TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, MARIA LUISA PALACIOS, Administratrix, petitioner-appellee, vs. MARCELLE D. VDA.DE RAMIREZ, ET AL., oppositors, JORGE and ROBERTO RAMIREZ, legatees, oppositors-appellants.FACTS:Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964, with only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, on July 27, 1965. Maria Luisa Palacios was appointed administratrix of the estate.On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows: the property of the deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part shall go to the widow en plenodominio in satisfaction of her legitime; the other part or free portion shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez en nudapropriedad. Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with the widows usufruct and the remaining two-third (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda.-APPEAL for the partitioning of testate estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez (a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964) among principal beneficiaries:Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez-widow-French who lives in Paris-received (as spouse) and usufructuary rights over 1/3 of the free portionRoberto and Jorge Ramirez-two grandnephews-lives in Malate-received the (free portion)Wanda de Wrobleski-companion-Austrian who lives in Spain-received usufructuary rights of 2/3 of the free portion-vulgar substitution in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez-Maria Luisa Palacios -administratix-Jorge and Roberto Ramirez opposed becausea. vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda wrt widows usufruct and in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez, wrt to Wandas usufruct is INVALID because first heirs (Marcelle and Wanda) survived the testatorb. fideicommissary substitutions are INVALID because first heirs not related to the second heirs or substitutes within the first degree as provided in Art 863 CCc. grant of usufruct of real property in favor of an alien, Wanda, violated Art XIII Sec 5d. proposed partition of the testators interest in the Santa Cruz Building between widow and appellants violates testators express will to give this property to them-LC: approved partitionISSUEWON the partition is valid insofar asa. widows legitimeb. substitutionsc. usufruct of WandaHELDa. YES, appellants do not question because Marcelle is the widow[1]and over which he could impose no burden, encumbrance, condition or substitution of any kind whatsoever[2]-the proposed creation by the admininstratix in favor of the testators widow of a usufruct over 1/3 of the free portion of the testators estate cannot be made where it will run counter to the testators express will. The Court erred for Marcelle who is entitled to of the estate enpleno dominio as her legitime and which is more than what she is given under the will is not entitled to have any additional share in the estate. To give Marcelle more than her legitime will run counter to the testators intention for as stated above his disposition even impaired her legitime and tended to favor Wanda.b. Vulgar substitutions are valid because dying before the testator is not the only case where a vulgar substitution can be made. Also, according to Art 859 CC, cases also include refusal or incapacity to accept inheritance therefore it is VALID.BUT fideicommissary substitutions are VOID because Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace Ramirez are not related to Wande and according to Art 863 CC, it validates a fideicommissary substitution provided that such substitutiondoes not go beyond one degreefrom the heir originally instituted. Another is that there is no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufructuary to the substitutes and in fact the apellee agrees that the testator contradicts the establishment of the fideicommissary substitution when he permits the properties be subject to usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement ofthe usufructuaries and naked owners.c. YES, usufruct of Wanda is VALID-Art XIII[3]Sec 5 (1935): Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except toindividuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold land of the public domain in the Philippines.[4]The lower court upheld the usufruct thinking that the Constitution covers not only succession by operation of law but also testamentary succession BUT SC is of the opinion that this provision does not apply to testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless. Any alien would circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land BUT an alienmay be bestowed USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS over a parcel of land in the Philippines. Therefore, the usufruct in favor of Wanda, although a real right, is upheld because it does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary (Wanda) and it is thevesting of title to land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.Decision: Marcelle (as legitime), Jorge and Roberto Ramirez (free portion) in naked ownership and the usufruct to Wanda de Wrobleski with simple substitution in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace Ramirez