G.R. No. 47637; June 30, 1941
JOSE VISTAN, petitioner, vs. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, respondent.

FACTS

On September 7, 1918, Eudivigis del Rosario, mother of petitioner Jose Vistan, executed a will. In clause 7, paragraph 3, she bequeathed: “(3) I bequeath one-sixth of my large fishery for the suffrage of my soul, for which purpose I authorize and charge my son Manuel that with the rents which said one-sixth part will produce, he shall make and fulfill these charges: (a) An alms of three hundred pesos (P300) annually to the Parish Priest of Bocaue for the Holy Spiritual Exercises. (b) Another alms of two hundred pesos (P200) annually for the expenses of parochial schools that Mr. Perfecto Gabriel shall designate; (c) The application of two annual masses for the suffrage of my soul with an alms of not less than P5 for each mass; (d) And the remainder for the poor of Bocaue so that they may commend me to God.” The heirs agreed to a partition of the estate, approved by the court on October 17, 1919, wherein they obligated themselves to fulfill these charges. Perfecto Gabriel designated the Catholic Parochial School of Bocaue (later Anunciata Academy) as the beneficiary of the P200 annual legacy. The heirs paid these amounts until co-heirs Bonifacio and Natividad sold their shares to Manuel and Jose Vistan, who then owned the entire fishery. Jose Vistan subsequently failed to pay his share of the annuities, accumulating a debt of P714.87 (P564.87 for the school legacy and P150 for the spiritual exercises). After demand and refusal, the respondent filed an action to recover the amount and to annotate the legacy on the certificate of title.

ISSUE

1. Whether the testamentary legacy is void for being inofficious (exceeding the free disposable portion).
2. Whether the legacy is void because the testatrix disposed of property (the fishery) that allegedly did not belong entirely to her.
3. Whether the action to enforce the legacy has prescribed.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the case.

RULING

1. The legacy is not inofficious. The petitioner’s argument is based on erroneous assumptions: that the testatrix owned only half of the fishery (as conjugal property) and that the legacy was constituted on the value of the fishery. The testatrix declared in her will that the conjugal assets had already been divided and distributed, and she owned the entire fishery. Furthermore, the legacy was not imposed on the capital or value of the property but on the rents or income produced by one-sixth of the fishery. There was no allegation or proof that these rents were insufficient to cover the bequests; therefore, it cannot be declared inofficious.
2. The legacy is valid. Even assuming the fishery was originally conjugal, the testatrix could have acquired full ownership after the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, as stated in her later will. The legacy, in essence, created a fideicommissum (trust) over the income from one-sixth of the fishery, not a direct bequest of the property itself.
3. The action has not prescribed. The petitioner voluntarily assumed the obligation under the court-approved partition and made payments until 1934. The action, filed on February 14, 1935, is within the prescriptive period. Moreover, an action to enforce a fideicommissum assumed voluntarily does not prescribe.
4. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction. The value of the subject matter of the litigation is not the value of the entire fishery (P50,000) but the amount sought to be collected (P714.87) and the annotation of the charge, whose annual value does not exceed P510. Furthermore, the petitioner himself requested that his appeal be elevated to the Court of Appeals in his bill of exceptions.
The petition for certiorari is denied, with costs against the petitioner.