Succession (774) (782) Balus vs Balus – The rights to a person‘s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death. In addition, the inheritance of a person consists of the property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death, as well as those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. 2. Inheritance (776) (781) *see also sec 5, Rule 86; RA 1056; RA 7170 a. b. c. Personal rights Patrimonial rights Contractual obligations

Union Bank vs Santibanez – inheritance of contractual obligation; the rule is that there can be no valid partition among the heirs until the will has been probated. Alvarez vs IAC – The general rules is that a party‘s contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors. The rule is a consequence of the progressive ‗depersonalization‘ of patrimonial rights and duties. Spouses Santos vs Lumbao – It is clear from 1311 that whatever rights and obligations the decedent have over the property were transmitted to the heirs by way of succession, a mode of acquiring the property, rights and obligations of the decedent to the extent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs. The heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by their predecessor-in-interest because they have inherited the property subject to the liability affecting their common ancestor. Being heirs, there is privity of interest between them and their deceased mother. The death of a party does not excuse non-performance of a contract which involves a property right and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. Intestate Estate of Gonzales vs People – Does the extinguishment of marriage by death of the spouse dissolve the relationship by affinity? No. Continuing affinity view vs terminated affinity view. Where statutes have indicated an intent to benefit steprelatives or in-laws, the ―tie or affinity‖ between these people and their relatives-by-marriage is not to be regarded as terminated upon the death of one of the married parties. Example: when absolutory cause in crime of theft. 3. Vesting of Succession Rights (777) Uson vs Del Rosario – The right of ownership of the lawful wife of a decedent who had died before the New Civil Code took effect became vested in her upon his death, and this is so because of the imperative provision of the law which commands that the rights of succession are transmitted from the moment of death. The new right recognized by the NCC in favour of the illegitimate children of the deceased can not be asserted to the impairment of the vested right of the lawful wife. Borja vs Borja – And as a hereditary share in a decedent‘s estate is transmitted or vested immediatelu from the moment of the death of such causante or predecessor in interest, there is no legal bar to a successor (with requisite contracting capacity) disposing of her or his hereditary share immediately after such death, even if the actual extent of such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of estate. Bonilla vs Barcena- From the moment of the death of the decedent, the heirs become the absolute owners of his property, subject to the rights and obligations of the decedent, and they cannot be deprived of their rights thereto except by the methods provided for by law. The moment of death is the determining factor when the heirs acquire a definite right to the inheritance whether such right be pure or contingent. The right of the heirs to the property of the deceased vests in them even before judicial declaration of their being heirs in the testate or intestate proceedings. Lapuz Sy vs Eufemio – A further reason why an action for legal separation is abated by the death of the plaintiff, even if property rights are involved, is that these rights are mere effects of a decree of separation, their source bing the decree itself; without the decree such rights do not come into existence, so that before the finality of a decree, these claims are merely rights in expectation. If death supervenes during the pendency of the action, no decree can be forthcoming, death producing a more radical and definitive separation; and the expected consequential rights and claims would necessarily remain unborn.

B. II.

Kinds of Succession (778-780)

PROVISIONS COMMON TO TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION A. Right of Accretion 1. Definition (1015) 2. Requisites (1016-1017) 3. Effects (1018-1023) B. Capacity to Succeed 1. Requisites (1024-1026, 1029-1030, 1034) Parish Priest of Victoria vs Rigor – In order to be incapacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper. 2. Grounds for incapacity to succeed (1027-1028, 1031-1032) 3. Pardon (1033) 4. Effects (1035-1037) 5. Restitution (1038) 6. Governing law (1039) Cayetano vs Leonidas – It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, as provided by Art 16 (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the national law of the decedent must apply. Bellis vs Bellis: Whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. 7. Prescription (1040) Acceptance and Repudiation of Inheritance 1. In general (1041-1042, 1053) 2. Requisites (1043) Borromeo-Herrera vs Borromeo – For a waiver to exist, three elements are essential: 1) the existence of a right; 2) the knowledge of the existence thereof; 3) an intention to relinquish such right. The intention to waive a right or advantage must be shown clearly and convincingly, and when the only proof of intention rests in what a party does, his acts should be so manifestly consistent with, and indicative of an intent to, voluntarily relinquish the particular right or advantage that no othe reasonable explanation of conduct is possible.


