G.R. No. L-14070. March 29, 1961.
MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, MANUEL GERVACIO BLAS, LEONCIO GERVACIO BLAS and LODA GERVACIO BLAS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ROSALINA SANTOS, in her capacity as Special Administratrix of the Estate of the deceased MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS, defendants-appellees. MARTA GERVACIO BLAS and DR. JOSE CHIVI, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Simeon Blas was first married to Marta Cruz, with whom he had three children. After Marta’s death, he married Maxima Santos in 1898. No liquidation of the conjugal partnership from the first marriage was made. Simeon died in 1937. In his will, he declared that all properties acquired during his second marriage were conjugal, with one-half belonging to Maxima. On December 26, 1936, shortly before Simeon’s death, Maxima Santos executed a document (Exhibit “A”) promising that upon her death, she would convey, by will, one-half of her share in these conjugal properties to the heirs and legatees named in Simeon’s will. Maxima later died, and her own will did not fulfill this promise. The plaintiffs, descendants of Simeon from his first marriage, filed an action to compel the administratrix of Maxima’s estate to deliver the promised one-half share, based on Exhibit “A”.
The defendants, the administratrix of Maxima’s estate and other heirs, argued that the promise was void as it constituted a contract over a future inheritance, prohibited by law. They also contended that the properties had already been settled in the partition of Simeon’s estate and that Maxima had absolute ownership over her share. The trial court dismissed the complaint, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the promise (Exhibit “A”) made by Maxima Santos to convey one-half of her share in the conjugal properties to the heirs of her husband is valid and enforceable, or whether it is a void contract on a future inheritance under Article 1271 of the Spanish Civil Code (now Article 1347 of the Civil Code).

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and held the promise valid and enforceable. The legal logic is that the document (Exhibit “A”) did not constitute a prohibited contract on a future inheritance. Article 1271 prohibits contracts upon “future inheritance,” which refers strictly to the totality of the estate a person may leave upon death. Here, Maxima Santos did not promise to convey property from her own future, unspecified estate. Instead, she promised to convey a specific, identifiable portion of property—one-half of her share in the existing conjugal partnership of gains with her husband, Simeon Blas. This share was already in existence and determinable at the time of the promise, as confirmed by Simeon’s will which identified the properties as conjugal. The promise was essentially a commitment to dispose of a specific present property interest upon her death, not an assignment of rights over an uncertain future estate. Therefore, it was a valid onerous obligation, not a gratuitous testamentary disposition, and could be enforced against her estate. The Court ordered the administratrix to deliver the promised one-half share to the plaintiffs, as the designated heirs and legatees under Simeon Blas’s will.