Resurreccion vs. Javier

A legacy in favor of a person already dead at the time the will was executed is null and produces no legal effect, and the deceased legatee's heirs cannot claim the legacy by representation, as the right of representation operates only in intestate succession.

Felisa Francisco Javier, a woman with no forced heirs, executed a will on October 18, 1932, instituting her husband Sulpicio Resurreccion as universal heir and leaving a P2,000 legacy to her brother Gil Francisco Javier. She died on January 22, 1933, and her will was probated on March 8 of that year. The disposition of the P2,000 legacy became the subject of dispute when it was discovered that Gil Francisco Javier had died in August 1930, before the will was executed.

Felisa Francisco Javier, having no forced heirs, executed a will on October 18, 1932, instituting her husband Sulpicio Resurreccion as her universal heir and, among other dispositions, leaving a legacy of P2,000 in favor of her brother Gil Francisco Javier. The testatrix died on January 22, 1933, and the will was probated on March 8 of that year.

On October 12, 1933, the probate court, upon finding that Gil Francisco Javier had died in August 1930 — before the will was executed and before the testatrix's own death — ordered that the P2,000 legacy in his favor revert to the funds of the estate. Gil Francisco Javier's children and heirs appealed from this resolution, claiming entitlement to the legacy as their father's successors.

The appellants contended that the will should be interpreted as expressing the testatrix's intention to leave the legacy to Gil's heirs, and introduced evidence to show that the testatrix knew of Gil's death when she made her will. The only witness to testify on this point was Agustin Javier, Gil's brother, who alleged that he was in the testatrix's house in May 1931 and informed her that Gil had already died, leaving a widow and children. This testimony was contradicted by Sulpicio Resurreccion, the testatrix's widower, who testified that Agustin Javier was in his house only once, in April or May 1930, before Gil's death in August 1930, and therefore could not have informed the testatrix of Gil's demise. The Court found insufficient evidence to establish that the testatrix knew of Gil's death when she executed her will.

• Intention of the Testatrix: The appellants argued that the will should be interpreted in the sense that the testatrix intended to leave the legacy to the heirs of Gil Francisco Javier, and introduced evidence to show that the testatrix knew Gil was already dead when she made her will.
• Knowledge of Gil's Death: The appellants presented the testimony of Agustin Javier, who alleged that he informed the testatrix in May 1931 that their brother Gil had already died, leaving a widow and children.

• Capacity to Inherit: Whether a legacy made in favor of a person already dead before the will was executed and before the testatrix's death produces any legal effect, and whether the deceased legatee's heirs may claim the legacy.
• Testamentary Intent: Whether the will should be interpreted as expressing the testatrix's intention to leave the legacy to the heirs of Gil Francisco Javier, on the theory that she knew of his death when she executed the will.

• Capacity to Inherit: No. The institution of a deceased person as legatee produces absolutely no legal effect, and his heirs cannot claim the legacy either by transmission or by representation, the latter applying only in intestate succession.
• Testamentary Intent: No. The evidence was insufficient to establish that the testatrix knew of Gil's death when she made her will, and even if she did, the fact that she named Gil and not his children as legatee negates any inference that she intended the legacy for his heirs.

• Capacity to Inherit: The testatrix, having no forced heirs, could dispose of all her property by will in favor of any person qualified to acquire it under Article 763 of the Civil Code. However, Gil Francisco Javier, having died in August 1930, lacked civil personality at the time of the will's execution in October 1932. Civil personality is extinguished by death under Article 32 of the Civil Code, and a person without civil personality cannot be the subject of a right. Consequently, Gil's institution as legatee had absolutely no legal effect. His heirs cannot claim the legacy under the principle of representation, because representation operates only in intestate inheritance, not in testamentary succession. Furthermore, because the legatee died before the testatrix, he could transmit nothing to his heirs under Article 766 of the Civil Code, since a person can transmit his rights only if he survives the person from whom he is to inherit.
• Testamentary Intent: The appellants' claim that the testatrix intended the legacy for Gil's heirs rested on the assertion that she knew of Gil's death when she made her will. The sole witness to this effect, Agustin Javier, testified that he informed the testatrix of Gil's death in May 1931. This testimony was contradicted by Sulpicio Resurreccion, who testified that Agustin was in the testatrix's house only once, in April or May 1930 — before Gil's death in August 1930 — making it impossible for Agustin to have conveyed the information. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish the testatrix's knowledge of Gil's death. Moreover, even assuming the testatrix knew Gil was dead and had left children, it would be inexplicable why she would name Gil and not his children as legatee if her intention was to benefit his heirs — particularly since, according to the appellants' own evidence, she knew one of those children, Jose. Thus, whether the testatrix knew of Gil's death or was ignorant of it, the fact that she left the legacy to Gil himself provides no basis to infer that she intended it for his children.

• Civil Personality and Capacity to Inherit — Civil personality is extinguished by death (Article 32, Civil Code), and a person who lacks civil personality cannot be the subject of a right. A deceased person therefore lacks the capacity to be instituted as a legatee, and any testamentary disposition in his favor is null and void. In this case, because Gil Francisco Javier was already dead when the will was executed, his institution as legatee produced no legal effect.
• Right of Representation in Testamentary vs. Intestate Succession — The right of representation operates only in intestate succession, not in testamentary succession. The heirs of a deceased legatee cannot claim a legacy by representation. Furthermore, under Article 766 of the Civil Code, a legatee who dies before the testatrix transmits nothing to his own heirs, since transmission of rights requires survival of the person from whom one is to inherit.
• Testamentary Intent Must Be Drawn from the Will Itself — The intention of the testator must be determined from the language of the will, and extrinsic evidence will not suffice to impute to the testator an intention contrary to the express terms of the disposition. The Court refused to interpret the legacy in favor of Gil as intended for his heirs, because the will named Gil and not his children, and the evidence that the testatrix knew of Gil's death was insufficient.

• "Upon being instituted as legatee by the testatrix, Gil Francisco Javier lacked civil personality, which is extinguished by death, and, therefore, lacked capacity to inherit by will on the ground that he could not be the subject of a right (art. 32, Civil Code). Consequently, his institution as legatee had absolutely no legal effect and his heirs are not now entitled to claim the amount of legacy." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: a deceased person's lack of civil personality nullifies any testamentary institution in his favor, and his heirs cannot step into his place.
• "They cannot even claim under the principle of representation because this takes place only in intestate inheritance. Furthermore, as the legatee died before the testatrix, he could transmit nothing to his heirs (art. 766, Civil Code)." — This establishes the dual bar to the heirs' claim: representation is unavailable in testamentary succession, and transmission requires survival of the decedent.
• "[I]n either case, whether the testatrix knew that Gil was already dead or she was ignorant thereof, as she had left the legacy in favor of Gil, there is no reason to admit that it was, nevertheless, her intention to leave it to his children." — This passage articulates the Court's reasoning on testamentary intent: the express designation of the legatee controls, and no inference in favor of his heirs can be drawn regardless of the testatrix's knowledge.

• Article 763, Civil Code — Allows a testator with no forced heirs to dispose of all or any part of his property by will in favor of any person qualified to acquire. Applied to confirm the testatrix's general capacity to make the disputed disposition, while noting that the legatee's own qualification was lacking.
• Article 32, Civil Code — Provides that civil personality is extinguished by death. Applied to establish that Gil Francisco Javier, having died before the will was made, lacked civil personality and therefore could not be the subject of a right or be validly instituted as legatee.
• Article 766, Civil Code — Provides that a legatee who dies before the testatrix transmits nothing to his heirs. Applied to bar the appellants' claim as Gil's successors, since Gil predeceased the testatrix.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concurred.