Succession Doctrine Codex Succession Term 1 Year 3 Atty.

Katrina Legarda
Disclaimer: This Doctrine Codex was made for review purposes under Atty. Legardas Succession class. Students are warned that this codex might have little or no application to other professors teaching the same subject. Also, most case doctrines are directly lifted from Atty. Sebastians case index. This is because the two professors have similar cases in their syllabus. The authors have also included some of their personal observations, notes from the Balane book, and Atty. Legardas comments on the cases.

I. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Denitions and Concept of Succession Estate of Hemady vs Luzon Surety: Article 774 provides that the properties, rights and obligations of a deceased
person are transmitted upon his death to his heirs. The obligations include contingent claims which may be proved during settlement proceedings by an indemnified surety. While in our successional system the responsibility of the heirs for the debts of the decedent cannot exceed the value of the inheritance they receive from him, the principle remains intact that these heirs succeed not only to the rights of the deceased but also to his obligations. Articles 774 and 776 of the new Civil Code (and in Articles 659 and 661 of the preceding one) expressly so provide, thereby confirming Article 1311 already quoted. The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not altered by the provision of our Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased must be liquidated and paid from his estate before the residue is distributed among said heirs (Rule 89). The reason is that whatever payment is thus made from the estate is ultimately a payment by the heirs and distributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would have been entitled to receive

Alvarez vs IAC: National Housing Authority vs Almeida: CJ Puno made a disturbing statement to the effect that the properties, rights and obligations of the deceased should go to his or her estate for eventual distribution to the heirs, contrary to Article 777 which states that the rights to succession are automatically transmitted to the heirs from the moment of the decedents death Nazareno vs CA: the estate of a deceased person is a juridical entity that has a personality of its own (wrong).
Accordingly, it has a right to recover property belonging to it that were improperly disposed.

B. Object of Succession Reyes vs Dimagiba: Estate of Hemday vs Luzon Surety: Guinto vs Medina: The heirs of the original defendant in this case, having been merely substituted in his place upon his
death, are liable for damages to the extent of the value of the property that they might have received, if any, from him

Nazareno vs CA: The controversial aspect of this decision is the statement that the estate of a deceased person is a
juridical entity that has a personality of its own. Accordingly, it has a right to recover property belonging to it that were improperly disposed.

Heirs of Ureta vs Ureta: It has been held in several cases that partition among heirs is not legally deemed a conveyance
of real property resulting in change of ownership. It is not a transfer of property from one to the other, but rather, it is a confirmation or ratification of title or right of property that an heir is renouncing in favor of another heir who accepts and receives the inheritance. It is merely a designation and segregation of that part which belongs to each heir. The Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition cannot, therefore, be considered as an act of strict dominion. Hence, a special power of attorney is not necessary.

C. Kinds of Succession: Blas vs Santos: 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. In the present case, since Rufo lost ownership of the subject property during his lifetime, it only follows that at the time of his death, the disputed parcel of land no longer formed part of his estate to which his heirs may lay claim. Stated differently, petitioner and respondents never inherited the subject lot from their father

Santos vs Lumbao: While an estate remains undivided, co-owners have each full ownership of their respective aliquots

or undivided shares and may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage them. The co-owner, however, has no right to sell or alienate a specific or determinate part of the thing owned in common, because such right over the thing is represented by an aliquot or ideal portion without any physical division. In any case, the mere fact that the deed purports to transfer a concrete portion does not per se render the sale void. The sale is valid, but only with respect to the aliquot share of the selling co-owner. Furthermore, the sale is subject to the results of the partition upon the termination of the co-ownership

Carungcong vs People: II. TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION Pacio vs Billon: Uson vs del Rosario: Bonilla vs Barcena Butte vs Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc.: De Borja vs Vda. De Borja: Go Ong vs CA: Lee vs RTC of QC Branch 85: Heirs of Spouses Sandejas vs Lina: Reganon vs Imperial: Salvador vs Sta. Maria: Ramirez vs Baltazar: Manongsong vs Estimo: Santos vs Lumbao:

Reyes vs RTC of Makati Branch 142: Puno vs Puno Enterprises, Inc.: Cabalu vs Tabu:

A. Denition of a will Vitug vs CA: A will has been dened as a personal, solemn, 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, a survivorship agreement is not one that deliver partys seperate properties in favor of another.