Forms a. morals. Capacity (1044-1048) Forms of acceptance (1049-1050) Manner of repudiation (1051) Effects of repudiation (1052-1057) Hebron vs Loyola – The powers given to her by the laws as the natural guardian covers only matters of administration and cannot include the power of disposition. For the inheritance to be considered ―future‖. the succession must not have been opened at the time of the contract. and neither these interested parties nor the courts may substitute their own criterion for the testator‘s will.T. prohibited under the second paragraph of 1347. She should have first secured the permission of the court before she alienated that portion of the property in question belonging to her minor children. Language (804) Suroza vs Honrado – In the opening paragraph of the will. Testamentary Capacity (796-803) Ortega vs Valmonte – The three things that the testator must have the ability to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: 1) the nature of the estate to be disposed of. 3) that the promissory has. the testator‘s intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will. 6. because laws are only repealed by other subsequent laws and no usage to the contrary may prevail against their observance. as to the application of any of its provisions. Mortis causa (777) f. with respect to the object. Individual (818) g. Revocable and ambulatory (828) e. Definition (783) Vitug vs CA – A will has been defined as a ―personal. etc. where the following requisites concur: 1) that the succession has not yet been opened. expressed in the form and within the limits prescribed by law. Dizon-Rivera vs Dizon – The testator‘s wishes and intention constitute the first and principal law in the matter of testaments. The exception is that no contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritance. Dispositive – disposes of property (783) Construction and Interpretation (788-794) Rabadilla vs CA – In the interpretation of wills.) Aluad vs Aluad – Circumstances that surround donation (title not conveyed until the death of donor. 7. it was stated that the will was read to the testatrix ―and translated into Filipino language. and the exception to the exception is the partition inter vivos referred to in 1080. 819) Joint Wills (818) Dela Cerna vs Potot – The validity of a joint will. Notarial Will (804-806) i. taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. which are not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a contract. must be. TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION A. In writing. 810) d. Wills 1. it is not imperative that parrot-like copy of the words of the statute be made. It is only when the intention of the testator is contrary to law. and when clearly and precisely in his last will amount to the only law whose mandate must imperatively be faithfully obeyed and complied with by his executors. ii. Distinguish from Waiver of future inheritance (1347) Ferrer vs Spouses Diaz – No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law. must be recognized as the supreme law in succession. heirs and devisees and legatees. in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned. 5. since a joint will is considered a separate will of each testator. 2) the proper objects of the testator‘s bounty. Unilateral (783) j. 2) that the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance. reexamined and adjudicated de novo. Law Governing Form (795. 2. But in its concluding paragraph. 815-817. even future ones. No capacity to relinquish her children‘s shares. Such construction as will sustain and uphold the will in all its parts must be adopted. solemn. Solemn and formal (804-808. 3. It is sufficient if from the language employed it can reasonably be deduced that the attestation clause fulfils what the law expects of it. Agro vs Balansag – Well-entrenched is the rules that all things. it was stated that English was a language ―understood and known‖ to the testatrix. Free and intelligent (839) c. it is void because of the mandatory provision of 804 that every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. Noble vs Abaja – Precision of language in the drafting of an attestation clause is desirable. Executed with testamentary capacity (796-803) i. or public policy that it cannot be given effect.‖ That could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate testatrix and. when an uncertainty arises on the face of the will.) lead to the fact that it is a donation mortis causa and should have complied with the formalities of a will. and 3) the character of the testamentary act. 6. . III. All rules of construction are designed to ascertain and give effect to that intention. Manner of signing (805) Matias vs Salud – This Court has repeatedly held that the legal requisite that the will should be signed by the testator is satisfied by a thumbprint is satisfied by a thumbprint or other mark affixed by him. revocable and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death. therefore. 4. Characteristics a. Seangio vs Reyes – It is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the testator. Executed with animus testandi (783) h. an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary in nature. However. 4.3.L. 5. A contract may be classified as a contract upon future inheritance.‖ (This is the case with the survivorship agreement that was upheld by the SC. It is unnecessary to emphasize that the fact that joint wills should be in common usage could not make them valid when our Civil Codes consistently invalidated them. J. on her death. Purely personal (784-785) b.

But substantial compliance is acceptable where the purpose of law has been satisfied. Labrador vs CA – The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. The handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate court. probate of the holographic will should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance. however.Garcia vs Lacuesta – Where the cross appearing on a will is not the usual signature of the testator or even one of the ways by which he signed his name. The reason for this is to make the provisions thereof known to him. Failure to comply with this requirement makes the will invalid. Nera vs Rimando – The question whether the testator and the subscribing witness to an alleged will sign the instrument in the presence of each other does not depend upon proof that their eyes were actually cast upon the paper at the moment of its subscription by each of them but whether at that moment existing conditions and the position of the parties. were such that by merely casting their eyes in the proper direction they could have seen each other sign. Azaola vs Singson – Even if the genuineness of the holographic will were contested. Any notarial act outside the limits of his jurisdiction has no force and effect. Witnesses (820-824) Gonzales vs CA. the ―date‖ in the holographic will should include the day. Since no witness may have been present at the execution of the . The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. The will itself must be presented. General Requirements (810. month. undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the will is established and the only issue is whether or not the date ―FEB/61‖ appearing on the holographic will is a valid compliance with 810. the will can not be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will.811. b. But. he is bereft of power to perform any notarial act. Dissent: Substantial compliance. it is not important that the person who writes the name of the testator should also sign his own.The competency of a person to be an instrumental witness to a