' wit( an area of )$$,*)) s+uare meters wit( t(e
obligation to deli!er $,, piculs of sugar to (erein pri!ate
respondent e!er- -ear during t(e latter.s lifetime.
/(e codicil pro!ides t(at t(e obligation is imposed not onl-
on t(e instituted (eir but also to (is successors0in0interest
and t(at in case of failure to deli!er, pri!ate respondent s(all
seie t(e propert- and turn it o!er to t(e testatrix.s 1near
descendants.1
Dr. Rabadilla died and was sur!i!ed b- (is wife and c(ildren,
one of w(om is (erein petitioner.
2ri!ate respondent, alleging failure of t(e (eirs to compl-
wit( t(eir obligation, filed a complaint wit( t(e R/3 pra-ing
for t(e recon!e-ance of t(e subject propert- to t(e sur!i!ing
(eirs of t(e testatrix.
During t(e pre0trial, a compromise agreement was
concluded between t(e parties w(erein t(e lessee of t(e
propert- assumed t(e deli!er- of $,, piculs of sugar to
pri!ate respondent; (owe!er, onl- partial deli!er- was made.
/(e trial court dismissed t(e complaint for lac4 of cause of
action stating t(at, 56(ile t(ere ma- be t(e non0performance
of t(e command as mandated, exaction from t(em (t(e
petitioners), simpl- because t(e- are t(e c(ildren of Jorge
Rabadilla, t(e title (older7owner of t(e lot in +uestion, does
not warrant t(e filing of t(e present complaint.8
/(e 3A, re!ersed t(e decision and (eld t(at t(e institution of
Dr. Rabadilla is in t(e nature of a modal institution and a
cause of action in fa!or of pri!ate respondent arose w(en
petitioner failed to compl- wit( t(eir obligation under t(e
codicil, and in ordering t(e re!ersion of "ot $%&' to t(e
estate of testatrix. /(us, t(e present petition.
ISSUE*
6(et(er or not pri!ate respondent (as a legall- demandable
rig(t against t(e petitioner, as one of t(e compulsor- (eirs of
Dr. Rabadilla.
HELD*
9:;.<t is a general rule under t(e law on succession t(at
successional rig(ts are transmitted from t(e moment of
deat( of t(e decedent and compulsor- (eirs are called to
succeed b- operation of law. /(e legitimate c(ildren and
descendants, in relation to t(eir legitimate parents, and t(e
widow or widower, are compulsor- (eirs. /(us, t(e
petitioner, (is mot(er and sisters, as compulsor- (eirs of t(e
instituted (eir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded t(e latter b-
operation of law, wit(out need of furt(er proceedings, and
t(e successional rig(ts were transmitted to t(em from t(e
moment of deat( of t(e decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
=nder Article >>? of t(e #ew 3i!il 3ode, in(eritance
includes all t(e propert-, rig(ts and obligations of a person,
not extinguis(ed b- (is deat(. 3onformabl-, w(ate!er rig(ts
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla (ad b- !irtue of subject 3odicil were
transmitted to (is forced (eirs, at t(e time of (is deat(. And
since obligations not extinguis(ed b- deat( also form part of
t(e estate of t(e decedent; corollaril-, t(e obligations
imposed b- t(e 3odicil on t(e deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla,
were li4ewise transmitted to (is compulsor- (eirs upon (is
deat(.
<n t(e said 3odicil, testatrix Aleja Bellea de!ised "ot #o.
$%&' to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, subject to t(e condition t(at t(e
usufruct t(ereof would be deli!ered to t(e (erein pri!ate
respondent e!er- -ear. =pon t(e deat( of Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla, (is compulsor- (eirs succeeded to (is rig(ts and
title o!er said propert-, and t(e- also assumed (is
(decedent.s) obligation to deli!er t(e fruits of t(e lot in!ol!ed
to (erein pri!ate respondent. ;uc( obligation of t(e instituted
(eir reciprocall- corresponds to t(e rig(t of pri!ate
respondent o!er t(e usufruct, t(e fulfillment or performance
of w(ic( is now being demanded b- t(e latter t(roug( t(e
institution of t(e case at bar. /(erefore, pri!ate respondent
(as a cause of action against petitioner and t(e trial court
erred in dismissing t(e complaint below.

+,ate