Gervacio Blas vs. Santos

A promise to convey by will a specific one-half share of presently owned conjugal properties constitutes a valid compromise contract and is not proscribed by the prohibition against contracts on future inheritance under Article 1271 of the Spanish Civil Code, provided the properties are in existence and capable of determination at the time the undertaking was given. The right of action to enforce such a promise accrues only upon the promisor’s death and non-compliance.

Simeon Blas married Marta Cruz before 1898, and they had three children. Marta died in 1898 without liquidation of their conjugal assets. Simeon then married Maxima Santos in 1899; the properties of the first marriage were never separated and were treated as conjugal assets of the second marriage. Decades later, on December 26, 1936, shortly before his death, Simeon executed a will declaring all his properties conjugal and acknowledging Maxima’s one-half share. On the same occasion, Maxima signed a separate document (Exhibit “A”) promising to give one-half of that share, by will, to Simeon’s heirs and legatees. Simeon died in January 1937, his estate was settled, and half was adjudicated to Maxima. Maxima lived until 1956, but her own testament failed to transfer one-half of her conjugal share to Simeon’s heirs. The present action was filed weeks after her death.

• Parties and Marriages: Simeon Blas married Marta Cruz before 1898; they had three children. Upon Marta’s death in 1898, no liquidation of the conjugal partnership was made. In 1899 Simeon married Maxima Santos. Maxima brought no property into the marriage. The properties of the first marriage — including fishponds in Obando, Bulacan — were never segregated and were commingled with acquisitions of the second marriage.
• The 1936 Transactions: On December 26, 1936, at Simeon Blas’s instance, two documents were executed. First, Simeon made a last will declaring that all properties in his name were conjugal with Maxima, with a total assessed value of P678,880, and that one-half was Maxima’s under the law. Second, Maxima signed Exhibit “A”, a notarized declaration in Tagalog, wherein she acknowledged reading Simeon’s will, promised to respect all its dispositions, and committed that “all the properties my husband and I will leave, the portion and share corresponding to me when I make my will, I will give one-half (½) to the heirs and legatees or the beneficiaries named in the will of my husband … and that I can select or choose any of them … depending upon the respect, service and treatment accorded to me.” The document was prepared because Simeon and his first wife’s conjugal estate had never been liquidated and had been absorbed into the second marriage’s assets; Simeon wanted to avoid a future contest by the heirs of the first marriage.
• Settlement of Simeon’s Estate: Simeon Blas died on January 9, 1937. Maxima Santos, as administratrix, filed an inventory and later a project of partition dated March 14, 1939, adjudicating to herself one-half of all conjugal properties as her share. The project was approved. The heirs of the first marriage did not oppose the partition, relying on Maxima’s promise in Exhibit “A”.
• Maxima’s Death and Will: Maxima Santos died on October 5, 1956. In her will, she devised an 80-hectare fishpond (item “Propios” in Lubao, Pampanga) to Marta Gervacio Blas, encumbered with an RFC loan; a 150-square-meter lot in Malabon to Angelina Blas; P300 to Leony Blas; and other minor legacies. The total area of fishponds she had received as her conjugal share was 1,045.7863 hectares. The 80-hectare legacy represented less than one-tenth of the fishpond area alone. The will made no statement that Maxima considered her promise under Exhibit “A” fulfilled.
• Suit Filed: On December 27, 1956, learning that Maxima’s will did not transfer one-half of her conjugal share, plaintiffs commenced this action for specific performance and damages.

• Exhibit “A” as Compromise and Trust: Plaintiffs argued that Exhibit “A” was both a compromise contract to avoid litigation over the unliquidated conjugal properties of the first marriage and a trust agreement obligating Maxima to hold one-half of her conjugal share for the benefit of Simeon’s heirs and legatees.
• Validity and Consideration: They maintained that the contract was not void under Article 1271 of the old Civil Code because it referred to specific, existing properties — the conjugal assets declared in Simeon’s will — and was supported by the consideration of avoiding a suit for liquidation and accounting of the first marriage’s estate.
• Non-Compliance: They contended that Maxima’s will failed to comply with the obligation, as it devised only a fraction of her conjugal share to a few of Simeon’s heirs, far short of one-half.

• Bar by Prior Settlement and Prescription: Respondent argued that the heirs of the first marriage could no longer claim the conjugal properties of that marriage, as those properties had been included in Simeon’s estate and adjudicated in the settlement proceedings, and any action to recover them had prescribed.
• Invalidity of Exhibit “A”: Respondent contended that Exhibit “A” was a worthless document — not a valid will because it lacked testamentary formalities, not a donation mortis causa, and not an enforceable contract because it dealt with future inheritance and lacked consideration.
• Substantial Compliance: Respondent asserted that Maxima had substantially complied with her promise by giving substantial legacies in her will to several of Simeon’s heirs and legatees, including Marta Gervacio Blas, Angelina Blas, and Leony Blas.

• Validity of Exhibit “A”: Whether Exhibit “A” created a valid, enforceable obligation against the estate of Maxima Santos or was void as a contract on future inheritance under Article 1271 of the Spanish Civil Code.
• Bar by Estoppel and Prior Judgment: Whether plaintiffs were barred from enforcing Exhibit “A” by the prior settlement of Simeon Blas’s estate and the adjudication of one-half of the conjugal properties to Maxima.
• Prescription: Whether the action to enforce Exhibit “A” had prescribed.
• Substantial Compliance: Whether Maxima Santos’s will substantially fulfilled the obligation undertaken in Exhibit “A”.

• Validity of Exhibit “A”: Exhibit “A” was a valid compromise under Article 1809 of the Spanish Civil Code. It was executed to avert litigation over the unliquidated conjugal properties of Simeon and his first wife, properties that had been absorbed into the assets of the second marriage. It was not a contract on future inheritance under Article 1271 because the prohibition applies to contracts concerning the universality of an estate that will be left at death, not to specific, existing properties the promisor already owns. The properties Maxima promised to share — her one-half share in the conjugal assets — were in existence and precisely determinable at the time of the agreement, as shown by the inventory and project of partition she herself submitted in 1939. The promise was supported by adequate consideration: plaintiffs’ forbearance from contesting Simeon’s will and their acquiescence in the partition.
• Bar by Estoppel and Prior Judgment: The claim that plaintiffs lost their right to the first marriage’s properties through the settlement of Simeon’s estate was correct as to any independent action for liquidation, but the present suit was grounded on Exhibit “A”, not on the unsettled first conjugal partnership. Plaintiffs expressly relied on Maxima’s promise in accepting the partition. The right of action upon Exhibit “A” arose only upon Maxima’s death and non-compliance, not earlier. The prior judgment in the estate proceedings thus did not bar this action.
• Prescription: The action did not prescribe. The obligation was to be performed at Maxima’s death by the execution of a will devising one-half of her conjugal share. Maxima died on October 5, 1956, and the complaint was filed on December 27, 1956, well within the period fixed by Article 1969 of the old Civil Code.
• Substantial Compliance: Maxima did not substantially comply. The fishponds alone she received as her conjugal share totaled over 1,045 hectares; the 80-hectare fishpond given to Marta Gervacio Blas was less than one-tenth, and the other legacies were minimal. Her will did not state that the promise had been fulfilled, nor did the aggregate of her devises approach one-half of her conjugal share.

• Compromise (Article 1809, Spanish Civil Code) — A compromise is a contract whereby each party, by giving, promising, or retaining something, avoids the provocation of a suit or terminates one already begun. Exhibit “A” qualified as a compromise: Maxima promised one-half of her conjugal share, and the heirs of the first marriage forbore from contesting Simeon’s will and demanding liquidation.
• Contract on Future Inheritance (Article 1271, Spanish Civil Code; now Article 1347, Civil Code of the Philippines) — The statutory prohibition against contracts on future inheritance reaches only agreements concerning the universality or an aliquot portion of the estate that a person will leave at death (the inheritance as defined in Article 659), not contracts over specified, presently existing property the promisor owns at the time of the agreement. A promise to bequeath particular, determined assets is valid and enforceable. The doctrine rests on Spanish Supreme Court jurisprudence of October 8, 1915, and October 26, 1926, reaffirmed in decisions of May 16, 1940, and April 25, 1951.
• Accrual of Cause of Action upon Promise Performable at Death — When an obligation is to be performed by will upon the obligor’s death, no cause of action arises until the obligor dies and it is shown that the will failed to carry out the promise. The prescriptive period runs from that moment.

• “It will be noted that what is prohibited to be the subject matter of a contract under Article 1271 of the Civil Code is ‘future inheritance.’ To us future inheritance is any property or right not in existence or capable of determination at the time of the contract, that a person may in the future acquire by succession. The properties subject of the contract Exhibit ‘A’ are well defined properties, existing at the time of the agreement, which Simeon Blas declares in his statement as belonging to his wife as her share in the conjugal partnership.”
• “As this private document contains the express promise made by Maxima Santos to convey in her testament, upon her death, one-half of the conjugal properties she would receive as her share in the conjugal properties, the action to enforce the said promise did not arise until and after her death when it was found that she did not comply with her above-mentioned promise.”
• The concurring opinion of Justice J.B.L. Reyes summarized the rationale: “The restrictive interpretation given by the Spanish Supreme Court to the codal prohibition of agreements involving future inheritance is justified not only by the fact that the prohibition limits contractual freedom … but also because there is no real or substantial difference between (1) an agreement whereby a person … agrees to bequeath some of the property he already owns, and (2) a contract whereby he disposes of that property, subject to the condition that he will be entitled to its usufruct until the time he dies.”

• Supreme Court of Spain, Decision of 8 October 1915 — Followed. Held that an obligation to institute an heir to specific, existing properties received from a deceased spouse does not fall under the prohibition of Article 1271 on contracts over future inheritance.
• Supreme Court of Spain, Decision of 25 April 1951 — Cited in the concurrence of Justice J.B.L. Reyes. Reiterated that the prohibition applies only when the contract concerns the universality of the estate expected at death, not known and determined existing properties.

• Article 1271, Spanish Civil Code (now Art. 1347, Civil Code of the Philippines) — Prohibits contracts on future inheritance except those for the partition inter vivos of an estate under Article 1056. Construed narrowly as not barring a promise to bequeath specific, existing properties.
• Article 1809, Spanish Civil Code — Defines the contract of compromise. Applied to characterize Exhibit “A”.
• Article 1969, Spanish Civil Code — Governs the prescriptive period for actions. Applied to hold that prescription commenced only upon Maxima’s death and non-compliance.
• Article 659, Spanish Civil Code (now Art. 776, Civil Code of the Philippines) — Defines inheritance. Used to interpret “future inheritance” as the contingent universality at the moment of death, distinguishing it from specific present property.

Padilla, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concurred. Justice J.B.L. Reyes and Justice Barrera filed separate concurring opinions elaborating on the Spanish doctrine that the prohibition on future inheritance contracts targets only the universality of a future estate, not individually determined existing assets. Chief Justice Bengzon reserved his vote. Justice Concepcion took no part.

• Bautista Angelo, J., dissenting — The dissent agreed that Exhibit “A” did not involve future inheritance but argued that the complaint should be dismissed because Maxima Santos had substantially complied. Her promise gave her the right to choose among Simeon’s heirs, and she had exercised that choice by giving substantial legacies to Marta Gervacio Blas (an 80-hectare fishpond worth around P400,000), yearly allowances to Loida and Leony Blas, and other devises. Ordering conveyance of one-half to all heirs disregarded her right of selection and did not accord with the conditional nature of the pledge.