will is determined by the statute (820-821). whether oral or written. Guerrero vs Bihis – A notary public‘s commission is the grant of authority in his favour to perform notarial acts. and year of its execution. the defects or imperfections must only be with respect to the form of the attestation or the language employed therein. Holographic Will i. it shall produce no effect. iv. Acknowledged before notary public (806) Javellana vs Ledesma – The NCC does not require that the signing of the testator. that cross cannot be considered a valid signature. Even if the instrumental witnesses signed the left-hand margin of the page containing the unsigned attestation clause. with relation to each other. In this regard. Icasiano vs Icasiano – The alleged slight variance in blueness of the ink in the admitted and questioned signatures does not appear reliable. Lee vs Tambago – As the acknowledging officer of the contested will. Outside the place of his commission. v. 811 cannot be interpreted as to require the compulsory presentation of three witnesses to identify the handwriting of the testator. Rodelas vs Aranza – If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available. Cruz vs Villasor – The 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. especially a lawyer. he. The subsequent signing and sealing by the notary of his certification that the testament was duly acknowledged by the participants therein is no part of the acknowledgement itself nor of the testamentary act. bad faith. are incapable of reading their wills. Cagro vs Cagro – The attestation clause is ―a memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will‖ required by law to be made by the attesting witness. and in the presence of the testator and of each other. for one reason or another. witnesses and notary should be accomplished in one single act. Such defects or imperfections would not render a will invalid should it be proved that the will was really executed and attested in compliance with 805. A notary public. Disabled testators (808-809) Garcia vs Vasquez – Where the testator is blind. whereas his credibility depends on the appreciation of his testimony and arises from the belief and conclusion of the Court that said witness is telling the truth. when there is no appearance of fraud. However. for a person is presumed to be such unless the contrary is established otherwise. and it must necessarily bear their signatures. is not a notary public. respondent was required to faithfully observe the formalities of a will and those of notarization. under penalty of having the probate denied. such signatures cannot demonstrate these witnesses‘ undertakings in the clause. in the presence of three witnesses. since the signatures that do appear on the page were directed towards a wholly different avowal. It is not mandatory that evidence be first established on record that the witnesses have a good standing in the community or that they are honest and upright or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes. with different surfaces and reflecting power. iii.804) Roxas vs De Jesus – As a general rule. vi. considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. is bound to strictly observe these elementary requirements. considering the standard and challenged writings were affixed to different kinds of paper. Azuela vs CA – No substantial compliance in this case. Barut vs Cabacungan – With respect to the validity of a will. Gan vs Yap – The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. Ortega vs Valmonte – The law does not even require that a notarial will be executed and acknowledged on the same occasion. the manner of proving due execution and attestation has been held to be limited to merely an examination of the will itself without resorting to evidence aliunde. Signatures in left-hand margin not enough. the important thing is that it should clearly appear that the name of the testator was signed at his express direction. Substantial compliance rule (809) Caneda vs CA – Mere defects in form in the attestation clause do not render the will void. the will must be read to him twice as required by 808. An unsigned attestation clause results in an unattested will. These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded. The attestation clause is separate and aparat from the disposition of the will. otherwise. a photostatic copy or Xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be made with the standard writings of the testator. Alvarado vs Gaviola – 808 applies not only to blind testators but also to this who. Under 809. The law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity.

That means that the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time when he executed the will and was not acting under duress. Intention to revoke must be accompanied by the overt physical act of burning. The court merely inquires on its due execution whether or not it complies with the formalities prescribed by law. in so far as the estate of the latter spouse is concerned. 10. when last seen. must be. resort to action for a final determination of the conflicting claims. Time (828) b. it goes without saying that the document destroyed must be the will itself. but at most only as respects the particular words erased. the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the will. But the rule on probate is not inflexible and absolute. it becomes obvious that the existence of witnesses possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. 8.‖ when used in a statute. compliance with the prescribed formalities for the execution of wills. ii. Manner (830-834) Gago vs Mamuyac – The law does not require any evidence of the revocation or cancellation of the will to be preserved. should be construed more liberally that the ones drawn by an expert. Roberts vs Leonidas – The probate of a will is mandatory. Of course. Republication and Revival (835-837) 11. even before it is probated. Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator.The test of testamentary capacity is at the time of the making of the will. Interpretation Seangio vs Reyes – Holographic wills. Nepomuceno vs CA – The probate court can pass upon the will‘s intrinsic validity even before its formal validity has been established. particularly on three aspects: whether the will submitted is indeed. Grounds for disallowance (839) Alsua-Betts vs CA. 9. All that said court could do as regards said properties is to determine whether they should or should not be included in the inventort or list of properties to be administered by the administrator. re-examined and adjudicated de novo. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon. The word ―shall‖ connotes a mandatory order. the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases. In Re: Palaganas – Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. Camaya vs Patulandong – A probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestate cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties. Codicils and Incorporation by Reference (825-827) Revocation of Wills a. It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficacy of the will‘s provisions. none being required by law. Dela Cerna vs Potot . Allowance and Disallowance of Wills a. in the absence of other competent evidence. and that degrees of mental aberration generally known as incapacity or idiocy. Formal requirements (813-814) Ajero vs CA – What assures authenticity is the requirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself. tearing. Failure to strictly observe other formalities will not result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionably handwritten by the testator. on her death. that the same was cancelled or destroyed. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. We have ruled that ―shall‖ in a statute commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the word ―shall. does not per se constitute an effective revocation. Dorotheo vs CA – Probate proceedings deal generally with the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated. unless the destruction is coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator. is mandatory. and the due executuin of the last will and testament. Ortega vs Valmonte – Between the highest degree of soundness of mind and memory which unquestionably carries with it full testamentary capacity. taking into account the circumstances surrounding the execution of the instrument and the intention of the testator. the court should meet this issue. courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated. obliterating or cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express direction. b. being usually prepared by one who is not learned in the law.holographic will. like burning in this case. Is this wrong? Cf. Therefore. Codoy vs Calugay – 811 is mandatory. The same presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his death. and the testamentary capacity of the testator. or according to the formalities observed in this country. 816 states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides. the testamentary capacity of the testator. Place (829) c. the will is not thereby invalidated as a whole. and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic will have not been noted under his signature. The intrinsic validity is not considered since the consideration thereof usually comes only after the will has been proven and allowed. Reyes vs CA – As a general rule. Kalaw vs Relova – When a number of erasures. as provided under 810. Mere weakness of mind or partial imbecility from disease of body or from age does not render a person incapable of making a will. and that the will is genuine and is not a forgery. the presumption is. iii. Under exceptional circumstances. menace. Azaola. It may be performed by another person but under the express direction and in the presence of the testator. the decedent‘s last will and testament. that the will was signed by him in the presence of the required number of witnesses. corrected or interlined. there are . It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding.A final probate decree of a joint will of husband and wife affects only the share of the deceased spouse and cannot include the disposition of said joint will. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Probate (838) Gallanosa vs Arcangel – A decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or formal validity of the will. corrections. It will not be presumed that such will has been destroyed by any other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. fraud or undue influence. If dispute arises. Casiano vs CA – The physical act of destruction of a will. It is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by the testator himself.

after anexamination of the will. Reciprocal (861) iv. Seangio vs Reyes – The document unmistakably showed decedent‘s intention of excluding his son from inheriting and cited reasons for such. In ineffective disinheritance under 918. the case is not a case of preterition but a case of completion of legitime. . Compulsory heirs (887) d. the Heirs of Alfonso need not first prove that the disposition substantially diminished their successional rights or unduly prejudiced their legitimes. 851-853) Cause (850) Austria vs Reyes – Where the decedent ‗s will does not state in a specific or unequivocal manner the cause for such institution of heirs. In General (840-841) a. such disinheritance shall also annul the institution of heirs but only ―insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited. whom he characterized in the testamentary provision as not related to him. It has been held that testamentary incapacity does not necessarily require that a person shall actually be insane or of unsound mind. therefore. the Court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will. there is no preterition even if she is omitted from the inheritance. in the Court‘s opinion. even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case. Even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir. The will. the will cannot be annulled under 850. Heirs of Ureta vs Heirs of Ureta – Preterition is a concept of testamentary succession and requires a will. Alfredo was disinherited. Palacios vs Ramirez – A fideicommisary substitution is void if first heir is not related in the 1st degree to the second heir. nor assigning to him some part of the testator‘s estate. etc. Preterition under 854 shall annul the institution of the heir. To constitute a sound and disposing mind. There would be no intestacy. Classification (858) i. Effects Nuguid vs Nuguid – The effects flowing from preterition are totally different from those of disinheritance. Manner of Institution (843-849. since there was no total omission of a forced heir. it is not necessary that the mind be unbroken or unimpaired or unshattered by disease or otherwise. or from age. In effect. Simple (859) ii. provided he has understanding and memory sufficient to enable him to know what he is about to do or how or to whom he is disposing of his property. B. Whether the testator gave a legacy to a person. Fideicommisary. unless in the will there are. 4. will not render a person incapable of making a will. omitting him in the testament. 2) the cause must be shown to be false. d. Solano vs CA – The omission of a compulsory heir in the will and resulting invalidity of the institution of an heir therein would not necessarily result in an intestacy. 5. or by not giving him anything in the hereditary property but without expressly disinheriting him. Requisites for annulment of institution of heir for statement of a false cause: 1) the cause for the institution of heirs must be stated in the will. Aznar vs Duncan – Preterition is the omission of the heir in the will. Voluntary heirs 2. Brief (860) iii. Institution of Heirs 1. in addition. (1) Ineffective Substitutions (867-868) Effect (862) c. Hence. by not instituting him as heir without disinheriting him expressly. such circumstance would not invalidate the institution of a stranger as an heir. Identification of Heirs. 3. a weak or feebleminded person may make a valid will. b. J. Elements (863-868. What is involved in the case at bench is not a disposition by will but by Deed of Sale. 869) PCIB vs Escolin – There is no fideicommisary substitution wherein there is no obligation imposed to preserve the estate or any part thereof for anyone else.T. It consists in the silence of the testator with regard to a compulsory heir. Concept Reyes vs Barretto-Datu – Where the testator allotted in his will to his legitimate daughter a share less than her legitime. Segundo‘s last expression to bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs. c. but only to the extent that the legitime of omitted compulsory heirs is impaired. 