G.R. No. L-22036. April 30, 1979.
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE REV. FR. PASCUAL RIGOR. THE PARISH PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF VICTORIA, TARLAC, petitioner-appellant, vs. BELINA RIGOR, NESTORA RIGOR, FRANCISCA ESCOBAR DE RIGOR and JOVITA ESCOBAR DE FAUSTO, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The late Father Pascual Rigor died in 1935, leaving a will probated in Tarlac. Among its provisions was a devise of four parcels of riceland in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, in favor of the testator’s “nearest male relative who would study for the priesthood until ordained.” The will imposed conditions, including a prohibition on sale and an obligation for the ordained priest to celebrate twenty masses annually. It further stipulated that administration of the lands would pass to the Parish Priest of Victoria, Tarlac, and his successors during any interval when there was no qualified legatee, or if a legatee was excommunicated. The estate proceedings were closed in 1940 with a project of partition, but the ricelands subject to this conditional devise were not delivered to the church.
In 1954, the Parish Priest of Victoria filed a petition in the reopened proceedings, seeking delivery of the ricelands for administration, alleging no male relative had ever studied for the priesthood. The testator’s heirs countered by petitioning for a declaration that the bequest was inoperative, entitling them, as legal heirs, to the property. The probate court initially ruled for the heirs, but upon reconsideration, reversed itself upon learning of a grandnephew, Edgardo Cunanan, who was a seminarian. This order was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Was the conditional devise in favor of a male relative studying for the priesthood efficacious and enforceable, thereby requiring its administration by the Parish Priest of Victoria as trustee?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the devise inoperative. The legal logic rests on the failure of the condition precedent. The bequest was expressly contingent upon the existence of a nearest male relative who would undertake ecclesiastical studies leading to priesthood. The appellant Parish Priest’s own petitions in 1954 and 1957 unequivocally alleged that no such male relative of the testator had ever studied for the priesthood. This factual admission was decisive.
The Court rejected the argument that a public charitable trust was created in favor of the church. A reading of the will showed the parish priest’s role as administrator was merely ancillary and contingent, triggered only during specific intervals (e.g., before a qualified relative began theology studies or after his excommunication). These contingent scenarios never materialized because the primary condition—the existence of a male relative pursuing the priesthood—failed ab initio. Since no qualified legatee ever existed, the ancillary provision for administration by the parish priest likewise never became operative.
Consequently, the property subject to the inoperative legacy fell into intestacy. Applying Article 888 of the old Civil Code (now Article 956), an inoperative legacy merges into the estate for legal distribution, absent substitution or accretion, which were not present here. The testator died partly intestate as to these ricelands. Therefore, they rightly passed to his legal heirs by intestate succession under Article 912(2) (now Article 960[2]), as if no disposition had been made.