LEDESMA v.

MCLACHLIN
GR No.L-44837, November 23, 1938

Lorenzo M. Quitco, are not bound to pay the

indebtedness of their father from whom they did
not inherit anything.

66 PHIL 547
FACTS: Lorenzo Quitco, died in 1930, leaving
defendant Mclachlin and her children as heirs.
Plaintiff Ana Ledesma, spurious/illegitimate child
of Lorenzo Quitco, and her mother, sued to
declare her as compulsory heir which the court
however denied. Two years later, Lorenzo's
father Eusebio died, and because he left some
personal and real properties without a will, an
intestate proceeding was instituted and a court
order declaring his compulsory heirs did not of
course include Ana as one. Following such court
action, the plaintiff proceeded to collect the sum
payable on a promissory note then issued in
favor of her by Lorenzo by filing a claim in the
intestate proceedings of Eusebio's Estate
claiming that the sum be paid out of the
properties inherited by the defendants
represents that of the successional rights of
Lorenzo as a compulsory heir of his father
Eusebio.
ISSUE: Has plaintiff the right collect the sum
promised by her father from her grandfather's
estate?
HELD: No. The properties inherited by the
defendants from their deceased grandfather by
representation are not subject to the payment of
debts and obligations of their deceased father,
who died without leaving any property. While it is
true that under the provisions of Articles 924 to
927 of the Civil Code, a child presents his father
or mother who died before him in the properties
of his grandfather or grandmother, this right of
representation does not make the said child
answerable for the obligations contracted by his
deceased father or mother, because, as may be
seen from the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure referring to partition of inheritances,
the inheritance is received with the benefit of
inventory, that is to say, the heirs only answer
with the properties received from their
predecessor. The herein defendants, as heirs of
Eusebio Quitco, in representation of their father

VDA. DE VILLANUEVA vs. JUICO

4 SCRA 550
FACTS:
Don Nicolas Villaflor executed a will in
Spanish in his own handwriting,
devising and bequeathing in favor of
his wife, Dona Faustina of all his real
and personal properties giving the
other half to his brother Don Fausto.
Petitioner filed an action against the
administrator contending that upon
the widows death, she became vested
with the ownership of the properties
bequeathed under clause 7 pursuant
to its 8th clause of the will.
ISSUE:
WON the petitioner is entitled to the
ownership of the properties upon the
death of Dona Faustina.
HELD:
The intention of the testator here was
to merely give usufructuary right to
his wife Doa Fausta because in his
will he provided that Doa Fausta shall
forfeit the properties if she fails to
bear a child and because she died
without having begotten any children
with the deceased then it means that
Doa Fausta never acquired ownership
over the property. Upon her death,
because she never acquired ownership
over the property, the said properties
are not included in her estate. Those
properties actually belong to Villaflor.

That was the intention of the

testator. Otherwise, if the testator
wanted to give the properties to
Doa Fausta then he should have
specifically stated in his will that
ownership should belong to Doa

Fausta without mentioning any

condition.