Case Name: Ex Parte Gandía
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1904-04-07
Citations: 6 P.R. 229
Docket Number: No. 130
Parties: Ex Parte Gandía.
Judges: Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández, Higue-ras and Sulzbacher 'concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 229–233

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Gandía.
Appeal from, the District Court of Mayagüez.
No. 130.
Decided April 7, 1904.
Wills — Condition.—Testamentary provisions by universal or special title may be made conditionally, -which, condition, in all that is not prescribed by the law relating to the designation of heirs, is governed by the rules established for conditional obligations.
Conditional Obligations — Acquisition and Extinction op Rights. — In conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinction or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the event constituting the condition.
STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
This case was instituted in the District Court of Maya-güez at the instance of Antonia Gandía y Castellón, with regard to the preliminary steps in the testamentary proceedings of Vicente Carrera y Grimaldi, which case is pending before us on appeal taken by the counsel for the petitioner from the judgment rendered by the said district court, which judgment reads as follows:
“Vicente Carreras y Grimaldi died in this city on February 22, 1900, leaving a will executed on February 18, 1900, before Alfredo Arnaldo y Sevilla a native of this city, in clause 4, of which he constituted his brother and sister, Carlos and Kosa Carreras y Grimaldi, as his heirs, and in clause 7 thereof he caused it to appear that in case his sister should die before her brother he desired her share under the will to go to her said brother, and that, in case of the death of the brother, or of the sister, should she die before her brother, the whole of this part of his property should go to Antonia Gandía Cas-tellón, whom he appointed as heir in this respect.
“Attorney Fernando Vázquez, on behalf of the latter party, that is, Antonia, Gandía y Castellón, requested that the preliminary steps be taken in the voluntary testamentary proceedings of Vicente Carre-ras y Grimaldi, upon the ground that the petitioner has been consti tuted as heir to become such after the death of his brother and sister, Carlos and Rosa, who had been constituted as usufructuary-heirs in said clause 7 of the will, which petition was denied by the court, whereupon Attorney Fernando Vasquez took an appeal from the order as above stated.
“Testamentary provisions, either by universal or special title, may be made conditionally, and this condition, in all that is not prescribed by the. law relating to the designation of heirs, is governed by the rules established for conditional obligations.
“According to article 1081 of the Oivil Code, in conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as well as the extinction or loss of those already acquired, shall depend! upon the event constituting the condition.
“The appointment as heir in favor of Antonia Gandía is subordinate to the death of Carlos and Rosa Carreras, which circumstance has not heen proven.
“In view of articles 778, 779 et seq., up to article 794 of the Oivil Code, it is -adjudged that the motion for a rehearing is denied, and the order of September 16 last is affirmed in all of its parts.”
From this judgment the counsel for the petitioner took an appeal, and the same having’ heen allowed, the record was sent up to this court, with a citation of the parties. The appellant having appeared, and the appeal having heen conducted in due form, a day was set for the hearing after citation of the parties, at which the attorney for the appellant failed to he present.
Mr. Vázquez (Fernando), for appellant.

Opinion:
Me. Justice MacLeaey,
after stating the foregoing facts delivered the opinion of the court.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the judgment appealed from are accepted.
Having examined articles 778, 794 and 1081 of the Oivil Code, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the judgment appealed from, with costs against the appellant.
Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández, Higue-ras and Sulzbacher 'concurred.