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