This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
CFI 78 SCRA 414 Facts: Jose Frias Chua contracted two marriages during his lifetime. His first marriage was with Patricia S. Militar with whom he sired three children, namely: gnacio, !oren"o and Manuel, all surnamed Frias Chua. n his second marriage with Consolacion de la #orre, he had a son named Juanito Frias Chua. Manuel Frias Chua died without lea$ing any issue. n %&'&, Jose Frias Chua died intestate lea$ing his widow Consolacion de la #orre and his son Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage and sons gnacio Frias Chua and !oren"o Frias Chua of his first marriage. n the ntestate Proceeding, the lower court issued an order ad(udicating, among others, the one)half *%+',, -ortion of !ot .o. /&& and the sum of P0,111.11 in fa$or of Consolacion de la #orre, the other half of !ot .o. /&& in fa$or of Juanito Frias Chua, his son in the second marriage2 P/,111.11 in fa$or of !oren"o Frias chua2 and P%,331.11 in fa$or of gnacio Frias, Chua, his sons of the first marriage. 4n Fe5ruary '6, %&3', Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage died intestate without any issue. After his death, his mother Consolacion de la #orre succeeded to his share of !ot .o. /&&. 4n March 3, %&77, Consolacion de la #orre died intestate lea$ing no direct heir either in the descending or in ascending line e8ce-t her 5rother and sisters. n the intestate -roceeding of Consolacion de la #orre9s estate, gnacio Frias Chua, of the first marriage and :ominador and ;emedios Chua, the legitimate children of the deceased !oreno Frias Chua, also of the first marriage filed the com-laint on May %%, %&77 5efore the res-ondent CF of .egros 4ccidental, -raying that the one)half -ortion of !ot .o. /&& which formerly 5elonged to Juanito Frias 5ut which -assed to Consolacion de la #orre u-on the latter<s death, 5e declared as a reser$a5le -ro-erty for the reason that the lot in =uestion was su5(ect to reserval troncal -ursuant to Article 0&% of the .CC, against Susana de la #orre as administratri8 of the estate in =uestion 4n July '&, %&07, the res-ondent Court rendered a decision dismissing the com-laint of -etitioner on the ground that the -ro-erty is not reser$a5le in nature since the -ro-erty in =uestion was not ac=uired 5y Juanito Frias Chua gratuitously 5ut for a consideration from his father Jose Frias Chua as Juanito has the o5ligation of -aying the Standard 4il Co. of .ew >or? the amount of P/, &6%.'1, it 5eing ordered 5y the court in the ntestate Proceeding .o.@0%7 dated January %3, %&/%. Issue: Ahether or not the -ro-erty in =uestion is transferred gratuitously. Ruling: >es, the -ro-erty is transferred gratuitously. #he Su-reme Court ruled that transmission is gratuitous or 5y gratuitous title when the reci-ient does not gi$e anything in return. t matters not whether the -ro-erty
0&% of . without im-osing any o5ligation on the -art of the reci-ient2 and that the -erson recei$ing the -ro-erty gi$es or does nothing in return.ew >or? the amount of P/. t is e$ident from the record that the transmission of the -ro-erty in =uestion to Juanito Frias Chua of the second marriage u-on the death of his father Jose Frias Chua was 5y means of a hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous. #he o5ligation to -ay Standard 4il Co. #his 5eing the case the lot in =uestion is su5(ect to reser$a troncal under Art. or 5y an act of mere li5erality of the -erson ma?ing it.transmitted 5e or 5e not su5(ect to any -rior charges2 what is essential is that the transmission 5e made gratuitously.&6%.'1 was ordered 5y the lower court during the intestate -roceedings 5ut the Su-reme Court ruled that this does not change the gratuitous nature of the transmission of the -ro-erty to him. . of .CC.
