Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
71Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Wills and Succession Case Digests

Wills and Succession Case Digests

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,565 |Likes:
Published by dale_pot

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: dale_pot on Nov 21, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Wills and Succession
Case Digest 
 1
In Re Summary Settlement of the Estate of Melodia FerrarisFilomena ABELLANA DE BACAYO,
 petitioner-appellant,
vs.
G
audencia FERRARIS, et al.,
oppositors-appellants.
 G.R. No. L-19382, August 31, 1965
FACTS:
Mel
odia F
err 
a
is
lef 
t p
op
er 
ti
e
s in C
eb
u City consisting o
1/3 sha
re
in th
e
 
e
stat
e
o
h
er 
auntRosa F
err 
a
is. T
e
n y
e
a
s hav
e
 
el
aps
e
d sinc
e
th
e
 
l
ast tim
e
sh
e
was known to
be
a
l
iv
e
, sh
e
wasd
e
c
l
a
re
d p
re
sumptiv
el
y d
e
ad
o
pu
pos
e
s o
op
e
ning h
er 
succ
e
ssion and dist
i
b
ut
e
h
er 
 
e
stat
e
 among h
e
i
s. H
e
nc
e
, a p
e
tition
o
th
e
summa
y s
e
tt
le
m
e
nt o
h
er 
 
e
stat
e
was
i
le
d.
Mel
odia
lef 
t nosu
viving d
e
sc
e
ndant, asc
e
ndant o
spous
e
,
b
ut was su
viv
e
d on
l
y
b
y co
ll
at
er 
a
l
 
rel
ativ
e
s: 1) anaunt and ha
lf 
-sist
er 
o
d
e
c
e
d
e
nt¶s
ath
er;
and 2) h
er 
ni
e
c
e
s and n
e
ph
e
ws who w
ere
chi
l
d
re
n o
 
Mel
odia¶s on
l
y
br 
oth
er 
o
 
u
ll
 
bl
ood who p
re
d
e
c
e
as
e
d h
er 
. In th
e
s
e
tt
le
m
e
nt p
oc
ee
ding, Fi
l
om
e
na A
bell
ana d
e
Bacayo, who is th
e
d
e
c
e
d
e
nt¶s ha
lf 
-sist
er 
, was
ex
c
l
ud
e
d as an h
e
i
pu
suant to a
re
so
l
ution issu
e
d
b
y th
e
 
l
ow
er 
cou
t. A motion
o
 
re
consid
er 
ation was d
e
ni
e
d h
e
nc
e
this action.
ISSUE:
Who shou
l
d inh
er 
it th
e
int
e
stat
e
 
e
stat
e
o
a d
e
c
e
as
e
d p
er 
son wh
e
n h
e
o
sh
e
is su
viv
e
d on
l
y
b
y co
ll
at
er 
a
l
 
rel
ativ
e
s, to wit an aunt and th
e
chi
l
d
re
n o
a
br 
oth
er 
who p
re
d
e
c
e
as
e
d him? O
wi
ll
 th
e
aunt concu
with th
e
chi
l
d
re
n o
th
e
d
e
c
e
d
e
nt¶s
br 
oth
er 
o
wi
ll
th
e
 
o
m
er 
 
be
 
ex
c
l
ud
e
d
b
y th
e
 
l
att
er 
.
RULIN
G
:
 As an aunt o
th
e
d
e
c
e
as
e
d sh
e
is as
a
distant as th
e
n
e
ph
e
ws
fr 
om th
e
d
e
c
e
d
e
nt (th
ree
 d
e
g
ree
s) sinc
e
in th
e
co
ll
at
er 
a
l
 
l
in
e
to which
b
oth kinds o
 
rel
ativ
e
s
bel
ong, d
e
g
ree
s a
re
count
e
d
b
y
i
st asc
e
nding to th
e
common anc
e
sto
and d
e
sc
e
nding to th
e
h
e
i
(A
t. 966, Civi
l
Cod
e
). App
ell
ant is
l
ik
e
wis
e
 
ight in h
er 
cont
e
ntion that n
e
ph
e
ws and ni
e
c
e
s a
l
on
e
do not inh
er 
it
b
y
ighto
 
