G.R. No. L-8927; March 10, 1914
ASUNCION NABLE JOSE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MARIA IGNACIA USON, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
This case involves the interpretation of a codicil to the will of Filomena Uson. The codicil provided that upon the death of her husband, Rafael Sison, her property would pass to her “sisters and nieces hereinafter named.” The second paragraph of the codicil specifically named her living sisters and the children (nieces) of her two deceased sisters, Antonia Uson and Eufemia Uson. The final clause stated that the named persons should take and enjoy the property “in equal parts as good sisters and relatives.”

The trial court held that the property should be divided into six equal parts, one for each of the six sisters (living and deceased). Each living sister would receive one-sixth, and the children of each deceased sister would collectively receive one-sixth, to be divided among them. The appellants, some of the nieces, contended that the property should be divided equally among all the named individualsthe living sisters and the children of the deceased sisterson a per capita basis, meaning each niece would receive the same share as each sister.

ISSUE:
Whether the testamentary disposition under the codicil requires a per stirpes distribution (by representation of each sister’s line) or a per capita distribution (equal shares for each named individual, whether sister or niece).

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, ordering a per capita distribution.

The Court found the intention of the testatrix, Filomena Uson, to be clear from the language of the codicil. The first paragraph expressly named both “sisters and nieces” as heirs. The second paragraph identified each heir individually, placing the nieces on the same footing as the sisters without distinction. Most decisively, the final clause directed that the named persons were to take the property “in equal parts.” This language indicated an intent for an equal division among all the named individuals, not a division by lines of representation.

The trial court’s per stirpes interpretation was based on an extrinsic concern about unequal favoritism among lines (e.g., the line of a sister with three children receiving more in total than the line of a sister with two, or more than a living sister with her own children). The Supreme Court held that such concerns could not override the clear textual directive for equal division among all named beneficiaries. The judgment was modified to declare that the living sisters and the children of the deceased sisters shall take per capita and in equal parts.

Arellano, C.J., Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.
Trent, J., dissents.