Short answer. That argument is weak. Article 791 requires a will to be interpreted so every expression is given some effect, rather than treated as meaningless surplusage. The word 'and' joining two names is a real expression of your grandmother's intent, so a reading that erases it and leaves one of you with nothing works against this rule.
What the law says
The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative
Civil Code, Article 791 — Give Effect to Every Word. Read the full provision →
What the law says
of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy
Civil Code, Article 791 — Give Effect to Every Word. Read the full provision →
No word is presumed to be meaningless
Article 791 sets the starting point for reading any ambiguous bequest: the words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative. A court reading your grandmother's will does not begin by looking for reasons to discard a word — it begins by assuming she chose her words for a reason and works to find the reading that honors all of them. Calling 'and' mere surplusage is exactly the kind of reading this article discourages, because it treats a word she wrote as if she had not written it.
What 'and' ordinarily signals between two names
When a bequest names two people joined by 'and,' the natural reading is that your grandmother intended both of them to take, typically sharing the property named unless the will's other language points somewhere else. Reading the clause instead as giving everything to one name and nothing to the other requires ignoring the very word that joins them. Article 791 does not tell a court to prefer whichever reading benefits a particular heir — it tells the court to prefer whichever reading makes every word in the sentence do work.
The tie-breaker: avoiding intestacy
The article adds a second rule for genuinely close cases: of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy. If a bequest is truly ambiguous between two readings, the one that keeps the property passing under the will — rather than falling back into intestate succession because the clause failed — is favored. This reinforces, rather than replaces, the first rule: a will is read to make it work, not to unravel it over an ambiguity that can reasonably be resolved.
What actually decides your case
Whether the two of you share equally, or the will's other language shows some other split, depends on reading the entire bequest and the will as a whole, not the single word 'and' in isolation. Article 791 does not hand either of you an automatic result — it forecloses the specific argument that the conjunction can be treated as inoperative to erase one beneficiary entirely. Anyone contesting the clause should look at how your grandmother used similar language elsewhere in the will, since that context often resolves what a single ambiguous phrase cannot on its own.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Rizalino B. Abella, et al. vs. Atty. Sergio C. Sumayod, Jane A. Pica, Annaliza Yu, and Petron Corp., Inc, G.R. No. 269598, April 2, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →