Wills Arts 774 - 804 properties, after both of them shall have died should reverr to
Case # 3 their respective sides of the Family. (Mariano to Locsin’s side
LOCSIN V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 89783, February 19, 1992, NARVASA, C.J.
Petitioners:
 Mariano B. Locsin, Julian J. Locsin, Jose B. Locsin, Aurea B.
Locsin, Matilde L. Cordero, Salvador B. Locsin And Manuel V.
Del Rosario – Children of Julian Locsin, one of the children of
Getulio Locsin and; nephews and nieces of Mariano Locsin
and Catalina Jaucian – Petition for reversal of the decision of
CA affirming the RTC
Respondents:
 The Hon. Court of Appeals
 Jose Jaucian, Florentino Jaucian, Mercedes Jaucian
Arboleda, Heirs of Josefina J. Borja, Heirs of Eduardo Jaucian
and Heirs of Vicente Jaucian – Plaintiffs in Civil case for an
action for recovery of real property with damages
Facts:
 After the death of Getulio Locsin, the latter’s estate was
divided among his three children (Magdalena, Julian and
Mariano
 1908 - Such residential and agricultural properties, inherited
by and transferred to Mariano, brought into his marriage to
Catalina Jaucian.
 Catalina for her part, brought into the marriage untitled
properties which she had inherited from her parents, Balbino
Jaucian and Simona Anson.
 These properties were augmented by other properties
acquired by the spouses during their marriage which they
were not blessed with children
 The properties of Mariano and Catalina were brought under
the Torrens System. Title: “Mariano Locsin, married to Catalina
Jaucian
 Mariano Locsin executed a Last Will and Testament instituting
his wife, Catalina, as the sole and universal heir of all his
properties.
 The will was drawn up by his wife’s nephew and trusted legal
adviser, Atty. Salvador Lorayes. The latter disclosed that the
spouses being childless, the spouses had agreed that their
1|Wills_774-803_case3_Locsin v Court of Appeals
and Catalina to Jaucian’s side)
 September, 14, 1948 – Don Mariano Locsin died of cancer
and his will was probated in Special proceeding without any
opposition from both sides of the family.
 Doña Catalina was appointed executrix of his estate assisted
by Atty. Lorayes in the probate proceedings
 In the inventory of her husband’s estate, Catalina declared
that Items # 1 to 33 are private properties of the deceased
and form part of the capital at the time of Marriage and
Items # 34 to 42 are conjugal
 9 years after Mariano’s death – Catalina began transferring,
by sale, donation or assignment, Don Mariano’s as well as her
own, properties to their respective nephews and nieces.
 July 6, 1977 - Doña Catalina died
 October 22, 1973 – Catalina made a will affirming and
ratifying the transfers she had made during her lifetime in
favor of her husband’s, and her own, relatives.
 After reading the Will – all relatives agreed that there was no
need to submit it to court for probate because the properties
devised to them under the Will already been conveyed to
them by the deceased when she was alive, except some
legacies which the executor of her will or estate.
RTC of Legaspi City (Br VII, CV 7152)
 Six (6) years after Catalina’s demise – Jaucian nephews and
nieces who had already received their legacies and
hereditary shares from her estate filed an action to recover
the properties which had conveyed to the Locsins during her
lifetime
o Alleging that the conveyances were inofficious,
without consideration and intended solely to
circumvent the laws on succession.
 July 8, 1985 – RTC renders judgement in favor of Respondents
– Plaintiffs and against Defendants indeclaring:
o Respondents are the rightful heirs
o Deed of sale, donations, reconveyance and
exchange and all other instruments conveying part
of any estate of Catalina as Null and void
o Ordering Register of Deeds to cancel all certificates
of title and other transfers
 o Ordering Petitioners of all properties to the upon, or unduly influenced and morally pressured by
respondents her husband’s nephews and nieces (The petitioners)
o Ordering Petitioners to pay damages and other to transfer to them the properties
expenses o Vicente Juacian is estopped from assailing the
genuineness and due execution of the sale of the
CA – the Locsins appealed portions of Lot 2020 to himself, Julian and Agaito
 March 14, 1989 – CA affirmed the RTC’s decision Locsin
o There is not the slightest suggestion in the record that
ISSUE: Whether or not the Private respondents, nephews and nieces of Doña Catalina was mentally incompetent
Doña Catalina J. Vda. De Locsin, entitled to inherit the properties o None of those transactions from 1972 to 1973 was
which she had already disposed of more than 10 years before her impugned by the private respondents
death? NO o The inventory was signed by her under oath and was
approved by the probate Court. Atty. Lorayes would
Held: NO not have prepared a false inventory that would have
 For those properties did not form part of her hereditary estate been prejudicial to his aunt’s interest and to his own,
under Art 781 of NCC since he stood to inherit from her eventually.
 The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from the o The Lower Courts erred in not dismissing this action for
moment of his death, and do not vest in his heirs until such annulment and reconveyance on the ground of
time pursuant to Art 777 of NCC prescription which it prescribes 4 years after the
 Property which Doña Catalina had transferred or conveyed subject transactions were recorded in the Registry of
to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed part of Property
her estate at the time of her death devolved to her legal
heirs; and even of those transfers were, one and all, treated
as donations.
 the right arising under certain circumstances to impugn and
compel the reduction or revocation of a decedent's gifts inter
vivos does not inure to the respondents since neither they nor
the donees are compulsory (or forced) heirs pursuant to Art.
752, in relation to Arts. 1061
 Application of the Law:
o There is no Basis in the intention of Catalina in
transferring the properties that circumvent the law in
violation of the private respondent’s rights to her
succession.
o Respondents are not her compulsory heirs and such
have no legitimes
o All the respondents had was an expectancy that in
nowise restricted her freedom to dispose of even her
entire estate subject only to limitation set forth in Art.
750 of NCC
o The records do not support that conjecture which
Catalina being 90 year old may have been imposed

2|Wills_774-803_case3_Locsin v Court of Appeals