Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BOUGH V. MODESTO (94 Phil, January 28, 1954)

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    694 views1 page
    Bruno Modesto entered into a private document with Restituto Anapo and Bough whereby he agreed to share any inheritance he received from his deceased wife with them. The document stipulated the properties would be divided 1/8 to each party. Bough and Restituto sued to compel Modesto to divide the properties as outlined in the document. The court ruled the contract was valid, as rights to inheritance are acquired upon death, and it is legal for an heir to enter contracts regarding a potential inheritance. The contract would only take effect if and when Modesto was declared an heir, and only applied to properties awarded to him through probate court.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    BOUGH V. MODESTO [94 Phil, January 28, 1954]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Bruno Modesto entered into a private document with Restituto Anapo and Bough whereby he agreed to share any inheritance he received from his deceased wife with them. The document stipulated the properties would be divided 1/8 to each party. Bough and Restituto sued to compel Modesto to divide the properties as outlined in the document. The court ruled the contract was valid, as rights to inheritance are acquired upon death, and it is legal for an heir to enter contracts regarding a potential inheritance. The contract would only take effect if and when Modesto was declared an heir, and only applied to properties awarded to him through probate court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    694 views1 page

    BOUGH V. MODESTO (94 Phil, January 28, 1954)

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    Bruno Modesto entered into a private document with Restituto Anapo and Bough whereby he agreed to share any inheritance he received from his deceased wife with them. The document stipulated the properties would be divided 1/8 to each party. Bough and Restituto sued to compel Modesto to divide the properties as outlined in the document. The court ruled the contract was valid, as rights to inheritance are acquired upon death, and it is legal for an heir to enter contracts regarding a potential inheritance. The contract would only take effect if and when Modesto was declared an heir, and only applied to properties awarded to him through probate court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BOUGH V.

    MODESTO [94 Phil, January 28, 1954]


    DOCTRINE:
    - The contract is valid. It is well settled that rights by inheritance are acquired and transmitted upon the
    death of the decedent. If this is so, it must necessarily follow that it is perfectly legal for an heir to enter
    into a contract of the nature of the document (Modesto agreed that he would share with Restituto
    whatever property he might inherit from his deceased wife) in this case, the understanding to be, of
    course, that the contract would be effective only if and when he is really declared an heir and only as
    regards any property that might be adjudicated to him as such.

    FACTS:
    Bruno Modesto, Bough and Restituto Anapo executed a private document whereby Modesto agreed that he would
    share to the latter-parties whatever property that he will receive by inheritance from his wife, who predeceased
    him eventually. It was proved in such private document that the properties were to be divided and proportioned.
    Bough and Restituto instituted the present action to secure judgment ordering Modesto to divide the properties
    left by his wife in the manner and form provided for in such private document.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the contract which contains object of which is Modesto’s inheritance is valid and binding between
    the parties.
     
    RULING
    YES. The contract is valid. It is well settled that rights by inheritance are acquired and transmitted upon the death
    of the decedent. With this, it follows that it is perfectly legal for an heir to enter into a contract of the nature of the
    document. The contract becomes effective only when Modesto is declared as heir but his right over the
    inheritance accrues from the time his wife died.

    Facts: On March 4, 1936 Bruno Modesto, ____ Bough and Restituto Anapol executed a private document whereby Modesto agreed that he
    would share with Restituto Anapol and Bough whatever property he might inherit from his deceased wife. It was provided in such document
    that the properties were to be divided and proportioned 1/8 each provided that Restituto pay the expense to be incurred in connection with
    the litigation that Modesto was facing. Bough and Restituto instituted the present action to secure judgment ordering Modesto to divide the
    properties left by his wife, in the manner and form provided in the private document. Modesto, in his defense alleged that the ____ had
    failed to comply with the terms and conditions specified in the contract and that the said contract was not contrary to law, morals and
    public policy.

    Issue: whether the contract, the object of which is Modesto’s inheritance is valid and binding between the parties?

    Held: The contract is valid. It is well settled that rights by inheritance are acquired and transmitted upon the death of the decedent. If this is
    so, it must necessarily follow that it is perfectly legal for an heir to enter into a contract of the nature of the document in this case, the
    understanding to be, of course, that the contract would be effective only if and when he is really declared an heir and only as regards any
    property that might be adjudicated to him as such. It cannot be said that the disputed contract deals and interferes with properties in
    Custodia legis because the reasonable interpretation that must be given to it that contemplates and provides for the partition only of such
    property as may be adjudicated to Modesto if when he is declared to be an heir of his deceased wife, the claims of the partition to be made
    in due course, that is through the probate court.

    It is the present action that should not be considered strictly as one for partition but only as an action intended to determine the right of the
    parties under the terms of the contract.

    You might also like