re
p
re
s
e
ntation un
le
ss concu
rr 
ing with
br 
oth
er 
s o
sist
er 
s o
th
e
d
e
c
e
as
e
d, as p
ovid
e
d
ex
p
re
ss
l
y
b
y A
t. 975.N
e
v
er 
th
ele
ss, th
e
t
ia
l
cou
t was co
rre
ct wh
e
n it h
el
d that, in cas
e
o
int
e
stacy, n
e
ph
e
ws andni
e
c
e
s
ex
c
l
ud
e
a
ll
oth
er 
co
ll
at
er 
a
l
s (aunts and unc
le
s,
i
st cousins,
e
tc.)
fr 
om th
e
succ
e
ssion.This is
re
adi
l
y appa
re
nt
fr 
om a
tic
le
s 1001, 1004, 1005, and 1009 o
th
e
Civi
l
Cod
e
.
 
Wills and Succession
Case Digest 
 2
Constantino C. ACAIN,
 petitioner 
vs.
H
on. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
G.R. No. 72706, Octo
ber 
27, 1987
FACTS:
Constantino Acain
i
le
d on th
e
R
e
giona
l
T
ia
l
Cou
t a p
e
tition
o
th
e
p
o
b
at
e
o
th
e
wi
ll
o
his
l
at
e
Unc
le
, N
e
m
e
sio Acain, on th
e
p
re
mis
e
that th
e
 
l
att
er 
di
e
d
le
aving a wi
ll
in which th
e
 
o
m
er 
 and his
br 
oth
er 
s and sist
er 
s w
ere
institut
e
d as h
e
i
s. A
t
er 
th
e
p
e
tition was s
e
t
o
h
e
a
ing in th
e
 
l
ow
er 
cou
t, Vi
ginia F
er 
nand
ez
and Rosa Diongson, a
le
ga
ll
y adopt
e
d daught
er 
and th
e
widow o
 th
e
d
e
c
e
as
e
d
re
sp
e
ctiv
el
y,
i
le
d a motion to dismiss on th
e
g
ounds that: (1) Constantino Acainhas no
le
ga
l
capacity to institut
e
th
e
p
oc
ee
dings
;
(2) h
e
is m
erel
y a univ
er 
sa
l
h
e
i
r;
and (3) th
e
 widow and th
e
adopt
e
d daught
er 
hav
e
 
bee
n p
re
ti
it
e
d. Said motion was d
e
ni
e
d as w
ell
as th
e
 su
b
s
eq
u
e
nt motion
o
 
re
consid
er 
ation. Cons
eq
u
e
nt
l
y, F
er 
nand
ez
and Diongson
i
le
d with th
e
 Sup
re
m
e
Cou
t a p
e
tition
o
c
er 
tio
a
i and p
ohi
b
ition with p
rel
imina
y injunction which wassu
b
s
eq
u
e
nt
l
y
referre
d to th
e
Int
er 
m
e
diat
e
App
ell
at
e
Cou
t. IAC g
ant
e
d F
er 
nand
ez
andDiongson¶s p
e
tition and o
d
ere
d th
e
t
ia
l
cou
t to dismiss th
e
p
e
tition
o
p
o
b
at
e
o
th
e
wi
ll
. Du
e
toth
e
d
e
nia
l
o
Acain¶s motion
o
 
re
consid
er 
ation, h
e
th
e
n
i
le
d a p
e
tition
o
 
re
vi
e
w on c
er 
tio
a
i
bef 
o
re
th
e
Sup
re
m
e
Cou
t.
ISSUE:
Wh
e
th
er 
o
not Vi
ginia F
er 
nand
ez
and Rosa Diongson hav
e
 
bee
n p
re
ti
it
e
d.
RULIN
G
:
 A
rticle 854 of the Civil Code:The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in thedirect line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after thedeath of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devisees and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation.
P
re
t
er 
ition consists in th
e
omission in th
e
t
e
stato
¶s wi
ll
o
th
e
 
o
c
e
d h
e
i
s o
anyon
e
o
th
e
m
e
ith
er 
 
be
caus
e
th
e
y a
re
not m
e
ntion
e
d th
ere
in, o
though m
e
ntion
e
d, th
e
y a
re
n
e
ith
er 
institut
e
das h
e
i
s no
a
re
 
ex
p
re
ss
l
y disinh
er 
it
e
d. Inso
a
as th
e
widow is conc
er 
n
e
d, A
tic
le
854 may notapp
l
y as sh
e
do
e
s not asc
e
nd o
d
e
sc
e
nd
fr 
om th
e
t
e
stato
, a
l
though sh
e
is a compu
l
so
y h
e
i
.How
e
v
er 
, th
e
sam
e
thing cannot
be
said o
th
e
 
