This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
TABLE OF CONTENTS General Provisions; Rules of Court [Section 3, Rule 1; Sections 2, 16, Rule 3]; Section 119, CA 141; Arts. 1306, 1315 Rule 1, Section 3 - Cases governed. Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings… (a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. X X X..(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. Rule 3, Section 2 - Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Sec 119 of CA 141 - Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper , shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of 5 years from date of the conveyance Art. 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. Limos v. Odones GR # 186979, August A request for admission is not intended to 11 2010 merely reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the requesting pArty’s 1 pleading but should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the request, whose purpose is to establish said pArty’s cause of action or defense. Reyes v. Enriquez GR # 162956, April Declaration of heirship should first be filed 10 1998 as a special proceeding before complaint 2 for reconveyance and partition is filed in ordinary court Ventura vs. Militante GR# 63145, Oct. 5 A dead person nor his estate cannot be a 1999 party plaintiff in a court action. Complaint is brought against the surviving spouse for the recovery of an indebtedness 3 chargeable against said conjugal property, any judgment obtained thereby is void. The proper action should be in the form of a claim to be filed in the testate or intestate proceedings. Edgardo Cruz vs. GR# 173292, Sept. 1 Heirs have acquired interest in the Oswaldo Cruz 2010 properties in litigation and became pArties 4 in interest in the case. Complaint filed by deceased can survive and substituted by heirs. Sumaljag v. Literato GR# 149787, June "legal representatives" refer to those 18 2008 authorized by law - the administrator, executor or guardian who, under the rule 5 on settlement of estate of deceased persons, is constituted to take over the estate of the deceased. DBP v. Gagarani GR# 172248, Sept. 17 Daughter and son-in-law of the patentees 2008 have the right to repurchase the property 6 because this would be "more in keeping with the spirit of the law. Balus v. Balus GR# 168970, Jan. 15 Deceased who lost ownership of the subject 2010 property during his lifetime, cannot pass 7 into the hands of compulsory heirs a parcel of land which is no longer formed part of his estate. 8 Arellano vs. Pascual GR# 189776, Dec. Rule on collation is applicable only when 15 2010 there is compulsory heir. Siblings are not compulsory heirs. Decedent not having left any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime, he was at liberty to donate all his properties, even if nothing was left for his
IAC GR# 68053. the bank account is part of the conjugal funds. 28 Family Home is shielded from immediate 15 2008 partition. 29 Survivorship agreement is valid. In this 18 case. Aluad GR# 176943. CA GR# 125888. 2026-CFI. 13 A donation which purports to be one inter vivos but withholds from the donee the right 19 to dispose of the donated property during the donor's lifetime is in truth one mortis causa. Neither is the agreement a donation inter vivos because it takes effect after death. 2007 Notary public who was acting outside the place of his commission. Court of GR# 82027. participation in the Enterprises 2009 settlement of estate and registration in the 17 books of the corporation is needed before an heir acquire shares of decedent Testamentary Succession. predecessor-in-interest because they have 2000 inherited the property subject to the liability affecting their common ancestor Dec 10 DKC Holdings vs. 12. . Tambago A. this did not satisfy Art 806.C. 11 Recognition as heir. April. Without the pArtition and distribution. Arriola v. Bihis GR#174144. Arriola GR# 177703. Echavez vs. 11 Without the settlement of Anastacia's Makati. May 7 Hereditary estates are always liable in 13 1990 their totality for the payments of the debts of the estate. June 18 Deceased’s claim was transmitted to heris 14 upon his death. April. Sept. 2010 embodied in two separate provisions of the 22 CC (Arts 805 and 806. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of v. reading and 21 translation into Filipino language is not enough. 5. 1995 7 Ownership and real rights are acquired only pursuant to a legal mode or process. CA Corp. 17. Donation although worded as inter vivos is 2008 considered as mortis causa when the donor 20 do not intend to transfer ownership during his lifetime. CA 9 GR# 118114. Mar. Puno GR# 177066. No. March 2 Declaration of heirship can be made only in 1999 a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. 12. Wills In General. Dozen GR# 192916. RTC GR# 165744. April. Lawyer will be guilty of professional 24 2008 misconduct for notarizing a spurious will. Aug. Honrado AM No. being the only check against perjury in the probate proceedings Lee v. Alvarez v. Oscar Reyes v. Aluad v. 1981 known to the testator. Acap vs. 11 Attestation and acknowledgment are cons. and whether all 2006 persons required to sign did so in the presence of each other must substantially 23 appear in the attestation clause. Jan. Oct. Oct. Article 1378 Vitug vs. Barcena GR # L-41715. Bonilla vs. Supplement Yaptinchay Rosario 12 Del GR# 124320.siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. Dec. Estate Taxation. Article 2010. there can be no registration of the transfer Puno v. Article 809 Suroza vs. Azuela v. Rodrigo reyes 2008 estate. Feb. there can be no definite pArtition 16 and distribution of the estate to the heirs. 17. CA GR#122880. a person disposes of his property. A stranger or non co-heir cannot conclusively claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver document Heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by their GR# 118248. 5281. respectively) indicates that the law contemplates two distinct acts that serve different purposes. Notarial/Formal/Ordinary Will. Aug. 25 Guerrero v. Will should be executed in a language 19. The Appeals conveyance is not a will because in a will. the total number of pages. Sicad vs.
his jurisdiction. Calugay 35 Rodelas vs. 28. . mere disinheritance instrument. the disinheritance of Alfredo. Villasor vs. June. The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. Sept. 1984 34 GR# 106720. month. “date’ in a holographic will should include the day. conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law although it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter's property. 27. Dec. 1970 GR # 74695. CA Codoy vs. substitution of original heir not authenticated by full signature will void the contract and original will cannot be probated. nonetheless. 1982 GR # 140371-72. is an act of disposition in itself. 7. Celada v. L-58509. 1993 Testator may be admitted to be physically weak but it does not necessarily follow that she was not of sound mind. 14. to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court. v. given efficacy to the seeming change of mind of testator. Jan. 15. undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the will is established. June 30. Absence of proof that it was read to the deceased twice. 1955 No. bad faith. Reyes 37 GR# 83843-44. 28. However. probate should be allowed based on principle of substantial compliance. 2008 - 26 27 Javellana Ledesma Cruz vs. Reading contents of will aloud with the witnesses following the reading is substantial compliance. 2006 Probate Vda. April 30. does not affect the validity of the codicil. June 2. 26. 1999 No. The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. Generally. 5. April. Gaviola 30 No. L-32213. the object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud. De Jesus No. Sept. Abena GR# 145545. WN the notary signed the certification of acknowledgment in the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses. 1985 31 Labrador vs. 1994 GR # 169144.Error in the number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will. L-40207. 26. De Perez 38 Tolete 39 Palaganas Palaganas vs. 2011 . No. the will was NOT duly executed. 30. Aranza 36 Seangio v. and year of its execution. CA 32 Kalaw vs. when taken into account. Vasquez 29 Alvarado vs. GR# 76714. Relova (SC is wrong) 33 Ajero vs. L-26615. Sept. 1990 No. Aug. In holographic will. Nov. when there is no appearance of fraud. Nov. Jan. 1994 GR# 123486. 12. may only defeat the testator’s will. notary public before whom the will was acknowledged cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. 1973 28 Garcia vs. L-7179. reprobate of a will shall "cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will presented for allowance A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction even if not yet probated in Holographic Will Roxas vs. L-38338. formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which. lack of authentication on the alterations will only result in disallowance of such changes.
31. or be paged. Renvoi Doctrine 48 1966 Acain vs. predicated on the testator' intention not to die intestate Diaz vs. Molo vs. No. CA GR# 103554. CA. IAC GR # L 72706. 8. A wife is not a compulsory heir in the direct line so she cannot be preterited. Invalidity of 2nd will which revoked 1st will 1951 can still give effect to 1st will under the 44 principle of “dependent relative revocation”. 1988 to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning. GR # L 22797. Oct. Molo. Feb. 50 1966 preteriting parents is void. Caneda vs. 29. 42 obliterating. Attestation clause that does not state that 1993 witnesses attest and subscribe in the 41 presence of the testator and of one another will inviolate the will. 5. Feb. Baretto GR # L17818. and the disposition of her property can now be effected. Institution to an heir believed to be a Datu 1967 daughter who happened to be not is still 47 valid. cannot adversely affect the substantive rights of heirs to dispose of their own pro indiviso shares in the co-heirship or coownership. 25. No. Unlawful provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect. June 23. 27. See above 51 27. Nuguid GR # L 23445. a sufficient revocation. The intention CA. Nov. L 76464. 12. that the same was cancelled or destroyed. 1966 fulfilled. GR # L 24365. No. 2006 Santos vs. 1919 . however. Duncan. Republication and Revival of Wills. 