3) it must appear from the face of the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity of the cause. The institution in the will would not be annulled.. while mentioning him as father. In disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived. Agro vs Balansag – Preterition is the total omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line from inheritance. Extent of grant (842) Heirs of Ureta vs Heirs of Ureta – 842 refers to the principle of freedom of disposition by will. Substitution of Heirs a. testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies. is valid subject to that limitation. with the sole exception of Alfredo. Effect of predecease of heir (856) c.L. although she is a compulsory heir. This annulment is in toto. Distinguished from disinheritance Who are covered Acain vs CA – Insofar as the widow is concerned.numberless degrees of mental capacity or incapacity and while on one hand it has been held that mere weakness of mind. that the testator clearly would not have made the institution if he had known the cause for it to be false. nor assigning him as heir without disinheriting him expressly. Such institution may be annulled only when it is clear. b. but that later this person was judicially declared to be his acknowledged natural child. since there was no preterition or total omission of a forced heir. or partial imbecility from disease or body. 854 may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator. But there is no preterition where the testator allotted to a descendant a share less than the legitime. or. Preterition (854) a. No preterition. for she is not in the direct line. either by not naming him at all. It was.‖ which last phrase was omitted in the case of preterition. either by not mentioning him at all. son. Definition (857) b.

making his other ascendant inherit by operation of law. 885) iii. there is no diminution of the estate but merely a substitution of values. or by an act of mere liberality of the person making it. D. Testamentary Dispositions a. brother or sister of the deceased descendant. three transmissions are involved: (I) a first transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or donation) from an ascendant or brother or sister to the deceased descendant. This absolute ownership. and do not vest in his heirs until such time. (2) the purpose or application of the property left by the testator. that he may alienate the same but subject to reservation. 905) Right of completion (906-907) 3. 2.6. from pure generosity. is not altered in the least. it is similar to a resolutory condition. requires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly transferring absolute ownership. but within that group the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession (proximity of degree. The person obliged to reserve is the reservoir (reservista) – the ascendant who inherits by operation of law property from his descendants. Term (878. 872. Vizconde vs CA – 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 reservista has the legal title and dominion to the reservable property but subject to a resolutory condition. if there be no relatives within the third degree in the line whence the property proceeds or they die before the ascendant heir who is the possessor and absolute owner of the property. that is the property sold is replaced by the equivalent money consideration. In General (871. While the sale of the lots reduced the estate. and that the person receiving the property gives or does nothing in return.) It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without a legitimate descendant. also RA 8552. (2) the same property is inherited by another ascendant or is acquired by him by operation of law from the said descendant. 884. namely. cash of equivalent value replaced the lots taken from the estate. Manongsong vs Estimo – When the disposition is for valuable consideration. Theoretically. FC 189) Baritua vs CA – (Cited 887. 1061) Locsin vs CA – The rights to a person‘s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death. and belonging to the lie from which the property came. Modal (882-883) Rabadilla vs CA – In a modal institution. by operation of law (intestate succession or legitime) from the deceased descendant (causante de la reserve) in favor of another ascendant. Sharing among compulsory heirs (888-903. without requiring from the transferee any prestation. (1) the death of the ascendant obliged to reserve and (2) the survival. 4. the rights acquired by the transferee being revoked or resolved by the survival of reservatarios at the time of the death of the reservista. 4. (2) a posterior transmission. Classification i. ―the essential thing is that the person who transmits it does so gratuitously. Sienes vs Esparcia . without imposing any obligation on the part of the recipient. If there should be relatives within the third degree who belong to the line whence the property proceeded. The propositus – the descendant who received by gratuitous title and died without issue.The ascendants who inherits from a descendants. 870) b.‖ Gonzales vs CFI . . Propertytransferred or conveyed to other persons during the lifetime of the decedent no longer formed part of her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs may lay claim. which two transmissions precede the reservation. All the attributes of the right of ownership belong to him exclusively — use. Preference among reservatarios Padura vs Baldovino – The reserve troncal merely determines the group of relatives (reservatarios) to whom the property should be returned. and (3) a third transmissions of the same property (in consequence of the reservation) from the reservor to the reservees (reservatarios) or the relatives within the third degree from the deceased descendant belonging to the line of the first ascendant. xxx To some extent. which is inherent in the hereditary title. Persons involved Solivio vs CA – The persons involved in reserve troncal are: 1. XXX So. at the time of his death. Purpose 2.In reserve troncal (1) a descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous title property from an ascendant or from a brother or sister. enjoyment. 5. Nature of Edroso vs Sablan . see also 1179-1192) ii. then a limitation to that absolute ownership would arise. whether by the latter's wish or by operation of law. xxx An obligation imposed upon the heir should not be considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the will itself that such was the intention of the testator. said alienation transmitting only the revocable and conditional ownership of the reservists. the rationale being that the donation is a real alienation which conveys ownership upon its acceptance. C. Who are entitled (887. the reservor or reservista. of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which the property came. The persons for whom the property is reserved are the reserves (reservatarios) – relatives within the third degree counted from the descendant (propositus). How determined (908.The reserve creates two resolutory conditions. 3. types of conditions (873-881. the testator states (1) the object of the institution. and (3) the said ascendant should reserve the said property for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree from the deceased descendant (prepositus) and who belong to the line from which the said property came. Reserva Troncal (891) 1. or (3) the charge imposed by the testator upon the heir. disposal and recovery. Requisites Chua vs CFI – What is essential is that the transmission be made gratuitously. that he is like a life usufructuary of the reservable property. or as ably put by an eminent Filipino commentator. Legitime 1. 3. Definition (886. the sale of the lots to their siblings does not affect the value of their parents‘ estate. Conditional. rt of representation. double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood). 5. A ―mode‖ imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the succession. 2. 904) Sps Buenaventura vs CA – Petitioners‘ right to their parents‘ properties is merely inchoate and vests only upon their parents‘ death.

taken as a whole. and that the matter presents a sufficient cause for the disinheritance of a child or descendant under Article 919 of the Civil Code. Gonzales vs CFI . Order of intestate succession 1.Florentino vs Florentino . The purpose of the notation is nothing m ore than to afford to the persons entitled to the reservation. . Bolanos vs Berarte – In the absence of whatever evidence that he executed a will. with the State as the final intestate heir. 6. Article 916 of the Civil Code requires that the same must be effected through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. 5. Direct descending line (978-984) Hebron vs Loyola . by virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented. namely. E. With regard to the reasons for the disinheritance that were stated by Segundo in his document. Effect (971) Rules (972-977) C. sex. the duty to annotate also. Basic rules of intestacy (962) De los Santos vs De la Cruz – In an intestate succession a grandniece of the deceased cannot participate with a niece in the inheritance. since the law does not recognize them as such. Ascending direct line (985-987) Illegitimate children (988-994) 2. Accretion (968-969) Representation 1. Effect (915. it would have so provided in the Code. Extinguishment 7. as in the order of intestate succession provided for in the Civil Code. F. were the co-owners of the inherited properties. 2. How construed (916-918) Seangio vs Reyes . 923) Causes (919–921) When Ineffective (918) Effect of reconciliation (922) F. Blood (963-967) D. The conspicuous absence of a provision which makes a daughter-in-law an intestate heir of the deceased all the more confirms our observation.This Court noted that. it is likewise true that the heiress of the reservor was only one of the reservees and there is no reason founded upon law and justice why the other reservees should be deprived of their shares in the reservable property. The provisions of the Code which relate to the order of intestate succession (Articles 978 to 1014) enumerate with meticulous exactitude the intestate heirs of a decedent. due protection against any act of the reservoir. while it is true that by giving the reservable property to only one reservee it did not pass into the hands of strangers. to the petitioner‘s mother the undivided share of her minor children in the property involved in this case. Relationship: Proximity.Intestate or legal heirs are classified into two (2) groups. The entire Code is devoid of any provision which entitles her to inherit from her mother-in. If the legislature intended to make the surviving spouse an intestate heir of the parent-in-law. within the third degree. B. excludes that of the one more remote.Representation is a right created by fiction of law. De Papa vs Camacho – Principles of intestacy to be either by her own right or by the right of representation. IV. The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming same as a reservatario of the reservable property is not among the relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which such property came. Registration Sumaya vs IAC – The reservor has the duty to reserve and therefore. 2. a. not their mother Victorina. and acquires the rights which the latter would have if she were living or if she could have inherited. his legitimate children by his first and second marriages inherit in equal shares as intestate heirs. Victorina had no authority or had acted beyond her powers in conveying. when there are relatives of the descendant within the third degree. because the latter being a nearer relative. Instances of (960) Intestate heirs (961) Rosales vs Rosales .For disinheritance to be valid. Disinheritance 1. the right of the nearest relative. if she did indeed convey. nevertheless. called reservatario. Therefore. and those who inherit by the right of representation. relatives of the fourth and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios. 2 or by the right of representation provided for in Article 981 of the same law. 1 Restated. if any. the Court believes that the incidents. an intestate heir can only inherit either by his own right. Requisites. of the person from whom the reservable property came. inasmuch as the right granted by the Civil Code in article 811 is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive benefit of designated persons who are the relatives. 4. the more distant grandniece is excluded. 3. 3. Definition (970) Tumbokon vs Legaspi . can be considered a form of maltreatment of Segundo by his son. Legacies and Devises (924-959) INTESTATE SUCCESSION A. These children. XXX There is no provision in the Civil Code which states that a widow (surviving spouse) is an intestate heir of her mother-in-law. those who inherit by their own right. Alfredo. Line. and even if they should come from different marriages. 3. which may make it ineffective.The minor children of Conrado inherited by representation in the properties of their grandparents Remigia and Januario.Following the order prescribed by law in legitimate succession. E. over the property which the reservista (person holding it subject to reservation) should return to him. 979 makes no distinction as to age.

Ocampo vs Ocampo . Absent such a clear indication of that intention. a surviving spouse concurring with only one legitimate child of the deceased us entitled t o one-half of the estate of the deceased spouse under 996. XXX The intention to exempt from collation should be expressed plainly and unequivocally as an exception to the general rule announced in 1062. 992. on testamentary dispositions. and her husband and all her ascendants had died ahead of her. such that the need to first pass upon and resolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the application of the order of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78. Precisely. the family is in turn. do not obtain. Executors and administrators (1058-1060) (See Section 6. it has no application. in turn.In the absence of defendants. As long as the discretion is exercised without grave abuse. 4. G. Since registration serves as constructive notice to third persons. and is based on reason. Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility. 975 of the New Civil Code. 4. and that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father. or a surviving spouse. the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the decedent. hated by the illegitimate child. ascendants or illegitimate children excludes collateral relatives from succeeding to the estate of the decedent. justice. nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles. 1078) Maestrado vs CA – Partition is the separation. Coverage (1064-1077) H. that the natural daughter cannot succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle who is a legitimate brother of her natural father. Bacayo vs Borromeo – The absence of brothers. palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life. Definition 2. a public instrument is neither constitutive nor an inherent element of a contract of partition. cousins. sisters. a basic postulate. However. Rules of Court) In Re: Estate of Aguinaldo Suntay – The order of preference in the appointment of an administrator as provided in the Rules of Court is not absolute for it depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of each case. that a natural child cannot represent his natural father in the succession to the estate of the legitimate grandparent. XXX The rule in Article 992 has consistently been applied by the Court in several other cases. It appearing that Maura Bagsic died intestate without an issue. The law does not recognize the blood tie and seeks to avoid further grounds of resentment. Jurisprudence has long held that the selection of an administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin. illegitimate children. petitioner would be an illegitimate child who has no right to inherit ab intestate from the legitimate children and relatives of his father. PARTITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE A. Moreover. Thus. ascendants. ascendants. as between the parties. should not be excluded from the inventory of the properties of the decedent. and the resources of which it is thereby deprived. Conversely. etc) being called to the succession. 892 (where spouse gets ¼ only) not applicable it is under the provisions of testamentary dispositions pertaining to the determination of legitime. Carlos vs Sandoval – Only the presence of descendants. illegitimate or adopted child or children of the deceased precludes succession by collateral relatives. Anything less than such express prohibition will not suffice under the clear language of Article 1062. in turn. 1063) De Roma vs CA – Re: prohibition from being part of collation. which is categorical enough. Manuel vs Ferrer . illegitimate children. Diaz vs IAC . but must always be construed in relation to. even the requirement of a written memorandum under the statute of frauds does not apply to partitions effected by the heirs where no creditors are involved considering that such transaction is not a conveyance of property resulting in change of ownership but merely a designation and segregation of that part which belongs to each heir.Article 992." The doctrine rejects succession ab intestatoin the collateral line between legitimate relatives. the former. Article 1003 of the New Civil Code provides that collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. namely the daughter of her sister of full blood and the ten (10) children of her brother and two (2) sisters of half blood in accordance with the provision of Art. the law does no more than recognize this truth. the law on succession is animated by a uniform general intent. and legal principles. The illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family. or a surviving spouse. it has ruled that where the illegitimate child had half-brothers who were legitimate. although it does not totally disavow such succession in the direct line.Corpuz vs Corpuz – No reciprocal succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. Surviving spouse (995-1002) Santillon vs Miranda – When intestacy occurs. on the one hand. division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. Collateral relatives (1003-1010) Bicomong vs Almanza . State (1011-1014) 5. enunciates what is so commonly referred to in the rules on succession as the "principle of absolute separation between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family. 6. V. They may have a natural tie of blood. and illegitimate relatives. however. the latter considers the privileged condition of the former.Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestate between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. Rule 78. Since the rule is predicated on the presumed will of the decedent. A decedent‘s uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestate so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to succeed. we apply not the exception but the rule.It has long been settled that the selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the selection or removal of regular administrators. 1061 provides that properties donated should be brought into the mass of the estate. Gregorio vs Madarang – Lot in question was conveyed by deed of donation. she is succeeded by the surviving collateral relatives. Property left by will (909-914. Collation 1. on other hand. equity. interference by higher courts is unwarranted. as would be proper in the case of a regular administrator. if there are no descendants. any other part as to produce a harmonious whole. that the legitimate collateral relatives of the mother cannot succeed from her illegitimate child. Indeed. but this is not recognized by law for the purposes of Art. Definition (1079. It may be effected extra-judicially by the heirs themselves through a public instrument filed before the register of deeds. The rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate family is. by avoiding further grounds of resentment. The probate court may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion. an oral partition by the heirs is valid id no creditors are affected. and thus no part should be rendered inoperative by. the latter had no right to the former's inheritance. Leonardo vs CA – At most. . The presence of legitimate. Among compulsory heirs (1061-1062) 3. hated by the illegitimate child.