le
ga
ll
y adopt
e
d daught
er 
. Und
er 
A
tic
le
39 o
 
P
.D.No. 603, known as th
e
Chi
l
d and Youth W
elf 
a
re
Cod
e
, adoption giv
e
s to th
e
adopt
e
d p
er 
son th
e
 sam
e
 
ights and duti
e
s as i
h
e
w
ere
a
le
gitimat
e
chi
l
d o
th
e
adopt
er 
and mak
e
s th
e
adopt
e
dp
er 
son a
le
ga
l
h
e
i
o
th
e
adopt
er 
. It cannot
be
d
e
ni
e
d that sh
e
was tota
ll
y omitt
e
d and p
re
t
er 
it
e
din th
e
wi
ll
and that
b
oth th
e
adopt
e
d chi
l
d and th
e
widow w
ere
d
e
p
iv
e
d o
at
le
ast th
e
i
 
le
gitim
e
.N
e
ith
er 
can it
be
d
e
ni
e
d that th
e
y w
ere
not
ex
p
re
ss
l
y disinh
er 
it
e
d. H
e
nc
e
, this is a c
le
a
cas
e
o
 p
re
t
er 
ition o
th
e
 
le
ga
ll
y adopt
e
d chi
l
d.Th
e
univ
er 
sa
l
institution o
Acain tog
e
th
er 
with his
br 
oth
er 
s and sist
er 
s to th
e
 
e
nti
re
 inh
er 
itanc
e
o
th
e
t
e
stato
 
re
su
l
ts in tota
ll
y a
br 
ogating th
e
wi
ll
 
be
caus
e
th
e
nu
ll
i
ication o
suchinstitution o
univ
er 
sa
l
h
e
i
s without any oth
er 
t
e
stam
e
nta
y disposition in th
e
wi
ll
amounts to ad
e
c
l
a
ation that nothing at a
ll
was w
itt
e
n.
 
Wills and Succession
Case Digest 
 3
Danilo ALUAD, et al.,
 petitioners
vs.
Z
enaido ALUAD,
respondent 
G.R. No. 176943, Octo
ber 
17, 2008
FACTS:
P
e
tition
er 
¶s moth
er 
,
M
a
ia A
l
uad and
re
spond
e
nt Z
e
naido A
l
uad w
ere
 
ais
e
d
b
y th
e
chi
l
d
le
ssspous
e
s
M
ati
l
d
e
and C
ispin A
l
uad. C
ispin was th
e
own
er 
o
si
x
 
l
ots o
 
P
i
l
a
Cadast
re
, Capi
z
. A
t
er 
his d
e
ath,
M
ati
l
d
e
adjudicat
e
d th
e
 
l
ots to h
er 
s
elf 
and th
ere
a
t
er 
, sh
e
 
exe
cut
e
d a D
ee
d o
 Donation o
R
e
a
l
 
P
op
er 
ty
Inter Vivos
in
avo
o
 
M
a
ia cov
er 
ing a
ll
th
e
si
x
 
l
ots. Th
e
D
ee
dp
ovid
e
d that such
will become effective upon the death of the Donor, but in the event that theDonee should die before the Donor, the present donation shall be deemed rescinded. Provided, however, that anytime during the lifetime of the Donor or anyone of them who should survive, they could use, encumber or even disposeof any or even all of the parcels of the land.
M
ati
l
d
e
so
l
d on
e
o
th
e
 
l
ots to Z
e
naido and su
b
s
eq
u
e
nt
l
y,
M
ati
l
d
e
 
exe
cut
e
d a
l
ast wi
ll
andt
e
stam
e
nt d
e
vising
ou
(4) o
th
e
 
l
ots to
M
a
ia and th
e
 
re
maining
l
ot to Z
e
naido.
M
a
ia di
e
d a
fe
wmonths a
t
er 
 
M
ati
l
d
e
¶s d
e
ath. Th
ere
a
t
er 
,
M
a
ia¶s h
e
i
s (h
ere
in p
e
tition
er 
s)
i
le
d
bef 
o
re
th
e
RTC acomp
l
aint
o
d
e
c
l
a
ation and
re
cov
er 
y o
own
er 
ship and poss
e
ssion o
th
e
two
l
ots conv
e
y
e
d anddonat
e
d to Z
e
naido, a
lle
ging that no
ights hav
e
 
bee
n t
ansmitt
e
d to th
e
 
l
att
er 
 
be
caus
e
such
l
otshav
e
 
bee
n p
re
vious
l
y a
l
i
e
nat
e
d to th
e
m to
M
a
ia via th
e
D
ee
d o
Donation. Th
e
 
l
ow
er 
cou
td
e
cid
e
d in
avo
o
th
e
p
e
tition
er 
s how
e
v
er 
, CA
re
v
er 
s
e
d said d
e
cision upon app
e
a
l
o
Z
e
naidowhich h
el
d that th
e
D
ee
d o
Donation was actua
ll
y a donation
mortis causa,
not
inter vivos
and assuch it had to,
b
ut did not, comp
l
y with th
e
 
o
ma
l
iti
e
s o
a wi
ll
. Du
e
to th
e
d
e
nia
l
o
th
e
p
e
tition
er 
¶s
M
otion
o
R
e
consid
er 
ation, th
e
p
re
s
e
nt
P
e
tition
o
R
e
vi
e
w has
bee
n
i
le
d.
ISSUES:
1. Wh
e
th
er 
o
not th
e
D
ee
d o
Donation is donation int
er 
vivos and wh
e
th
er 
o
not suchd
ee
d is va
l
id.2. I
so, wh
e
th
er 
o
not
M
ati
l
d
e
A
l
uad has th
e
 
ight to conv
e
y th
e
 
l
ots in
q
u
e
stion toZ
e
naido A
l
uad.
RULIN
G
:
Th
e
Cou
t
inds th
e
donation to
M
a
ia A
l
uad (p
e
tition
er 
¶s moth
er 
) on
e
o
 
mortis causa
, ithaving th
e
 
o
ll
owing cha
act
er 
istics:1. It conv
e
ys no tit
le
o
own
er 
ship to th
e
t
ans
feree
 
b
efore
th
e
d
e
ath o
th
e
t
ans
fer 
o
,o
what amounts to th
e
sam
e
thing, that th
e
t
ans
fer 
o
shou
l
d
re
tain th
e
own
er 
ship(
u
ll
o
nak
e
d) and cont
o
l
o
th
e
p
op
er 
ty whi
le
a
l
iv
e;
 2. That
bef 
o
re
th
e
d
e
ath o
th
e
t
ans
fer 
o
, th
e
t
ans
fer 
shou
l
d
be
 
re
voca
ble
,
b
y th
e
 t
ans
fer 
o
at wi
ll
,
ad nutum,
 
b
ut
re
voca
b
i
l
ity may
be
p
ovid
e
d
o
indi
re
ct
l
y
b
y m
e
anso
a
re
s
er 
v
e
d pow
er 
in th
e
dono
to dispos
e
o
th
e
p
op
er 
ti
e
s conv
e
y
e
d
;
and3. That th
e
t
ans
fer 
shou
l
d
be
void o
th
e
t
ans
fer 
o
shou
l
d su
viv
e
th
e
t
ans
feree
.Th
e
ph
as
e
in th
e
 
e
a
rl
i
er 
-
q
out
e
d D
ee
d o
Donation
³to become effective upon the death of theDONOR´ 
admits o
no oth
er 
int
er 
p
re
tation than to m
e
an that
M
ati
l
d
e
did not int
e
nd to t
ans
fer 
th
e
 own
er 
ship o
th
e
si
x
 
l
ots to p
e
tition
er 
¶s moth
er 
du
ing th
e
 
o
m
er 
¶s
l
i
fe
tim
e
. Fu
th
er 
th
e
stat
e
m
e
nt,
³anytime during the lifetime of the DONOR or anyone of them who should survive, they could use,encumber or even dispose of any or even all the parcels of land herein donated,´ 
m
e
ans that
M
ati
l
d
e
 
re
tain
e
d own
er 
ship o
th
e
 
l
ots and
re
s
er 
v
e
d in h
er 
th
e
 
ight to dispos
e
th
e
m. Fo
th
e
 
ight

Activity (71)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Kat Pichay liked this
Kat Pichay liked this
jeesup9 liked this
chacile liked this
Bing Mendoza liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->