PARISH PRIEST OF VICTORIA V. RIGOR (CIVIL)

The will of the testator is the first and principal law in the matter of testaments. When his intention is clearly and precisely expressed, any iterpretation must be in accord with the plain and literal meaning of his words, except when it may certainly appear that his contention was different from that literally expressed.

The intent of the testator is the cardinal rule in the construction of wills. It is the greatest rule in giving effect to a will.

From the testamentary provisions, it may be deduced that the testator intended to devise the ricelands to his nearest male relative who would become a priest, who was forbidden to sell the ricelands, who would lose the devise if he discontinued his studies for the priesthood, or having been ordained a priest, he was excommunicated, and who would be obligated to say masses for the repose of the souls of the testator and his parents.

On the other hand, it is clear that the parish priest of Victoria would administer the ricelands only in two situations: (a) during the interval of time that no nearest male relative of the testator was studying for priesthood; and (b) in case the testator's nephew became a priest and he was excommunicated.

Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was ineffectual or inoperative. Therefore, the administration of the ricelands by the parish priest of Victoria as envisaged in the will was likewise inoperative.

The appellant in contending that a public charitable trust was constituted by the testator in his favor assumes that he was a trustee or a substitute devisee. The contention is untenable. A reading of the testamentary provisions does not support the view that the parish priest was a trustee or a substitute devisee in the event that the testator was not survived by a nephew who became a priest.

The CA correctly rules that this case is covered by Article 956 of the Civil Code which provides that if "the bequest for any reason should be inoperative, it shall be merged into the estate, except in cases of substitution and those in this the right of accretion exists."

This case is also covered by Article 960(2) which provides "legal succession takes place when the will does not dispose of all the belongings to the testator." There being mo substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands, the same should be distributed among the legal heirs. The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to the said ricelands.

The Civil Code recognizes that a person may die partly testate and partly intestate, or that there may be mixed succession. If a conditional legacy does not take effect, there will be intestate succession as to the property recovered by the said legacy.