21. Nov. Lina 40 GR # 141634. May. Institution of Heirs Reyes vs. No. Sept.the place where it is executed. the intentions of the testatrix had been Buenaventura 22. Jan. Reyes GR # 14037172. or cancelling the will be carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction. Mamuyac. it does not necessarily follow that an 1999 extrinsically valid last will and testament is 46 always intrinsically valid. L 17714. her will had been admitted and 52 allowed probate within a reasonably short period. De Leon. 28. in the absence of other competent evidence. GR# 108581. Dec. destruction of a will animo revocandi 45 1922 constitutes. Institution of the sister as universal heir. June 30. Sept. Disallowance of Wills Dorotheo vs. Disinhertance Aznar vs. it is not necessary that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator and the witnesses. Jan. L 2538. Nuguid vs. L 26317. GR # 13431. Gago vs. 2001 Reference to judicial approval. Preterition. Codicils and Incorporation by Reference. adopted child was preterited but not the 48 1987 wife. tearing. Testator is at liberty to assign the free portion of his estate to whomsoever he chose. Revocation [Wills & Testamentary Dispositions] Adriana Maloto vs. Where a will which cannot be found is 1927 shown to have been in the possession of the testator. Theres animus but no corpus. in itself. vs. 29. Heirs of Sandejas vs. Supplement Abangan Abangan will consisting of two sheets the first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom by the testator and three witnesses and the second contains only the attestation clause 41 and is signed also at the bottom by the three witnesses. Seangio v. the presumption 43 is. May. when last seen.
11. May 19. Escolin 54 Rabadilla vs. 1998 GR# 140371-72. CA. the owner of the reservable property. Reservista's right of ownership is registrable. GR# 138774.27952. 27. Jan. CA (bad case) – did not see 62 that it was a case of reserve troncal) Disinheritance Seangio v. to the brothers and sisters of the wife as seen in his authority to sell the property Without the obligation clearly imposing upon the first heir the preservation of the property and its transmission to the second heir." PCIB vs. mere estrangement not being a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse. Estranged wife remained to be a legal heir. June 29. Court of Appeals 55 GR# 113725. the legal title and dominion. March 8. fideicommissary substitution should not go 15. 2000 See above Among collateral relatives. 29. 24. 2006 57 Reserva Edroso vs. Reyes 63 GR #L-10701. 1961 March GR #L-34395. Dec. the reservatario nearest to the prepositus becomes. Upon the death of the reservista. 1981 Cano vs. 2006 Legal or Intestate Succession [Arts. Feb. these rights do not include the right of representation Order of Intestate Succession Descending Direct Line 66 Sayson vs. Sablan 58 Sienes vs. is applicable The right of representation does not apply to "others collateral relatives within the fifth civil degree”. While it is true that the adopted child shall 1992 be deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same right as the 65 latter. 2000 GR# L-27860. even though under a condition. Esparcia 59 Gonzales vs.Substitution of Heirs. 2001 GR# 169193. error to require a son-in-law of the decedent to be included in the collation as he is not a compulsory heir Legitime Francisco 56 Francisco-Alfonso Capitle v. She could not select the reservees to whom the reservable property should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share therein. 1959 GR# 118449. Jan. Jan. reservable properties should be inherited by all the nearest relatives within the third degree from the prepositus. 1992 beyond one degree from the heir originaly 53 instituted. there was no obligation upon the husband to preserve and transmit the prop. 1913 GR #L-12957. there is no fideicommissary substitution compulsory heir can not be deprived of her share in the estate save by disinheritance as prescribed by law. 30. GR# 8922425. Elbambuena and Olar vs. automatically and by operation of law. CA. Nov. Vulgar & Fideicommissary Substitution. 23. Nov. 1974 no fideicommissary substitution bec. Ramirez GR # L. Mar. Piedad. 960-1014] General Provision Bagunu vs. reside to reservista while he lives. it was then the reservee’s buyer who would acquire absolute ownership. 23. Director 61 Vizconde v. GR# 140975. 13. Feb. Sept. Conditional & Term Disposition Palacios vs. 1992 a person's love descends first to his children and grandchildren before it ascends to his parents and thereafter spreads among his . 8. CFI 60 GR # L-6878. 16. the rule of proximity. GR# 89224-25. Right of Representation (See also Domestic Adoption Act) Sayson vs. except only in the case of nephews and nieces of the decedent concurring with their uncles or 64 aunts. Since it was the reservee who survived the reservor.
at the least. 2002 . There is also an implied trust when a 18. he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or only a part thereof. Oct. Oct. CA GR# 109972. could validly sell his share in the property The determination of whether the relationship is of the full or half-blood is important only to determine the extent of the share of the survivors. – this is subject to collation 81 Vizconde vs. GR #L-66574. collation covers only properties gratuitously given by the GR# 143483. A right of redemption arose in favor of a daughter-in-law who was survived by his husband. Ascending Direct Line Illegitimate Children Corpus vs. 23. making her a co-owner in the inheritance of his mother-in-law mother who if duly authorized by the courts. by right of representation. Sept. 22. Oct. Sept. Tarlac vs. Collation & Donation [725-773]. 30. 1998 Jan. CA 72 73 Cabales v. to repeat. Collation of the Parañaque property is 11. 1996 GR# 162421. Brothers & sisters are precluded from inheriting the estate of their brother. 1015 -1105] Right of Accretion Parish Priest of GR# L-22036. 21. Aug. 1987 Feb. CA 75 The State Republic vs. since being halfblood is immaterial to determine his right to the inheritance as a 3rd degree relative. partition inter vivos may be done for as long 79 29. 31. IAC Suntay v. CA GR# 106401. Jan. April. claim a share of the estate left by the legitimate relatives left by his father The right of representation is not available to illegitimate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent. even if the latter is an illegitimate child. 2007 GR# 116775. CA 76 GR# 117740. 1990 GR # 183053. CA GR# 118449. See also Art. GR # L-22469. Feb. CA GR# 163707. 30. 1998 Private respondent's belated assertion of her right over the escheated properties militates against recovery. 1978 June an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. 2006 Executors and Administrators. the heir. 1998 improper for. 17.collateral relatives. 2010 71 Surviving Spouse Verdad vs. a joint administration by both respondent and petitioner. Victoria. 2000 donation is made to a person but it appears that although the legal estate is transmitted 80 to the donee. 1983 GR #L-66574. 31. Order of preference is not absolute in the designation of administrator. 29. The attendant facts and circumstances of this case necessitate. when decedent have an illegitimate child. CA GR# 138842. Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Succession [Arts. 2000 as legitimes are not prejudiced & they should be collated in the determination of legitimes Nazareno vs. Collateral Relatives Heirs of Uriarte vs. Corpus 67 Leonardo vs. 78 15. June 16. IAC 68 70 Diaz vs. CA 68 Diaz vs. Selection of an administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. except in case of representation. 28. Feb. when it is proper Acceptance and Repudiation of Inheritance Guy v. April In order to be capacitated to inherit. 1448 NCC Zaragoza vs. CA 74 Gonzales vs. nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child An illegitimate cannot. Suntay GR #L-51263. 1979 devisee or legatee must be living at the 77 Rigor moment the succession opens.
1999 owned is correctly determined and identifiable. July Poverty is not a justification for delaying a 90 29. Sept. of one paying 30. ild. each heir only 16. CA GR# 106401. Andres GR # 166236. July 24. Pascual GR # 189776. Siblings are not compulsory heirs. 2009 subjected indefinitely to a trust because the 89 ownership thereof would then effectively remain with her even in the afterlife. Decedent not having left 83 any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime. he was at liberty to donate all his properties. 88 partition of property representing future inheritance cannot be made effective during the lifetime of its owner Orendain Jr. Partition and Distribution of the Estate. Rule on collation is applicable only when 15. it being disputably presumed that 82 there is a gift in favor of the child. See above 87 29. here there is no proof that the properties are really donated to the deceased son. Dec. private deed of sale does not equate to an 2007 oral partition by an act inter vivos. though not technically 84 described. nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by the court. 2000 obligations.decedent during his lifetime to his compulsory heirs Ty v. GR# 168660/ June testatrix’s large landholdings cannot be Rodriguez 30. Alfonso v. legitimate or illegitimate. March When a person dies without leaving pending 31. or that said portions are still embraced in one and the same certificate of title does not make said portions less determinable or identifiable. Silverio v. CA GR# 178933. 2009 has an inchoate right to the properties of the 85 estate. Rescission 0061nd Nullity of Partition Noceda vs. Sept. such that no heir may lay claim on a particular property. However. Zaragoza vs. 2000 Arrogante v. Sept. 2010 case . Effect of Partition. Ty GR# 165696. Until the estate is partitioned. vs. NO TRUST IS IMPLIED BY LAW. Besides. CA GR# 119730. CA GR# 115181. 2008 the price of the sale. even if nothing was left for his siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. April. his heirs. 2010 there is compulsory heir. Deliarte GR# 152132. There is no co-ownership where portion 2. Avelino vs. are not required to submit the property for judicial 86 administration. Arellano v.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?