G.R. No. L-56249 May 29, 1987 B.

B. The return to Carmelo Aranas or his heirs of all properties acquired by Fr. Aranas
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED REV. FATHER TEODORO from his brother Carmelo Aranas and ten (10) parcels of land described in the Will
ARANAS, RAMONA B. VDA. DE ARANAS, ADELIA B. ARANAS-FERNANDEZ, HEIRS OF THE inherited by the testator from his parents.
LATE RODULFO B. ARANAS, ETC., ET AL., petitioners,
vs. C. The special administration of the remainder of the estate of the testator by Vicente
VICENTE B. ARANAS AND HON. LUIS B. MANTA, respondents. Aranas, a faithful and serviceable nephew and designating him also as recipient of 1/2 of
the produce of said properties after deducting the expenses for the administration and the
PARAS, J.: other 1/2 of the produce to be given to the Catholic Church for the eternal repose of the
testator's soul. Said pertinent provision 1 reads as follows:
SUMMARY: Fr. Teodoro Aranas left a last will and testament where he designated Vicente Aranas as
the special administrator of his lands. The will also provided that Vicente Aranas would receive half of Fourth. It is my will that the lands I had bought from other persons should be
the fruits produced by the lands. This right was to be available to Vicente Aranas until his death or converged and placed under a "special administrator." The special administrator of
until he should not want to hold said office (special administrator) anymore. these lands, for his office, should receive one half of all the produce from which shall be
deducted the expenses for the administration, and the other half of the produce should
The petitioners filed a motion for the declaration of heirs and partition and for removal of the be received by the Roman Catholic Church and should be spent for my soul, Vicente B.
administrator. They allege that the designation of Vicente Aranas and the right of usufructuary Aranas (Tingting), because he is a faithful and serviceable nephew, should be the first
granted to him was void. The ground that they relied on was Article 870 of the New Civil Code which special administrator of said properties, without bond, until his death or until he should
provides: not want to hold the said office anymore. Anyone of the sons of my brother Carmelo
Aranas can hold the said office of special administrator, and none other than they. Their
Art. 870. The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for father, my brother Carmelo Aranas shall be the one to decide who among them shall hold
more than twenty years are void. the said office, but upon the death of my said brother Carmelo Aranas, his said sons will
have power to select the one among them ourselves. The special administration is
The lower court initially ruled in favor of the petitioners since the perpetual inalienability and perpetual.
administration of the lot was void. The same order also touched upon the declaration of heirs.
The lower court in its Order   dated November 17, 1977 ruled, upon petitioners' (in Sp. Proc. No.
However, that order was set aside by the same court in a motion for reconsideration since the order 303) "Motion for the Declaration of Heirs and Partition; and for Removal of the Administrator
was violative of due process since only the issue of removal of the administrator was heard and not (Vicente Aranas) and/or for his Permission to Resign, and appointment of His Successor" that the
the matter of the declaration of heirs. "perpetual inalienability and administration of the portion of the estate of the late Rev. Fr.
Teodoro Aranas, administered by Vicente Aranas, is null and void after twenty years from
Issue: Whether the designation of Vicente Aranas as Administrator until his death or until he no January 19, 1954 ... " and declared in the same order the heirs of the late Fr. Teodoro Aranas. It
longer wishes to be the administrator is null and void (NO, it was valid). also declared that "the removal of Vicente Aranas will, therefore, not serve the ends of justice
and for the best interest of all the heirs, particularly with respect to the portion of the estate taken by
Held: A cursory reading of the English translation of the Last Will and Testament shows that it was the heirs of Aniceto Aranas, represented by the petitioners herein and the rest of the heirs of
the sincere intention and desire of the testator to reward his nephew Vicente Aranas for his faithful Carmelo, represented by the intervenors, coheirs of Administrator Vicente Aranas." 
and unselfish services by allowing him to enjoy one-half of the fruits of the testator's third group of
properties until Vicente's death and/or refusal to act as administrator in which case, the administration However, the abovesaid Order was subsequently set aside upon the "Urgent Motion for
shall pass to anyone chosen by Carmelo Aranas among his sons and upon Carmelo's death, his sons Reconsideration and to Declare Testate and Intestate Heirs of the late Fr. Teodoro Aranas," filed by
will have the power to select one among themselves. the administrator Vicente Aranas on the allegation that said order was violative of due process
and without legal and factual basis because only the issue for the removal of the administrator
was heard and not the matter of the declaration of heirs. Thus, the lower court declared in its
Vicente Aranas therefore, as a usufructuary, has the right to enjoy the property of his uncle with all Order,   dated July 16, 1980 that the Order dated November 17, 1977 is "set aside and in the
the benefits which result from the normal enjoyment (or exploitation) of another's property, with the interest of justice, reopened in order that other heirs, successors-in-interest of Felino Aranas,   
obligation to return, at the designated time, either the same thing, or in special cases its equivalent. could likewise assert their claims, as in the case of the heirs of Aniceto Aranas and Carmelo
This right of Vicente to enjoy the fruits of the properties is temporary and therefore not perpetual as Aranas." 
there is a limitation namely his death or his refusal. Likewise his designation as administrator of these
properties is limited by his refusal and/or death and therefore it does not run counter to Art. 870 of the Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the lower court in its order dated September
Civil Code relied upon by the petitioners. Be it noted that Vicente Aranas is not prohibited to dispose 23, 1980, petitioners now come before Us by certiorari raising the issue that the lower court
of the fruits and other benefits arising from the usufruct. erred in setting aside its order dated November 17, 1977 and in not applying the provisions on
Usufruct of the New Civil Code with respect to the properties referred to as Group "C" in the Last Will
THE CASE: This is a petition for certiorari which seeks to declare the orders of respondent Judge dated July 16, 1980 and September 23, 1980 as an and Testament.
exercise of a gross abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, by ruling that the properties under Group C of the testate estate of the late [Link]
Aranas are subject to remunerative legacies.
The court ruled in its questioned order that this particular group of properties (Group "C") is subject to
FACTS: Fr. Teodoro Aranas, a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, died on January 19, 1953. He the following:
had executed on June 6, 1946 his Last Will and Testament which was admitted to probate on
August 31, 1956. In said Last Will and Testament, Fr. Teodoro Aranas stipulated the following: 1. Remunerative legacy by way of usufruct of the net proceeds of 1/2 of the estate after
deducting expenses for administration in favor of Vicente Aranas, during his lifetime and
A. The return to Aniceto Aranas or his heirs of all properties acquired by Fr. Aranas shall continue an administrator of the estate, and, who, upon his death or refusal to
from his brother Aniceto Aranas and ten (10) parcels of land described in the Will continue such usufruct, may be succeeded by any of the brothers of the administrator as
inherited by the testator from his parents. selected by their father, Carmelo Aranas, if still alive or one selected by his sons if, he,
Carmelo, is dead; Pursuant to the Will. (Article 562, 563, 564 and 603 of the New Civil
Code).
 2. Legacy in favor of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly the Archbishop diocese of intestate heirs, it was proven conclusively by the said respondent Vicente B. Aranas that he was
Cagayan de Oro City Represented by the Reverend Archbishop Patrick H. Cronin over instituted as a remunerative legatee per mandate of the Last Will and Testament by way of
one-half of the proceeds of the properties under Group "C." (Article 603, New Civil Code) usufructuary. Likewise the right of the Roman Catholic Church as the other usufructuary legatee for
and to last for a period of Fifty years from the effective date of the legacy, Article 605, New the duration of the statutory lifetime of a corporation, that is, 50 years from the date of the effectivity of
Civil Code). (Annex "L-14," p. 87, Rollo) said legacy, was also established. 

Assailing the aforementioned ruling, petitioners rely heavily on the doctrine laid down in Art. 870 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.
of the New Civil Code to wit:
SO ORDERED.
Art. 870. The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable
for more than twenty years are void.

ISSUE: WON it was proper for the RTC to remove Vicente Aranas as administrator of the estate of
Fr. Teodoro Aranas (NO)

A cursory reading of the English translation of the Last Will and Testament shows that it was the
sincere intention and desire of the testator to reward his nephew Vicente Aranas for his faithful
and unselfish services by allowing him to enjoy one-half of the fruits of the testator's third
group of properties until Vicente's death and/or refusal to act as administrator in which case,
the administration shall pass to anyone chosen by Carmelo Aranas among his sons and upon
Carmelo's death, his sons will have the power to select one among themselves.

Vicente Aranas therefore, as a usufructuary, has the right to enjoy the property of his uncle with
all the benefits which result from the normal enjoyment (or exploitation) of another's property,
with the obligation to return, at the designated time, either the same thing, or in special cases its
equivalent. This right of Vicente to enjoy the fruits of the properties is temporary and therefore
not perpetual as there is a limitation namely his death or his refusal. Likewise his designation as
administrator of these properties is limited by his refusal and/or death and therefore it does not run
counter to Art. 870 of the Civil Code relied upon by the petitioners. Be it noted that Vicente Aranas
is not prohibited to dispose of the fruits and other benefits arising from the usufruct. Neither
are the naked owners (the other heirs) of the properties, the usufruct of which has been given to
Vicente Aranas prohibited from disposing of said naked ownership without prejudice of course to
Vicente's continuing usufruct. To void the designation of Vicente Aranas as usufructuary and/or
administrator is to defeat the desire and the dying wish of the testator to reward him for his
faithful and unselfish services rendered during the time when said testator was seriously ill or
bed-ridden. The proviso must be respected and be given effect until the death or until the refusal to
act as such of the instituted usufructuary/administrator, after which period, the property can be
properly disposed of, subject to the limitations provided in Art. 863 of the Civil Code concerning a
fideicommissary substitution, said Article says:

A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is

FINALITY OF RTC’S DECISION (PROCEDURAL)

It is contended by petitioners that the ruling made by respondent court dated November 17,
1977 was already final and not subject to correction as what was set aside and to be reheard was
only regarding the determination of additional heirs. Such contention is not worthy of credence.
Respondents in their Memorandum allege and it is not disputed by petitioners that the order
of November 17, 1977 has not yet become final because it was received only on January 12,
1978 by the counsel for respondent Vicente Aranas and the Motion for Reconsideration and to
declare testamentary and intestate heirs dated January 17, 1978 was filed by the said respondent
within the reglementary period. Besides the validity or invalidity of the usufructuary dispositions would
affect the determination of heirs.

BASIS OF RTC’S ORDER

As to petitioners' allegation that the order of July 16, 1980 is without basis, the record shows
that during the hearing of the urgent motion for reconsideration and to declare testamentary and