It should be kept in mind that the obligation to serve written notice devolves upon the vendor co-heirs because the latter are in the best position to know the other co-owners who. Though the Code does not prescribe any particular form of written notice nor any distinctive method for written notification of redemption. being a hindrance to the development and better administration of the property. Alejandrino vs CA – Notarization of the deed of extrajudicial settlement has the effect of making it a public document that can bind third parties. As a result. having been bought merely for speculation. 1082 provides that every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs is deemed to be a partition even though it should purport a sale. Redemption is not a mode of termination co-ownership. In all the above-cited provisions of law. Written notice is indispensable and mandatory. By this provision. this formal requirement appears to be superseded by 1082. 1089-1090) Legal redemption by co-heirs (1088) Hermoso vs CA . Causes (1097) 2. if. the testamentary disposition was in the nature of a partition of her estate by will. Effects of partition (1091-1096) Rescission and nullity 1. as contemplated and authorized in the first paragraph of 1080.It bears emphasis that the period of one month shall be reckoned from the time that a co-heir is notified in writing by the vendor of the actual sale. G. which are not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a contract. the party notified need not entertain doubt that the seller may still contest the alienation. is a case expressly authorized by law. the 30-day period has not even begun to run. and quiet any doubt that the alienation is not definitive. XXX Collation does not apply where no donations were made by testator during her lifetime. Existence of lesion (1098-1103) 3. XXX If a co-owner has offered to redeem the land within the period fixed by law. Mariano vs CA – In the absence of a written notification of the sale by the vendors.L. Dizon-Rivera vs Dizon . This will remove all uncertainty as to the fact of the sale. J. XXX Redemption of the whole property by a co-owner does not vest in him sole ownership over said property but will inure to the benefit of all co-owners.Where the testator in her will specified each real property in her estate and designated the particular heir among her compulsory heirs and grandchildren to whom she bequeathed the same. Cua vs Vargas . and the exception to the exception is the partition inter vivos referred to in 1080. the presence of outsiders be undesirable and the other heir or heirs be willing and in a position to repurchase the share sold. F. How and when effected (1083-1084) In Re: Will of Santiago – Property‘s indivisibility is subject to a statutory limitation of 20 years.It is to be noted that Article 1623 stresses the need for notice in writing in three other species of legal redemption namely: (1) redemption in a case where the share of all the other co-owners or any of them are sold to a third person. B. Ancog vs CA – It is immaterial that the deed of extrajudicial settlement was initially motivated by a desire to acquire a loan. Partition among co-owners may thus be evidenced by the overt act of a co-owner renouncing his right over the property regardless of the form it takes. even future ones. While the law prohibits contracts upon future inheritance. must be notified of the sale. (2) redemption by owners of adjoining lands when a piece of rural land not exceeding one hectare in area is alienated. Partition with preterition (1104) Bautista vs Grino-Aquino – Partition is void if it effectively resulted in the preterition of the right of the compulsory heir of the deceased. which is to keep strangers to the family out of a joint ownership. as provided in 1080. he expresses his intention to put an end to indivision among his co-heirs. Chavez vs IAC – 1080 allows a person to make a partition of his estate either by an act inter vivos or by will and such partition shall be respected insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs. its terms and its perfection and validity. the method of notification remains exclusive.Hermoso vs CA – An agreement among certain heirs as to shares following one another in a specific order cannot be binding on the co-owner who owns 2/3 pf the entire parcel but who was not a signatory or party to the document. it appears that when a coowner sells his inchoate right in the co-ownership. D. If partition is based on a will that turned out to be void. This right of a testator to partition his estate is subject only to the right of compulsory heirs to their legitime. must be rescinded. the interpretation thereof always tilts in favor of the redemptioner and against the vendee. The purpose is to reduce the number of participants until the community is terminated.T. The law gives the co-heir thirty days from the time written notice of the actual sale within which to make up his or her mind and decide to repurchase or effect the redemption. the partition by the parent. In other words. and (3) redemption by owners of adjoining lands in the sale of a piece of an urban land so small and so situated that the portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time. E. It cannot be counted from the time advance notice is given of an impending or contemplated sale. However. Bagro vs Balansag – Well-entrenched is the rule that all things. extrajudicial partition that goes with it is void and inoperative. Inter Vivos or by will (1080-1081) Alsua-Betts vs CA – A will is necessary before inter vivos partition. The exception is that no contract may be entered into with respect to future inheritance. . he has complied with the law – he may bring an action to enforce the redemption after every offer has been rejected. This proceeds from the very purpose of Article 1088. an exchange. under the law. C. Preterition here attended with bad faith. it will not put an end to the existing state of co-ownership. Rules (1085-1087. as is often the case. actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some other manner by the redemptioner notwithstanding. or any other transaction. This is a valid partition of her estate. there being no alternative provided by law.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful