This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-06-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As regards Clause 10 of the will which explicitly prohibits the alienation or mortgage of the properties specified therein, we had occasion to hold, in Rodriguez, etc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[5] that the clause, insofar as the first twenty-year period is concerned, does not violate Article 870[6] of the Civil Code. We declared, thus: The codal provision does not need any interpretation. It speaks categorically. What is declared void is the testamentary disposition prohibiting alienation after the twenty-year period. In the interim, such a provision does not suffer from the vice of invalidity. It cannot be stricken down. Time and time again, We have said, and We now repeat, that when a legal provision is clear and to the point, there is no room for interpretation. It must be applied according to its literal terms. | |||||