B. Characteristics of a will C. Rules of Interpretation Solla vs Ascueta: to determine the testators intention, the court should place itself as near as possible in his position - where the language of the will is ambiguous or doubtful, should take into consideration the situation of te testator and the facts and circumstances surrounding him at the time the will was executed. - Where the testators intention is manifest from the context of the will and sourounding circumstances, but is obscured by inapt and inaaccurate modes of expression, the language will be subordinated to the intention, and in order to give effect to such intention, as far as possible, the court may depart from the strict wording and read word or phrase in a sense different from which is ordinarily attributed to it, and for such purpose may mold or change the language of the will, such as restricting its application or supplying omitted words or phrases. Dizon-Rivera vs Dizon: The testators wishes and intention constitute the rst and principal law in the matter of testaments. The intention of the testatrix is the life and soul of a will. Here, the testamentary dispositions will be given full effect, although the compulsory heirs who failed to receive the legitime in full shall be entitled to completion. Vda. De Villaor vs Juico: An interpretation which suppresses a provision cannot be adopted if there is another way of construing the said dispositions. D. Validity of a will Bellis vs Bellis: The formal validity of a will is governed by the law in force at the time of execution. The substantive validity of the dispositions therein is governed by the laws in force at the time of the death of the testator.

E. Testamentary Capacity Torres vs Lopez: (denition) is the capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed to have claims upon the testator, and to comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distribute his property among the objects of his bounty. (time when determined) the mental capacity of the testator is determined as of the date of the execution of the will. (tests of capacity) neither old age, physical inrmities, feebleness of mind, weakness of the memory, the appointment of a guardian, nor eccentricities are sufcient singly or jointly to show testamentary incapacity. The nature and rationality of the will is of some practical utility in determining capactiy. Each case rests on its own facts and must be decided by its own facts.

Estate of Rodriguez: Disease or physical weakness alone does not affect the mental capacity of a testator, unless it is of such a nature as to render him incapable of knowing what he is doing. De Guzman vs Intestate Estate of Benitez: The decision of the CA reveals that they carefully weighed the evidence on the question of the testamentary capacity, or lack of it and found no compelling to disturb the lower courts ndings and conclusions. Baltazar vs Laxa: Burden to prove that the testator is of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the will lies on the shoulders of the person alleging the same. Mere forgetfulness does not make a testator of unsound mind. F. Formal Requisites of a Will Suroza vs Honrado: Every will must be executed in a langauge or dialect known to the testator. If it is stated that the testator is familiar with a language however proven that such testator was illiterate, such would cause the nullity of the will. Abangan vs Abangan: a 2 page will with all the dispositions on the rst page, need not be signed on the left margin by the testator and witnesses, nor numbered in letters Lee vs Tambago: The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments, and to guarantee their truth and authenticity.

G. Requirements of an Attested Will 1. Signing of Testator Barut vs Cabacungan: it is immaterial who writes the name of the testratrix provided it is written at her request and in her presence and in the presence of all the witnesses to the execution of the will. The important thing is that the name of the testatrix was signed at her express direction in the presence of 3 witnesses and that they attested and subscribed it in her presence and in the presence of each other. Payad vs Tolentino: The signing of the thumb of the testator was assisted by her lawyer, therefore the compliance that a will must be signed was complied with, and need not state that the requested attorney to sign her name. A statute requiring a will to be signed is satised if the signaure is made by the testators mark. Garcia vs Lacuesta: Where it appears that the testator caused another person to write his name in the will, such fact must be stated in the attestation clause, failure to do so is a fatal defect. The mere sign of a cross in unlike of a thumbmark, for it cannot and does not have the trustworthiness of a thumbmark. Lopez vs Liboro: Failure to afx the page number on the rst page is not necessarily a fatal defect. The testator may afx his thumbmark to execute the will instead of a signature. It is not necessary for the will to state that it was written in a language known to the testator (it may be proved established by proof aliunde) Reyes vs Vda. De Vidal: Every will must be executed in a language known to the testator. Under certain conditions, the testators knowledge of the language in which the will was written may be presumed. Matias vs Salud: Although the probate of the alleged will and testament was denied by the judge, the order to this effect is not, as yet, nal and executory, since it is still pending review. Balonan vs Abellana: it is not necessary that the person to whom the function of writing the testators name

writes his own name; it is necessary for such person to write the name of the testator. Gabucan vs Manta: Failure to afc the documentary stamp on the notarial acknowledgment of the will does not justify the dismissal of the probate proceeding Vda. De Ramos vs CA: a will is not necessarily void because the attesting witnesses declared against its validity. The adverse testimony of the attesting witnesses may be controverted by the contrary testimony of the notary public who supervised the execution of the will. Taboada vs Rosal: signing at the end of the will does not apply to the subscribing witnesses, who may sign in any other part of each page of the will, it can be substantially complied with by any such signature. Failure of the attestation clause to indicate the number of pages upon which the will is a fatal defect. However, if it indicates in the notarial acknowledgement indicate the number of the pages of the will, the deciency is cured. Estate of Abada vs Abaja: failure of the attestation to state the number of attesting witnesses is not a fatal defect. Azuela vs CA: fundamental difference between a jurat and an acknowledgment, and based on the distinction, the Court held that a notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public is void, even if it was sworn to before a notary public Lee vs Tambago: Samaniego vs Abena: The error in the number of pages of the will as stated in the attestation clause is not material to invalidate the subject will. The error must have been brought about by the honest belief that the will is the whole instrument consisting of 3 pages inclusive of the attestation clause and acknowledgment Echavez vs Dozen: Baltazar vs Laxa: Lopez vs Lopez: the attestation must state the number of pages used upon which the will is written. The purpose of the law is to safeguard against possible interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and prevent any increase or decrease in the pages. 2. Witnesses a. Who are competent: Gonzalez vs CA: a notarial will must be attested by at least 3 credible witnesses. Competence may be proved or inferred; whereas, credibility, which is a matter to be determined by the court, is presumed unless evidence to the contrary is presented. Insturmental witnesses are not character witnesses for they merely attest the execution of a will and afrm the formalities attendant to said execution. b. Supervening incompetency c. Competency of interested witnesses: Nera vs Rimando: test of presence: it is not essential that the testator and the witnesses should look at the paper purporting to be the will of the testator at the time each other of them afx their signatures. It is sufcient that each of them be physically present at the place where execution willl take place and that they be in such position with respect to each one, that by merely casting their eyes in the proper direction, they would have been able to see each one afx his signature on the will without any physical obstruction.

Icasiano vs Icasiano: failure of a witness to sign one of the pages of the will through inadvertence or oversight (there being no bad faith or fraudulent intent) can be cured by the presentation of a carbon duplicate of the will which contains all the required signatures. Cagro vs Cagro: the attestation clause must be signed by the witnesses at the bottom thereof. If the signatures of the attesting witnesses are afxed on the left margin, or in any other place, the attestation clause would be fatally defective, resulting in the nullity of the will.

3. Acknowledgement by notary public Javellana vs Ledesma: whether or not the notary signed the certication of acknowledgment on the presence of the testatrix and the witnesses, does not affect the validity of the codicil. The NCC does not require that the signing of the testator, witnesses and notary should be accomplished in one single act. Garcia vs Gatchalian: The attesting witnesses must acknowledge the will before a notary public. Cruz vs Villasor: The notary public before whom the will is acknowledged cannot serve as one of the attesting witnesses of the will Guerrero vs Bihis: a notarial will acknowledged before a notary public outside of the latters territorial jurisdiction is void. Gabucan vs Manta: 4. Handicapped Testator Garcia vs Vasquez: that if a testator's vision does not permit him to read the document, even if he can see distant object, the testator is deemed blind for the purpose of requiring the observance of the additional formality prescribed in Article 808 Alvarado vs Gaviola: this was a landmark exception to the rule of strict compliance when it afrmed the probate order despite non-compliance with the double reading requirement.

5. Substantial Compliance: Gil vs Murciano: an attestation clause which omitted to state that the testator signed the will in the presence of the witnesses. Such fact was, however, stated by the testator in the body of the will. Such attestation clause is valid and constitutes a substantial compliance with the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 2645 Caneda vs CA: Gil allowed the probate of the will, whereas Caneda disallowed the will. It may thus be stated that
the rule, as it now stands, is that omission which can be supplied by an examination of the will itself, without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence, will not be fatal and, correspondingly, would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed. However, those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately of the will itself

H. REQUIREMENTS FOR A HOLOGRAPHIC WILL 1. Completely written in testators hand

2. Dated and Signed Roxas vs. De Jesus: An incomplete date which only states the month and year of execution is not a fatal defect if its shown that theres no bad faith, fraud, and undue inuence and pressure. But take note, the date FEB/61 can still be certain. It wouldve been a different case if the date was for example: 01/01/01. Labrador vs CA: The date of a holographic will may be incorporated in its body. As said by the Paras: The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed...[t]he only requirements are that the date be in the will... 3. Probate Azaola vs Singson: The case interprets the 3-witness rule requirement under Art. 811. The ruling distinguishes between the execution of a notarial and holographic will. Based on the difference of formalities, the court inferred taht Art. 811 is merely directory. Making it mandatory could lead to legal absurdities. Codoy vs. Calugay: An unusual case with an unusual decision. It held that the 3-witness rule under Art. 811 is mandatory. In a sense, it overruled Azaola. But Balane noted that going beneath the surface, Codoy might have afrmed Azaola. In Codoy, there were 6 witnesses; Azaola had less than three. Neither did the ruling state that since there were less that 3 witnesses, even if their testimony was convincing, the probate must be denied because of the 811s mandatory import. The witness testimonies were found indecisive. Hence, the the rulings basis was the weak evidence, not failure to present 3 witnesses. The decisive factor is quality not quantity. Gan vs. Yap: If a holographic will is lost or cant be presented in court, probate must be denied. This is because the only guarantee of authenticity isnt available for srutiny. Hence, the physical will itslef is the material proof of authenticity. Rodelas vs. Aranza: Ruling is based in Ganin footnote 8 in Gan. In that footnote, the court had an obiter saying that a photographic, photostatic, mimeographed, or carbon copy might be used to prove a lost (original) holograpic will. But note that Rodelas didnt denitively say that secondary evidence would be admissible in probate. Baltazar vs. Laxa: Burden to prove unsound mind during execution lies on the wills oppositors. Cabalu vs Tadu: Weird case. Even Atty. Legarda said so. The holographic will was never probated. But the court allowed an extrajudicial partition anyway. Really weird and wrong case.

4. Insertions: Kalaw vs. Relova: Failure to authenticate (as in date and signature) results in invalidity of the desired change. But in this case, the facts are complicated. The holographic will was denied probate because the testators intentions had become indeterminable. Ajero vs CA: Failure to authenticate only invalidates the changed disposition. Failure to comply with Art. 813 & 814 doesnt justify the denial of probate. But the unauthenticated provion may be disallowed. I. EXECUTION OF A WILL 1. Filipino Abroad

2. Alien Abroad Vda. De Perez vs. Tolete: Case outlined the procedure for reprobate (as in probate again) of a will executed and probated in a foreign jurisdiction. Evidence necessary: 1) due execution of will in accordance with foreign law; 2) proof that testator had a foreign domicile; 3) will was admitted to probate in foreign country; 4) proof that foreign tribunal was a probate court; and 5) the foreign countrys laws on procedure and allowance of wills. 3. Alien in the Philippines 4. Law governing form a. Time of Execution b. Place of Execution In re Will of Abadia: A wills formal validity depends on the time it was made. If a will failed to follow the legal requirements during its execution, the testator should be regarded to have died intestate. Fleumer vs Hix: The original case that outlined the requirements for reprobate. See Vda. Perez vs. Tolete. Estate of Giberson:This case states the difference between reprobate and probate of a foreign will. A will executed in a foreign jurisdiction may be probated here. The will doesnt require prior probate in the foreign country before being accepted locally. Dela Cerna vs. Potot:Problematic case since it was a joint will. The joint will concerning husbands estate was allowed since it was already probated. But the wifes estate had to be readjudicated. Romero vs. Villamor:This a study in contrast concerning time of execution and partition. The Old Civil Code only allowed testators to partition their estate inter vivos. The validity of the partition rests on a previously made valid will. And the partition is simply the wills execution. There was no will in this casedecedents were intestate. The partition wasnt allowed.

5. Law governing content a. Time b. Successional rights, etc. Estate of Christensen: Renvoi present. California provided that a testators domicile law would be controlling. Since testator was domiciled in Philippines, local succession laws were applied. Estate of Amos Bellis: General rule is that a testators national law governs his will. Texas law didnt provide legitime. Hence, will was valid despite depriving some forced heirs. Cayetano vs. Leonides:Reiterated Bellis. A wills intirinsic validity is governed by the testators national laws. J. Joint Wills: Dela Cerna vs. Potot:The SC ruled that the wifes estate must be readjudicated since joint wills are considered