amona. from an ascendant. %&@/. in accordance with the order -rescri5ed for intestate succession. %! CORCI"O 1 SCRA 1&&' Facts: #he lands in$ol$ed in this case are originally owned 5y Bonifacia !acerna. Patrocinia. the sister of Bonifacia !acerna for the reco$ery of three -arcels of unregistered lands. Patria. as half sister of Juan Mar5e5e. . #he said -ro$ision of the law does not a--ly to the -resent case. and -ursuant to which a sister. Hence. are his sole heirs. is his sole heir. the court rendered (udgment for the inter$enor.icardo et al. 5y succession. Emiliana. his mother. de Corcino. she is entitled.icardo. #he transmission of the aforementioned lands. Issue: Ahether Jaco5a Mar5e5e. was -ro-erly determined 5y the #rial Judge. #$a. Asuncion. . Faustino. regardless of whether or not the latter 5elong to the line from which the -ro-erty of the deceased came. situated in the munici-ality of Maasin. . to the -ro-erties in dis-ute. and that. to her only son. which is not a fact. single and without issue on Fe5ruary '%. u-on the ground that said lands 5elonged to the deceased Juan Mar5e5e. !eonor. they -assed. An action was instituted 5y . in the a5sence of other sisters or 5rothers. Arsenio and Feli-e. or of children of 5rothers or sisters. su5se=uently. lea$ing neither ascendants nor descendants. all surnamed !acerna. and that his cousins. 5y an ascendant from a descendant. Juan Mar5e5e. Bonifacia !acerna.AC!R"A v. #he Su-reme Court ruled that the main flaw in a--ellants< theory is that it assumes that said -ro-erties are su5(ect to reser$a troncal. Juan Mar5e5e who was. loilo.. Jaco5a Mar5e5e filed an answer in inter$ention alleging that she is a half sister of Juan Mar5e5e who died intestate. Ruling: >es. this a--eal 5y the -laintiffs. for the lands in dis-ute were inherited 5y a descendant. ta?en to Culion where he died intestate. C-on her death in %&/'. e$en if only a half)sister. under the conditions therein set forth. 5y inheritance. against Agatona Dda. e8cludes all other collateral relati$es. 5y succession. as his half sister. After due trial. for Article 0&% of the Ci$il Code a--lies only to -ro-erties inherited.
his -osthumos son. the a5solute dominion of the ascendant who inherits and recei$es same from his descendant. n Fe5ruary %/. #he Su-reme Court ruled that the reser$a5le character of the -ro-erty was not lost since the reser$a5le -ro-erty does not form -art of the estate of the reser$ista. nor falls under. t 5ecomes his own -ro-erty only in case that all the relati$es of his descendant shall ha$e died *reser$ista. 48( Facts: A-olonio sa5elo Florentino contracted two marriages while he was ali$e. Mercedes refused to share. . %0&1. n January %6 and Fe5ruary %/. including the -ro-erty. sur$i$ed 5y his second wife Se$erina Fa" de !eon and the ten children first a5o$e mentioned and his ele$enth son. Mercedes too? -ossession of all the -ro-erty left at the death of her mother. succeeded to all his -ro-erty descri5ed in the com-laint. Se$erina Fa" de !eon died on . and Magdalena. is nothing 5ut a life usufructuary or a fiduciary of the reser$a5le -ro-erty recei$ed. claimed that they should also 5e entitled to their res-ecti$e shares on the -osthumous A-olonio9s -ro-erty since it is reser$a5le in character. he married Se$erina Fa" de !eon with whom he had two children. Issue: Ahether or not the reser$a5le character of the -ro-erty in =uestion was lost 5ecause of its inclusion in a will. relati$es of the latter. Mercedes and A-olonio . A-olonio . t was stressed that the reser$a5le -ro-erty neither comes. -alay. sa5el.F OR!"TI"O v. the -osthumos A-olonio. some -ersonal -ro-erty and other o5(ects mentioned in the com-laint. n the -artition of A-olonio Fs estate. Es-irita. A-olonio e8ecuted a will 5efore the notary -u5lic of locos Sur. A-olonio died.o$em5er %0. n %&0%. in one of the -aragra-hs of said will that all his -ro-erty should 5e di$ided among all of his children of 5oth marriages. therefore it does not form -art of his own -ro-erty nor 5ecome the legitimate of his forced heirs. while there are li$ing. li$estoc?. instituting as his uni$ersal heirs his aforementioned ten children. Se$erina Fa" de !eon. within the third degree. in which case said reser$a5le -ro-erty losses such character. #he first was with Antonia Fa" de !eon. Juan. which Se$erina inherited from her deceased son. After Se$erina9s death. a gold rosary. Pedro. Maria. claiming that the reser$a5le nature of the -ro-erty was e8tinguished the moment her mother included it in her will. lea$ing a will instituting as her uni$ersal heir her only li$ing daughter. #he Court further stated that any ascendant who inherits from his descendant any -ro-erty. Ea5riel. of sil$er and of ta5le ser$ice. Ahen Antonia died. he ga$e to A-olonio Florentino . A-olonio . %0&1. Jose. F OR!"TI"O 4( P)il. Mercedes Florentino. -ieces of gold. Ruling: . was 5orn on the following March @. the -osthumos son of the second marriage died and so his mother. Being the only heir. Encarnacion et al. %&10. %0&1. with whom he 5egot nine children named. descri5ed in the com-laint as reser$a5le -ro-erty.o. the -osthumos A-olonio and his widow Se$erina Fa" de !eon2 he declared. Encarnacion.
Eon"ales filed on June '1. !egarda. the son of Benito !egarda y #uason. She could not select the reser$ees to whom the reser$a5le -ro-erty should 5e gi$en and de-ri$e the other reser$ees of their share therein. %&3/ e8ecuted two handwritten identical documents wherein she dis-osed of the -ro-erties. Ale(andro and Jose. %&/&.*O"+A !S v. !egarda died on Se-tem5er ''. %&70 an ordinary ci$il action against her 5rothers. %&@/. Her sole heiress was her mother. Filomena . sisters. #eresa. and Jose. . #he reser$or cannot ma?e a dis-osition mortis causa of the reser$a5le -ro-erties as long as the reser$ees sur$i$ed the reser$or. Filomena !egarda y .aces Dda. which she inherited from her daughter. her three daughters and three sons. !egarda. Eon"ales Issue: Ahether Mrs. #he lower court dismissed the action of Mrs. the real -ro-erties left 5y Benito !egarda y #uason were -artitioned in three e=ual -ortions 5y his daughters. and their se$en children named Beatri". !egarda on March 7. filed a motion to e8clude from the in$entory of her mother<s estate the -ro-erties which she inherited from her deceased daughter. !egarda. as reser$or. Mrs. . Filomena .ita. ne-hews and nieces and her mother<s estate for the -ur-ose of securing a declaration that the said -ro-erties are reser$a5le -ro-erties which Mrs. Mrs. could con$ey the reser$a5le -ro-erties 5y will or mortis causa to the reser$ees within the third degree *%7 grandchildren. in fa$or of the children of her sons *%7 grandchildren. on the ground that said -ro-erties are reservable -ro-erties which should 5e inherited 5y Filomena !egarda<s three sisters and three 5rothers and not 5y the children of Benito.. n the testate -roceeding. %&//. #he Su-reme Court held that Mrs. to the e8clusion of the reser$ees in the second degree. Article 0&% clearly indicates that the reser$a5le -ro-erties should 5e inherited 5y all the nearest relati$es within the third degree from the propositus who in this case are the si8 children of Mrs. all surnamed !egarda.o. Beatri" !egarda Eon"ales. !egarda. Her will was admitted to. Ruling: . Filomena. Ale(andro. de !egarda so the latter 5ecame a co)owner of the -ro-erties held pro indiviso 5y her other si8 children. Benito F. a daughter of the testatri8. !egarda could not 5e=ueath in her hologra-hic will to her grandchildren to the e8clusion of her three daughters and her three sons.aces. !egarda could not con$ey in her hologra-hic will to her %7 grandchildren the reser$a5le -ro-erties which she had inherited from her daughter Filomena 5ecause the reser$a5le -ro-erties did not form -art of her estate. %&76. Benito. 4n July %'. Mrs. CFI 1(4 SCRA 481 Facts: Benito !egarda y :e la Pa". Filomena. died on June %6. #hat motion was o--osed 5y the administrator. He was sur$i$ed 5y his widow. Consuelo and .aces died intestate and without issue on March %&.osario. and the heirs of his deceased son Benito !egarda y :e la Pa" who were re-resented 5y Benito F.
and as such. such that one)half 5e ad(udicated to them. he had two children. %&10. they claim..o. 4n 4cto5er 7. Benita Earing. Padura heirs o--osed. %&3'. Cornelio. the . and the other half to the a--ellees. and a$oid its 5eing dissi-ated into and 5y the relati$es of the inheriting ascendant *reser$ista. But from this time on. Aith his first wife Eer$acia !andig. the -arcels of land were inherited e8clusi$ely 5y his mother Benita. he died single.A %O#I"O 1(4 SCRA 1('Facts: Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime. Francisco. Juana. there is no further occasion for its a--lication. Issue: Ahether or not the reser$ed -ro-erties should 5e distri5uted among the heirs e=ually. CF !aguna declared the children of Manuel and Candelaria to 5e the rightful reser$ees. Manuel Padura. %&/@. 4n August '7. intestate. Ruling: . C-on the death of Benita *the reser$ista. there is no call for a--lying Art 0&% any longer2 the res-ecti$e share of each in the re$ersionary -ro-erty should 5e go$erned 5y the ordinary rules of interstate succession. under which. #he Court ruled that the ne-hews of the whole 5lood should ta?e a share twice as large as that of the ne-hews of the half 5lood. lea$ing as her heirs her four legitimate children:Cristeta. . #he court also held that reser$a troncal is a s-ecial rule designed -rimarily to assure the return of the reser$a5le -ro-erty to the third degree relati$es 5elonging to the line from which the -ro-erty originally came. Benita Earing. n conclusion. %&10. #he Baldo$ino heirs filed a -etition see?ing to ha$e the -ro-erties -artitioned.Flora. Melania. entitled to the reser$a5le -ro-erties. Felisa. Agustin died lea$ing a last will and testament.the original reser$ees. 4n A-ril '7. #he -ur-ose of the reser$a troncal is accom-lished once the -ro-erty has de$ol$ed to the s-ecified relati$es of the line of origin. and not ha$ing any issue. and Pa5lo Baldo$ino. duly -ro5ated. Fortunato was ad(udicated four -arcels of land. sur$i$ed 5y his legitimate children :ionisia. Aith the second wife. reser$a troncal merely determines the grou. %&@1. maintaining that they should all 5e deemed as inheriting in their own right. he had one child. the heirs too? -ossession of the reser$a5le -ro-erties. to whom the -ro-erty should 5e returned2 5ut within that grou-.PA%URA v. Manuel also died. 4n May '0. and Se$erino Padura. Fortunato and Candelaria Padura. Anicia. wherein he 5e=ueathed his -ro-erties among his three children and his sur$i$ing s-ouse. each should ha$e an e=ual share. n the relations 5etween one reser$atario and another of the same degree. Candelaria died.of relati$es *reser$atarios. on 4cto5er %3. allegedly on the 5asis that they inherited 5y right of re-resentation from their res-ecti$e -arents.
since Art 0&% does not s-ecify otherwise. .indi$idual right to the -ro-erty should 5e decided 5y the a--lica5le rules of ordinary intestate succession.
who during her lifetime gratuitously donated four *@. n %&'0. Bal5ino #ioco has a sister named . entitled. and their two legitimate children. Faustino :i"on died intestate. -arcels of land as the inheritance of her said two children in e=ual -ro)indi$iso shares. #he -laintiffs o--osed :alisay9s claim.. although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter. sur$i$ed his only legitimate descendant. defendant :alisay :. and lea$ing the afore)mentioned four *@. Ruling: . Eustacio :i"on died intestate. as reser$atarios. to one)half of the se$en -arcels of land in dis-ute. . as his sole intestate heir.. the -laintiffs)a--ellees must 5e held without any right thereto 5ecause. -arcels of land to her niece #ori5ia #ioco *legitimate sister of -laintiffs. #ong?o)Camacho. Manuel #ioco and . . of Faustino :i"on *the -ro-ositus. defendant :alisay :. -arcels of land a5o$e)mentioned to his father. single and without issue. in e=ual -ro-ortions. -arcels of land a5o$ementioned as her inheritance from her mother. ruled that the reser$a5le -ro-erty should -ass.e$ersion of the reser$a5le -ro-erty 5eing go$erned 5y the rules on intestate succession. not to all the reser$atarios as a class 5ut only to those nearest in degree to the descendant *-ro-ositus. the defendant)a--ellant. and her rights and interests in the -arcels of land a5o$ementioned were inherited 5y her only legitimate child. #he Su-reme Court. so they are entitled to their res-ecti$e share. n June %@. Faustino :i"on and #rinidad :i"on *mother of defendant :alisay :. n %&/& #rinidad :i"on)#ong?o died intestate. defendant Primo #ong?o. Francisco #ioco de Pa-a. CA. of all the se$en *6. n %&/6. the defendant)a--ellant :alisay #ong?o)Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the re$ersionary -ro-erty to the e8clusion of the -laintiffs)a--ellees.ACHO 144 SCRA &81 Facts: #he defendant :alisay :. citing se$eral (uris-rudence. Eustacio :i"on. #herefore.icolas #ioco ha$e as a common ancestor the late Bal5ino #ioco) father of -laintiffs and great grandfather of defendant. %&73. Bal5ino #ioco died intestate. #ong?o)Camacho. arguing that they are also relati$es within the third degree of the -ro-ositus..o. #rinidad :i"on)#ong?o. and legitimate grandchildren Faustino :i"on and #rinidad :i"on. #ong?o)Camacho. #ong?o)Camacho owned one)half *%+'.%! PAPA v.icolas #ioco. Issue: Ahether or not all the relati$es of the -ro-ositus within the third degree shall inherit from him. sur$i$ed 5y his legitimate children 5y his wife Marciana Feli8 *among them -laintiffs. she still claimed for the other half of the said se$en *6. -ro)indi$iso share in the se$en *6. as aunt and uncles. #he lower Court declared the -laintiffs Francisco #ioco. :alisay :. they are e8cluded from the succession 5y his niece. e8cluding those reser$atarios of more remote degree. #ori5ia #ioco died intestate. res-ecti$ely. #ong?o)Camacho and the -laintiffs. Manuel #ioco and . as well as the defendant :alisay #ong?o)Camacho. Eustacio :i"on. n l&l3. who recei$ed the said -ro-erty su5(ect to a reser$a troncal. su5(ect to the usufructuary right of her sur$i$ing hus5and. -arcels of land 5y $irtue of the reser$a troncal im-osed thereon u-on the death of Faustino :i"on and under the laws on intestate succession. howe$er. sur$i$ed 5y her hus5and. lea$ing his one) half *%+'.omana #ioco.
Celestino .TOPIC: Intestate Succession CASES: RO%RI*U!+ v. on March %'. %&7/. Maria .M. and that the case in this Court therefore has -recedence o$er the case filed in . . %&7/.odrigue". e$en if no -etition for its allowance was filed until later. eight days later. . . . %&7/. %&7/ in the City of Manila. ta?e the stand that the CF of Bulacan ac=uired (urisdiction o$er the case u-on deli$ery 5y them of the will to the Cler? of Court on March @. . %&7/ A-olonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan filed a -etition in t CF of Bulacan for the -ro5ation of the will deli$ered 5y them on March @.odrigue" was su5mitted and deli$ered to the Court of Bulacan on March @. 4n March %'.4C. . 5ecause u-on the will 5eing de-osited the court could. ha$e ta?en ste-s to fi8 the time and -lace for -ro$ing the will.odrigue" died on Fe5ruary %'. #he estate -roceedings ha$ing 5een initiated in the Bulacan Court of First nstance ahead of any other. through counsel filed a -etition for lea$e of court to allow them to e8amine the alleged will 5ut on March %%. the latter Court has no (urisdiction to entertain the -etition for -ro5ate. %&7/ 5efore the Court could act on the -etition. among other things. Issue: Ahether or not the CF of Bulacan ac=uired (urisdiction o$er the settlement of the estate of Fr. and issued the corres-onding notices conforma5ly to what is -rescri5ed 5y section /.odrigue" 5e a--ointed as S-ecial Administratri8 of the estate.odrigue" alleging. %&7/ while the -etition for -ro5ate was filed in the CF of Bulacan at %%:11 A. while -etitioners initiated intestate -roceedings in the Court of First nstance of .i"al only on March %'. 4n March 0. %&7/. motu proprio. the -recedence and e8clusi$e (urisdiction of the Bulacan court is incontesta5le.e$ised .odrigue" was a resident of ParaGa=ue. . that Fr. the -etition is deemed to relate 5ac? to the time when the will was deli$ered. on the other hand. the same was withdrawn. t was also held that the -ower to settle decedents< estates is conferred 5y law u-on all courts of first instance. %&7/. and died without lea$ing a will and -raying that Maria . #he . .ules of Court. %&7/.odrigue" on March @. Ruling: >es. on the same date. .i"al a -etition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Fr. #he Su-reme Court held that the (urisdiction of the CF of Bulacan 5ecame $ested u-on the deli$ery thereto of the will of the late Father . A-olonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan deli$ered to the Cler? of Court of Bulacan a -ur-orted last will and testament of Fr. of the . 4n March @. 4n March %'.odrigue". Furthermore the Court stated that where the -etition for -ro5ate is made after the de-osit of the will.ule 6/ of .i"al.odrigue".odrigue" and Angela .i"al was filed at 0:11 A. %&7/. that court is entitled to assume (urisdiction to the e8clusion of all other courts. Since the testament of Fr.i"al on March %'.M. and the domicile of the testator only affects the $enue 5ut not the (urisdiction of the Court.ule 67.OR/A Facts: Fr.odrigue"es contend that since the intestate -roceedings in the CF of . aforementioned -etitioners filed 5efore the CF of . #he -etitioners Pangilinan and Jacalan. e$en if it were a case of wrong $enue 5y e8-ress -ro$isions of .
Marciana de la Cru" is the mother of the -laintiff and the niece of the said Pelagia de la Cru". 4cto5er %7. %&7/. . Ruling: .%! OS SA"TOS v.o$em5er /. Pelagia de la Cru" died intestate and without issue. #he defendant filed a Motion for . one of whom is Ma8imo. Hence. Ma8imo set u. %! A CRU+ Facts: Ma8imo :e la Cru" is the ne-hew of the deceased Pelagia de la Cru". %&73. this a--eal. she could not inherit from the latter 5y right of re-resentation. deceased owner of the -ro-erty. he must a5ide 5y the terms of the agreement. %&/3. %&7'. n e8ecuting the -artition agreement. 5eing a -arty to the e8tra(udicial -artition agreement. :e !os Santos. the -arties thereto were la5oring under the erroneous 5elief that :e los Santos was one of the legal heirs of Pelagia de la Cru". . Ma8imo failed to com-ly with his o5ligation so de los Santos filed a com-laint for s-ecific -erformance against him on May '%. %&77. Ma8imo was a--ointed as Administrator and n)charge of the de$elo-ment and su5di$ision of the land in =uestion.ew #rial 5ut the same was denied. and that the said Marciana de la Cru" died on Se-tem5er ''. the -arties e8ecuted an E8tra)Judicial Partition Agreement for distri5uting -ortions of the land owned 5y Pelagia de la Cru". as -ro$ided for in the aforementioned e8tra(udicial -artition agreement. :e los Santos is not an heir of Pelagia de la Cru". :e los Santos not 5eing such an heir. and was included in the e8tra(udicial -artition agreement 5y mista?e. on the other hand is the grandniece of the said Pelagia de la Cru". is an heir of the decedent. :e los Santos. the -artition is $oid with res-ect to her. a grandniece is e8cluded 5y law from the inheritance.ecessarily. was esto--ed from raising in issue the right of the -laintiff to inherit from the decedent Pelagia de la Cru"2 hence. n its decision dated .the affirmati$e defenses that the -laintiff had no cause of action against him 5ecause the said agreement was $oid with res-ect to her. #he Court held that 5eing a mere grandniece of Pelagia de la Cru". t was further stated that the relati$es nearest in degree to Pelagia de la Cru" are her ne-hews and nieces. 4n August '@. who was the owner and -redecessor in interest of the land which was the su5(ect matter of the e8tra)(udicial -artition agreement in this case. -ursuant to Article %%13 of the Ci$il Code. for the reason that the -laintiff was not an heir of Pelagia de la Cru". Issue: Ahether or not the -laintiff)a--ellee. Eertrudes :e los Santos.o. the lower court held that the defendant.