Short answer. Yes, if the testator ordered that the thing be acquired for you. Under Article 931 the heir charged with the legacy, or the estate, must buy it from its owner and deliver it to you. But if the owner refuses to sell, or demands an excessive price, they need only give you the thing's just value.
What the law says
If the testator orders that a thing belonging to another be acquired in order that it be given to a legatee or devisee, the heir upon whom the obligation is imposed or the estate must acquire it and give the same to the legatee or devisee
Civil Code, Article 931 — Ordering the Acquisition of Another's Thing. Read the full provision →
What the law says
but if the owner of the thing refuses to alienate the same, or demands an excessive price therefor, the heir or the estate shall only be obliged to give the just value of the thing
Civil Code, Article 931 — Ordering the Acquisition of Another's Thing. Read the full provision →
The estate must go out and buy the thing
It can be lawful for a will to leave you something the deceased never owned, if the testator directs that it be obtained for you. Article 931 says: If the testator orders that a thing belonging to another be acquired in order that it be given to a legatee or devisee, the heir upon whom the obligation is imposed or the estate must acquire it and give the same to the legatee or devisee. The duty falls on the heir the testator charged with the legacy, or on the estate generally. They must approach the true owner, buy the thing, and hand it over to you. The gift is not void just because the property belonged to a stranger.
The order to acquire must be clear
This obligation arises because the testator ordered the thing to be acquired. The article rests on the testator knowing the property was not his and still directing that it be bought for the beneficiary. That intention is what turns a gift of another's property into a valid, enforceable legacy. Where the testator instead gave away a specific thing he mistakenly believed was his own, a different rule governs. So the first question is always what the will actually directs: a genuine order to acquire another's property for you triggers the duty in Article 931.
If the owner won't sell, or overcharges
The estate cannot be forced to pay any ransom the owner names, and cannot seize what someone else lawfully owns. The article provides that if the owner of the thing refuses to alienate the same, or demands an excessive price therefor, the heir or the estate shall only be obliged to give the just value of the thing. So if the owner will not sell at all, or insists on a grossly inflated price, the heir or estate discharges the legacy by paying you the fair value of the thing in money instead of the thing itself. You are not left with nothing, but you also cannot demand more than the thing is honestly worth.
What 'just value' means for you
Just value is the reasonable, fair worth of the thing — not the inflated figure an unwilling owner throws out, and not a windfall to you. The rule balances two concerns: honoring the testator's wish that you benefit, while protecting the estate and the heirs from being held hostage by a third-party owner. In practice, if the purchase cannot be made on fair terms, the dispute shifts to what the thing is genuinely worth, and that fair value is what the estate owes you. The legacy converts from a specific object into its money equivalent.
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.
- Nelfa Delfin Trinidad, et al. vs. Salvador G. Trinidad, et al, G.R. No. 254695, December 6, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Elpidio Magno, et al. vs. Lorenzo Magno, et al, G.R. No. 206451, August 17, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →