G.R. No. L-5939, March 29, 1911
JOSE MARIN, administrator-appellant, vs. VALENTINA NACIANCENO, claimant-appellee.

FACTS

Vicenta Hernandez executed a will bequeathing a legacy to her niece, Felisa Hernandez. Felisa died before the testatrix, Vicenta, leaving her children (the petitioners-appellees) as her only heirs. Vicenta, aware of Felisa’s death, did not alter her will. The administrator-appellant opposed the payment of the legacy to Felisa’s children, arguing that under the Civil Code, the legacy lapsed because Felisa died before the testatrix, and thus acquired no vested right to transmit to her heirs.

ISSUE

Whether Section 758 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to prevent the lapse of the legacy bequeathed to Felisa Hernandez (a relative of the testatrix) who predeceased the testatrix, despite contrary provisions in the Civil Code.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order for payment of the legacy to Felisa’s children. Section 758 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that when a devise or legacy is made to a child or other relation of the testator, and the devisee/legatee dies before the testator leaving issue who survive the testator, such issue shall take the estate as the original devisee/legatee would have, unless a different disposition is required by law. The Court rejected the appellant’s interpretation that the qualifying phrase “unless a different disposition is required by law” resurrects the Civil Code provisions on lapse, as this would render Section 758 meaningless. The very purpose of Section 758 is to avoid the lapse that would otherwise occur under the Civil Code. Giving effect to the appellant’s interpretation would be an absurdity, as it would mean the legislature enacted and repealed the provision simultaneously. Therefore, Felisa’s children are entitled to the legacy. The dissenting opinion argued that Section 758 did not repeal the Civil Code provisions and that the legacy lapsed because Felisa acquired no transmissible right.