If they sold the thing they left you, buying it back does not revive the legacy

It is Article 1707 of the Civil Code of 2020: the three causes that leave a legacy written in a will without effect, and what the legatee receives when the fault was the heir’s.

Any legatee whose legated thing changed, was sold or disappeared before the testator’s death, and any heir who must deliver it.

• The legacy is left without effect if the testator transforms the good so it keeps neither the form nor the denomination it had.Verified against the official source
• It fails if the testator alienates the good by any title or cause; if part is alienated, only as to that part.Verified against the official source
• If the good returns to the testator’s ownership, even by nullity of the contract, the legacy has no force after that fact.Verified against the official source
• The case where the reacquisition is verified by pacto de retroventa is excepted.Verified against the official source
• It fails if the good is lost or destroyed; and if that happens by the heir’s fault, the legatee receives its just value.Verified against the official source

• The will, with the description of the legated good as it stood when the will was made.
• The deed of alienation, if the testator sold or transferred the good, and of reacquisition if they got it back.

1. 1

   Step 1: If the testator transformed the thing

   Article 1707(a): the legacy fails when the good keeps neither the form nor the denomination it had.

2. 2

   Step 2: Both, not one

   The article says “neither… nor”. Losing only the form, or only the name, does not fit the item as written.

3. 3

   Step 3: If they sold it, the legacy falls

   Article 1707(b): by any title or cause. If only a part was alienated, only that part falls.

4. 4

   Step 4: And getting it back does not revive it

   Even if the good returns to the testator’s ownership, even by nullity of the contract, the legacy has no force after that fact.

5. 5

   Step 5: With a single exception

   That the reacquisition be verified by pacto de retroventa. The article names it and does not explain it; neither does this guide.

6. 6

   Step 6: If the thing was lost or destroyed

   Article 1707(c): the legacy is left without effect.

7. 7

   Step 7: Unless it was the heir’s fault

   Then the legatee receives its just value. The article does not say who fixes that value.

8. 8

   Step 8: And about other faults, silence

   The item names only the heir’s fault. About the legatee’s, a third party’s or the testator’s own it says nothing.

This article describes no procedure before any agency: it says when a legacy ceases to have effect. The Code does not say here what counts as transforming a good, who decides it, what the “just value” of item (c) is or who fixes it, or before which forum all this is disputed. Nor does it regulate here the pacto de retroventa it names as an exception. None of those gaps is filled here.

• Believing getting the thing back revives the legacy: Article 1707(b) says it has no force after that fact.
• Counting on the sale contract’s nullity to save the legacy: the article mentions it and discards it anyway.
• Forgetting the single exception: reacquisition by pacto de retroventa.
• Treating the whole legacy as fallen when the testator sold only a part: only that part falls.
• Applying item (a) when the good keeps the form or the name: the article requires it keep neither.
• Thinking an alienation other than a sale does not count: the article says by any title or cause.
• Claiming the just value when the loss was not the heir’s fault: item (c) covers only that fault.
• Looking in the article for who fixes the just value: it does not say.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico

  Poder Judicial

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov