Spouses share: (taken from the free portion

1. 1 legit child =
2. Legit children = share of legit child
3. Legit ascendants =
4. Illegit children = 1/3
5. Legit children + illegit children = share of legit child
6. Legit ascendants + illegit children = 1/8
7. If spouse is only heir = 1/2
a. If S died w/in 3 month of articulo mortis
marriage = 1/3
b. If same situation above but S has been living
with T for 5 yrs as husband & wife = 1/2
8. Legit ascendants + legit children = ?
Examples: T DIES WITH ESTATE WORTH 100K
a. A is legit child with S (Spouse)
As legitime is (50k) while S is (25k) and 25k will
be free portion
b. A,B,C,D are legit children with S
A,b,c,d will have a legitime of of estate (50K/4) so
12.5K each. S will get 12.5K. 37.5k wll be the free
portion
c. F and M are parents with S
F and M will have a legitime of of estate (50K/2) so
25K each. S is (25k). Free portion is 25k
d. A and B are illegit with S (estate=90k)
A and Bs legitime is 1/3 of the estate (30k/2) so 15k
each. S will get 1/3 (30k)

Illegit childrens share: (taken from legitime???)
1. Only illegit child is heir = ???
2. Legit child = of share of legit child
3. Legit ascendants (or + spouse) =
4. Legit children + spouse = of share of legit child
5. Spouse = 1/3
Examples: T DIES WITH ESTATE WORTH 100K
a) A is legit B & C illegit
A gets of estate (50k) A and B gets of 50k so 25k
each (25K will not be share by both A and B)
b) F&M are parents A & C are illegit
F&M gets of estate 50k/2 = 25k each while A & C
gets (25k/2) so they have 12.5k each. Remaining
25k is free portion. (In this case, 25k was shared by the
illegit)
c) F&M parents with S and B&A illegit
F&M gets of estate 50k/2 = 25k each while A & C
gets (25k/2) so they have 12.5k each. Then S gets
so 12.5k. Remaining 12.5 k is free portion
d) A & B are legit with S while C & D are illegit
A & B will get of the estate 50k/2 = 25k each while S
will get the same share of one legit child so 25k. C & D
will get of the share of one legit child so 25k/2 =
12.5 k each.

In case illegit child dies:
1. Share of parents (where illegit child does not have any
child) =
2. If illegit child has child, share of parents is = none
3. If illegit child has spouse but no child, share of parents
is =
4. If illegit child has parents but no child, spouse gets =
5. If illegit child has child, spouse gets = ?

Reduction if there are compulsory heirs:
a.) Pay legitime
b.) Honor donations
c.) Pay preferred legacies/devises
d.) Pay other legacies and devises

Reduction if there are no compulsory heirs
a.) Renumeratory legacies and devices
b.) Preferred l and d
c.) L for support
d.) L for educ
e.) L for specific things
f.) Other l and d

EXAMPLE OF REDUCTION: T DIED WITH 100K AS ESTATE
A legit child, B illegit, F (friend). In Ts will, only F was given 40K
A must have of estate for his legitime = 50k
B must have of what A will receive so = 25k, but if F will be
given 40K only 10k will be left to be, thus the money of F must be
reduced.
Since B must have 25k (25-10=15k) 15k must be reduced from F
so F will be given only = 25k

HOW TO COLLATE:
1. Know the gross value of Ts property upon death
2. Ts gross estate minus obli, debts and charges
3. Determine Net hereditary estate by using #2
4. Donations subject to collation PLUS NET VALUE
5. Determine amount of legitime by using the total of #4
EXERCISES IN COLLATION:
Estate = 20m; Legit child: A,B,C,D (4); Donations to X (8M), M
(4M), N (2M) all strangers plus to A (the child (6m)
Total donation = 20m (must be collated)
Total estate 20m plus 20m (from the donation) = 40m
o *Since the total donation (20m) does not
impair any legitime, the donations given
will be as is and will not be reduced.
Legitime of the children = (40m/2) 20m thus A-D must
have 5m each
o BUT A already got 6M according to Art. 909,
donations given to children shall be charged
to their legitime (not free portion, so A will
not get an additional 5m aside from the 6m)
So: B, C, D will each get 5m =15m
The donations to A, X, M and N will remain = 20m
20M plus 15m = 35m (thus there is still 5m remaining.
Lets assume this is instestate (no will) so the
remaining 5M must be distributed to the compulsory
heirs:
5m/4 = 1.25 each
Thus: A = 1.25M + 6M (7.25M), B, C, D, will each get
(1.25M +5m) = 5.25m Total: 26m
Total donations to stranger = 14m
14m plus 26m = 40m

ART 886 and 887: This article enumerates the compulsory
heirs. The enumeration is EXCLUSIVE and may be classified as
follows:
1. Primary compulsory heirs legitimate children and / or
descendants
So called because they are preferred over,
and exclude the secondary heirs.

2. Secondary compulsory heirs legitimate parents and /
or ascendants ; illegitimate parents
So called because they receive legitimes only
in default of the primary heirs.
Legitimate parents/ascendants only in
default of legitimate children/ descendants.
Illegitimate parents only in default of any
kinds of children/descendants.

3. Concurring compulsory heirs surviving spouse;
illegitimate children and / or descendants
So called because they succeed as
compulsory heirs together with primary or
secondary heirs, except only that illegitimate
children / descendants exclude illegitimate
parents.

THE COMPULSORY HEIRS
LEGITIMATE CHILDREN / DESCENDANTS
1. Legitimate Children specified in Arts164 and 54
of the Family Code. Legitimated children fall under
this classification [Art179 FC]. The law does not
specify how the legitimate children should share in
the legitime. However, they will share EQUALLY
regardless of age, sex or marriage of origin.

2. Legitimate Descendants the GR is the nearer
exclude the more remote. Thus, children, if all
qualified, will exclude grandchildren and so on.
The qualification to this rule is representation
when proper.

LEGITIMATE PARENTS / ASCENDANTS
1. Legitimate Parents

2. Legitimate Ascendants Only in default of parents.
The rule absolute in the ascending line is that
the nearer exclude the more remote. [Arts889-
890]

SURVIVING SPOUSE
1. The spouse of the decedent, not the spouse of a
child who has predeceased the decedent.
2. Marriage between the decedent and his/her
surviving spouse must be either VALID or
VOIDABLE. If voidable, there should have been no
final decree of annulment at the time of the
decedents death.
Question if the consort dies during the
pendency of a petition for declaration of
nullity under Art36 or for nullity under
Art40 of the FC, should the proceedings be
dismissed or should they proceed?
Mere estrangement is not a ground for the
disqualification of the surviving spouse as
heir.
Effect of Decree of Legal Separation
a) On the offending spouse
disqualification
b) On the innocent spouse - nothing
Death of either spouse during pendency of a
petition for Legal Separation Dismissal of
the Case.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / DESCENDANTS
1. Illegitimate Children Family Code has abolished
the distinction between natural and spurious
children and gives all of them indiscriminately
called illegitimate children equal legitimary
portions. However, pursuant to Art777, if death
occurred before effectivity of the Family Code on
August 3, 1988, the old distinctions will apply and
the spurious child gets only 4/5 of the share of the
natural child. [Art895]

2. Illegitimate Descendants Same rule applies as in
the legitimate descending line, the nearer exclude
the more remote, without prejudice to
representation when proper.
It should be noted that the illegitimate child
can be represented by both legitimate and
illegitimate descendants, as distinguished from the
legitimate child, who can be represented only by
legitimate descendants. [Art902 and 992]

ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS
1. Unlike the legitimate ascending line, which
includes ascendants in whatever degree, the
illegitimate ascending line only includes the
parents, it does not go beyond the parents.
2. The illegitimate parents are secondary heirs of a
lower category that legitimate parents, because
the illegitimate parents are excluded by legitimate
and illegitimate children [Art903] whereas
legitimate parents are excluded only by legitimate
children/ descendants.

Variations in the Legitimary Portions
The legitimary system of the Philippine Code rests on a
double foundation EXCLUSION and CONCURRENCE.

GENERAL RULE there is a basic amount of that is given to
one heir or one group of heirs. This General Rule admits only
of 3 EXCEPTIONS:
1. Art894 surviving spouse and illegitimate
children
2. Art900 par2 surviving spouse in a marriage in
articulo mortis, with the conditions specified in
that article
3. Art903 surviving spouse and illegitimate
parents.

The term legitimate child or legitimate children includes a
legally adopted child under Sec18 of RA8552 or the Domestic
Adoption Act of 1998.

Question Is an adopted child entitled to a legitime from his
biological parents or ascendants? Uncertain.
Art189[3] of the FC provides that the adopted shall
remain an intestate heir of his parents and other blood
relatives.
Thus, the adopted child was entitled to a legitime BOTH
from his adopter and his biological parents.
But now, the law is silent and it neither gives nor denies
an adopted child the right to a legitime from his
biological parents.
Sec16 of the law provides that all legal ties between the
biological parents and the adoptee shall be severed but
that is unavailing to answer the question because sec16
only has to do with parental authority.

The term legitimate child or legitimate children shall, in
proper cases, include legitimate descendants other than
children.

The term legitimate parents includes, in proper cases, legitimate
ascendants other than parents.

NOBLE V NOBLE
FACTS: Don Vicente Noble died in 1959. The notarial will he
executed in 1957 was presented for probate wherein
JuanNoble was designated as executor. Maria Noble, claiming as
the illegitimate child of the deceased born out of an
illicitrelationship between the latter and Lucia Sinag in July 22,
1923, opposed the probate of the will. She prays for
thedisallowance of the will and be declared as the only surviving
illegitimate daughter or in the alternative, in case the will
beprobated, the institution of heirs made therein be declared null
and void. Simultaneously, she filed a motion asking for permission
to present evidence on her alleged filiation, stating therein that
she is in continuous possession of status of achild of the late Don
Vicente Noble by the direct acts of the latter and/or his family, and
that she has in her favor evidenceand/or proof that the deceased
is her father. This motion was opposed by Judge Noble on the
ground that the claim wasin effect an Action for Compulsory
recognition, and that since it was brought after the death of the
putative father, andwhen she was already of majority age, the
right to bring the same has already prescribed.CFI: admitted
the will for probate and the claim of Maria had been
barred byprescription.
HELD: Art. 887: In all case of illegitimate children, their filiation
must be duly proved. Filiation must be acknowledged bythe
alleged parent, for if the mere fact of paternity of the supposed
father is all that is needed to be proved, that wouldpave the way to
unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of the death of the
presumed parent who would no longer bein the position to deny
the allegation.In this case, what is intended to be proved is simply
the supposed naked paternity of the deceased. Her
allegationsmerely claimed that she is the child of the deceased,
which is a ground for compelling recognition.It is necessary to
allege that her putative parent had acknowledged and recognized
her as such. Such acknowledgmentis essential and is basis of her
right to inherit. There being no allegation of such
acknowledgment, the action becomesone to compel recognition
which cannot be brought after the death of the putative
parent.Acknowledgement is the basis of the right of a spurious
child to enjoy the successional rights

VAN DORN V. ROMILLO JR.
Petitioner Alice Reyes is a citizen of the Philippines while private
respondent is a citizen of the United States; they were married in
Hongkong. Thereafter, they established their residence in the
Philippines and begot two children. Subsequently, they were
divorced in Nevada, United States, and that petitioner has re-
married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
Private respondent filed suit against petitioner, stating that
petitioners business in Manila is their conjugal property; that
petitioner he ordered to render accounting of the business and
that private respondent be declared to manage the conjugal
property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case contending that the
cause of action is barred by the judgment in the divorce
proceedings before the Nevada Court. The denial now is the
subject of the certiorari proceeding.
ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce obtained by the parties is
binding only to the alien spouse.
HELD: Is it true that owing to the nationality principle embodied
in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are
covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being
considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality.
However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to
their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released
private respondent from the marriage from the standards of
American Law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage.
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer
the husband petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the
case below as petitioners husband entitled to exercise control
over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the decision of his own
countrys court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and
whose decision he does not repudiate, he is stopped by his own
representation before said court from asserting his right over the
alleged conjugal property.


Art. 888: Equal sharing the legitimate children share the in
equal parts, regardless of age, sec or marriage of origin. The
provision should have been explicit about this. The counterpart
provision in intestacy [Art979 par1 and Art980] is quite explicit
on this.

Descendants other than children the GR is that the nearer
exclude the more remote. Hence, grandchildren cannot
inherit, since the children will bar the, unless all the children
renounce, in which case the grandchildren become the
nearest in degree. The rule goes on down the tine, great
grandchildren cannot inherit unless all the children and
grandchildren renounce.

The only qualification to the rule that the nearer exclude the
more remote in the descending line is representation when
proper [Arts970-977]

There is no limit to the number of degrees in the descending
line that may be called to succeed, whether in their own right
or by representation.

Art. 889 890
Legitimate parents/ascendants as secondary compulsory
heirs the legitimate ascending line succeeds only in default
of the legitimate descending line.

3 BASIC RULES ON SUCCESSION IN THE ASCENDING LINE
1. The nearer exclude the more remote.
This rule in the ascending line admits of no
qualification, since there is no representation
in the ascending line. [Art972 par1]

2. Division by line.
This rule will apply if there are more than
one ascendant in the nearest degree. The
legitime shall then be divided in equal parts
between the paternal line and the maternal
line.

3. Equal division within the line.
After the portion corresponding to the line
has been assigned, there will be equal
apportionment between or among the
recipients within the line, should there be
more than one.

Note also, there is no right of representation in the ascending
line.

The operation of the principles of Division By Line and Equal
Division within the Line may cause inequality of shares
among ascendants of identical degrees.
For example, if both legitimate parents of testator
predecease him and testator has no other legitimate
descendants, if there are 2 surviving maternal
grandparents but only 1 surviving paternal grandparent
the estate is divided equally between the maternal
and paternal lines, but the 2 maternal grandparents
must share the portion of the maternal line [they get
1/8 each] while the sole paternal grandparent gets the
whole portion of the paternal line.
Art. 891-892
1 LEGITIMATE CHILD / SURVIVING SPOUSE the sharing is
for the legitimate child and for the surviving spouse.

If there has been LEGAL SEPARATION between the testator
and the surviving spouse
If there is a final decree of legal separation
1. surviving spouse is the innocent party he/she
gets her legitime [Art63 par4 FC]
2. surviving spouse is the offending spouse he/she
is disqualified from inheriting [Art63 par4 FC]
If after the final decree of legal separation there was a
reconciliation between the parties, the reciprocal right
to succeed is restored because reconciliation sets aside
the decree [Art66 par2 FC]

DEATH PENDENTE LITE if either spouse dies during the
pendency of the proceedings for legal separation, the
proceedings are TERMINATED and the surviving spouse
inherits from the deceased spouse, no matter which spouse
died.

Termination of Marriage by REAPPEARANCE of prior Spouse
/ Decree of ANNULMENT or ABSOLUTE NULLITY of marriage
Arts 41-43 of FC govern a subsequent marriage
contracted by a party whose spouse has been absent for
the specified period and lay down the requisites
therefor.
The reappearance of the prior spouse TERMINATES the
second marriage. One of the effects of the termination as
given in Art43[5] is The spouse who contracted the
subsequent marriage in BAD FAITH shall be disqualified
to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and
intestate succession.
The implication of Art43 is that
1. If both consorts in the second marriage were in
GOOD FAITH, they continue to be heirs of each
other.
2. If only one of said consorts acted in bad faith, the
innocent one will continue by testate and intestate
succession.

PROBLEM A and B are married. A disappears and is
absent for the required period. B then contracts a
second marriage with C, both in good faith. Out of
nowhere, A reappears [surprise!], and so the marriage
between B and C is terminated. Under Art43[5] the
reciprocal right of succession between A and B as the
original spouses remains. What if B dies? Can A and C
inherit from him/her?

The same problem arises in cases of marriages judicially
annulled or declared void ab initio, because of the
provisions of Art50 par1 of the Family Code The
effects provided for by paragraphs 2,3,4 and 5 of article
43 and by article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases
to marriages which are void ab initio or annulled by
final judgment under Articles 40 and 45.

The problem here will arise should either or both
partners in the defective marriage remarry later.

Balane says that prescinding from the practical problem
of having 2 husbands [or 2 wives] claiming the right to a
legitime, the very principle underlying the rule is
questionable why should consorts of a terminated
marriage, or an annulled one, or one declared void ab
initio continue to be heirs of each other? The marriage
which forms the basis of the right of succession no
longer exists.

LEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE The
sharing is for the children collectively and for the spouse,
equivalent to that of each of the legitimate children or
descendants.
Determination of surviving spouses share
1. As long as at least 1 of several children inherits in
his own right, the determination of the share of the
surviving spouse presents no problem. It will
always be equivalent of one childs share.
2. But supposing ALL the children predecease or are
disinherited or are unworthy to succeed? Since all
the grandchildren would then inherit BY
REPRESENTATION and therefore in different
amounts, the practical solution will still be to give
the spouse the share that each child would have
gotten if qualified.
3. Supposing ALL the Children RENOUNCE, the
grandchildren would inherit PER CAPITA or in
their own right and therefore equally. Should the
spouses share still be computed on the basis of the
childrens share had they accepted? If so, then
when will the word or descendants in the second
paragraph of this article ever be operative?

Art: 893: LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS / SURVIVING SPOUSE -
the sharing is for the ascendants collectively and for the
surviving spouse.
For the parents or ascendants, the sharing will be in
accordance with Articles 889-890. [Legitimate
parents/ascendants as secondary compulsory heirs the
legitimate ascending line succeeds only in default of the
legitimate descending line.]

Art. 894: ILEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE the
sharing is 1/3 for the illegitimate children or descendants
collectively and 1/3 for the surviving spouse.
Sharing among illegitimate children
1. If the decedent died during the effectivity of the
FAMILY CODE the sharing will be equal,
inasmuch as the Family Code has abolished the old
distinction between natural and illegitimate
children other than natural or spurious [Arts 163,
165 and 178 of FC]
2. If the decedent died BEFORE the effectivity of the
Family Code, the old distinctions must be
observed.
The legitime of the spurious child will only
be 4/5 that of a natural child, according to
the ratio established in Art895 par2.
This ratio of 5:4 among natural and spurious
children should be observed in all cases
under the Civil Code where they concur.

Art. 895: This article has been pro tanto amended by Articles 163,
165 and 176 of the Family Code.
ONE LEGITIMATE CHILD / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN /
SURVIVING SPOUSE the sharing is for the illegitimate
child, for the surviving spouse, and for each illegitimate
child. These sharings are based on Art.892 of NCC and Art176
of FC.

LEGITIMATE CHILDREN / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN /
SURVIVING SPOUSE - the sharing is for the legitimate
children collectively, a share equal to that of one legitimate
child for the surviving spouse, and the share of one
legitimate child for each illegitimate child.

SHARING PRIOR TO THE FAMILY CODE
If death occurred before the effectivity of the Family
Code, this article will govern consequently, should the
natural and spurious children concur in the succession,
each spurious child will get 4/5 the share of one natural
child, and each natural child gets the share of one
legitimate child. Example -
5 legitimate children and total estate is 1M.
of estate [500,000] divided by 5 so 1 Legit
child 100,000
Natural child 50,000
Spurious child 40,000
Should there be no natural children but only spurious
children, each spurious child will get 2/5 share of one
legitimate child.
1 legit child 100,000
No natural children
Spurious child 40,000

REDUCTION OF SHARES
Depending on the number of legitimate and illegitimate
children, the possibility exists that the total legitimes
will exceed the entire estate. Reductions, therefore will
have to be made in accordance with the following rules

1. The legitimes of the legitimate children should
never be reduced, they are PRIMARY and
PREFERRED compulsory heirs
2. The legitime of the surviving spouse should never
be reduced, this article prohibits this.
3. The legitimes of the illegitimate children will be
reduced pro rata and without preference among
them.
Art. 896: ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / LEGITIMATE PARENTS
the sharing is for the legitimate parents collectively and for
the illegitimate children collectively.

For the parents or ascendants, the sharing will be in
accordance with the rules laid down in Articles 889-890.
For the illegitimate children or descendants, the sharing shall
depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity
of the Family Code
- Art. 897 and 898 REITERATE 892 TO 895

Art. 899: LEGITIMATE PARENTS / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN /
SURVIVING SPOUSE the sharing is for the legitimate parents
collectively, for the illegitimate children collectively and 1/8 for
the surviving spouse.
For the parents or ascendants, the sharing will be in
accordance with the rules laid down in Articles 889-890.
For the illegitimate children or descendants, the sharing
shall depend on whether death occurred before or
during the effectivity of the Family Code.

Art. 900: SURVIVING SPOUSE AS SOLE COMPULSORY HEIR
General rule of the estate
Exception 1/3 of the estate, if the following
circumstances are present
a) The marriage was in articulo mortis
b) The testator died within 3 months from the
time of the marriage
c) The parties did not cohabit for more than 5
years, and
d) The spouse who died was the party in articulo
mortis at the time of the marriage.

NOTE the last requisite is not explicit in the article but can
be derived from the sense and intent of the provision. The law
does not regard such marriages with eager approval.

Art. 901: ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN ALONE they get of the
estate collectively. The sharing among the illegitimate children or
descendants will depend on whether death occurred before or
during the effectivity of the Family Code.

Art. 902: Right of representation to the legitimate and illegitimate
descendants of an illegitimate child.
Rule of Article 902 compared with Rule of Article 992 In the
case of descendants of legitimate children, the right of
representation is given only to legitimate descendants, by
virtue of Art992.
The net effect of all this is that the right of representation
given to descendants of illegitimate children is BROADER than
the right of representation given to descendants of legitimate
children. Thus, an illegitimate child of a predeceased
legitimate child cannot inherit by representation [Art992],
while an illegitimate child of an illegitimate child can
[Art902]. A classic instance of unintended consequence.

Art. 903: ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS ALONE they get of the
estate. Note that in the illegitimate ascending line, the right DOES
NOT go beyond the parents.
ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS / SURVIVING SPOUSE the
sharing is for the parents collectively and for the spouse.

Illegitimate parents EXCLUDED by all kinds of children as
secondary compulsory heirs, the illegitimate parents are
inferior to legitimate parents. Whereas legitimate parents are
excluded only by legitimate children, illegitimate parents are
excluded by all kinds of children, legitimate or illegitimate.

Art. 904: As already laid down in Art886, the legitime is not
within the testators control. It passes to the compulsory heirs
by strict operation of law.

Testator Devoid of Power to Deprive Compulsory Heirs of
Legitime
It is the law, not the testator, which determines the
transmission of the legitimes. Consequently, it is not
within the testators power to deprive the compulsory
heirs of their legitime.
EXCEPTION the only instance in which the law allows
the testator to deprive the compulsory heirs of their
legitimes is DISINHERITANCE under Arts915-923, the
grounds being set forth under Arts919-921.

Testator Devoid of Power to Impose Burdens on Legitime
As also reiterated in Art872, the testator cannot impair
the legitime, as a consequence of the principle that the
legitime passes by strict operation of law.

EXCEPTIONS When the Law grants the Testator Some
Power over the Legitime
1. Article 1080 par2
A parent who, in the interest of his or her family,
desires to keep any agricultural, industrial, or
manufacturing enterprise intact, may avail himself of
the right granted him in this article, by ordering that
the legitime of the other children to whom the property
is not assigned, be paid in cash.

2. Article 1083 par1
Every co-heir has a right to demand the division
of the estate unless the testator should have expressly
forbidden its partition, in which case the period of
indivision shall not exceed 20 years as provided in
article 494. This power of the testator to prohibit
division applies to the legitime.

Restrictions on Legitime Imposed by Law
A. Article 159, Family Code
The Family Home shall continue despite the
death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried head
of the family for a period of 10 years or for as long as
there is a minor beneficiary, and the heirs cannot
partition the same unless the court finds compelling
reasons therefor. This rule shall apply regardless of
whoever owns the property or constituted the family
home.
B. The Reserva Troncal

Art. 905: Reason for the Rule
Before the predecessors death, the heirs right is simply
inchoate.
Duty to Collate
Any property which the compulsory heir may have
gratuitously received from his predecessor by virtue of
the renunciation or compromise will be considered an
advance on his legitime and must be duly credited.
Scope of Prohibition
This article applies only to transactions of compromise or
renunciation between the predecessor and the
prospective compulsory heir.
QUESTION Is a transaction between the prospective
compulsory heir and another prospective compulsory heir, or
between a prospective compulsory heir and a stranger,
interdicted?
YES under Article 1347 par2: No contract may be entered
into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly
provided by law.

Art. 906: RIGHT OF COMPLETION OF LEGITIME
This rule applies only to transmissions by gratuitous title.
Cross-References, related articles
Art855 if the title by which the testator transmitted
property is intestate succession
Art. 855. The share of a child or descendant omitted
in a will must first be taken from the part of the estate not
disposed of by the will, if any; if that is not sufficient, so
much as may be necessary must be taken proportionally
from the shares of the other compulsory heirs.
In relation to Arts909 and 910
The principle underlying this rule on completion of
legitime is that anything that a compulsory heir receives by
gratuitous title from the predecessor is considered an
advance on legitime and is deducted therefrom
EXCEPTIONS
1. Art1062 if the predecessor gave the compulsory
heir a donation inter vivos and provided that it
was not to be charged against the legitime.
2. Art1063 testamentary dispositions made by the
predecessor to the compulsory heir, unless the
testator provides that it should be considered
part of the legitime.
Art. 907 Based on the same principle as art904. If the
testamentary dispositions exceed the disposable portion, the
compulsory heirs may demand their reduction to the extent hat
the legitimes have been impaired. To allow the testator to make
testamentary dispositions that impair the legitime would in effect
allow him to deprive the compulsory heirs of part of their legitime
an act which is prohibited by Art904.
This article should be read together with Art911.

Art. 908: Based on the same principle as art904. If the
testamentary dispositions exceed the disposable portion, the
compulsory heirs may demand their reduction to the extent hat
the legitimes have been impaired. To allow the testator to make
testamentary dispositions that impair the legitime would in effect
allow him to deprive the compulsory heirs of part of their legitime
an act which is prohibited by Art904.
This article should be read together with Art911.


MANNER OF COMPUTING THE
HEREDITARY ESTATE
Inventory all the Existing Assets
o This will involve appraisal/valuation of the
existing assets at the time of the decedents
death
o These assets include only those properties
that survive the decedent, i.e. those which
are not extinguished by his death [in
relation to articles 774 and 777].
o The value determined by this inventory will
constitute the GROSS ASSETS.

Deduct Unpaid Debts and Charges
o All unpaid obligations of the decedent
should be deducted from the gross assets.
o Only those obligations with monetary value
which are not extinguished by death are
considered. Thus, those obligations which
are purely personal are not taken into
account.
o The difference between the gross assets and
the unpaid obligations will be the
AVAILABLE ASSETS.

Add the Value of Donations Inter Vivos
o To the available assets should be added all
the inter vivos donations made by the
decedent.
o The donations inter vivos shall be valued as
of the time they were respectively made.
Any increase or decrease in value from the
time they were made to the time of the
decedents death shall be for the account of
the donee, since the donation transfers
ownership to the donee.
o The sum of the available assets and all the
donations inter vivos is the NET
HEREDITARY ESTATE.
COLLATION
Collation is the act by virtue of which descendants or
other forced heirs who intervene in the division of the
inheritance of an ascendant bring into the common mass,
the property which they received from him, s that the
division may be made according to law and the will of the
testator.
Collation is only required of compulsory heirs succeeding
with other compulsory heirs and involves property or
rights received by donation or gratuitous title during the
lifetime of the decedent.
The purpose is to attain equality among the compulsory
heirs in so far as possible for it is presumed that the
intention of the testator or predecessor in interest in
making a donation or gratuitous transfer to a forced heir
is to give him something in advance on account of his
share in the estate, and that the predecessors will is to
treat all his heirs equally, in the absence of any expression
to the contrary.
Collation does not impose any lien on the property or the
subject matter of collationable donation. What is brought
to collation is not the property donated itself, but rather
the value of such property at the time it was donated, the
rationale being that the donation is a real alienation which
conveys ownership upon its acceptance, hence any
increase in value or any deterioration or loss thereof is
for the account of the heir or donee. [Vizconde v CA]

MATEO V LAGUA
Sometime in 1917, the parents of Alejandro Lagua donated two
lots to him in consideration of his marriage to petitioner Bonifacia
Mateo. The marriage was celebrated on May 15, 1917 and
thereafter the couple took possession of the lots, but the
certificates of title remained in the donors name. In 1923,
Alejandro died, leaving behind his widow Bonifacia with their
infant daughter, who lived with the father-in-law Cipriano Lagua
who in turn undertook to farm on the donated lots. At first,
Cipriano gave to Bonifacia the share from the lots harvests, but in
1926 he refused to deliver to petitioner the said share, which
reason prompted her to initiate an action and won for her
possession of the lots plus damages. On July 31, 1941, Cipriano
executed a deed of sale of the said lots in favor of his younger son,
herein respondent Gervacio. Petitioner learned of this only in
1956 when Cipriano stopped giving to petitioner her share to the
harvest. A Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued under
respondents name by the Registry of Deeds (ROD) of Pangasinan.
The CFI of Pangasinan declared the TCT issued to respondent null
and void and ordered cancelled by the ROD, and for respondent to
vacate and deliver the lots to petitioner. In 1957, Gervacio and
Cipriano filed with the CFI for the annulment of the donation of the
two lots. While the case was pending, Cipriano died in 1958. It
was dismissed for prescription, having been filed after the lapse of
41 years. When appealed, the CA in 1966 held that the donation to
Alejandro of the two lots with the combined area of 11,888 sq. m.
exceeded by 494.75 sq. m. his legitime and the disposable portion
that Cipriano could have freely given by will, and to the same
extent prejudiced the legitime of Ciprianos other heir, Gervacio.
The donation was thus declared inofficious and herein petitioners
were ordered to reconvey to Gervacio a portion of 494.75 sq. m.
from any convenient part of the lots.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly reduced the
donation propter nuptias for being inofficious.
HELD: decision of CA based on unsupported assumptions set
aside; trial courts order of dismissal sustained. Before the legal
share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, the net estate of
the decedent must be ascertained, by deducting all payable
obligations and charges from the value of the property owned by
the deceased at the time of his death; then, all donations subject to
collation would be added to it. With the partible estate thus
determined, the legitimes of the compulsory heirs can be
established, and only thereafter can it be ascertained whether or
not a donation had prejudiced the legitimes. Certainly, in order
that a donation may be reduced for being inofficious, there must
be proof that the value of the donated property exceeds that of the
disposable free portion plus the donees share as legitime in the
properties of the donor. In the present case, it can hardly be seen
that, with the evidence then before the court, it was in any position
to rule on the inofficiousness of the donation involved here, and to
order its reduction and reconveyance of the deducted portion to
the respondents.
Article 908. To determine the legitime, the value of the property
left at the death of the testator shall be considered, deducting all
debts and charges, which shall not include those imposed in the
will. To the value of the hereditary estate, shall be added the value
of all donations by the testator that are subject to collation, at the
time he made them

VDA. De Tupas v. RTC
- The petition is brought by Paternza Lucerna, wife of Epifanio
Tupas, as the sole heir to the estate of the latter.
- It was found that a year before Epifanios death, he donated
some three parcels of land in favor of Tupas Foundation, Inc.
- The wife is contending that the donationw as inofficious as it
left her destitute of any inheritance.
- Hence, she prayed to have the donation declared inofficious
insofar as it prejudiced her legitime, therefore reducible by
such proportion as might be deemed justified and the
resulting deduction delivered to her.
- The lower court contended that a) Article 900 relied upon by
plaintiff is not applicable because the properties which were
disposed of by way of donation were no longer part of his
hereditary estate at the time of his death b) the donated
properties were Epifanio's capital or separate estate; and (3)
Tupas Foundation, Inc. being a stranger and not a compulsory
heir, the donation inter vivos made in its favor was not subject
to collation under Art. 106 1.

Whether or not the lower court decided correctly.
- SC held in the negative.
- First, although the court recognized the right of individuals to
donate, the same is subject to certain limitations, one of which
is that he cannot give by donation more than he can give by
will
- If he does, so much of what is donated as exceeds what he can
give by will is deemed inofficious and the donation is reducible
to the extent of such excess, though without prejudice to its
taking effect in the donor's lifetime or the donee's
appropriating the fruits of the thing donated
- Second, such a donation is, moreover, collationable. The value
of the thing donated is imputable into the hereditary estate of
the donor at the time of his death for the purpose of
determining the legitime of the forced or compulsory heirs
and the freely disposable portion of the estate. (This is true
likewise with respect to donations made to strangers as in gifts
made to compulsory heirs, although the language of Article
1061 of the Civil Code would seem to limit collation to the latter
class of donations.)
- The said properties being collationable, the SC ordered the
case remanded for further determination as to whether the
donation is inofficious insofar as it is in excess of the
disposable free portion of the deceaseds estate and should
thereby be reduced to the amount of such excess.
- A person's prerogative to make donations is subject to certain
limitations, one of which is that he cannot give by donation
more than he can give by will.
- If he does, so much of what is donated as exceeds what he can
give by will is deemed inofficious and the donation is reducible
to the extent of such excess, though without prejudice to its
taking effect in the donor's lifetime or the donee's
appropriating the fruits of the thing donated.

art. 909 to 910: Donations Inter Vivos to Compulsory Heirs
Donations inter vivos to a compulsory heir shall be
imputed to his legitime, i.e. considered as an advance on
his legitime.

Coverage of Rule
o Applies to ALL compulsory heirs
o Note that these 2 articles omit [inadvertently]
ascendants who succeed as compulsory heirs. This
rule applies to them as well.
o For obvious reasons, this rule has no application to a
surviving spouse.

Exception
o This rule of imputation to the legitime will not apply
if the donor provided otherwise [in relation to
Article 1062], in which case the donation will be
imputed to the disposable portion of the estate.

Donations Inter Vivos to Strangers
A stranger is anyone who does not succeed as a
compulsory heir.
Donations inter vivos to strangers are necessarily
imputed to the DISPOSABLE PORTION.

Art. 911: This provision implements the principle laid down in
Articles 872, 886 and 904 - the inviolability of the legitime.
Thus, if the legitimes are impaired, the gratuitous dispositions
of the testator [either inter vivos or mortis causa] have to be set
aside or reduced as may be required to cover the legitimes.

Method of Reduction
There is an order of priorities to be observed in the
reduction of the testators gratuitous dispositions, thus
A. First, reduce pro rata the non-preferred legacies and
devises [Art911 (2)], and the testamentary
dispositions [Art907]. Among these legacies, devises
and testamentary dispositions, there is no
preference.
B. Second, reduce pro rata the preferred legacies and
devises [Art911, last par.]
C. Third, reduce the donations inter vivos according to
the inverse order of their dates [i.e. the oldest is the
most preferred] [Art773].

These reductions shall be to the extent required to
complete the legitimes, even if in the process the
disposition is reduced to nothing.

An apparent conflict exists between this article and
Art950, regarding the order of preference among
legacies and devises, should reductions be necessary.
[See discussions under Art950]

DEVISES/LEGACIES OF USUFRUCT/ LIFE ANNUITIES/
PENSIONS UNDER PAR. 3
The following principles shall be borne in mind:
A. If, upon being capitalized according to actuarial
standards, the value of the grant exceeds the free
portion [i.e. it impairs the legitime], it has to be
reduced, because the legitime cannot be impaired.
B. The testator can impose no usufruct or any other
encumbrance on the part that passes as legitime.
C. Subject to the 2 rules stated, the compulsory heirs
may elect between:
i. Ceding to the devisee/legatee the free
portion[or the proportional part thereof
corresponding to the said legacy/devise, in
case there are other dispositions], or
ii. Complying with the terms of the usufruct or
life annuity or pension.

Art. 912 This rule covers cases where:
1) The devise has to be reduced, and
2) The thing given as a devise is indivisible
RULES
1. If the extent of reduction is LESS THAN of the
value of the thing it should be given to the devisee.
2. If the extent of reduction is OR MORE of the
value of the thing it should be given to the
compulsory heir.
In either case, there should be pecuniary reimbursement to the
party who did not get his

Art. 913: This article applies if neither party [the compulsory
heir/s and the devisee] elects to exercise his right under Art912.

How the Thing Devised Should be Disposed Of:
A. Any other heir or devisee, who elects to do so, may
acquire the thing and pay the parties [the compulsory
heir and the devisee in question] their respective
shares in money.
B. If no heir or devisee elects to acquire it, it shall be sold
at public auction and the net proceeds accordingly
divided between the parties concerned.
Note this rule of constructive partition is similar to that in co-
ownership [Art498] and in partition of the decedents estate
[Art1086], except that, in these two latter cases, the acquisition
by one of the co-owners or co-heirs can be done only if all the
co-owners or co-heirs agree to such acquisition.









Legitimate Children
Alone
of estate divided
equally [Art888]
One Legitimate
Child and Surviving
Spouse
of the estate to the
legitimate child
of the estate to the
surviving spouse
[taken from the free
disposable portion of
the estate]
[Art892 par1]
Legitimate Children
and Surviving
Spouse
of estate to
legitimate children
Share equal to that of
1 child for the
surviving spouse
[taken from the free
disposable portion of
the estate]
[Art892par2]
Legitimate Children
and Illegitimate
Children
of estate to the
legitimate children
of the share of 1
legitimate child to the
illegitimate children
[Art176 FC]

One legitimate child,
illegitimate children
and surviving
spouse
of estate to
legitimate children
Each illegitimate child
will get of the share
of a legitimate child
of estate to the
surviving spouse,
whose share is
preferred over those
of the illegitimate
children, which shall
be reduced if
necessary [Art895]
Legitimate children,
illegitimate children
and surviving
spouse
of estate to
legitimate children
Each illegitimate child
will get of the share
of one legitimate child
A share equal to that
of 1 legitimate child
for the surviving
spouse, whose share is
preferred over those
of the illegitimate
children which shall
be reduced if
necessary. [Art895]
Legitimate parents
alone
of estate [Art889]
Legitimate parents
and illegitimate
children
of estate to
legitimate parents
of estate to
illegitimate children
Legitimate parents
and surviving
spouse
of estate to
legitimate parents
of estate to
surviving spouse
Legitimate parents
illegitimate children
and surviving
spouse
of estate to the
legitimate parents
of estate to the
illegitimate children
1/8 of estate to the
surviving spouse
Surviving spouse
alone
of the estate or 1/3
if the marriage, being
in articulo mortis, falls
under Art900 par 2
[Art900par1]
Surviving spouse
and illegitimate
children
1/3 of estate to
surviving spouse
1/3 of estate to
illegitimate children
Surviving spouse
and illegitimate
parents
of estate to
surviving spouse
of estate to
illegitimate parents
[Art903]
Illegitimate children
alone
of estate [Art901]
Illegitimate parents
alone
of estate [Art903]