RAMA VS EDUARDO

G.R. No. 169400

NAPOLEON G. RAMA,
Petitioner,
- v e r s u s -
SPOUSES EDUARDO and CONCHITA JOAQUIN, Respondents
September 12, 2008

This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to set aside the March 29, 2005 decision and July 28, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 77327.

During Lucia Rama Limchiu’s (Lucia’s) lifetime, she executed a will designating petitioner Napoleon G. Rama as executor. When she died, a large portion of her estate went to her nephew, Jose Limchiu, Jr. (Jose), including the real property subject of this controversy, Lot 3, Block 12 Guadalupe Heights, Cebu City (Guadalupe Heights property). It was eventually sold by Jose to respondent spouses Eduardo and Conchita Joaquin.

The dispute arose when Jose’s wife and judicial guardian, Gladys I. Limchiu (Gladys), filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 20 to nullify the deed of absolute sale executed by Jose to respondents. She averred that the assailed deed was forged as Jose did not appear before the notary public to subscribe to the same and that the residence certificate in the notarial acknowledgement was fake.

Petitioner filed a complaint in intervention in his capacity as executor of Lucia’s will. He joined Gladys in praying for the nullification of the contentious document on the grounds cited by Gladys and on the additional ground that the sale was in violation of a provision in Lucia’s will prohibiting her devisees from disposing of the properties given to them before they reached the age of 30. Jose sold the subject property to respondents when he was only 28 years old.

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgement declaring the sale void.

Issue: was the sale of the contested property valid or void?

Held:

SC agree  with the CA that Lucia’s will indeed contained a provision, found under the third disposition on page 3, prohibiting her heirs from disposing of the properties devised to them before they reached the age of 30:

x x x xxx xxx
It is my express will that the said real properties shall not be sold and disposed of or encumbered in any manner by the devisees until after they have reach[ed] their respective thirtieth (30th) birthday…
x x x xxx xxx

The SC agree with the CA that the prohibition was applicable only to those real properties listed under the third disposition on pages 1, 2 and 3 of the will. The use by the testatrix of the phrase "the said real properties" showed her intention to prohibit the alienation only of those real properties that she had specifically identified and listed.

It is well-settled that in construing the provisions of a will, the intent of the testator is controlling. In this case, had it been Lucia’s intention to prohibit the disposition of all her properties (listed and residual alike), she could have easily said so, especially since, as pointed out by petitioner himself, the will itself was replete with limiting provisions allegedly pointing to the inescapable conclusion that she wanted the properties to remain in her heirs' hands until they reached 30.
Indeed, the will did resonate convincingly with said intention, and more. A perusal of the will also reveals that it was specifically tailored to the testatrix's wishes.

As can be seen, Lucia not only controlled the manner in which her estate was to be distributed among her heirs, she also saw it fit to include in her will the foregoing provisions to ensure that her every wish would be followed to the last detail. Thus, had it been her intention to subject the remaining estate to the same prohibition covering the listed real properties, she could have easily done so. She did not. In any case, it was not entirely impossible for her to have allowed the rest of her properties to be alienated by her heirs as necessary.

Finally, petitioner insists that the sale of the property was void in other aspects as well (i.e., that the assailed deed of absolute sale was a forgery and that the residence certificate entered in the notarial acknowledgement thereof was fake). There is no need to pass upon these issues. By virtue of our ruling that the prohibition did not apply to the Guadalupe Heights property, Lucia’s estate which petitioner represents and which is the real party in interest no longer has the personality to assail the validity of the sale. Legally speaking, petitioner has become a stranger to the transaction as he does not stand to benefit from its annulment.