to be separate will of each testator. Estate of Rodriguez: What the law prohibits is mancomundantetwo wills written conjointly or in the same document. Separate wills reciprocating each other are allowed. K. QUALIFICATIONS/DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES Gonzales vs. CA: Distinguished competence and credibility. Competence are the characteristics that would allow a witness to testify. It is determined by statute. Credibility is only measured at courtif someone is to be believed or not. Arts. 820-821 doesnt require trustworthiness and reliability for competence. M. REVOCATION OF A WILL Molo vs. Molo: INCORRECT. Case mentions dependent relative revocation. If a subsequent will revoking the previous will was disallowed, the revocation cant be effected. Diaz vs. De Leon: Estate of Maloto: Burning of a will is one of the modes of revocation. It must be done by the testator himself, or by a third person pursuant to the testators express direction and in his presence. Gago vs. Mamuyac: Revocation of the will may be implied if the testator had ready access to the same and that after his death the will cannot be found. The presumption, while disputable, may be reinforced by testimony regarding the circumstances of the alleged revocation of the will. And if revocation should apply, a duplicate copy of the said will cannot be admitted to proabate. Gan vs. Yap: If a will cannot be found, it is presumed as though it was not made. Rodelas vs. Aranza: O. ALLOWANCE AND DISSALLOWANCE OF WILLS 1. Concept of probate Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez: Emphasized the need of probate for wills. Without probate the will is ineffective and doesnt produce legal effect. Lasam vs. Umengan: Also emphasizes need for probate. Without probate, a purported will cant be the source of any right. It cant be relied on to establish a right to possession. Lasam also conrms a wills ambulatory nature. Maninang vs. CA: Generally, probate courts only inquires on 2 issues: testamentary capacity and due execution. But practical considerations may necessitate an inquiry into substantive validity. Its a waste of time to inquire about extrinsic validity if testamentary dispositions cant be effected. Pastor vs. CA: Probate is limited to extrinsic validity. Ownership questions cant be resolved with nality. Probate courts can only provisionally, not conclusively, determine title for inventory purposes. The decision can still be subjected to a separate ordinary action. Quasha vs. LCN: Partial estate distribution prior payment of debts allowable under specic conditions. First, parts of estate not affected by any pending controversy or appeal. And second, the distributes must post a bond xed by court for payment of estates outstanding obligations.

Jimenez vs. IAC: Afrms Pastor. Ozaeta vs. Cuartero:A will executed through undue and improper pressure of inuence may be denied probate. But such allegations must be substantiated by competent evidence. This case also raises the presumption of ratication. If a willsupposedly executed under UIPI couldve been changed but it wasnt, then it may be deemed ratied. Coso vs. Fernandez:Discusses nature of undue inuence. Mere inuence isnt sufcient to invlaidate will. Inuence must overpower and subjugate testators mind so as to destroy free agency and make him express the will of another, rather his own. Affection and kindness, even if illegitimate, is not undue inuence. Ortega vs. Valmonte: Discusses how to prove fraud. Fraud is a trick, secret device, false statement, or pretence by which its subject is cheated. Its where a testator is misled to an executed documents nature or content. Or it may be related to some extrinsic fact that resulted from deception. And if not for that deception, he wouldnt have made the will. Dorotheo vs CA: Distinguishes extrinsic and intrinsic validity. Probate, generally, only inquires on formal or extrinsic validity. A will admitted to probate wouldnt make its testamentary provisions automatically valid. Admission to probate isnt a guarantee testamentary dispositions will be effected. Palaganas vs. Palaganas: Philippine law allows the probate of foreign wills even if those werent yet probated in their country of execution. See Estate of Giberson. Agtarap vs. Agtarap: Jurisdiction of probate/intestate courts. Those courts are limited to probate and settlement it cant extend to questions of ownership. There are only 2 exceptions. Frist, probate courts may provisionally pass on the question of inclusion or exclusion of a certain property in the inventory. But this can still be determined in a separate action. Second, if the intereseted parties are all heirs, or if its about collation or advancement, or the parties consent to courts jurisdiction, and 3rd parties wont be prejudiced, then probate court may resolve ownership issues. Balatazar vs. Laxa: Bare allegations of duress or inuence of fear or threats, undue and improper inuence and pressure, fraud and trickery cant be used a bases to deny a wills probate. The rule is that alleging party must prove with competent and convincing evidence. 2. Necessity of probate: De Borja vs. De Borja: Necessity of probate. Without probate, inheritance cant be distributed.

3. Modes of probate: Guevara vs. Guevara: Different modes of probatepre and ante mortem. Probate is an in rem proceeding. 4. Requirements for probate Gan vs. Yap: No presentation of will = no probate. Rodelas vs. Aranza: Same with Gan.

Azaola vs. Singson: Holographic wills requires witness to recognize handwriting. Codoy vs. Calugay: 3-witness rule is mandatory. See previous discussion. Nepomuceno vs. CA: 5. Effect of decree of probate Gallonosa vs. Arcangel: Reviews formal validity. Also, once probate concludes, res judicata sets in. Testamentary capacity and due execution cant be opened anymore. Roberts vs. Leonides: Probate passes property. Nepomuceno vs. CA: De la Cerna vs. Potot: GROUNDS FOR DISSALLOWANCE Pascual vs. De la Cruz: