SUCCESSION REVIEWER

1ST SEM 2006-2007
 However, Philippine procedural law, as influenced by the common-law system, lays down a different method for the payment of money debts, as found in Rules 88 to 90 of the Rules of Court. It is only AFTER the debts are paid that the residue of the estate is distributed among the successors .

 Based on “Jottings and Jurisprudence on the Law on Succession” by Prof. Balane and Cases according to the 2006 Syllabus of Justice Hofileña

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

ART. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.

The Code has simplified the concept of succession and treats it simply as one of the 7 Modes of Acquiring Ownership as enumerated in Art712 of the NCC. 7 MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP 1. Occupation 2. Intellectual Creation 3. Law 4. Donation 5. Estate and Intestate Succession 6. Tradition 7. Prescription Overlap of Codal Definition with Art776  Article 774 talks of “property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance.”  Article 776 talks of the “inheritance” as including “all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death.”  For clarity and better correlation, Prof. Balane opines that Art774 should rather read: “Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the inheritance of a person is transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.” And the inheritance which is transmitted through a person’s death is defined by Article 776 to include “all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death.”

Rule 90, Sec1 provides for the When the Order for the Distribution of Residue is made.  According to the rule, when the debts, funeral charges and expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow and the inheritance tax have all been paid, that is the only time that the court shall assign the RESIDUE of the estate to persons entitled to it.  The rule also provides that there shall be no distribution until the payment of the obligations enumerated above, have been made or provided for. However, if the distributees give a bond for the payment of the said obligations within such time and of such amount as fixed by the court, the distribution may be allowed. In our system therefore, money debts are, properly speaking, not transmitted to the heir nor paid by them. The estate pays them and it is only what is left after the debts are paid [residue] that are transmitted to the heirs. Justice JBL Reyes observed that Philippine rules of Succession Mortis Causa proceed from an imperfect blending of 3 Systems with Contrasting Philosophies – 1. GERMANIC CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL HEIR  Heir directly and immediately steps into the shoes of the deceased upon the latter’s death  At one single occasion [uno ictu]  Without need of any formality  En mass  Automatic Subjective Novation 2. FRANCO-SPANISH SYSTEM  Acquisition of estate by universal title but only upon acceptance by the heir at any time, with retroactive effect.  Acceptance may be made any time except when the creditors or the court requires it be done within a certain time.  This is the system followed by the NCC, by having the following features: a) Universality of Property Rights and Obligations b) Transmitted from the moment of death c) En bloc, as an entire mass d) Transmitted even before judicial recognition of heirship. 3. ANGLO-AMERICAN [COMMON LAW] SYSTEM  Estate must first be liquidated, assets marshaled and the debts paid or settled under judicial supervision, by an intervening trustee or personal representative [administrator or executor] before the net residue is taken over by the successor.

What are Transmitted by Succession?  Only Transmissible Rights and Obligations.  General Rule – if the right or obligation is strictly personal [intuitu personae], it is intransmissible; otherwise it may be transmitted. Rule Regarding Pecuniary Obligations  A literal construction of Art774 appears to imply that money obligations of the deceased would pass to the heirs, to the extent that they inherit from him.  Seemingly, this article mandates that the heirs receive the estate, and then pay off the creditors.

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

1

SUCCESSION REVIEWER
 This is the system followed by the Rules of Court, in that: a) Executor or administrator has possession and management of the estate as long as necessary for the payment of debts and expenses of administration, with authority to exercise the right of disposition. b) Section 3 Rule 87 – action to recover title or possession of lands in the hands of the executor or administrator can be maintained by the heir only upon the order of the Court assigning such land to the heir or devisee. c) Section 1 Rule 90 – heirs may recover their share only upon:  Payment of debts, expenses and taxes  Hearing conducted by the court  Court assigns the residue of the estate to the heirs.

1ST SEM 2006-2007
administrator or personal representative until after settlement of the claims against the estate?

RESULT of these divergent rules – Creditors must now pursue their claims during the settlement proceedings and not against the heirs individually.

CASE Union Bank v. Santibañez
- On May 31, 1980, First Country Credit Corporation (FCCC) and Efraim M. Santibanez entered into a loan agreement in the amount of P128,000 which was intended for the payment of the purchase price of 1 unit of a tractor. In view of this, Efraim and his son, Edmund executed a promissory note in favor of FCCC. - On Dec. 13, 1980, FCCC and Efraim entered into another similar loan agreement which was intended to pay the balance of the purchase price of another unit of a tractor. And again, father and son executed a promissory note for the said amount in favor of FCCC. - However, sometime in Feb 1981, Efraim died, leaving a holographic will and subsequently testate proceedings were commenced before the RTC of Iloilo with Edmund being appointed as the special administrator of the estate of the decedent. - During the pendency of the testate proceedings, Edmund and his sister, Florence Santibanez Ariola, executed a joint agreement on July 22, 1981 wherein they agreed to divide between themselves and take possession of the 3 tractors; 2 for Edmund and 1 for Florence, each of them to assume indebtedness of their late father to FCCC. - On August 20, 1981 a deed of assignment with assumption of liabilities was executed by and between FCCC and Union Savings and Mortgage Bank, wherein FCCC as the assignor, assigned all its assets and liabilities to Union Savings and Mortgage Bank. - Not long after, demand letter for the settlement of the account were sent by Union Bank to Edmund but the latter refused to pay. Thus Union Bank filed a complaint for sum of money against the Edmund and Florence before the RTC of Makati. - However the case was dismissed. The lower court said that the claim should have been filed with the probate court were the testate estate of Efraim was pending. Furthermore, the agreement was void considering that the probate court did not approve the agreement and no valid partition until after the will has been probated. - Also, the list of assets and liabilities of Union Bank did not clearly refer to the decedent’s account. Also, it was contended that the obligation of the deceased had passed to his legitimate children and heirs already, in this case Edmund and Efraim. CA affirmed RTC decision. - Hence this appeal. WON the partition in the Agreement executed by the heirs is valid. - No, there can be no valid partition among the heirs until after the will has been probated by the probate court. This is specially because when the joint agreement executed by Edmund and Florence partitioning the tractors among themselves were executed, there was already a pending proceeding for the probate of their late f ather’s holographic will covering the said tractors. Thus the probate court had already acquired jurisdiction over the said tractors which they can’t be divested of. Any extrajudicial agreement needs court approval.

As a result of the blending of these 3 systems, JBL Reyes says that we are thus faced with divergent, if not contradictory principles.  Do the successors acquire the WHOLE of the transmissible assets and liabilities of the decedent?  Art774 – by virtue of succession the property, rights and obligations, to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person, are transmitted by and at the moment of his death, implying a transfer at that instant of the totality or universality of assets and liabilities.  Do the successors only acquire the RESIDUUM remaining after payment of the debts, as implied by the Rules of Court?  Art1057 – within 30 days after the court has issued an order for the distribution of the estate in accordance with the RoC, the heirs, devisees and legatees shall signify to the court having jurisdiction, whether they accept or repudiate the inheritance.  The order of distribution under the RoC is issued only after the debts, taxes and administration expenses have been paid; hence it is arguable that the acceptance can no longer refer to assets already disposed of by the administrator, but must be limited to the net residue.  But if title vests in the heir as of the death of the decedent then the acceptance of the heir becomes entirely superfluous, and the law should limit itself to regulating the effects the effects of a repudiation by an heir or legatee, and its retroactive effect. Or do the successors acquire only the NAKED TITLE at the death of the predecessor, but with possession or enjoyment vested in the

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

2

SUCCESSION REVIEWER
WON the heirs’ assumption of the indebt edness of the deceased is valid. - No, the assumption of the indebtedness of the decedent by Edmund and Florence is not binding. Such assumption was conditioned upon the agreement above. Hence, when the agreement of partition between Edmund and Florence was invalidated, then the assumption of the indebtedness cannot be given and force and effect. Also, the court should have filed it money claim against the decedent’s estate in the probate court. Furthermore, it cannot go after Florence for she took no part in the documents related to the tractors, specifically the promissory notes and the continuing guaranty agreement; they should have gone after Edmund being a co-signatory to the promissory notes and guaranty. WON the Union Bank can hold the heirs liable on the obligation of the deceased. - No, Union Bank cannot hold the heirs liable on the obligation of the deceased because it had not sufficiently shown that it is the successor-in-interest of the Union Savings and Mortgage Bank to which the FCCC assigned its assets and liabilities. Furthermore, the documentary evidence clearly reflects that the parties in the deed of assignment with assumption of liabilities were the FCCC, and the Union Savings and Mortgage Bank, with the conformity of Bancom Philippine Holdings, Inc. Nowhere can the participation therein of Union Bank as a party can be found. As a result, Union Bank has no personality to file the complaint and therefore cannot hold the heirs liable for the obligation of the deceased.

1ST SEM 2006-2007
of the undertaking of the guarantor (Hemady), since the were not liabilities incurred after the execution of the counterbonds; and (2) that “whatever losses may occur after Hemady’s death, are not chargeable to his estate, because upon his death he ceased to be guarantor.” Whether losses are chargeable to Hemady’s Estate. - YES. While in our successional system the responsibility of the heirs for the debts of their 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. - Under the CC, the heirs, by virtue of the rights of succession are subrogated to all the rights and obligations of the deceased and cannot be regarded as third parties with respect to a contract to which the deceased was a party, touching the estate of the deceased. - By contract, the articles of the Civil Code that regulate guaranty or suretyship contain no provision that the guaranty is extinguished upon the death of the guarantor or the surety. - Although Art. 2056 requires that one who is required to furnish a guarantor must present a person who possesses integrity, capacity to bind himself, and sufficient property to answer for the obligation which he guarantees, it will be noted that the law requires these qualities to be present only at the time of the perfection of the contract of guaranty - The contract of suretyship entered into by K.H. Hemady in favor of Luzon Surety not being rendered intransmissible due to the nature of the undertaking, nor by the stipulations of the contracts themselves, nor by provision of law, his eventual liability thereunder necessarily passed upon his death to his heirs. The contracts, therefore, give rise to contingent claims provable against his estate. - The SC reversed the order of the lower court and instead ordered the case be remanded to the CFI. - The general rule is that a party’s contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors. - Art. 1311 of NCC: Contracts take effect only as between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in the case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. - Art. 774 of NCC: Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to another or other either by his will or by operation of law. - Art. 776 of NCC: The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death. - The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not altered by the provision in the Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased must be liquidated and paid from the estate before the residue is distributed among said heirs. The reasons is that whatever payment is made from the estate is ultimately a payment by the heirs, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would have been entitled to receive.

In a sense, it can be said that even money debts are transmitted to and paid for by the heirs, but this would be by mere indirection –  Because whatever payment is thus made from the estate is ultimately a payment by the heirs and distributes, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would have been entitled to receive. BUT only the payment of MONEY DEBTS has been affected by the Rules of Court. The transmission of other obligations not by nature personal follows the rule in Art774 and is transmitted by succession.

CASE Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety
- Luzon Surety filed a claim against the Estate based on 20 different indemnity agreements or counter bonds, each subscribed by a distinct principal and by the deceased K.H. Hemady, a surety solidary guarantor in all of them, in consideration of Luzon Surety’s of having guaranteed, the various principals in favor of different creditors. - Luzon Surety also prayed for allowance, as a contingent claim, of the value of the 20 bonds it had executed in consideration of the counterbonds, and further asked for judgment for the unpaid premiums and documentary stamps affixed to the bonds with 12% interest. - Before the answer was filed, the lower court dismissed the claims of Luzon Surety, on two grounds: (1) that the premiums due and cost of documentary stamps were not contemplated under the indemnity agreements to be a part

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

3

. . 776. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. .Santiago sold the land to Fuentabella.   Time of Vesting of Successional Right Prof. the administratrix of his estate (Arsenia) filed a motion requesting authority to sell Lot 773 (already subdivided to Lots 773-A and 773-B). Has the legal capacity to succeed. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  4 .000.  To say that it is transmitted upon death implies that before the decedent’s death. Balane opines that Art774 should rather read: “Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the inheritance of a person is transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law. NCC: The inheritance includes all the property. THE LAW PRESUMES THAT THE PERSON SUCCEEDING – 1. . . rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance.YES. Lea Mateo.CFI ordered Alvarez to reconvey Lots 773 and 823 to the Yaneses.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 Testator – specific term. Balane says the terminology used in this article is “infelicitous” because the right to the succession is not transmitted.”  And the inheritance which is transmitted through a person’s death is defined by Article 776 to include “all the property. rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death. This would have prevented the ambiguity now inherent in the term “decedent” ART. however. the right to the succession was possessed by the decedent [which is absurd]. whether or not he left a will.Aniceto Yanes owned a parcel of land identified as Lot 773 in Negros Occidental.The children are.Art. and Teodora. . Felipe.” ART. but rather vested. representing the actual value of Lot 773. rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death. rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance.  To say that it vests upon death implies that before the decedent’s death the right was me rely inchoate [which is correct]. b) Will [testamentary succession]. . Mars Rongo. CJ Tan. he is also called the testator. “decedent” is the general term applied to the person whose property is transmitted through succession. Prof. liable only to the extent of the value of their inheritance. . and 3. 775.Teodora cultivated part of Lot 823. In this Title. or c) Law [intestate succession] 2. Accepts the successional portion  ART. .”  Article 776 talks of the “inheritance” as including “all the property. They were informed that Santiago already owned Lot 773. of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law. Cecille Natividad. Rufino’s children went back to the land to get the their share in the sugar produce.Rufino and his children left the province to settle in other places as a result of the outbreak of WWII. the children cannot escape the consequences of their father’s transaction.Siason claims that he was a purchaser in good faith and thus. The inheritance includes all the property. WON it was correctly ruled that the children of Alvarez be made responsible for the liability of their father (Alvarez). . .As heirs of the late Alvarez. .”  For clarity and better correlation. 774.  Alvarez v.  Overlap of Codal Definition with Art776  Article 774 talks of “property.Teodora and Rufino’s children (Yaneses) filed a complaint in CFI Negros Occidental for the “return” of the possession and ownership of Lots 773 and 823. He was survived by his children. NCC: Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property. which gave rise to the present claim for damages. . Alvarez sold the land to Siason.Aniceto left his children with Lots 773 and 823. and had the corresponding TCTs.  Decedent – general term. person whose property is transmitted Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.Execution of the decision was unsuccessful with regard to Lot 773 as it was already in the name of Siason. rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death.The motion was granted and Arsenia sold the lands to Alvarez. . Rufino.Another action was instituted by the Yaneses. Julie Domingo. this time impleading Siason. Has a right to succeed by a) Legitime [compulsory succession].After Fuentabella died. 776. . .After the liberation. . .Art. he has title to Lot 773. The rights and obligations of the deceased are generally transmissible to his legitimate children and heirs. If he left a will. rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death. . IAC . It is unfortunate that the Code does not use the term “Intestate” to refer to a decedent who died without a will.CFI dismissed the complaint against Siason and ordered the children of Alvarez to solidarily pay the Yaneses Php 20.During the pendency of the case. person who transmits his property via a will.

In this case. Francisco’s wife and Jose’s mother . or legatee is legally deemed to have acquired ownership at that moment. . and not at the time of declaration of heirs or partition or distribution. 3) the resolutory 60day period had lapsed so that the agreement had ceased to be valid. It is true that the new Civil Code grants successional rights to illegitimate children and that this right shall be given retroactive effect even though the event which gave rise to said right may have occurred under the former legislation. the legal wife filed a case for recovery of ownership and possession of the said parcels of land against del Rosario. - - -  It should be emphasized that the operation of Art. .Tasiana cited Guevara v.The CFI of Rizal approved the agreement whereas the CFI of Nueva Ecija did not.The contention that Unson and Faustino agreed that the former would NOT inherit anything from the latter cannot be made effectual. . meaning the transmission by succession occurs at the precise moment of death and therefore the heir.Thus. Thus. from the proceeds of which P800. .Francisco De Borja and Jose De Borja were coadministrators of the testate estate of Josefa De Borja. . 777 is at the very moment of the decedent’s death. and to any properties bequeathed or devised to her by Francisco. widower Francisco married Tasiana Ongsingco. representing P200. .Following the death of Francisco. 1950 2.  Because the heir acquires ownership at the moment of death and become parties in interest. Del Rosario Law in force at time of decedent’s death determines who the heirs should be. Tasiana was appointed as special administratrix in the testate proceedings of Francisco before the CFI of Nueva Ecija. stating that it was against the law and public policy. 1963.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 the new Civil Code granting successional rights to illegitimate children. Lea Mateo. by will or by donation purportedly conveyed for consideration or otherwise.Whether or not Unson is entitled to recover the parcels of land in question. . expressed their mutual desire to end the suits between them by selling the Poblacion portion of the Jalajala. . The law in force at the time of the decedent’s death will determine who the heirs should be  New Civil Code – August 30. . he will generally not know how much he will be inheriting and what properties he will ultimately be receiving. Jose became the sole administrator in the testate proceedings of his mother before the CFI of Rizal. . Mars Rongo. and Tasiana Ongsingco. devisee. Maria del Rosario who took possession of the lands.The SC held for Maria Unson. it was the common-life. with right to dispose .Maria Unson was the legal wife of Faustino Nebrada. i. Rights over the inheritance of a person are transmitted upon his death to another. CJ Tan. even if. .In the said agreement.‘The property belongs to the heirs at the moment of death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to them a deed for the same before his death.000. and. .It appears that after the death of Josefa.Maria de Rosario contended that Unson and Faustino agreed to separate some time in 1931.However. when both parties agreed to enter into a compromise agreement on October 12.The Civil Code provides that the inheritance of a person is transmitted to another at the moment of his death. the right over the parcels of land vested upon Unson from the moment of death of Faustino. shall be paid to Tasiana as full and complete payment and settlement of Tasiana’s hereditary share in the estate of Francisco as well as of Josefa. The NCC took effect in 1950). Julie Domingo. De Borja Ownership passes to heir at the very moment of death. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  5 . 2) it compromises the validity of the marriage between Francisco and Tasiana. from that moment acquires the right to dispose of his share. depriving Unson the enjoyment and possession of the same. Future inheritance cannot be validly made the subject of any contract nor can it be renounced. Maria Unson. (Faustino died in 1945. However. . particularly in the heir’s case. Faustino died in 1945 leaving 5 parcels of land with no other heir except his legal wife.Multiple suits ensued between the children of the first marriage and Tasiana until at some point. . Jose De Borja.000 from each of the 4 children from the first marriage. . Rizal properties of Francisco. according to the NCC.” De Borja v. CASES Uson v. .Accordingly. . and as already explained. Guevara which did not allow an extrajudicial settlement of a decedent’s estate if there has been left a will. 3. Said argument is untenable. the Supreme Court said that the parcels of land of Faustino passed from the moment of his death to his only heir. who therefore. without a moment’s interruption. personally and as administrator of the estate of Josefa.Del Rosario also argued that her illegitimate children with Faustino have the right to inherit by virtue of the provision of Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Cecille Natividad. The heirs have the right to be substituted for the deceased as party in an action that survives. Unson was given a parcel of land as alimony on the condition that the latter will renounce her right to inherit any property that may be left by the husband upon his death. the new right cannot be enforced w/out preju dice to Unson’s vested right over the properties.When Francisco died. this new right must not prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right. From this principle. .  The vesting of the right occurs immediately upon the decedent’s death. Ownership passes to the heir at the very moment of death.e. the following consequences flow – 1.Tasiana’s grounds for her opposition to the agreement after it was submitted to the court for approval were: 1) no such agreement is valid without first probating the will of Francisco.

777. . Julie Domingo. 1975 and asked for the proper substitution of parties in the case. it was invalid.NO. . in the estates of Francisco and Josefa. Mars Rongo.Following a review of the provision in the agreement where full and complete payment was made to Tasiana in the amount of P800. the heirs become the absolute owners of his property.On March 31. Lea Mateo.Thus. . the heirs become the absolute owners of his property. there is no legal bar to a successor (with requisite contracting capacity) disposing of his or her hereditary share immediately after such death. . .) .Whether the court acted correctly in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff.While it is true that a person who is dead cannot sue in court. yet he can be substituted by his heirs in pursuing the case up to its completion. but the court after the hearing immediately dismissed the case on the ground that a dead person cannot be a real party in interest and has no legal personality to sue.A hereditary share in a decedent’s estate is transmitted or vested immediately from the moment of the death of such causante or predecessor in interest (Art. . . the agreement bound the parties. . it is grave error for the court to refuse the request for substitution on the ground that the children were still minors and cannot sue. .A hereditary share in a decedent’s estate is transmitted or vested immediately from the moment of the death of such causante or predecessor in interest (Art. there is no legal bar to a successor (with requisite contracting capacity) disposing of his or her hereditary share immediately after such death. upon the perfection of the contract. it was clear that there was no attempt to settle or distribute Francisco’s estate before the probate of his will. . no reason for the Court to disallow their substitution as parties in interest for the deceased plaintiff. .From the moment of the death of the decedent. Tasiana was a compulsory heir so that her successional interest existed independent of Francisco’s will and testament and would exist even if such were not probated at all. therefore.Likewise. In the very opening paragraph of the agreement itself. Whether or not the compromise agreement was invalid without first probating the will of Francisco. Section 16.Moreover.Guevara v. and they cannot be deprived of their rights thereto except by the methods provided for by law. has no legal capacity to sue." From the moment of the death of the decedent. If thereafter she died.The only difference between an extrajudicial compromise and one submitted and approved by the court is that the latter is enforceable by execution proceedings. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 Bonilla v. 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. pending probate of Francisco’s will when the agreement was made. Whether or not the compromise agreement had ceased to be valid. . the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Fortunata Barcena is dead and. NCC. . Her heirs have thus acquired interest in the properties in litigation and became parties in interest in the case.NO. even if the actual extent of such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of the estate. subject to the Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. . therefore. . . 1975 Fortunata Barcena. . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  6 .Thus.NO. .On August 4. When Fortunata Barcena. Guevara was inapplicable. . and to give the name and residence of his executor.) . Barcena Heirs have right to be substituted for deceased in an action that survives. died her claim or right to the parcels of land in litigation was not extinguished by her death but was transmitted to her heirs upon her death. The compromise agreement was valid. directs the Court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor. subject to the rights and obligations of the decedent. 1975. . as surviving spouse of Francisco’s. she was described as the heir and surviving spouse of Francisco De Borja which was a definite admission of her civil status. . instituted a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Abra. . Cecille Natividad. mother of minors Rosalio Bonilla and Salvacion Bonilla and wife of Ponciano Bonilla. even if the actual extent of such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation of the estate.Thus. when counsel asked that the minor children be substituted for the deceased and suggested that the uncle be appointed as guardian ad litem for them because their father is busy earning a living for the family.The court had acquired jurisdiction over the person of the deceased. 777. 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. counsel for the plaintiff confirmed the death of Fortunata Barcena and asked for substitution by her minor children and her husband. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. . it shall be the duty of his attorney to inform the court promptly of such death . in their individual capacities.The only difference between an extrajudicial compromise and one submitted and approved by the court is that the latter is enforceable by execution proceedings. to quiet title over certain parcels of land located in Abra. even absent a previous authority from the Court. .000.Its object was conveyance by Tasiana of her individual share and interest. actual or eventual. NCC. administrator. therefore. .Also. the petitioners herein.Article 777 of the Civil Code provides "that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. Jose’s act of seeking a court order for the approval and enforcement of the agreement is justified as said agreement had not been abandoned and not invalidated by the inability of the parties to reach a novatory accord in a quest for a more satisfactory compromise following Tasiana’s unilateral attempts to back out from the same. . guardian or other legal representatives.The effect of such alienation is limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir. Whether or not the agreement compromises the status and validity of the marriage between Francisco and Tasiana. . There is. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "whenever a party to a pending case dies . has no more personality to sue.SUCCESSION REVIEWER .During the hearing. who had died pending the proceedings." This duty was complied with by the counsel for the deceased plaintiff when he manifested before the respondent Court that Fortunata Barcena died on July 9. because it ought to know that Section 17. CJ Tan.The effect of such alienation is limited to what is ultimately adjudicated to the vendor heir.

Remedios.NO.The decedent’s rights which by their nature are not extinguished by death go to make up a part and parcel of the assets of his estate. . .Real property.The proper party must be the one who is to be benefited or injured by the judgment.YES. .The Commission granted the application in view of the financial ability of the estate to maintain and operate the ice plant Whether the substitution of the legal representative of the Estate of Fragante for the latter as party applicant in the case pending before the Commission be allowed. he would have the right to prosecute his application to its final conclusion. mortgaging or otherwise encumbering real property belonging to the estate. who agreed to buy it for P1M. Julie Domingo. The fiction of extension of the citizenship of Fragante is grounded upon the same principle as that of the extension of his personality. Lea Mateo.He eventually sold parcels of land to Alex Lina. including the appointment and removal of administrators and executors.Yes. and (2) he did not promise he could obtain the approval. Whether or not Eliosoro is in bad faith .Fragrante died pending the conclusion of his application to Commission. that becomes vested and charged with his rights and obligations which survive after his demise. It also extends to incidental and collateral matters such as selling. rights and assets left by the decedent. and to rule otherwise would result in a failure of justice. .Yes. which. Hence. . inchoate or complete and embrace rights which lie in contract. 661 of the Civil Code brought about by the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure. Cecille Natividad. SC held that he is not in bad faith because: (1) he informed Lina of the need to secure court approval prior to the sale of the lots. The moment of death is the determining factor where the heirs acquire a definite right to the inheritance whether such right to be pure or contingent. have also been declared to include every species of title. Heirs of Spouses Sandejas v. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  7 .Yes. instead of the heirs directly. 35T. . 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. Such certificate would certainly be property and the right to acquire such belonged to the decedent in his lifetime and survived to his estate and judicial administrator after his death. such as the estate of a deceased. Whether the Estate of Fragante is a person within the meaning of the Public Service Act. . . SC held that probate court has jurisdiction over it since it covers all matters relating to the settlement of estates and the probate of wills of deceased persons.The heirs of Sandejas now filed a MR for the appointment of a new administrator. . . In this case.Assailed is the decision of the Public Service Commission granting a certificate of public convenience to install. . Lina . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. . being placed under the control and management of the administrator. it is only limited to the proindiviso share of Eliosoro.SUCCESSION REVIEWER rights and obligations of the decedent. Because the condition is the procurement of court approval and not the payment of the purchase price. Whether the Estate of Fragante can be considered as a citizen of the Philippines. only with court’s permission. whether executory or executed.It is the estate or mass of property.Eliosoro eventually died and Alex Lina was appointed new administrator of the estate of Remedios. This doctrine is an abrogation of art. there would also be a failure of justice if the estate would not be regarded as a person as it would prejudice Fragante’s investment of Php. as estate or interest. maintain and operate an ice plant in San Juan to the Intestate Estate of Pedro O. Fragrante. It merely implies that that the property may be taken out of custodia legis. . This right did not lapse through his death. Whether or not Eliosoro is legally obligated to convey title to the property which is found by the lower court to be a contract to sell. Whether or not the probate court has jurisdiction over the approval of the sale. . . The Supreme Court of Indiana declared that a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. in his capacity as one of the legal heirs. Had Fragante not died. A certificate of public convenience once granted should descend to the estate as an asset. Mars Rongo.NO.SC held that his share is 11/20 of the entire property because he owned ½ of these lots plus a further 1/10 of the remaining half.Because the other heirs did not consent to the sale of their ideal shares in the disputed lots. Intestate of Flagrante . for such a right was property despite the possibility that the application may be denied. and they cannot be deprived of right thereto except by the methods provided for by law. it constitutes a part of the assets of his estate. CJ Tan. devisees or legatees and heirs. can not be exercised but by him in representation of the estate for the benefit of the creditors.Lina filed a Motion to approve the deed of conditional sale. Whether or not Lina can apply to the court for the approval of the sale.Eliosoro Sandejas was appointed administrator for the settlement of the estate of his wife. How much is Eliosoro’s share in the property? . is an artificial person. .The stipulation requiring court approval does not affect the validity and the effectivity of the sale as regards the selling heirs. . or one who is to be entitled to the avails of the suit. Cases for Articles 774-777 1ST SEM 2006-2007 Limjoco v.

This is so even if the heir does not actually receive the inheritance.  Until the effectivity of the Family Code. while the legitime operates whether or not there is a will.   “Donations of future property shall be governed by the provisions on testamentary succession and the formalities of wills. Balane] 1. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  8 . COMPULSORY  Succession to the legitime  Prevails over all other kinds 2. The inheritance of a person includes not only the property and the transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death. and not by succession. Whatever accrues thereto after the decedent’s death [which is when the succession opens] belongs to the heir. not by virtue of succession.  Once the decedent dies and the heir inherits.  Art781 should have left well enough alone.. the fruits of the property or inheritance belongs to the heir by accession.. it serves only to confuse. MIXED  That effected partly by will and partly by operation of law. 779]  Succession by will 3. 779. and had only to be done in the marriage settlements.  This has been eliminated by the Family Code in Article 84 paragraph 2:  ART. that accruals to the inheritance after the decedent’s death are included in the inheritance is to negate the principle in Art777 that transmission takes place precisely at the moment of death. 2.”  Since under the provision.  Donations propter nuptias of future property. The future spouses may give each other in their marriage settlements as much as one-fifth of their present property.  There are instances where the rules on legitime [Arts 887. ART. to classify succession to the legitime as a separate and distinct kind of succession. contractual succession no longer exists in this jurisdiction. Mixed succession is that effected partly by will and partly by operation of law. CJ Tan. TESTAMENTARY [Art. INTESTATE  Succession in default of a will 4. in fact prevails over a will. but a combination of any two or all of the first three. may the creditors claims the fruits produced by the decedent’s property after his death? Or do these fruits pertain to the heirs?  But wouldn’t the debts be deducted from the estate first before the properties are distributed to the heirs? Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. which were governed only by the Statute of Frauds. ART 130. made in a will executed in the form prescribed by law. Some observations –  Enumeration cannot satisfactorily accommodate the system of legitimes.   Article 781 is best deleted. or (3) Mixed ART. MIXED [Art. FOUR KINDS OF SUCCESSION ACCORDING TO IMPORTANCE [Prof. for want of a better term.  Such a donation becomes an ordinary case of testamentary succession.  To say. Julie Domingo. Lea Mateo. Testamentary succession is that which results from the designation of an heir. 778: 1. to the exclusion of the rules on intestacy [Arts 960. Mars Rongo. 780. there was one exceptional case of succession by contract [contractual succession] found in Article 130 of Civil Code. TESTAMENTARY  That which results from the designation of an heir. LEGAL OR INTESTATE  Lost definition: “takes place by operation of law in the absence of a valid will. Cecille Natividad.] operate. 3 KINDS OF SUCCESSION ACCDG TO ART. made in a will. Succession may be: (1) Testamentary (2) Legal or Intestate.” 3.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 ART. but also those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. which. 781. took effect mortis cause. as Art781 does. and with respect to their future property.  Legal or intestate succession operates only in default of a will [Arts960 and 961]. can be denominated compulsory succession.  Question – If the assets left behind by the decedent are not sufficient to pay the debts. made by one of the future spouses to the other. only in the event of death. 780]  Not a distinct kind really. but by virtue of ownership. to the extent laid down by the provisions of this Code referring to testamentary succession.]  It is therefore best for clarity. The inheritance includes only those things enumerated in Article 776. any donation of future property between the affianced couple is to be governed by the rules of testamentary succession and the forms of wills. 778.  It was the only instance of Contractual Succession in our civil law.

CA . (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law. .000 until Encarnacion’s death. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract which involves a property right. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  9 .DKC entered into a Contract of Lease with Option to Buy with Encarnacion Bartolome. and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. filed a Motion for Intervention. a certain Lozano. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. . genius. . nonperformance is not excused ART. . . discretion. ability. specific. or where the contract. a property right. They are so open-ended that an heir can fall under the definition of a legatee/devisee and vice-versa.Where the service or act is of such a character that it may be performed by another.Meanwhile. the subject matter of the contract is a lease. 778-782 DKC Holdings Corp.The RTC denied Lozano’s Motion and dismissed the complaint filed by DKC. who claimed that he was and has been a tenant-tiller of the lot for 45 years. can X. Rather.  The codal definitions are neither clear nor very helpful. the obligation of Encarnacion to deliver possession of the property may very well be performed by Victor. having received a gift of real property by will? The definitions of the Spanish Code in conjunction with Castan’s explanations are more helpful:  HEIR – one who succeeds to the WHOLE or an Aliquot part of the inheritance  DEVISEE / LEGATEE – those who succeed to definite. and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. . transmissible. shows the performance by others was contemplated. judgment. More importantly. Victor refused to accept these payments. there is neither contractual stipulation nor legal provision making the rights and obligation under the contract intransmissible. death does not terminate the contract or excuse nonperformance. Similarly.DKC thus opened a savings account in the name of Victor and deposited therein the rental fee.000 as rent.DKC also tried to register and annotate the Contract on the title of Victor but the Register of Deeds refused to register or annotate the same. Julie Domingo. Lea Mateo. therefore. DKC undertook to pay Php 3. v. . . Victor executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication over all the properties of Encarnacion.  “I give X my fishpond in Navotas” – by definition of heir.There is privity of interest between an heir and his deceased predecessor – he only succeeds to what rights his predecessor had and what is valid and binding against the latter is also valid and binding against the former.Again.DKC regularly paid the monthly Php 3. not be considered a devisee. the son and sole heir of Encarnacion. . X receives a fishpond. . by their nature.The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract which involves a property right.Article 1311 of the NCC provides: Contracts take effect only between the parties. However. .Where acts stipulated in a contract require the exercise of special knowledge. . Thus.Whether the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy entered into by the late Encarnacion Bartolome with DKC was terminated upon her death or whether it binds her sole heir. An heir is a person called to the succession either by the provision of a will or by operation of law. the SC held that Victor has the obligation to surrender possession of and lease of premises for 6 years. . by its terms. . .  The distinction between an heir and a devisee or legatee is important because on this distinction depends the correct application of Art854 on preterition. taste.  In cases of preterition. Thereafter. However. Cecille Natividad. which option must be exercised within 2 years from the signing of the Contract. (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law. Victor refused to accept the payment and to surrender passion of the property. and terminates on the death of the party who is required to render such service. DKC filed a complaint for specific performance and damages. there is no personal act required from the late Encarnacion.Since DKC exercised its option in accordance with the contract. integrity. whereby DKC was given the option to lease or lease with purchase a land belonging to Encarnacion. is that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest except when the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by (1) their nature.The general rule.Also. the agreement is of personal nature.In turn. SC held that the issue of tenancy should be ventilated in another proceeding. Devisees and legatees are persons to whom gifts of real and personal property are respectively given by virtue of a will.The SC held that Victor is bound by the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy. 782. .SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 . Mars Rongo. even after her demise. or other personal qualification of one or both parties. . CJ Tan. DKC coursed its payment to Victor. . the institution of an heir is annulled. experience.In this case. LEGATEE – persons to whom gifts of personal property are given by virtue of a will. .Thus. by definition. their assigns and heirs. while the institution of legatees and devisees is effective to the extent that the legitimes are not impaired.In this case. skill. except in case where the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by (1) their nature. .000 a month for the reservation of its option. is not X called to the succession by provision of a will and therefore an heir?  “I give X ¼ of my estate” – if in the partition.  HEIR – person called to the succession either by will or by law DEVISEE – persons to whom gifts of real property are given by virtue of a will. Victor. including the subject lot.In the course of the proceedings.  Case for Arts. DKC gave notice to Victor that it was exercising its option to lease the property tendering the amount of Php 15. the nature of the rights and obligations therein are. . a new TCT was issued in the name of Victor.Later. and individual properties.

5. INDIVIDUAL  Article 818  Joint wills are prohibited in this jurisdiction. DISPOSITIVE OF PROPERTY  Article 783 seems to consider the disposition of the testator’s estate mortis causa as the purpose of will-making. When there is no disposition of property. to take effect after his death. Cecille Natividad. although the instrument may be considered as a will. Violence.  2. FORMALITIES PRESCRIBED BY LAW  The requirement of form prescribed respectively for attested and holographic wills. its dispositions which are Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. it is submitted that. REVOCABLE AND AMBULATORY  Article 828 5. Article 804 applies to both.SUCCESSION REVIEWER by the death of the party when the other party has a property interest in the subject matter of the contract. ACT  The definition of a will as an act is too broad and should have been more clearly delimited with a more specific term such as instrument or document. A will is an act whereby a person is permitted.  Articles 805-808 and 820-821 govern attested wills. AFTER HIS DEATH  Testamentary succession.  It is only when the will disposes of property. FREE AND INTELLIGENT  Article 839  The testator’s consent should not be vitiated by the causes mentioned in Article 839 paragraphs 2-6 on Insanity. 4. PURELY PERSONAL  Articles 784. UNILATERAL  This characteristic is implied in Article 783 10. STATUTORY  Will-making is a permitted by statute. 3. Julie Domingo. An instrument which merely expresses a last wish as a thought or advice but does not contain a disposition of property and was not executed with animus testandi. SOLEMN AND FORMAL  Articles 804-814 and 820-821  The requirements of form depend on whether the will is attested or holographic. CJ Tan. 11. unlike the Spanish Civil Code wherein military wills could be oral. Operative Words in the Definition 1. with the formalities prescribed by law. 783. EXECUTED WITH ANIMUS TESTANDI  This characteristic is implied in Article 783  Rizal’s valedictory poem “Ultimo Adios” was not a will. MORTIS CAUSA  Article 783  This is a necessary consequence of Articles 774 and 777. 2. wither directly or indirectly.”  NUNCUPATIVE or oral wills are not recognized in our Code. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 CHARACTERISTICS OF WILLS 1. 6. it does not have to be probated. in view of the provision of Art804 that “every will must be in writing. 7. Undue Influence. CONTROL TO A CERTAIN DEGREE  The testator’s power of testamentary disposition is limited by the rules on legitimes. Intimidation. Articles 810-814 govern holographic wills. Fraud and Mistake. 3. 4. Lea Mateo. 8. cannot be legally considered a will.  The present Civil Code seems to limit the concept of a will to a disposition of property to take effect upon and after death. that it has to be probated. is mortis causa. 785 and 787 CHAPTER 2 TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION SECTION 1 – WILLS Subsection 1 – Wills in General ART. like all other kinds of succession in our Code. Mars Rongo. EXECUTED WITH TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY  Articles 796 – 803 on testamentary capacity and intent 9. to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate. PERMITTED  Will-making is purely statutory. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  10 .

In this case. can be give effect even without probating the will. .Corona opposed the motion on ground that the advances came from a savings account which formed part of the conjugal partnership properties and is part of the estate. It was an error to include the savings account in the inventory of the deceased’s assets because it is the separate property of Romarico. the disinheritance cannot be given effect. including such things as conditions. Assuming that it was a donation inter vivos. - - - CASES Vitug v. Survivorship agreements are permitted by the NCC. the savings account involved was in the nature of conjugal funds. Thus. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  11 . The duration of efficacy of such designation.  ART. Lea Mateo.SUCCESSION REVIEWER provided by law.Romarico.  What Constitute the Essence of Will-Making or the Exercise of the Disposing Power? The ff are nondelegable: 1. Since it was not shown that the funds belonged exclusively to one party. used as a cloak to hide an inofficious donation or to transfer property in fraud of creditors or to defeat the legitime of a forced heir). It is also not a donation between spouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouse’s own properties to the other.  This provision gives the will its purely personal character. because there is no disposition and such appointment would not be under the category of a will.WON the survivorship agreement was valid. The determination of the portions they are to receive. filed a motion with the probate court asking for authority to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover alleged advances to the estate. The making of a will is a strictly personal act. . . 784. NON-DELEGABILITY OF WILL-MAKING –  It is the exercise of the disposing power that cannot be delegated. 785. it cannot be left in whole or in part to the discretion of a third person. devisees or legatees. . However. its operation or effect must not be violative of the law (i. .  A valid disinheritance is in effect a disposition of the property of the testator in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of the disinherited heir. solemn. Mars Rongo. it is presumed to be conjugal. 3. Unless the will is probated. substitutions. . The duration or efficacy of the designation of heirs.YES. A will is a personal. solemn.  Obviously. have to comply with the formal requirements of a will in order to be effective? Would such a document have to be probated?  Justice Hofilena says NO. having been acquired through a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank. when referred to by name.The advances were used to pay estate taxes.CA reversed stating that the survivorship agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which did not comply with the formalities of a valid will. do not fall within the prohibition. Julie Domingo. such as the acknowledgment of a natural child or the order that the patria potestas of the widow shall continue after her remarriage. CA .Romarico claims that the funds are his exclusive property. not containing any dispositive provision. which he claimed as personal funds. devisees or legatees 2. such as typing. cannot be left to the discretion of a third person. there was no ground for reimbursement.The lower court upheld the validity of the agreement and granted the motion to sell. the deceased’s husband.The agreement stated that after the death of either one of the spouses. the formal requirements of a will do not apply.  1ST SEM 2006-2007 property and rights and declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death. . Rowena Corona was the executrix.  Would a document containing only a disinheriting clause have to be in the form of a will and be probated? [Article 916]  YES. According to Art916. it is a prohibited donation (donation between spouses). Thus. The designation of heirs. disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefore shall be specified.Romarico Vitug and Nenita Alonte were co-administrators of Dolores Vitug’s (deceased) estate. Cecille Natividad. mechanical aspects. revocable and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his ART. . terms. or accomplished through the instrumentality of an agent or attorney. . It is also not a donation inter vivos because it was to take effect after the death of one party. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. 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. which should be embodied in a will.The conveyance is not mortis causa. A will is a personal. Therefore. and shall be payable to and collectible or withdrawable by such survivor. - Questions  Would a document merely appointing an executor. CJ Tan. Romarico had the right to claim reimbursement. The bequest or devise must pertain to the testator. the savings account shall belong to and be the sole property of the survivor. . or the determination of the portions which they are to take.e.

same provisions shall apply as what is stated in her husband’s will.” Valid?  One View – Article 785 seems to prohibit this. institutions. plaintiff is also entitled to the other P1500 share of Don Enrique since the latter died before Don Honorata. can maintain no such action against the executor. By virtue of the right of accretion. .He is entitled to the share of the estate left by the will of Dona Honorata to Dona Luisa during her life. The testator may entrust to a third person the distribution of specific property or sums of money that he may leave in general to specified classes or causes. TWO THINGS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE TESTATOR – 1. and the Tala Leprosarium. The will specifically awarded the said amounts to him as a legatee and the fact that they were called natural sons of Don Clemente only serves as a further description and needs no proof to be given. 786. Don Ramon subject to certain conditions.  Case for Arts. Del Rosario .Doña Honorata. The share of plaintiff from Dona Luisa’s share is given to him whether or not Dona Luisa dies before or after Dona Honorata.000 because: a. .Don Nicolas left a will awarding parts of his estate to his nephews. the purely person character of a will. to be distributed among these institutions in such proportions as my executor may determine. Whether or not he is entitled to any share of the estate left by the spouses. 787. .000 for the PNRC. However. If the executor is not authorized. 2. it shall be passed on to her husband’s siblings. laid down in Article 784. or establishments within the class or cause.    ART. It is not to be so interpreted as to make it clash with the principle expressed in Articles 1041-1057 of the NCC that the heir is free to accept or reject the testamentary disposition. His interest in the share of Dona Luisa in Don Nicolas’ will was given to him as an heir and not as a legatee. and reinforces. He is only allowed such amount if widow remarries and he is still continuing studies. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  12 . Dona Luisa. which are not present in this case.He is not entitled to live in the widow’s house because such was terminated upon the widow’s death.Plaintiff now institutes this present case against the executor. He seeks to be entitled to a certain part of the share of the estates left to Dona Luisa during her life. . left her estate to his husband. TWO THINGS MAY BE DELEGATED BY THE TESTATOR – 1. rd  What this article prohibits is the delegation to a 3 person of the power to decide whether a disposition should take effect or not. Exception to the Rule on Non-Delegability of WillMaking.He also left a part of his estate to his siblings. “I leave P500. who is one of his uncles. (See case page 322) . Julie Domingo. Without this provision. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. one of which is Dona Luisa. The designation of persons. And upon the latter’s death. His right in the share of Dona Luisa is expressly left to him as a legacy.Where the will authorizes the executor to pay the legacies.Plaintiff is not entitled to any allowance under the will of Don Nicolas because: a. The class or the cause to be benefited. b. . Lea Mateo.He is entitled to be paid the sum of P1500 given to Don Enrique in addition to the P1500 pesos already received by plaintiff under the 9th clause of Dona Honorata’s will because: a. Cecille Natividad.  This article should be interpreted rationally. .SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 ART. The manner of distribution Question – Suppose the testator specified the recipients rd by specific designation but left to the 3 person the determination of the sharing. and also the designation of the persons. the SPCA. ex. her share shall be divided between her two nephews after P1. and he asks that the executor be directed to render accounts and to proceed to the partition of the estate. . b. .  This rule is consistent with.000 has been given to Dona Luisa’s male children. Don Enrique and plaintiff. Upon the husband’s death. 783-787 Del Rosario v. the things allowed to be delegated here would be non-delegable. Mars Rongo. upon the death of her sister-in-law. An heir on the other hand. b. Article 786 applies only where the testator merely specifies the class or the cause but not the specific recipients. institutions or establishments to which such property or sums are to be given or applied.The reservation of property in a will to the name of specific persons shall be considered as a legacy. action will lie by the legatee against the executor to compel allowance and payment hereof. Don Nicolas’ wife. expressly or by natural inference. because the recipients are referred to by name and therefore the portions they are to take must be determined by the testator. action will lie against the heirs. and 2. The property or amount of money to be given.  Contra – This actually involves a lesser discretion rd for the 3 person than the instances allowed by Article 786 and should be allowed. Don Clemente. after deducting P1. CJ Tan. The testator may not make a testamentary disposition in such manner that another person has to determine whether or not it is to be operative.

 Articles 788-794 lays down the rules of construction and interpretation. an all but theoretical one. ART. because the former is the express will of the decedent whereas the latter is only his implied will. Technical words in a will are to be taken in their technical sense. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. in the light of the codal provisions. LATENT – not obvious on the face of the will  When there is an imperfect description or when no person or property exactly answers the description a) Latent as to PERSON – “I institute to ¼ of my estate my first cousin Jose” and the testator has more than one first cousin named Jose. or unless it satisfactorily appears that he was unacquainted with such technical sense. 2. the ambiguity is evident from a reading of the testamentary provisions themselves. 790. mistakes and omissions must be corrected. excluding the oral declarations of the testator as to his intention . as to the application of any of its provisions a) Patent as to PERSON – “I institute ¼ of my estate to some of my first cousins. excluding the oral declarations of the testator as to his intention.  Based on principle that testacy is preferred to intestacy.   2 KINDS OF AMBIGUITY REFERRED TO – 1.  Similar rules are laid down in Rule 130 Sections 10 and 14 of the Rules of Court – Sec10. a similar principle is expressed in Article 1370 par1: Art1370. it shall be understood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual. the ambiguity is patent [patere – to be exposed]  ART. in case of doubt. PATENT – obvious on the face of the will  When an uncertainty arises upon the face of ART. Sec14. and when an uncertainty arises upon the face of the will.  the will. the testator’s intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will. or when no person or property exactly answers the description. Julie Domingo. In contractual interpretation. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties.” HOW TO DEAL WITH AMBIGUITIES –  The provisions of this article do not make a distinction in the solution of the problem of ambiguities – whether latent or patent.  The ambiguity should. unless the context clearly indicates a contrary intention.  Reason for the statutory exclusion is that a dead man cannot refute a tale. technical. the distinction between the 2 kinds of ambiguity is. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning – The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution.  In statutory construction. but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local. as to the application of any of its provisions. Ambiguity may be resolved using any evidence admissible and relevant. Lea Mateo. in order to give effect to the testamentary disposition. unless a clear intention to use them in another sense can be gathered. in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. 789. of the error appears from the context of the will or from extrinsic evidence. the canon is: “That the thing may rather be effective than be without effect. which provides that “if some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings. When there is an imperfect description. or otherwise peculiar signification. taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was made. unless the parties intended otherwise.  Hence. and were so used and understood in the particular instance. be cleared up or resolved. and that other can be ascertained. as far as possible. b) Latent as to PROPERTY – “I devise to my cousin Pacifico my fishpond in Roxas City” and the testator has more than one fishpond in Roxas City. The words of a will are to be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense.”  In both cases.”  A similar principle in contractual interpretation is found in Art1373. 788. excluding such oral declarations. Peculiar signification of terms – The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general application.  The underlying principle here is that testacy is preferred to intestacy.SUCCESSION REVIEWER b) Patent 1ST SEM 2006-2007 as to PROPERTY – “I bequeath to my cousin Pacifico some of my cars. CJ Tan. Mars Rongo. the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. If a testamentary disposition admits of different interpretations. Cecille Natividad. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  13 . that interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred.

such a construction is. it shall be understood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual. the shares acquired after the will was executed are NOT included in the legacy. if possible. an implant from the Code of Civil Procedure and ultimately from American law. Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  This article makes applicable to wills the SEVERABILITY OR SEPARABILITY PRINCIPLE in statutory construction frequently expressly provided in a separability clause.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 ART.  Under Article 793. the legacy or devise shall be understood limited to such part or interest. The problem springs from the fact that this article makes the will speak as of the time it is made. The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect.  GENERAL RULE – in a legacy or devise the testator ART. rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative. attributing to the doubtful one that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly. Julie Domingo. Art1374. unless the testator expressly declares that he gives the thing in its entirety. Prof.   Illustration – X executes a will in 1985 containing a legacy: “I give to M all my shares in BPI. 792. should it expressly appear by the will that such was his intention. or legatee owns only a part of or an interest in the thing bequeathed. to be adopted as will give effect to all.  Can the word “expressly” in this article be interpreted to mean “clearly” even if it might be stretching a point? ART. Balane suggests the provisions be reworded as: “Property acquired after the making of a will passes thereby unless the contrary clearly appears from the words or the context of the will. EXCEPTIONS – he can give a less interest [Art794] or a greater interest [Art929] than he has. Mars Rongo. and of two modes of interpreting a will.  A similar rule is found in Rule 130 Sec11 of the RoC – Sec11. The invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions.”  In the meantime. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together. unless it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made. gives exactly the interest he has in the thing. it is suggested that a liberal application of the article be allowed. owning at the time of his death ten times as many BPI shares as he did when he made the will.  In the latter case. 794. Cecille Natividad. the solution in Art931 can be applied wherein the legatee or devisee shall be entitled only to the JUST VALUE OF THE INTEREST that should have been acquired. CJ Tan. 793. rather than at the time of the decedent’s death [which is more logical because that is when the will takes effect according to Article 777].” The testator dies in 1990. This article should be read together with Art929. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions – In the construction of an instrument where there are several provisions or particulars. Every devise or legacy shall cover all the interest which the testator could device or bequeath in the property disposed of. which provides that “if the testator. Lea Mateo. Article 793 therefore departs from the codal philosophy of Articles 774 and 776 and constitutes an EXCEPTION to the concept of succession as linked to death and rendered legally effective by death.   In contractual interpretation.  This article creates problems which would not have existed had it not been so nonchalantly incorporated in the Code. that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy. if the person owning the interest to be acquired does not wish to part with it.  ART. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan   Jen Laygo 3D 14 . unless it clearly appears from the will that he intended to convey a less interest. heir. Property acquired after the making of a will shall only pass thereby. If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings. as if the testator had possessed it at the time of making the will. 791.  The source of this article is Art2085 of the German Civil Code which provides that the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will results in the invalidity of the other dispositions only if it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made these if the invalid disposition had not been made. Articles 1373 and 1374 lay down similar principles – Art1373.

Julie Domingo.  3. CJ Tan. 2. . Governing law as to TIME a. 2. 6. Law of citizenship b. Philippine law  Articles 815-817 . testacy is preferred and disposition should be interpreted in manner which would make it operative. Law of place of execution. Lea Mateo. even extrinsic evidence. B. Filipinos – law at the time of death. Filipino Abroad . Foreigners – their national law [Art16 par2 and Art1039] 5. Mars Rongo. b. Words of a will shall be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense. or e. The assumption here is that the will is being probated in the Philippines. with or without a will.Valid in Phils. may resort to any evidence. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  15 . par2 and Art1039] Governing law as to PLACE a. and  That other sense or meaning can be ascertained Technical words shall be taken in technical sense. 8. 7. ART.Has effect in the Philippines if made according to: Law of place where he resides. Property that is acquired by the testator after the will was executed shall only be transmitted along with those in the will. if: Made according to law of country which he is a citizen or subject. Filipinos – law in force when the will was executed [Art795] b. Filipinos – Philippine law [Art16 par2 and Art1039] b. 9. Invalidity of one disposition in a will does not mean the other dispositions are also invalid. Law of his own country or Philippine law c. Alien in the phils. but may not resort to oral declarations of the testator as to his intention.  Except when it clearly appears that the testator intended to convey a less interest. Words are to receive interpretation which will give it some effect. die after the beginning of the effectivity of this Code.According to the law in the country in which he may be and may be probated in the Philippines b. if the testator expressly states in the will that such is his intention. in connection with Art2263. unless:  Another sense or meaning is clearly intended to be used. The inheritance of those who. 4. laws. Law of domicile c. INTRINSIC – refers to the substance of the provisions / substantive validity 1. Two kinds of Ambiguities  Latent – imperfect description or when no person or property exactly answers to description.  Patent – based on the face of the will as to the application of any of its provisions In case of ambiguity. and by the Rules of Court . EXTRINSIC – refers to the requirement of form / formal validity 1. Foreigners – same rile. and May be proved and allowed by law of his own country. but the testamentary provisions shall be carried out insofar as they may be Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. 795.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 RE-CAP OF THE RULES ON INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF WILLS 2. In case of doubt.  Art2263 provides that “Rights to the inheritance of a person who died. 10. ASPECTS OF VALIDITY OF WILLS A. before the effectivity of this Code [August 30. Cecille Natividad. 1950]. A devise of legacy shall transmit the whole extent of the testator’s interest in the property disposed. shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1889. with or without a will.Rules of formal validity a. Law of residence d. shall be adjudicated and distributed in accordance with this new body of laws and by the Rules of Court.  But invalidity of one provision affects the other if it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such other disposition if the first invalid disposition had not been made. except:  When context clearly indicates otherwise  Will was drawn solely by the testator and he was not acquainted with the technical meaning of such word. The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made. by other previous laws. Foreigners – depends on their personal law [Art16. Governing law as to TIME a. as if executed according to Phil. Governing law as to PLACE  Filipinos or Foreigners a. Alien abroad .

et al. their amount shall be reduced if in no other manner can every compulsory heir be given his full share according to this Code.Andres Enriquez. which were not followed in the present will. et al. Cecille Natividad. Whether or not the testate proceeding filed by Juan Zamacona should take precedence over the intestate proceeding instituted by Vicente . to the opposition of the late priest’s cousins and nephews. in if in the case of intestate proceedings pending before a court. proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at the stage an administrator has already been appointed. Juan Zamacona commenced a special proceeding for the probate of the last will of Don Juan before the CFI of Manila. Which of the two courts is the proper venue for the settlement of estate of Don Juan . one of the legatees. however. determined as such by the lower court) were invalid. both the CFI of Manila and Negros have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Cebu executed a document purporting to be his Last Will and Testament covering his properties the estimated value of which was P8000 when he died in 1943. . . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  16 . CFI  .Testacy is preferred to Intestacy.But since venue is a waiveable defect.However.At the same time. shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. Vicente is barred by laches from raising the same as it was almost a year when he raised the objection. Abadia.In 1923. . numbered the same with Arabic numerals. Julie Domingo.Vicente Uriarte instituted a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Don Juan Uriarte before the CFI of Negros. and signed the last page after declaring that it was his last will.In 1923. the question boils down to where the proper venue lies. it is found that the decedent had left a last will. This is true for both the CFI of Manila and Negros.Although as declared above that an intestate intestate proceeding should give way to testate proceedings. v. after which the three witnesses signed on the last page as well. testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person shall take precedence over intestate proceedings over the same. records show that expediency would have been achieved if Zamacona filed the petition in the Negros Court. Sancho Abadia of Talisay. Abadia wrote out in longhand in Spanish which the testator spoke and understood. legacies and bequests shall be respected. .) .If in the case of intestate proceedings pending before a court. (It appears that Vicente instituted a case before the same court for his acknowledgment as a natural son.In this light.The SC held that in accordance with well settled jurisprudence. To protect his interest. .” While Art1039 provides that “Capacity to Succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent. Fr.This doctrine is in accord with the principle that TESTACY is preferred to INTESTACY. Abadia. . . . both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions. Juan Zamacona also filed a Motion to Dismiss on the special proceeding instituted by Vicente alleging that by virtue of the will executed by Don Juan. CJ Tan.The CFI of Negros accordingly dismissed the case. Mars Rongo.The SC held that the proper venue should have been with the CFI of Negros. .In another occasion.The law at the time also required numbering correlatively each page in letters and signing on the left hand margin by the testator and by the three attesting witnesses on each of the three pages.One of the witnesses (the other two have died) related that in his presence and of his co-witnesses. Enriquez. betterments. . long before the New Civil Code was in force.The Negros court was already informed of the existence of a will by Higinio and that in fact the latter was requested to submit a copy of the said will. . legitimes. .Vicente Uriarte contends that he is an acknowledged son of the deceased and that as the natural son. he should be considered as the sole heir. Vicente Uriarte filed an Omnibus Motion praying that he be allowed to Intervene before the CFI of Manila or that the proceedings therein be dismissed. .” Cases for Arts. among others. Lea Mateo.Venue in the settlement of an estate. if the decedent is an inhabitant of foreign country. signed on the left hand margin each of the three pages. is in the CFI of any province on which the decedent had an estate. Therefore. whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.The Courts of First Instance is granted the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters of probate (this includes testate and intestate proceedings) . .SUCCESSION REVIEWER permitted by this Code. a liberal view ought to be taken to carry out the intention of the testator which is the controlling factor and which may override any defect in form. .Higinio Uriarte filed an opposition to the special proceeding alleging that Don Juan Uriarte executed a Last Will and Testament in Spain.Thus. filed a petition for its probate in the CFI of Cebu.”  1ST SEM 2006-2007 Art16 par2 provides that “intestate and testamentary successions. the proceeding shall continue as an intestacy. . the lower court said that since the New Civil Code was already in effect at the time of the hearing and the making of the decision in 1952. 788-795 Uriarte v. . however such case is yet to attain finality. Fr.This is without prejudice that should the alleged will be rejected or disapproved. Thus. . holographic wills (as the one prepared by Fr. proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at the stage an administrator has already been appointed. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. . there is no legal basis to proceed in the intestate proceeding and that Vicente has no legal standing to initiate said proceeding. it is found that the decedent had left a last will. .

partitioned her paraphernal as well as all the conjugal properties as if they were all owned by her. the latter as the natural guardian of the minors Maria and Josefa Calderon from an order which directed that the administrator be authorized to make a conveyance of property.NO. and in declaring it void. Candida Reyes. Montaña had no authority to ask for the dismissal of the petition for allowance of will and that the court erred in declaring the will void before resolving the question of its formal validity. . moved to dismiss the probate proceedings and requested authority to proceed by intestate proceedings on the ground that the will was void (because Leodegaria cannot validly dispose of her husband’s share) . . situate in Binondo to Petronila Eugenio. In view of certain unusual provisions of the will. filed a petition for the approval of his mother's will which was opposed by the husband and some of her children. The testator’s will. The general rule is that the Legislature cannot validate void wills. The Court. The same will also provided that should the wife forget to make a will.Felix Balanay. it needs but be determined who are the persons that must be considered as the legatees on account of their having served and cared for th e testator’s widow until their death. . Martinez . if he leaves a will. David Montaña. . . Sr. - - - - Balanay v.Leodegaria Julian. and 2) Who should receive pro rata the legacy specified in the said clause. 795 of the New Civil Code provides: “The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made. as recorded in the abovementioned is so clear and definite that in order duly to comply therewith.Art. . . and should equally receive a pro-rate share on the property’s value. . in clause 12 of his will should be complied with.Petitioner impugned the order of dismissal claiming that Atty. Maria and Josefa Calderon and Petronilla Eugenio. renouncing his hereditary rights in favor of his children in deference to the memory of his wife. No subsequent law with more liberal requirements or which dispenses with such requirements as to execution should be allowed to validate a defective will and thereby divest the heirs of their vested rights in the estate by intestate succession. It was not only Petronila who had served the widow. in her will.In the same will. set for hearing the probate of the will and gave effect to the affidavit and conformity of the surviving spouse. the law must be fulfilled in accordance with the tenor of the last will of the testator. Benita Garcia. the legacy or bequest then becomes a completed act. Cecille Natividad.During the pendency of the probate proceedings petitioner submitted to the court a document showing his father's conformity to the testamentary distribution.SUCCESSION REVIEWER Whether or not the provisions of the New Civil Code which allowed holographic wills may be applied to validate Fr. . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  17 . 1ST SEM 2006-2007 divided if there be any foreseeable disagreements over the property. the title of the legatees and devisees under it becomes a vested right. Jr.Art. .The said clause states that the property on Calle Analogue will be left as legacy to his wife under the condition that with its revenue she shall care for and educate and assist during her widowhood the children of their servants and the two children of D. there were many others and she should not alone get the property. which are of dubious legality. did not abrogate its prior orders to proceed with the probate proceedings. in behalf of the petitioner.The wishes of the testator about the disposition of his estate among his heirs and among the legatees is given solemn expression at the time the will is executed. 795 of the New Civil Code provides: “The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made. a certain Atty.” . From a due examination of the evidence presented at the trial. when clearly expressed in his will.The Court denied the opposition.Meanwhile. The minor children were also of service to the widow. protected under the due process clause of the constitution.The reason for the above is that from the day of the death of the testator. . Basilisa Salteras. and in reality. before ruling on its allowance or formal validity. allegedly. Whether the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will. Potenciana de la Cruz. and providing that the properties should not be divided during her husband's lifetime but should remain intact and that the legitimes should be paid in cash to be satisfied out of the fruits of the properties.The above provision weight of authority to the effect that the validity of a will is to be judged not by the law in force at the time of the testator’s death or at the time the supposed will is presented in court for probate or when the petition is decided by the court but at the time the instrument was executed. It is the settled rule that the intention and wishes of the testator. however. the deceased Miguel Fable. Since some of them did so. . Mars Rongo.NO. CJ Tan. a house and lot.The position that subsequent statutes should be applied to validate wills defectively executed according to the law in force at the time of execution is untenable. that it be complied with and fulfilled by his brother Ramon Fable. . Lucas y Eugenio.” .The above provision weight of authority to the effect that the validity of a will is to be judged not by the law in force at the time of the testator’s death or at the time the supposed will is presented in court for probate or when the petition is decided by the court but at the time the instrument was executed. . Lea Mateo. Miguel Fabie authorized her wife to provide in her will that property be delivered to the persons who may have assisted and cared for her during her widowhood until her death and to sell the property so that the proceeds to be Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. .No subsequent law with more liberal requirements or which dispenses with such requirements as to execution should be allowed to validate a defective will and thereby divest the heirs of their vested rights in the estate by intestate succession. as proven by the record. .This is an appeal made by the attorneys for Basilla Salteras. Filomena Calderon. disposing of her husband's one-half share.The case questions on 1) How and what manner the provisions made by the testator. Abadia’s will. Potenciana de la Cruz and Benigno Calderon. those entitled are Encarnacion Gutierrez Calderon. constitute the fixed law of interpretation. which motion was granted by the probate court. and because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate (which the lower court In re Estate of Calderon . The general rule is that the Legislature cannot validate void wills. Julie Domingo.

SUCCESSION REVIEWER
assumed to have been filed with the petitioner's authorization), the trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been established. - The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue Whether the court erred in converting the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding notwithstanding the fact that in its order of June '8, 1973 it gave effect to the surviving husband's conformity to the will and to his renunciation of his hereditary rights which presumably included his one-half share of the conjugal estate. - YES. The rule is that "the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions, unless it is to he presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made" (Art. 792, Civil Code). - "Where some of the provisions of a will are valid and others invalid, the valid parts will be upheld if they can be separated from the invalid without defeating the intention of the testator or interfering with the general testamentary scheme, or doing injustice to the beneficiaries" - Void provisions in the will: 1. The statement of the testatrix that she owned the "southern half" of the conjugal lands is contrary to law because, although she was a co-owner thereof, her share was inchoate and pro indiviso 2. that the properties of the testatrix should not be divided among her heirs during her husband's lifetime but should be kept intact and that the legitimes should be paid in cash is contrary to article '080 of the Civil Code Whether an heir may validly renounce his share - YES. Felix Balanay, Sr. could validly renounce his hereditary rights and his one-half share of the conjugal partnership (Arts. '79['] and '04', Civil Code) but insofar as said renunciation partakes of a donation of his hereditary rights and his one-half share in the conjugal estate (Art. '050['] Civil Code), it should be subject to the limitations prescribed in articles 750 and 752 of the Civil Code. A portion of the estate should be adjudicated to the widower for his support and maintenance. Or at least his legitime should be respected. - Generally, the probate of a will is mandatory and it is the duty of the court to pass first upon its formal validity except in extreme cases where the will is on its face intrinsically void. - A will is not rendered null and void by reason of the existence of some illegal or void provisions since the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions unless it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made; - Where some provisions are valid and others invalid, the valid provisions shall be upheld if they can be separated from the invalid provisions without defeating the intention of the testator or interfering with the general testamentary scheme or doing injustice to the beneficiaries. - The very existence of a purported testament is in itself prima facie proof that the supposed testator has willed that his

1ST SEM 2006-2007
estate should be distributed in the manner therein provided, and it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable, such desire be given effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected thereby - Testacy is favored. Doubts are resolved in favor of testacy especially where the will evinces an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate.

Bellis v. Bellis
- Amos Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. - By his first wife, he had 5 legitimate children; by his second wife, he had 3 legitimate children; and he had 3 illegitimate children. - Amos executed a will in the Philippines, in which he specified how his estate will be divided and distributed. - Subsequently, Amos died, a resident of Texas. - His will was admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila. - The People’s Bank, as executor of will, paid all the bequests included in Amos’ will. - Before closing its administration, the executor submitted its final report and project of partition. - However, 2 of Amos’ illegitimate children filed their oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and therefore compulsory heirs of the deceased. - The CFI issued an order overruling the oppositions and approving the executor’s final account, report and project partition. The lower court, relying upon Art. 16 of the NCC, applied the national law of Amos, which is the Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes. - The illegitimate children thus filed an Appeal. Whether this case falls under Art. 17 of the NCC. - NO. - Appellants argue that their case falls under the circumstances mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of Art. 17 in relation to Art. 16 of the NCC. It argues that Art. 17 prevails as the exception to Art. 16. - The SC rule that appellants argument is incorrect. - It ruled that the change in the NCC shows that whatever public policy and good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Congress has specifically chose to leave the amount of successional rights to the decedent’s national law. Whether Philippine law should govern to Amos’ Philippine estate. - NO. Appellants argued that Amos executed 2 wills – one to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate – arguing that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate. - The SC held that that a provision in a foreigner’s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Art. 16 of the NCC states said national law should govern. Which law must apply – Texas law or Philippine law? - Texas law applies. - The petitioners admit that Amos was a citizen of State of Texas and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs of legitimes.

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

18

SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos. - Art. 16: Real property as well as personal property is subject ot the law of the country where it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. - Art. 1039: Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent. - Art. 17: Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. - The decedent’s national law governs the (1) order of succession, (2) the amount of successional rights, (3) the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and (4) the capacity to succeed. - Testamentary p rovision that successional right to decedent’s estate would be governed by law other than his national law if void, being contrary to article 16 of the NCC.

1ST SEM 2006-2007 the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval. ART. 801. Supervening incapacity does not invalidate an effective will, nor is the will of an incapable validated by the supervening of capacity.

Articles 796-801 lay down the rules on testamentary capacity.  Testamentary Capacity – testamenti factio; testamentifacción active, the legal capacity to make a will.  Who has testamentary capacity? All NATURAL persons, unless disqualified by law. Juridical persons are NOT granted testamentary capacity. DISQUALIFIED PERSONS 1. THOSE UNDER 18 [ART797]  Under EO292, the Administrative Code of 1987, which took effect on November 24, 1989, years are now reckoned according to the Gregorian Calendar.  Sec31 provides for the legal periods a) Year – 12 calendar months b) Month – 30 days, unless specific calendar month is referred to, in which case it shall be computed according to the number of days the specific calendar month contains c) Day – 24 hours d) Night – Sunset to sunrise 2. THOSE OF UNSOUND MIND [ART798]  Unsoundness of Mind [Insanity]  Absence of the qualities of soundness of mind  Defined by the Code only by indirection because only soundness of mind is defined under Art799.

Subsection 2 – Testamentary Capacity And Intent ART. 796. All persons who are not expressly prohibited by law may make a will. ART. 797. Persons of either sex under eighteen years of age cannot make a will. ART. 798. In order to make a will it is essential that the testator be of sound mind at the time of its execution. ART. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause. It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act. ART. 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes

SOUNDNESS OF MIND [SANITY]  NEGATIVELY 1. Not necessary that testator be in full possession of reasoning faculties 2. Not necessary that testator’s mind be wholly unbroken, unimpaired, unshattered by disease, injury or other cause.  POSITIVELY – Ability to know 3 things 1. Nature of estate to be disposed of  Testator should have a fairly accurate knowledge of what he owns.  The more one owns, the less accurate his knowledge of his estate expected to be. 2. Proper objects of one’s bounty; &  Testator should know, under ordinary circumstances, his relatives in the most proximate degrees, his knowledge

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

19

SUCCESSION REVIEWER
expectedly decreasing as the degrees become more remote. 3. Character of testamentary act.  It is not required that the testator know the legal nature of a will with the erudition of a civilest.  All that he need know is that the document he is executing is one that disposes of his property upon death.
 

1ST SEM 2006-2007
Sexist provision, contains an erroneous and unintended suggestion that a married man does not have the same privilege. Article 97 of the Family Code supersedes this in part  Art97. Either spouse may dispose by will of his or her interest in the community property.

Cases for Arts. 796-803 Bagtas v. Paguio
- This is an appeal from an order of the CFI admitting to probate a document which was offered as the last will and testament of Pioquinto Paguio. - The testator died a year and 5 months following the date of the execution of the will. - For some 14 or 15 years prior to his death, the testator suffered from paralysis of the left side of his body. - A few years prior to his death, his hearing became impaired and he lost the power of speech. - Owing to the paralysis of certain muscles, his head fell to one side and saliva ran from his mouth. However, he retained the use of his right hand, and was able to write fairly well. Through the medium of signs he was able to indicate his wishes to his wife and to other members of his family. - At the time of the execution of the will, there were four testamentary witnesses. - It appears that the testator made notes disposition he desires to make his property, from which his attorney prepared a formal will which was then read to the testator, who assented to it section by section. After which the whole will is read in a loud voice and is then signed by the testator and four witnesses in the presence of each other. Whether the will was executed according to the formalities and requirements of the law. - YES. The SC held that the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure were fully complied with. Whether the testator was in full enjoyment and use of his mental faculties to execute a valid will. - YES. The is no sufficient evidence to overthrow the legal presumption of a sound mind and disposing memory. - Witnesses testified that, at the time of the execution of the will, the testator was in his right mind and that although serious ill, he indicated by the movements of his head what his wishes were. - The evidence shows that the writing and the execution of the will occupied a period of several hours and that the testator was taking an active part in all the proceedings. - The SC held that that the testimony of the two physicians do not in any way strengthens the argument that the testator was mentally incapacitated. The SC said that their testimony only confirms the fact that the testator had been afflicted with paralysis but neither of them attempted to state what the mental condition of the testator was at the time he executed the will in question. - The SC held that it cannot conclude from this that he was wanting of the necessary mental capacity to dispose of his property by will. - The SC affirmed the order probating the will. - In our jurisdiction, the presumption of law is in favor of the mental capacity of the testator and the burden is upon the

Legal Importance and Implication of Mental Capacity  Law is interested in the legal consequences of the testator’s mental capacity or incapacity, not in the medical aspects of mental disease.  The testator could be mentally aberrant medically but testamentarily capable, or vice versa, mentally competent medically but testamentarily incompetent.  TEST – as long as the testator, at the time he made the will, was capable of perceiving the three things [nature of estate, objects of bounty, and character of testamentary act], he has testamentary capacity, whatever else he may be medically. PRESUMPTION / GENERAL RULE – rebuttable Presumption of Sanity under Art800.  TWO EXCEPTIONS – when there is a rebuttable presumption of Insanity – 1. When testator, one month or less before the execution of the will, was publicly known to be insane 2. When the testator executed the will after being placed under guardianship or ordered committed, in either case, for insanity under Rules 93 and 101 of the RoC, and before said order has been lifted. The time for determining mental capacity  time of execution of the will and no other temporal criterion is to be applied

ART. 802. A married woman may make a will without the consent of her husband, and without the authority of the court.

Sexist provision, contains an erroneous and unintended suggestion that a married man does not have the same privilege. Suggested rewording –  “A married person may make a will withou t his or her spouse’s consent.”

ART. 803. A married woman may dispose by will of all her separate property as well as her share of the conjugal partnership or absolute community property.

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

20

Vicente was named also as the guardian of the deceased. Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu (the minors) appeared and were interested in the matters of the will. Cecille Natividad. Yap Ca Kuan & Yap Ca Llu . 4.The Testator was suffering from diabetes and had been in a comatose condition for several days prior to his death. were his mind and memory sufficiently sound to enable him to know and understand the business in which he was engaged at the time when he executed his will. The findings of the lower court. the decedent was committed in the Philippine General Hospital where he eventually died. Julie Domingo. the SC held that the execution of a former will is no proof that she did not execute a later one. Perfect soundness of mind is not essential to testamentary capacity. She had the perfect right to alter. .After due hearing. For this reason.Later. Mina to ascertain the wishes of the decedent. Torres v. A guardian ad litem (Gabriel) was then appointed. where the court found the decedent incapacitated to take care of himself and his property. SC upheld the lower court’s findings. unimpaired. . It is sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possible for the necessary parties. if they desire to see. Although the attending physician testified that he was in a state of coma. CJ Tan. . Mars Rongo.By virtue of the court’s finding. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 On the issue of the execution of an earlier will. then certainly the writing of a portion or all of the name should be accepted as a clear indication of an intention to execute the will. the latter was also subjected to a guardianship proceeding. Whether or not testator is of unsound mind . Lea Mateo. A plan of the room where the will was signed was presented. modify. that will amount to a signature. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  21 . may see the signatures placed upon the will. through a representative. The question is that. he also stated that coma has varying degrees of coma ad in its lighter forms the patient may be aroused and have lucid intervals. A year before Tomas’s death. they commissioned Atty. testator is not of sound and disposing mind. As regard the issue of the soundness of Tomasa’s mind when she executed the will.Vicente Lopez acted as the administrator of the properties of the decedent. This was given greater weight by the court as against the two witnesses presented by oppositor. it upheld the conclusion of the lower court that Tomasa had clear knowledge and knew what she was doing at the time she signed the will. SC held that if Tomasa signed any portion of her name to the will.Gabriel then filed a petition alleging that the will admitted to probate was null because: 1. . with the intention to sign the same. He could speak distinctly or move his head to answer questions. If the writing of a mark simply upon a will is sufficient indication of the intention of the person to make and execute a will. Tomasa was not mentally capacitated to execute the will due to her sickness 3. 2. Tan . A signature containing only the first name is nevertheless a signature and is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the law.YES. the judge ordered that Tomasa’s will be allowed and admitted to probate. .The petitioner presented 5 witnesses who all testified that he was conscious and could her and understand what was said to him and was able to indicate his desires. . When a testator has never been adjudged insane by a court of competent jurisdiction.A rehearing was then ordered by the judge. Failure of memory is not sufficient unless it be total or extends to his immediate family or property. or that the testator be in full possession of all his reasoning faculties. which had the opportunity to see. He died at about 8:00pm and the will is alleged to have been executed in the noon of the same day. one of which was the oppositor’s mother who was not considered as a disinterested witness. yet the actual seeing of the signatures made ins not necessary. - - - - - Yap Tua v. 1. . It was shown that from the bed where Tomasa was lying. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. It was not executed in accordance with the law (specifically with the signing of the witnesses) 2.The controversy on this case is centered on the allowance or the disallowance of the will of Tomas Rodriguez.Yap Tua. WON the will dated 11 August 1909 executed by Tomasa was valid.Tomas expressed his desire to make a will during one of the visits of Santiago Lopez and accordingly. . SC held that in view of the conflicting testimonies and the findings of the lower court. . Lopez . To constitute a sound mind and disposing memory. While it is an absolute rule that one who makes a will must sign the same in the presence of the witnesses and the witnesses must sign in the presence of each other and of the testator. or revoke any and all of her former wills and to make a new one. there is a presumption of mental soundness which must be overcome by competent proof. Tomasa had earlier executed another will dated 06 August 1909 with all the formalities required by law . it is not necessary that the mind shall be wholly unbroken. hear and note the witnessed during examination is accorded great weight. The lower court found that no undue influence was exercised over Tomasa when she executed the will. it was possible for her to see the table on which the witnesses signed the will.The will dated 11 August 1909 was signed by Tomasa and 4 other witnesses. Although it was contended that the signature of Tomasa in the latter will varied from the one found in the earlier will. 3.SC held that he was not.SUCCESSION REVIEWER contestants of the will to prove the lack of testamentary capacity. and unshattered by disease or otherwise. the deceased. . filed a petition for the probate of the will of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong. .Oppositor in this case alleges that at the time of the execution of the will.Mere professional speculation cannot prevail over the positive statements of 5 apparently credible witnesses whose testimony does not seen unreasonable. Samson v. Tomasa’s signature was obtained through fraud and illegal influence 4.

sometime prior to her death. . .The same will prepared by the attorney was the same document signed by the testator and the other witnesses at the General Hospital on January 3. the fact that a person is adjudged by a court to be incapacitated in a guardianship proceeding is not conclusive. . .The Sc held in the affirmative.However. that he generally remembered close relatives and that he was still able to sign the document properly shows that the deceased had testamentary capacity. . 1948 with the result that the testatrix’s estate should be distributed as if she died intestate.. .As such. “The only apparent anomaly we find is that it appears to be an attestation made by the testator himself more than by the instrumental witnesses. . . immediately asked her attorney to come to the convent so that she may make her will. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 . Whether or not Matea had testamentary capacity .The opponent claims that Matea did not have capacity to make the will at the time she executed the same as Mate was deaf. The SC held that the will should be allowed. Mina and disclose to him his interests.Months after. .Thereafter. Matea died.YES. nor poor memory.The allegation that Mateo was induced by the fact that she donated one her properties to the bishop of said diocese was not sufficiently proven by the evidence. WON. Manolita de Carungcong filed in the same court a petition for the probate of another alleged will executed by the testatrix on May 5. it is not valid because it is the act of the testatrix and not of the witnesses. Gonzales v.In that case. 1942. . is by itself sufficient to incapacitate a person for making his will. This apparent anomaly however is not in our opinion serious nor substantial as to affect the validity of the will.Matea Abella.In this case. . Our laws do not have any statute providing for the conclusiveness of the judgments of a court on incapacity of a person. Abella . . This means that the circumstances of advanced age. Julie Domingo.The mental capacity of the testator was established by the fact that she was able to leave home and travel to LA Union to consult with the doctor. The doctors on the Margarita faction however have the opposite conclusion. assuming that even if they are valid. Matea. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  22 . Dr. . .During her visit. it was said that.Neither senile debility. some of the relatives of Tomas. that in fact the decedent is suffering from senile debility or of mental impairment.Also. the Court first declared that what is necessary is that the decedent must have a disposing mind. and that the latter was induced due to fraud on the execution of the will. appearing that right under the signature of the testator. Antonio Querol. A person placed under guardianship is presumed to be incapable but this presumption is refutable by contrary evidence. Manuel Gonzales.000. . wanted the will invalidated on the ground that the testator was of unsound mind. and that in fact she brought with her the deeds to her properties. Manolito Gonzales de Carungcong.SUCCESSION REVIEWER .Hence this appeal. that she was able to give her medical history to her physician. Mars Rongo. And said that the will Manuel Gonzales presented for probate was revoked already by the one Manolita presented and that the instrument presented by Alejandro was executed without the knowledge and testamentary capacity of the testatrix.After the decedent died.Furthermore. one of the siblings then sought the disallowance of the wills presented by his two other siblings. CJ Tan.The will is valid.During the trial. Jr.All these show that Matea was intelligent enough to make the dispositions. in a precedent case.Thereafter. that the concluding paragraph to be the attestation clause. has defective eyesight and is suffering from severe impairment of memory.Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the testator is engaged at the time. Cecille Natividad. Matea stayed in one of the convents in San Fernando La Union. Lea Mateo.On the other hand. Manuel Gonzales filed in CFI Rizal for the probate of an alleged will by the testatrix executed on November 16. Her estate is estimated at P150.As the will was simple and can be easily understood. The will was accordingly drafted and signed by the testator in the presence of the witnesses. there appear the signatures of the three instrumental witnesses. . one of the children of the testatrix. . the CFI of Rizal upheld the probate of the will presented by Manolita Carungcong.The appellants contest that the will is not valid because it does not contain any attestation clause. 1924. nor blindness.On November 27. the Margarita Lopez faction. asked her niece to accompany her to a reputable physician for consultation. Jr. .Said physician. to recollect the property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally have claims upon the testator. That unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be Sancho v. . the Luz Lopez faction presented doctors whose medical findings reveal that the testator was of sound mind though weak on memory during the execution of the will.As to the soundness of the mind of Tomas. It is significant that the law does not require the attestation to be contained in a single clause.The allegation of fraud was not proved by the evidence. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. and Juan Gonzales. 1948. that she in fact called an attorney to make her will. .Alejandro Gonzales. Whether or not the will of Tomas Rodriguez should be allowed . Leopoldo Gonzales. diagnosed her to be suffering from dyspepsia and cancer of the stomach. health or weak memory alone are not conclusive of the capacity of a person to make a will. . Manuela Ibarra Vda.” .And such is a sufficient compliance with requirements set out by the law. . and because it does not state the number of sheets or pages of the will. since there were conflicting testimonies of wellregarded physicians the court decided to base the capacity of Tomas Rodriguez to make a will on the nature of the will itself. de Gonzales (testatrix) died leaving five children namely Alejandro Gonzales. and to comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distribute his property. such were already revoked by the testatrix in an instrument executed by her on November 18. the will presented by Manolita Carungcong was valid despite the fact that it allegedly has no attestation clause . . 1945 devising to him the greater portion of the estate. . Caruncong . the fact that the testator was able to confer with Atty. the high court had already sustained an attestation clause made by the testator and forming part of the body of the will. devising to Manuel Gonzales the greater portion of the estate w/o impairing the legitimes of the other children. .

Neither of these sheets is signed on the left margin by the testatrix and the three witnesses. void because of the mandatory provision of art. CASES Suroza v. Abangan v. Lea Mateo. . Nenita opposed the proceedings but to no avail.  TWO COMMON REQUIREMENTS 1. or be paged. Julie Domingo. who Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. it is not necessary that both sheets be further signed on their margins by the testator and the witnesses. IN WRITING  Oral wills [the testamentum nuncupativum of the Institutes] are not recognized in the Civil Code. . . 804 of the CC that every will must be executed in a language known to the testator. IN A LANGUAGE OR DIALECT KNOWN TO THE TESTATOR  The provisions of Article 804 are MANDATORY and failure to comply with the two requirements nullifies the will. an order was issued to eject the occupants of Marcelina’s house. Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Honrado . a) Will must be in a language or dialect generally spoken in the place of execution. That could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate and. a corporal in the US army married Marcelina Salvador.NO. especially where the authenticity of the will is not assailed. on its face is void.This is a complaint against Judge Honrado for admitting to probate a will which.Yes. the first of which contains all the disposition of the testatrix. Arsenia dela Cruz who also tried to become his guardian but was denied by the court.  However. - - Subsection 3 – Forms of Wills ART. which was written in English and thumb marked by Marcelina. . Upon m otion of Marina. Mauro died and Marcelina got pension from the Federal gov’t. with respect to the instrument presented by Alejandro Gonzales. it can be shown that the instrument was prepared when the testatrix lacked the testamentary capacity as this was proved by the attending physician. Honrado . . Abangan . .Now.  Neither the will nor the attestation clause need state compliance with Art804. The case was assigned to Honrado who appointed Marina as the administrator and allowed her to withdraw sums of money from Marcelina’s saving’s account. . Agapito allegedly had a girlfriend. Arsenia delivered the child to Marcelina Salvador. .  Presumption of Compliance – it may sometimes be presumed that the testator knew the language in which the will was written. Hernaez v. In the opening paragraph of the will. . The testatrix was illiterate. he could have noted not only the anomaly as to the language of the will but also that there was something wrong in instituting the supposed granddaughter as sole heiress and giving nothing at all to her supposed father who was still alive. .Mauro Suroza. Mars Rongo. Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator. But in its concluding paragraph. The SC held that in a will consisting of two sheets.  Art805-808 lays down special requirements for attested wills. naming Marina as the executrix and Marilyn as the sole heir. When he was disabled Nenita became his guardian. and b) The testator must be a native or resident of said locality. Whether the absence of the signature on the left margin of will invalidate Abangan’s will.The second sheet contains only the attestation clause duly signed at the bottom by the three instrumental witnesses. but was never legally adopted by Agapito.A will written in a language that is not known to the testator is void. They reared a boy named Agapito Suroza. This can be proved by Extrinsic Evidence. Hernaez - 1ST SEM 2006-2007 considered them as his parents. the first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions and is signed at the bottom by the testator and 3 witnesses and the second contains only the attestation clause and is signed also at the bottom by the 3 witnesses. Cecille Natividad.  - Art804 lays down Common Requirements that apply both to ATTESTED and HOLOGRAPHIC wills. duly probated as Ana Abangan’s will.The said document. her laundrywoman.An attestation clause made by the testator and signed by the witnesses substantially complies with law. 804. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  23 . therefore. .He should also have noted that the notary was not presented as witness. who brought up the child as a supposed daughter of Agapito and her granddaughter. filed a petition for probate of Marcelina’s will. When Marcelina died. Marina Peje.Had Honrado been careful and observant. When the alleged instrument was prepared. Marilyn Sy was thereafter entrusted to Arsenia by the Spouses Sy. Agapito became a soldier. nor numbered by letters. it was stated that English was a language understood and know to the testatrix. 2. Articles 810-814 lays down special requirements for holographic wills. A child. the testatrix was already suffering and was in a comatose and unconscious state and could not talk or understand.SUCCESSION REVIEWER ignored.The CFI admitted to probate Ana Abangan’s will. consists of two sheets. oral wills are allowed under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws or PD1083 in relation to Art102(2). CJ Tan. This order alerted Nenita to the existence of the testamentary proceeding for the settlement of Marcelina’s estate.Statement of sheets of pages in body of will held sufficient when considered in connection with attestation clause. Agapito married Nenita and had a child named Lilia. it was stated that the will was read to the testatrix and translated into Filipino. duly signed at the bottom of Martin Montalban (in the name and under the direction of the testatrix) and by 3 witnesses.

the object of the law is to know whether any sheet of the will has been removed. more precisely to write under. Lea Mateo. The circumstances appearing in the will itself that the same was executed in Cebu and in the dialect of this locality where the testatrix was a neighbor is enough. Must sign in the testator’s presence. In requiring that each and every page of a will must be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of the sheet. and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses. Mars Rongo. in the absence of any proof to the contrary. it shall be interpreted to them. Cecille Natividad. and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. Every will. Tolentino and Matias v. . but not required. b) There is no basis for limiting the validity of thumbprints only to cases of illness or infirmity. the object of the statute disappears because the removal of this single sheet. ART. By the testator’s express direction  What the agent must write – need not be alleged in the will itself that agent wrote the testator’s name under the latter’s express direction  The essential thing. shall also sign. although unnumbered.In requiring the signature on the margin.  THUMBMARK AS SIGNATURE a) Is the placing of the testator’s thumbprint a signature within the contemplation of the article? YES. except the last. Subscribed by the testator or his agent in his presence and by his express direction at the end thereof. and ii. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  24 . The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will. when all the dispositive parts of a will are written on one sheet only. .  May the agent be one of the attesting witnesses? a) If there are more than 3 witnesses – YES b) If there are only 3 witnesses – Uncertain. on the left margin. in the presence of the witnesses  Subscribed by the testator – To subscribe denotes writing. other than a holographic will.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 witnesses. the testator’s thumbprint is always a valid and sufficient signature for the purpose of complying with the requirement of Art805. To Sign means to place a distinguishing mark.YES. on the authority of Payad v. . for validity. in the presence of the instrumental witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will.NO. The attestation clause shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written.  SIGNING BY AN AGENT OF THE TESTATOR –  Two Requisites i. UNLESS it is the testator’s usual manner of signature or one of his usual styles of signing. 806. Not every signature is a subscription and not every distinguishing mark is a writing. and the fact that the testator signed the will an every page thereof. as its name implies. appertains only to the witnesses and not to the testator. each and every page thereof. cannot be hidden. and attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.The testator’s signature is not necessary in the attestation clause because this. ART. and by his express direction.  Thus signing has a broader meaning than subscribing. must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator’s name written by some other person in his presence.But. Salud. CJ Tan. Whether the will was written in the dialect that the testatrix knew. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. under his express direction. is that the agent write the testator’s name. It would be a good thing. . Julie Domingo. or file another with the Office of the Clerk of Court. Mendoza v Pilapil SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTESTED / ORDINARY / NOTARIAL WILLS 1. or caused some other person to write his name. for the agent to indicate the fact of agency or authority.  A CROSS AS SIGNATURE – a sign of the cross placed by the testator does not comply with the statutory requirement of signature.  Whether the failure to number by the letters will invalidate the will of Abangan. nothing more. as aforesaid. . 805. the statute took into consideration the case of a will written on several sheets and must have referred to the sheets which the testator and the witnesses do not have to sign at the bottom. to presume that she knew this dialect in which the will was written.

affix his thumbmark in lieu of writing his name? Art820 requires a witness to be able to read and write. Abangan]  The fact that the attestation clause was written on a separate page has been held to be a matter of minor importance and apparently will not affect the validity of the will. except the last. Attestation clause. Logical End – where the last testamentary disposition ends  Signing at either the physical end or logical end is equally permissible. the signature can be affixed anywhere on the page. Acknowledgement before a notary public.  Two distinct things are required of the witnesses here – a) Attesting – which is the act of witnessing b) Subscribing – which is the act of signing their names in the proper places of the will  Both must be done. it need not be signed by the testator. 2. but the entire will. there will be no ambiguity as to where the end of the will is. because then one of the statutory requirements would not have been complied with.  Signing in the presence . then it is required for validity that the TESTATOR affix his signature ahead of the witnesses. Testator. there need not be any marginal signatures at all [Abangan v.Actual seeing is not required. However. Attested and subscribed by at least three credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. Mars Rongo.  The attestation clause is the affair of witnesses therefore. but the ability to see each other [the testator and the witnesses] by merely casting their eyes in the proper direction. CJ Tan. 5. must sign every page. provided everything is done in a single transaction. the first containing the will and the second the attestation clause. The purpose is to prevent insertion or removal of pages b) DIRECTORY – pagination in letters on the upper part of each page. on the left margin in the presence of the testator and of one another. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  25 . The point is debatable. it already contains the testator’s signature.  Mandatory and Directory part a) MANDATORY – pagination by means of a conventional system.Actual seeing is not required. or his agent.  The signatures of the witnesses must be at the BOTTOM of the attestation clause. like the testator. The non-dispositive portions are not essential parts of the will.  Signing before the end invalidates not only the dispositions that come after.  6. All pages numbered correlatively in letters on the upper part of each page.  All that is required in this article is that testator and witnesses should avow to  SIGNING AT THE END  If the will contains only dispositive provisions.  If the entire document consists only of 2 sheets. Lea Mateo. but the ability to see each other [the testator and the witnesses] by merely casting their eyes in the proper direction. on the left margin in the presence of the witnesses  The last page need not be signed by the testator on the margin because.  SIGNING IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES  Actual seeing is not required. being the page where the end of the will is. witnesses and notary should accomplished in one single act.  There is a Mandatory and a Directory part to this requirement – the be the the Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. stating: a) Number of pages of the will b) Fact that the testator or his agent under his express direction signed the will and every page thereof.  May the witness. The witnesses must sign every page. in the presence of the witnesses c) The fact that the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. Julie Domingo. but the ability to see each other [the testator and the witnesses] by merely casting their eyes in the proper direction 4. Cecille Natividad.  Code does not require that the signing of testator. Physical End – where the writing stops 2.  Signing in the presence of the testator and of one another . If however the will contains non-dispositive paragraphs after the testamentary dispositions.  Order of Signing – immaterial. 7. if the affixation of the signatures is done in several transactions. the left margin. one can refer to two kinds of end – 1. 3. except the last.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 a) MANDATORY – the signing on every page in the witnes ses’ presence b) DIRECTORY – place of the signing. but this does not answer the query definitively.

. Garcia v.  Affixing of documentary stamp is not required for validity. the will was disallowed. there is nothing in the records that shows that Mercado usually uses a cross as his signature.The CFI denied probate of the will of Gabina Raquel.The will is said to be irregularly execute as the attestation clause did not mention that it was Atty.Thus.  CASE Payad v. . If acknowledgement is done by testator and witness separately. Mars Rongo. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  26 . Tolentino . c) Logical Inference – neither does the article require that testator and witnesses must acknowledge in one another’s presence.Whether or not the will should be denied probate. . .A thumbprint is considered as a valid and sufficient signature in complying with the requirements of the article. Lacuesta . The deceased placed her thumb mark on each and every page of the will and the attorney merely wrote her name to indicate the place where she placed her thumb mark. it is so dependent on aleatory requirements as to require dexterity that can be expected of very few persons. Almario to write her name at her express direction. such as a cross. Whether or not the will was valid . such as a cross. Gabina attempted to sign.And as to the validity of the thumbprints as signature. Thus.  1ST SEM 2006-2007 Matias v. upon the insistence of the attorney. as sufficient signature. Salud . the attorney did not really sign for her. .  But these two things are required to be stated in the attestation clause. which made writing difficult and a painful act. CJ Tan. .Marks.The lower court denied probate on the will of deceased Tolentino on the ground that the attestation clause was not in conformity with the requirements of law in that it is not stated therein that the testatrix caused Atty. Javier wrote the name of Mercado. Cecille Natividad. .The SC held that it was not. but since it was so painful she just managed to thumbmarked the foot of the document and the left margin at each page. the SC held that it has been held in a long line of cases that a thumbprint is always a valid and sufficient signature for the purpose of complying with the requirement of the article. 2. .  Notary cannot be counted as one of the attesting witnesses. . .Furthermore. . all of them must retain their respective capacities until the last one has acknowledged. Alamario to sign her name since she signed it in accordance with law. can only be considered as a signature if there is showing that the decedent was accustomed to using such mark as signature. Mercado nevertheless put a cross and that such cross amounts to a signature by the decedent himself.The SC held that the will was valid.SUCCESSION REVIEWER notary the authenticity of their signatures and the voluntariness of their actions in executing the testamentary disposition. .And since the finger mark was an invalid signature.As such.As to the clarity of the ridge impressions.It must be noted that Gabina Raquel was suffering from herpes zoster that afflicted the right arm and shoulder of the testatrix. Whether or not the will was valid .a st nd circumstance mandated by the 1 and 2 paragraphs of the article. . testators should not be required to possess the skill of trained officers. . Indication of Date – there is no requirement that an attested will should be dated. .SC held that it should not be denied because: 1. Some Discrepancies  Par1 Art805 – No statement that the testator must sign in the presence of the witnesses  Par2 Art805 – No statement that the testator and the witnesses must sign every page in one another’s presence.One of the points raised by the oppositors was that the finger mark can not be regarded as the decedent’s valid signature as it does not show distinct identifying ridgelines. b) Art806 does not require that testator and witnesses must acknowledge on the same day that it was executed. Julie Domingo.The parties opposing the probate of the will contended that the will was void due to the irregularities in the execution thereof. unlike a holographic will.The other party however argued that such fact need not be mentioned because although Atty. . Conclusion is that they should be complied with as requirements. Javier who signed for the decedent under the latter’s express direction.Although there have been cases considering marks.  Attestation clause is not required to state that the agent signed in the testator’s presence . A statute requiring a will to be signed is satisfied if the signature is made by the testator’s mark. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. there must appear in the attestation clause that another person wrote the testator’s name at his request.This case purports to the validity of the will executed by Antero Mercado. the validity of thumbprints should not be limited in cases of illness or infirmity. [Javellana v. Ledesma] a) Ratio – Certification of acknowledgement need not be signed by notary in the presence of testator and witnesses. It was not necessary that the attestation clause should state that the testatrix requested Atty. Lea Mateo.

the testator and the witnesses. WON.NO.The probate court found that the will was not entitled to probate because the signed name of the testatrix on her behalf looked more like the handwriting of one of the other witnesses that that of the person whose handwriting it was alleged to be. admits that he may have lifted two pages instead of one when he signed the same.The trial court decided when it said that the fact that one of the alleged witnesses signed the instrument in the outer room when the others were inside would not be sufficient in itself to invalidate the execution of the will. 1956.The will must be in writing and signed by the testator. . attorneys Justo P. on page three (3) thereof. CJ Tan. which bears a complete set of signatures in every page. substitution and the like and would defeat the purpose for which this particular condition is prescribed in the code as one of the requisites in the execution of a will. Jose V. Natividad. if he chose to look at the actual signing he could have done so by just merely casting his eyes in the proper direction. . With respect to the validity of the will.The records show that the original of the will. . it would have been invalid as a will. .Josefa Villacorte died in Manila on September 12. no intentional or deliberate deviation existed. who testified on his failure to sign page three (3) of the original.The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted where the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained. Specifically. That is all the statute requires. is the signature of the person instructed by the testator to sign the will valid. . and attested and subscribed by 3 or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of each other.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 of each signature must be such that they may see each other sign if they choose to do so. but the ability to see each other.YES.e.The cases relied upon by the oppositors are not in point. Atty.” Barut v. it is unimportant whether the person who writes the name of the testatrix signs his name or not. but affirmed that page three (3) was signed in his presence.The fact that the testator signed the will or that he caused it to be signed by another person at his express direction and that the same was signed by the witnesses must be included in the attestation. She also instructed Agayan to sign her (Salomon) name to it as testator. but also by its bearing the coincident imprint of the seal of the notary public before whom the testament was ratified by testatrix and all three witnesses. such would be considered already as a proper witnessing of the said execution of the will. . Cecille Natividad. Vinicio B. Otherwise.But it is especially to be noted that the position of the parties with relation to each other at the moment of the subscription Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. . . Jr.Only questioned raised by the evidence in this case as to the due execution of the instrument propounded as a will is whether the one of the subscribing witnesses was present in the small room where the will was executed at the time when the testator and the other subscribing witnesses attached their signatures. she instructed Concepcion and Inoselda to read the will to her. the will was validly witnessed by one of the subscribing witnesses to make the will valid. In those cases. and the evidence on record attests to the full observance of the statutory requisites. Hence the will is to be admitted to probate. .Yes. namely. . witnesses may sabotage the will by muddling or bungling it or the attestation clause".The important thing is that it clearly appears that the name of the testatrix was signed at her express direction in the presence of 3 other witnesses and that they attested and subscribed it in her presence and in the presence of one another. Lea Mateo. Icasiano . where the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained. . Diy. and Jose V. Mars Rongo. Actual seeing is not required. Torres. is not per se sufficient to justify denial of probate. . However. it does not contain the signature of one of the attesting witnesses. 1958. Cabacungan . .In the will. and while signed at the end and in every page.Witness Natividad. i. or the testator’s n ame written by some other person in his presence. WON the will was valid. consists of five pages. She also stated that being unable to read and write.Barut applied for the probate of the last will and testament of Maria Salomon. Natividad. Felisa Icasiano before three instrumental witnesses. due to the simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing. . The subscribing witness validly witnessed the signing. the reason for the invalidation of the wills concerned was that the persons instructed to sign for the testator signed their own names instead of the names of the testators in each case. to extend to extend this doctrine further would open the door to the possibility of all manner of fraud. “by merely casting eyes in the proper direction.But this Court is of the opinion that had this subscribing witness been proven to have been in the outer room. It is enough that when the witness. . .Majority of the members of the court is of the opinion that the subscribing witness was indeed in the small room to be able to observe the signing of the will be the testator and other subscribing witnesses. . Villacorte executed a last will and testament in duplicate at the house of her daughter Mrs. Julie Domingo. and Dr. Salomon revoked all former wills she made. The inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament.Impossibility of substitution of this page is assured not only the fact that the testatrix and two other witnesses did sign the defective page. Rimando . The text of the attestation clause and the acknowledgment before the Notary Public likewise evidence that no one was aware of the defect at the time. but the duplicate copy attached to the amended and supplemental petition is signed by the testatrix and her three attesting witnesses in each and every page.That the failure of witness Natividad to sign page three (3) was entirely through pure oversight is shown by his own testimony as well as by the duplicate copy of the will. Whether or not the will is void (since one of the pages in the original copy was not signed by one of the witnesses) . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  27 . and by his express direction. on June 2. - - - Icasiano v. .The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a single witness over whose conduct she had no control. Nera v.

Unsubstantial departure from the usual forms should be ignored esp. The function of a notary public is.SC held that the will should be admitted because: 1. A cavalier disregard of the formal requirements of wills. that the said instrument was executed without the testator having been fully informed of the contents thereof.” Whether or not it should be invalidated due to the attestation clause’s failure to state the number of pages used in writing the will. it is discernible from the entire will that it is really and actually composed of only 2 pages duly signed by the testatrix and her witnesses. there is no reason why signatures on the margin are not good. was regular in all respects. Cagro . or admit his having signed the will in Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 from of himself. The attestation clause is a “memorandum of the facts attending the execution of the will” required by law to be made by the attesting witnesses. . - Cagro v. since the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their participation.There is no question that the signature of the 3 witnesses to the will do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause. and should not. although the page containing the same is signed by the witnesses on the left hand margin. . it will be noted. In case of doubt.Yes. Whether or not the law requires that the testatrix and 3 witnesses sign at the end of the will and in the presence of the testatrix and of one another. - - - Taboada v. Lea Mateo. is not recommended. The carbon duplicate. so when the will was properly identified by the subscribing witness to be the same will executed by the testatrix.This is a petition for review on certiorari on the judgment of the CFI allowing the probate of the will of the late Valente Cruz. deceit.The surviving spouse of Valente opposed the allowance of the will alleging that the will was executed through fraud. Samar.NO. This function would be defeated if the notary public were one of the attesting witnesses. Cruz v. the first requiring at least 3 credible witnesses to attest and subscribe to the will. and it must necessarily bear their signatures. since the omission of their signatures at the bottom thereof negatives their participation. . There was no question of fraud or substitution behind the questioned order. The notary public before whom the will was acknowledge cannot be considered as the third instrumental witness since he cannot acknowledge before himself his having signed the will. particularly as to what properties he was disposing. to assent. . In the absence of the such provision. is being opposed on the ground that the will is fatally defective. 2. The objects of the attestation and subscription were fully met when the witnesses signed at the sole page where the testamentary . the interpretation that would have the effect of preventing intestacy prevails. in this case.If the third witness were the notary public himself. Whether the will is fatally defective.Written in Cebuano-Visayan dialect. This cannot be done because he cannot split his personality into two so that one will appear before the other to acknowledge his participation in the making of the will. is at the same time the Notary Public before whom the will was supposed to have been acknowledged. to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. assent. to admit. one of them.The probate of the will allegedly executed by Vicente Cagro who died in Laoangan. among others. Pambujan. and the second requiring the testator and the witnesses to acknowledge the will before a notary public. Villasor . esp.SC held that this would have been a fatal defect were it not for the fact that.An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses.It appears that of the 3 instrumental witnesses. and before means in front or preceding in space or ahead of. The second page which contains the attestation clause and the acknowledgement is signed at the end of the attestation clause by the 3 witnesses and at the left hand margin by the testatrix. to own as genuine. would have the effect of having only two attesting witnesses to the will which would be in contravention of the provisions of Article 805 requiring at least 3 credible witnesses to act as such and of Article 806 which requires that the testator and the required number of witnesses must appear before the notary public to acknowledge the will.DISSENT by Bautista: The liberal trend of the NCC in the interpretation of wills should not be overlooked. Notes on Icasiano – Icasiano holding cannot. Julie Domingo. The first page contains the entire testamentary dispositions and is signed at the end or bottom of the page by the testatrix alone and at the left hand margin by the 3 witnesses. The SC declared the last will of Valente invalid. the will consists of 2 pages. An unsigned attestation clause cannot be considered as an act of the witnesses.The lower court denied probate of deceased Perez. . in reliance on Icasiano. particularly Articles 805 and 806 of the NCC. Mars Rongo. The signatures of the witnesses in the left hand margin of the 1st page attested not only to the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix but also the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause.Dispositions were contained. Whether the supposed last will and testament of Valente Cruz was executed in accordance with law. where the authenticity of the will is not assailed. Rosal . . be taken as a departure from the rule that the will should be signed by the witnesses on every page. . . or one of the attesting and acknowledging witnesses. Cecille Natividad. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  28 .Cruz Dissent by Tuason: The law on wills does not provide that the attesting witness should sign the clause at the bottom. To allow the notary public to act as third witness. . misrepresentation and undue influence. .The acknowledgement itself in the second page states that “This Last Will and Testament consists of two pages including this page. 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. 3. CJ Tan. . and that the supposed will was not executed in accordance with law. he would have to avow. . To acknowledge before means to avow. . because its attestation clause is not signed by the attesting witnesses.

If the testator is blind.A person who is not blind but is similarly incapacitated to read the will is within the ambit of Art 808. Whether or not the will was duly executed .  Does this mean the 2 persons must perform each task in turn?  Whether or not the decedent is considered “blind” pursuant to the provisions of Art 808 . the will should be declared invalid. petitioner Cesar Alvarado. Jr. by analogy Art807 is also mandatory. her niece Consuelo Precilla. Julie Domingo.Attestation consists in witnessing the testator’s execution of the will in order to see and take note mentally that those things are done which the statute requires for the execution of a will and that the signature of the testator exists as a fact. otherwise. and once by the notary). Thus. .Thereafter. where the testator did not read the will himself. Able to Read – must read the will personally 2. Lea Mateo. The physician further testified that despite the operation and removal of the cataract and the decedent’s being fitted with aphakic lens. 808. private respondent.This case pertains to the will of the late Gliceria Avelino del Rosario. Cecille Natividad. Failure to comply with either would result in nullity and denial of probate. Unable to Read – must designate two persons to read the will and communicate to him.  Alvarado v. The SC held that for all intents and purposes of the rules on probate.Yes. Jesus Tamesis.Rino. for one reason or another.  Substantially complied with when documents were read aloud to the testator with each of the 3 instrumental witnesses and the notary following the reading with their respective copies. Gaviola. . SC declaring substantial compliance to be sufficient. by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged. and another time by the notary.However. and expressly revoked a previously executed holographic will at the time awaiting probate before the RTC of Laguna.According to Bayani Ma. the three instrumental witnesses and the notary public.The rationale behind the reading of the will to the blind testator is to make the provisions thereof known to him. . or a deaf-mute. a codicil entitled “Kasulatan ng Pagbabago ng Ilang Pagpapasiya na Nasasaad sa Huling Habilin na May Petsa Nobiembre 5. This only strengthens the proposition that the decedent could not have read or understood the alleged testament. 79-year old Brigido Alvarado executed a notarial will entitled “Huling Habilin” wherein he disinherited an illegitimate son. he shall designate two persons to read it and communicate to him. the due execution of the decedent’s will would have required the reading of the will twice (once by one of the witnesses. there is no requirement that compliance with the requirement be stated either in the will or the attestation clause. . . and again.No.  Art808 is MANDATORY  If art808 is mandatory. Burden of proof is upon the proponent of the will that the special requirement of the article was complied with. the will shall be read to him twice. For Blind Testator – to be read to him twice. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  29 . are incapable of reading their wills. . together with three instrumental witnesses and the notary public. ART. .  Applies not only to blind testators but also to those who. 1977 ni Brigido Al varado” was executed  CASE Garcia v. The physician found out on March 1960 that the decedent had a cataract on the left eye and her right eye also had difficulty seeing printed pages. CJ Tan. the decedent is like a blind testator. filed a petition for the probate of the decedent’s holographic Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. once by one of the subscribing witnesses. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 will and for the latter’s appointment as the special administratrix of the decedent’s estate.On 5 November 1977. . the contents thereof. 807. and the due execution of her will would have required faithful observance of the provisions of Art 808 of the CC.SUCCESSION REVIEWER . The SC found it worthy to mention the fact that that the will was executed without any regard for the defective vision of the decedent. Mars Rongo.  - - Special Requirements for Handicapped Testators  For Deaf / Deaf-Mute testator 1.Upon the decedent’s death. The requirement has been liberally applied. - - ART. Witnesses presented by the proponents of the will testified that the decedent was of sound mind when she executed the will. the latter’s vision remained capable of viewing only distant objects and is not capable of reading printed articles. drafted the eight-page document and read the same aloud before the testator. the latter four following the reading with their own respective copies previously furnished them. . . suffering as he did from glaucoma. if able to do so. in some practicable manner. The testament was cramped in a single page and was abundant with typographical errors.Subscription is the signing of the witnesses’ names upon the same paper for the purpose of identification of such paper as the will which was executed by the testator. If the testator be deaf. so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes. a lawyer. At the same time. once by one of the subscribing witnesses. Considering that the testator is within the term “blind” as contemplated under Art 808. and that the decedent first read the will silently before she signed it. Rino. Oppositors of the will however contended that it was physically impossible for the decedent to have read the will as she had a severely impaired eyesight as testified by Dr.Also. he must personally read the will. he was present when the said notarial will was executed. Vasquez . no such reading was proved or shown in this case. in some practicable manner its contents.

and the notary public. 2. by one of the subscribing witnesses. Failure by the attestation clause to state that the witnesses signed in one another’s presence should be considered a FATAL FLAW since the attestation clause is the only textual guarantee of compliance. or influence of fear or threats. In the absence of bad faith. . the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and 1ST SEM 2006-2007 which. correspondingly. . the will shall be read to him twice.The rationale behind the requirement of reading the will to the testator if he is blind or incapable of reading the will to himself (as when he is illiterate). but he can be so considered for purposes of Art. A failure by the attestation clause to state that the testator signed every page can be liberally construed. following the reading word for word with their own copies. . 808. defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if such defects and imperfections can be supplied by an examination of the will itself and it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805. there was substantial compliance where the purpose of the law has been satisfied: that of making the provisions known to the testator who is blind or incapable of reading the will himself (as when he is illiterate) and enabling him to object if they do not accord with his wishes. upon being asked. or fraud. 1980. his three instrumental witnesses. Lea Mateo. or fraud. Whether or not notarial will of Brigido Alvarado should be admitted to probate despite allegations of defects in the execution and attestation thereof as testator was allegedly blind at the time of execution and the double-reading requirement under Art. . . that it was procured by undue pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiary. Mateo Caballero himself filed a case seeking the probate of his last will and testament.With four persons.” . those omissions which cannot be supplied except by evidence aliunde would result in the invalidation of the attestation clause and ultimately. and that the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick. 809. Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of law in order to insure the authenticity of the will. The spirit behind the law was served though the letter was not. CJ Tan. . 808 of the NCC was not complied with.However.See Abangan v.In the will. by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged. Julie Domingo. may only defeat the testator’s will. that the will was executed under duress. will not be fatal and.That Art. .  The rule is that omission which can be supplied by an examination of the will itself. when taken into account. since that fact can be checked by a visual examination. .  However. . CASES Caneda v. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  30 . “Liberalization Running Riot. Abangan. 808 was not followed strictly is beyond cavil.Prior and subsequent thereto. or undue and improper pressure and influence. and again. or undue and improper pressure and influence.There is no evidence that the contents of the will and the codicil were not sufficiently made known and communicated to the testator.On May 29.Only then did the signing and acknowledgment take place. mostly known to the testator. Atty.Said codicil was likewise not read by Brigido Alvarado and was read in the same manner as with the previously executed will. so that he may be able to object if they are not in accordance with his wishes. . Mars Rongo.When the notarial will was submitted to the court for probate. .Although there should be strict compliance with the substantial requirements of law in order to insure the authenticity of the will. Cecille Natividad.YES.Art. executed a last will and testament at his residence before 3 witnesses.  According to JBL Reyes.Cesar Alvardo was correct in asserting that his father was not totally blind (of counting fingers at 3 feet) when the will and codicil were executed. it can be safely concluded that the testator was reasonably assured that what was read to him were the terms actually appearing on the typewritten documents.He was assisted by his lawyer. that the contents read corresponded with his instructions. 808 of the New Civil Code provides: “If the testator is blind. of the will itself. . . Emilio Lumontad. once. is to make the provisions thereof known to him. Mateo Caballero. forgery. but numerous postponements pushed back the initial hearing of the probate court regarding the will. it was declared that the testator was leaving by way of legacies and devises his real and personal properties to several people all of whom do not appear to be related to the testator. . 1978. the testator affirmed. . that the testator was insane or mentally incapacitated due to senility and old age. when taken into account. Cesar Alvarado filed his opposition as he said that the will was not executed and attested as required by law. . in the case at bar. defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if it is proved that the will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805.  Examples 1.Rino read the testator’s will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator. without the need of resorting to extrinsic evidence. the testator passed away before his petition could finally be heard by the probate court.” instead a possible rewording would be – In the absence of bad faith.SUCCESSION REVIEWER changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate cash for the testator’s eye operation. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. . would not obstruct the allowance to probate of the will being assailed. .On December 5. may only defeat the testator’s will. forgery. the formal imperfections should be brushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and which. a widower without any children and already in the twilight years of his life. ART. CA .4 months later.

Thereafter. .The right to make a testamentary disposition of one's property is purely of statutory creation. . Julie Domingo.Correction may not be cured by inference considering the clear. and cannot be disregarded. . Cases for Arts.The phrase. “and he has signed the same and every page thereof. What is permitted is a probe into the will. . .The attestation clause does not expressly state therein the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. Also the genuineness of the signature of the testator is in doubt.Thereafter one of the legatees. They also opposed the probate of the testator’s will and the appointment of a special administrator for his estate. Whether or no the will is valid. and the heir can be deprived of his inheritance only by a compliance with this mode. For the court to supply alleged deficiencies would be against the evident policy of the law.” . arguing that the will was void since the attestation clause thereof does not state that the alleged testator signed the will. Lea Mateo. . provides strong legal guaranties for the due execution of a will and to insure the authenticity thereof. WON.Without it there is no attestation at all.” obviously refers to the testator and not the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the words” as his last will and testament. The defect in this case is not only with respect to the form or the language of the attestation clause. and is available only upon a compliance with the requirements of the statute.Clearly lacking is the statement that the witnesses signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. And the Court agrees.Therefore. 809.For that purpose only the intention of the Legislature. Cecille Natividad.It is a separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by the witnesses it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities required by law has been observed. It is said that the court may correct a mere clerical error. CJ Tan. 804 to 809. claiming to be nephews and nieces of the testator.Article 809 cannot be used to cure the defects of the will when it does not pertain to the form or language of the will. 809 does not apply to the present case because the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting witnesses signed each and every page of the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. de Murciano appealed to the SC. an exploration within its confines. shows a compliance with the statute. The attestation clause need not be written in a language known to the testator or even to the attesting witnesses. Benoni Cabrera. the witnesses. unequivocal. The oppositor Pilar Gil Vda. the attestation clause in the will of the testator is fatally defective or can be cured under the art. .CA affirmed the probate court’s decision stating that it substantially complies with Article 805. The formalities which the Legislature has prescribed for the execution of a will are essential to its validity. The will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the attesting witnesses. the probate of the will is set aside and the case for the intestate proceedings shall be revived. . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. this being the most essential element of the clause. the testator was already in poor state of health such that he could not have possibly executed the same.For the purpose of determining whether a will has been properly executed. . for the precise purpose of the attestation clause is to certify that the testator signed the will. .Ordinary or attested wills are governed by Arts. one of the attesting witnesses and the notary public testified that the testator executed the will in question in their presence while he was of sound and disposing mind and that the testator was in good health and was not unduly influenced in any way in the execution of his will. therefore. .SUCCESSION REVIEWER . Art. That the absence of the statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will that is here sought to be probated. . Murciano . . .Benoni Cabrera died and was replaced by William Cabrera as special administrator and gave an order that the testate proceedings for the probate of the will had to be heard and resolved first. . . .Probate court then rendered a decision declaring the will in question as the last will and testament of the late Mateo Caballero. . to ascertain its meaning or to determine the existence or absence of the requisite formalities of the law. The defects must be remedied by intrinsic evidence supplied by the will itself which is clearly lacking in this case.NO. Mars Rongo.It is contended by petitioners that the attestation clause in the will failed to specifically state the fact that the attesting witnesses witnessed the testator sign the will and all its pages in their presence and that they.In adopting liberal construction of a will. petitioners opposed to the allowance of the testator’s will on the ground that on the alleged date of its execution.The mode so prescribed is the measure for the exercise of the right. Alleged errors may be overlooked or corrected only in matters of form which do not affect the substance of the statement. sought his appointment as special administrator of the testator’s estate. the intention of the testator in executing it is entitled to no consideration. 807-809 Gil v. on the space provided for his signature and on the left hand margin.The CFI of Manila admitted to probate the alleged will and testament of the deceased Carlos Gil. evidence aluinde is not allowed to fill the void or supply missing details. can be considered by the court. Hence this appeal. . instituted a second petition for intestate proceedings.No. It is to be supposed that the drafter of the alleged will read the clear words of the statute when he prepared it. as expressed in the language of the statute. language of the statute as to how the attestation clause should be made. .In the course of the proceedings. .On the other hand. It declares only that it was signed by the witnesses. likewise signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of each other.This is too much of a clerical error for it affects the very essence of the clause. . . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  31 .The attestation clause. the petitioners. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 . It does not comply with the provisions of the law. This is a fatal defect. This is because there is not substantial compliance with Article 805. and whether the will as presented.Also. .

YES. This. Alipio’s testimony sufficiently proves that Abada speaks the Spanish Language. The SC affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Whether the attestation clause states the number of pages on which the will was written.The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of the wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud. It showed that the pages are numbered correlatively with the phrase containing “UNO y DOS” meaning “ONE” and “TWO”. he does not merely attest to the signature of the testator but also to the proper execution of the will.Pilar Achacoso filed an alternative petition for the probate of a pervious will praying that if the will submitted by the widow be rejected. . Therefore the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends.The question on the number of witnesses is answered by an examination of the will itself and without the need for presentation of evidence aliunde. 804 & 806 of the NCC. Abada v. the Code of Civil Procedure applies where the intervention of a notary is not necessary in the execution of any will. . Thus. (2) it was not intended as the last will of the testator. The only anomaly is that it appears to be an attestation made by the testator himself more than by the instrumental witnesses.in the presence of the 3 witnesses… Whether the attestation clause is valid. . . it appearing that right under the signature of the testator. the Court agreed with the CA in the application of the rule on substantial compliance in determining the number of witnesses. Achacoso . Hence. Whether the will has an attestation clause. Abada allegedly names his testamentary heirs his natural children: Eulogio and Rosario. and that each signed the will in the presence of one another and of the testator.The will winds up with the ff. there appear the signatures of the 3 instrumental witnesses. . Cecille Natividad. . and (3) it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence on the part of the beneficiaries.Yes. her husband. clause: In witness whereof. . There is no statutory requirement to state in the will itself that the testator knew the language or dialect used in the will. . . the other will be admitted in lieu thereof. . . Caponong-Noble moved for the dismissal of the petition for probate of the will of Abada but such motion was denied. However. is not serious or substantial as to affect the validity of the will. The laws in force at that time are the Old Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure. . a close inspection of the will shows that 3 witnesses signed it. Julie Domingo.When the case was submitted for decision. Mars Rongo. Whether the will of Abada requires acknowledgement before a notary public.Precision of language in drafting an attestation clause is desirable. . On this point. Whether the attestation clause states that the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the testator and each other. This is a matter that a party may establish by proof aliunde. a statement absent in the 2nd will. CJ Tan. .Caponong alleged that the will should be disallowed on the following reasons: (1) it was not executed and attested as required by law.Spouses Abada and Toray died without legitimate children. . In this case.YES. to avoid substitution of the wills and testament and to guarantee their truth and authenticity. it is not imperative that a parrot-like copy of the words of the state be made. The last part of the attestation clause shows that the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing of the will of the testator. But on the other hand also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will. a Resolution was rendered where it was held that there was a substantial compliance with the formalities of the will. the SC held that Caponong-Noble was correct is saying that the attestation clause does not indicate the number of witnesses. Lea Mateo. Abada’s will does not require acknowledgment before a notary public. filed a petition for the probate of the will of Jose Venzon. .Upon appeal. .NO. What Caponong-Noble cited was Arts.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 Resolution. the trial court only determined whether the will of Abada has an attestation clause as required by law. show that they have in fact attested not only the genuineness of his signature but also to the due execution of the will as embodied in the attestation clause. .Abada executed his will on June 1932. or if there be one that it is not signed by the instrumental witnesses.Alipio Abaja filed with the CFI a petition for the probate of the will of Abada. Abaja . . .NO. however.Caponong opposed the petition on the ground that Abada left no will when he died. the CA affirmed the trial court’s Resolution.Valentina Cuevas. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  32 . Caponong-Noble was named as Special Administratix of the estate of Abada and Toray. any other interpretation whatsoever. The fact that the 3 witnesses have signed the will immediately under the signature of the testator. that adds nothing but demands more requisites entirely unnecessary.However. Alipio is the son of Eulogio. Whether the attestation clause states that the testator signed the will in its every page in the presence of 3 witnesses.Later.NO. Whether the CA erred in sustaining the trial court in admitting to probate the will of Abada.The previous will names Pilar Achacoso as one of the heirs. In the said Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. a defect which invalidates the will.The English translation of the attestation clause clearly states that Abada signed the will and its every page in the presence of the witnesses. . Whether the will must expressly state that it is written in a language or dialect known to the testator. What laws apply to the probate of the last will of Abada? . I sign this testament or last will…. It is sufficient if from Cuevas v. So when an interpretation already given assures such ends. this appeal. . useless and frustrative of the testator’s will must be disregarded. While the attestation clause does not state the number of witnesses. .YES. In this case.Pilar opposes the probate of the 2nd for lack of attestation clause.Instrumental witness is one who takes part in the execution of an instrument or writing.

Simeon delivered to the court a document purporting to be the holographic will of Bibliana. ART. Increased risk of duress REQUIREMENTS OF A HOLOGRAPHIC WILL 1. It is subject to no other form. The only requirements are that  Must signature be at the will’s end [at least the logical end]? YES. along with other benefits such as 1. Whether or not the alleged holographic will is dated. Cecille Natividad. and pressure and the authenticity of the will is established. and the only issue is the validity of the date “FEB./61 is a valid compliance. . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  33 . and year of its execution. 3. and year of its execution and this should be complied with. DATED BY HIM    Date – Specification or mention. undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the Will is established and the only issue is whether or not the date FEB. in a written instrument. Inexpensiveness 3.GR: The date in a holographic will should include the day. and need not be witnessed. .SC held that it is dated because: .The objection put forth by Henson is too technical to be entertained. bad faith.The will was dated “FEB.SUCCESSION REVIEWER the language employed it can reasonable deduced that the attestation clause fulfills what the law expects of it. Brevity But that very simplicity brings about disadvantages – 1. . dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself. WON the holographic will dated as “FEB. 2. as provided for in Article 810 of the Civil Code .  Simplicity of the holographic will is its obvious advantage.” CASES Roxas v. the land was sold to them evidenced by TCT No.After the death of the de Jesus spouses. or b) Of a testator becoming insane in the day on which a will was executed. .She contends that the law requires that the will should contain the day. .SC found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in the execution of the will. the probate should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance.Melecio died leaving behind a parcel of land to his heirs. and signed by the hand of the testator himself. . probate of the holographic will should be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance. month. CA . The only requirements are that the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. .The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. opposed the probate of the holographic will contending that it was not dated as required by Art. 1ST SEM 2006-2007  May the testator sign by means of a thumbprint? NO. month and year of execution. article says will must be “entirely handwritten.E: In the absence of appearance of fraud. Secrecy 2. and may be made in or out of the Philippines./61” and this was confirmed by the testimonies of Simeon as and the 2 children of Bibliana.Later. Neither is there any question as to the genuineness and due execution of the will. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written. SIGNED BY TESTATOR Labrador v. month and year] it was made [executed]. He stated that after being appointed as administrator. 21178. bad faith. the date in a holographic will should include the day. nor was there substitution of wills. . Lea Mateo. Simeon Roxas (brother of the deceased Bibliana Roxas de Jesus) filed a special proceeding to settle the intestate estate of the de Jesus spouses. De Jesus . Mars Rongo. If the testator attempts to comply with all the requisites.YES. Jesus and Gaudencio filed an opposition on the ground that the will has been extinguished by implication of law alleging that before Melecio’s death. 810. month. article 812 seems to imply this.61” appearing on the will.  The law does not specify a particular location where the date should be placed in the will. of the time [day. when there is no appearance of fraud. However. COMPLETELY HANDWRITTEN BY THE TESTATOR  If testator executes only part of the will in his handwriting and other parts are not so written.Henson. he found a notebook of Bibliana which contained the letter-will addressed to her children written and signed by Bibliana. Julie Domingo./61” was properly dated. although compliance is not literal. the ENTIRE will is void because the article would be violated. Jesus eventually sold it to Navat. undue influence.  A complete date is required to provide against such contingencies as – a) Two competing wills executed on the same day. . 810. However. Greater difficulty of determining testamentary capacity 3. CJ Tan. it is sufficient if the objective or purpose sought to be accomplished by such requisite is actually attained by the form followed by the testator.Trial court admitted the will to probate and declared the TCT null and void. dated. . Danger of forgery 2. during probate proceedings. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. – Black’s Law Dictionary  As a general rule. the CA on appeal denied probate on the ground that it was undated. However. another compulsory heir.

Know the handwriting and signature of the testator 2. a holographic will cannot be probated. it may no longer ask for expert evidence.First. . an opinion which cannot be tested in court nor directly contradicted by the oppositors because the handwriting itself is not at hand. Lea Mateo. the testimony of subscribing or instrumental witnesses and of the notary guarantees authenticity of the will. .In this case. If the court is convinced by the testimony of the witnesses. 811. in the year 1968. In the case of a lost ordinary will.  ART. the case is remanded to allow the parties to adduce additional evidence including expert testimony.The probate of the will is contested on the ground that the will was executed under undue influence. if any. it should be noted that in holographic wills. Truthfully declare that handwriting and signature is that of the testator In the probate of a holographic will.Francisco Azaola submitted the said holographic will whereby Maria Azaola was made the sole heir of the deceased.  Testamentary wills – mandatory  Holographic wills – directory Witnesses must: 1. it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is contested. Cecille Natividad. . .Article 810 of the Civil Code 1ST SEM 2006-2007   In the case of ordinary wills. . it does not apply to Ante Mortem probates since in such cases the testator himself files the petition and will identify the document itself. namely the act of the testator of subscribing the will. whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court. the 3 subscribing witnesses would be testifying as to a FACT which they saw.The intention to show March 17 1968 as the date of the execution is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of the paragraph. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  34 . it would be more difficult to convince 3 witnesses plus the notary to deliberately lie. the document itself must be produced. the substitution of the unsigned pages may go undetected. thus the existence of the witnesses possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter beyond the control of the proponent. the provision of Art 811 should not be interpreted to require the compulsory presentation of the three witnesses. not mandatory. Singson .The subject of this case is the holographic will of Fotunata Yance.SUCCESSION REVIEWER the date be in the will itself and executed in the hand of the testator. the law itself contemplates a situation where no competent witness can be produced thus allowing the court to resort to expert evidence to supply the deficiency. the witnesses would testify as to their OPINION of the handwriting which they allegedly saw. Therefore.  Why the difference in rules?  Because of the nature of the wills.The SC held that the petitioner is not bound to produce more than one witness as the authenticity of the will is not in question. Article applies only to POST MORTEM probates.Thus. Considering the holographic will may consist of 2-3 pages and only one of them need be signed. . And the one who made this writing is no other than Melecio Labrador. no witness is required in the execution thereof. In the probate of a holographic will. In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the preceding paragraph. Mars Rongo. even a mimeographed or carbon copy.Second.” . if there is no competent witness or if those produced were not convincing. Julie Domingo.Granting also that the genuineness of the will is contested. the court may accordingly call for expert evidence.  Loss of the holographic will entails loss of the only medium of proof while loss of the ordinary will leaves the subscribing witnesses available to authenticate.This clearly shows that this is a unilateral act of Melecio who plainly knew that he was executing a will.To clarify further. the proponent of the will only presented one witness to prove that the body of and signature in the will was that of the testator Whether or not the three-witness rule is mandatory and applicable in this case . The three witness provision in case of contested holographic wills is DIRECTORY. Whereas in the case of a lost holographic will. CASES Azaola v.   EXCEPTION – may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. their father. CJ Tan. or by other similar means. and this decision and or instruction of mine is the matter to be followed. . that the document was not intended to be the will of the deceased and that the proponent of the will failed to present at least three witnesses who could declare the will and the signature therein to be in the writing of the testatrix. expert testimony may be resorted to.     Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. The execution and 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. In holographic wills. the only guarantee of authenticity is the handwriting itself. However. and if the court deem it necessary. . . However. the option to require expert evidence depends on the discretion of the court. at least three of such witnesses shall be required. . In attested wills. It states that “this being in the month of March 17th day. attested wills MAY BE PROVED by testimonial evidence.

Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  35 .The third. is mandatory or directory.The clerk of court was not presented to declare explicitly that the signature appearing in the holographic will was that of the deceased. on the other hand. . . Calugay . . . If the will is contested. . . the goal to be achieved by the law. .Evangeline Calugay never declared that she saw the decreased write a note or sign a document. etc. dated and signed by said deceased. which is why if the holographic will is contested. 1951. Codoy v. Evangeline Calugay.After hearing the parties. . devisees and legatees of the holographic will of the deceased Matilde Seño Vda.Codoy and Ramonal’s demurrer to evidence was granted by the lower court. . .” . . . nor executed any testament during her lifetime. also one must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain and curtail the exercise the right to make a will. Whether or not Article 811 of the Civil Code. paragraph 1. who said that the signature on the will was similar to that of the deceased but that he can not be sure.The niece also testified that the deceased left a holographic will entirely written.Sometime in 1950. .The fourth witness was a former lawyer for the deceased in the intestate proceedings of her late husband. 1952. .They raised doubts as regards the repeated appearing on the will after every disposition. an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the word “shall”. de Ramonal. it shall be necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. the laws on this subject should be interpreted in such a way as to attain these primordial ends. providing that at least three witnesses explicitly declare the signature in a contested will as the genuine signature of the testator. at least three of such witnesses shall be required. Felicidad Esguerra mentioned to her first cousin Vicente Esguerra her desire to make a will.) . .However.Art 811 requiring three witnesses in the probate of a contested holographic will is merely directive and not mandatory.The first witness was the clerk of court of the probate court who produced and identified the records of the case bearing the signature of the deceased. .The will was not found in the personal belongings of the deceased but was in the possession of the said niece. who kept the fact about the will from the children of the deceased. it was improperly procured. . provides: “In the probate of a holographic will. The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order.On March 17. The will itself was not presented. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. . the law requires three witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of the deceased. is mandatory.The deceased ’s niece saw pre-prepared receipts and letters of the deceased and did not declare that she saw the deceased sign a document or write a note.The second witness was election registrar who was made to produce and identify the voter’s affidavit.NO. . . . respondent Evangeline Calugay. .The paramount consideration in the present petition is to determine the true intent of the deceased. when used in a statute. to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their truth and authenticity.YES. the court refused to probate the alleged will. claimed that she had lived with the deceased since birth where she had become familiar with her signature and that the one appearing on the will was genuine. Yap . Mars Rongo. . 1ST SEM 2006-2007 Whether or not the witnesses sufficiently establish the authenticity and due execution of the deceased’s holographic will. CJ Tan. presented 6 witnesses and various documentary evidence.In opposition to said proceedings.(As it appears in the foregoing. when used in a statute.On 6 April 1990. we cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document being adjudged as the will of the testator.Article 811.SUCCESSION REVIEWER . the deceased’s niece. . claimed that she had acquired familiarity with the deceased’s signature and handwriting as she used to accompany her in collecting rentals from her various tenants of commercial buildings and the deceased always issued receipts. calling the same out of the ordinary. . However.A visual examination of the holographic will convinces that the strokes are different when compared with other documents written by the testator. It was reversed on appeal with the Court of Appeals which granted the probate. .The fifth was an employee of the DENR who testified that she was familiar with the signature of the deceased which appeared in the latter’s application for pasture permit. Fausto E. . .The fifth. . is to give effect to the wishes of the deceased and the evil to be prevented is the possibility that unscrupulous individuals who for their benefit will employ means to defeat the wishes of the testator. is mandatory. Gan initiated these proceedings in CFI Manila for probate the holographic will executed allegedly by the deceased. filed a petition for probate of the said will.The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud. the surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that the deceased had not left any will.If the will was in the handwriting of the deceased. .The records are remanded to allow the oppositors to adduce evidence in support of their opposition.They attested to the genuineness and due execution of the will on 30 August 1978. Cecille Natividad. putting in issue her motive. But.Evangeline Calugay.The former lawyer of the deceased expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the signature in the holographic will. Gan v. . . the three-witness requirement was not complied with. Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of heart failure in the UST hospital leaving properties in Bulacan and in Manila.The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order.On November 20. Josephine Salcedo and Eufemia Patigas. Julie Domingo. We cannot be certain that the holographic will was in the handwriting of the deceased.Eugenio Ramonal Codoy and Manuel Ramonal filed their opposition claiming that the will was a forgery and that the same is even illegible. an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and that the presumption is that the word “shall”. Therefore. Lea Mateo.In the case at bar.The election registrar was not able to produce the voter’s affidavit for verification as it was no longer available. but failed to as the same was already destroyed and no longer available.

SUCCESSION REVIEWER she wanted it to be a secret because she said that it would be useless if her husband discovered or knew about it. at least one identifying witness is required and. of assessing the evidence are not available. then it will be sufficient proof that it has been executed in accordance with law. If contested. . If uncontested. these means of opposition and.It is therefore to be concluded that 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. witnesses may be brought in so as to verify that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. Felicidad proceeded with the making of her will. The will itself must be presented. Signature and date. the dispositions of the testator written below his signature must be dated and signed by him in order to make them valid as testamentary dispositions. she would show people who would visit her will. It is stated that. Whether a holographic will which was lost or can not be found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.The probate may be uncontested or not. dated and signed by the testator himself. CJ Tan. or 2.Rejection of the alleged will must be sustained . whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited and tested before the probate court. When a number of dispositions appearing in a holographic will are signed without being dated. Signature 2. . may be allowed. ART. and the last disposition has a signature and a date. ART.Pursuant to Article 811 of the Civil Code. The witnesses so presented do not need to have seen the execution of the holographic will. “A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written. Date When there are Several Additional Dispositions 1. . at least three identifying witnesses are required. the trial judge had to accept the oppositor’s evidence that Felicidad did not and could not have executed such holographic will. 805 for its compliance with the law. if any. Each additional disposition signed and undated.That even if oral testimony were admissible to establish and probate a lost holographic will. 813. dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself. - - - WON. After evaluating the pieces of evidence presented before the court. probate of holographic wills is the allowance of the will by the court after its due execution has been proved. it shall produce no effect. Hence this appeal. Though it was a secret. experts may be resorted to. holographic wills need not observe the rules laid down in Art.If the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available. . 812.No.In the case hand however. . Mars Rongo. . As long as it is written entirely. 2.The execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not be proved by bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will.  If on different occasions – intermediate additions are void. signed and dated by her. If several additional dispositions. The loss of the holographic will entails the loss of the only medium of proof. 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. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 . As a result of this.This is because the only guaranty of the authenticity is the handwriting itself. It is necessary that there be a comparison between sample handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will. Julie Domingo.  Formal Requirements for Additional Dispositions in a Holographic Will 1. . If additional dispositions before the last are not signed and not dated. for the law regards the document itself as the material proof of the authenticity of the said will. . whatever be the time of prior dispositions. then only the last additional disposition is valid. And then the only guaranty of authenticity – the testator’s handwriting – has disappeared. a lost holographic will can be admitted to probate. but the last disposition signed and dated. the will can not be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. Aranza . cannot stand in lieu of the lost original. what happens to the intermediate ones?  If made on one occasion – last disposition signed and dated validates all.But. but only the last is dated and signed.The probate court ordered the dismissal of Rodelas’ petition for the allowance of the holographic will of deceased Ricardo B.However.However. the evidence submitted by the petitioner is so tainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to that clear and distinct proof required by Rule 77. .” . Obviously. each of which is dated. the will holographic will was not presented to the court. and need not be witnessed. if no witness is available. such date validates the dispositions preceding it. It is subject to no other form and may be made in our out of the Philippines. if the holographic will has been lost or destroyed and no other copy is available.Unlike ordinary wills. The law regards the document itself as material proof of authenticity. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  36 . . otherwise. Lea Mateo. or by other similar means. the will can not be probated because the best and only evidence is the handwriting of the testator in said will. Cecille Natividad. when the will itself is not submitted. So Vicente consulted with the nephew of Felicidad and found out that it could be done provided that the document was entirely in her handwriting. NOTES 1. . Even a mimeographed or carbon copy. In holographic wills. but the last disposition is signed and dated. Articles 810-814 govern holographic wills.  But distinction is practically worthless because circumstances of execution of   Rodelas v. Bonilla on the ground that the alleged photostatic copy of the will which was presented for probate.

. the effect must be that the entire will is voided for the reason that nothing remains in the will after that which could remain valid. 817. Full signature does not mean testator’s full name.  Valid in Philippines / As if executed according to Philippine laws. Ordinarily.It is invalid. he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms established by the law of the country in which he may be. corrected or interline. condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines. nothing remains in the will. wills and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  37 . 17. which was altered by substituting the original heir with another. if after all the alterations were voided.  Effect of non-compliance – the change [insertion. if: a) Made according to law of country which he is a citizen or subject. Cecille Natividad. in this case. 15. the same is not thereby invalidated as a whole. which is executed in accordance with the law of the country of which he is a citizen or subject. erasure or alteration in a holographic will. cancellation. and b) May be proved and allowed by law of his own country  In relation to Articles 15 and 17 of the NCC Art. The will is not thereby invalidated as a whole. 814. Julie Domingo. ART. It is not contested that the will was in her handwriting as certified by the NBI. Why. such as the date.” is no argument. The will originally named Rosa. . but at most only as respects the particular words erased. Comments – The holding that the insertion of the name of Gregorio cannot be given effect for not having been done in accordance with the requirement of Art814 is beyond question. The forms and solemnities of contracts. corrections and interlineations made by the testator in a holographic sill have not been noted under his signature. the will in dispute had only one substantial provision. was the cancellation of the original testamentary institution given effect? That cancellation was not done in the way mandated by the article. cancellation. . the will was denied probate by the trial court Whether the will is valid or not.SUCCESSION REVIEWER holographic wills are often difficult to prove. however. or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes. when a number of erasures. But that change of mind can neither be given effect because she failed to authenticate it in the manner required by law by affixing her full signature.Natividad Kalaw left a holographic will. To say.When a number of unauthenticated erasures. as the decision does. 815. ART. Laws relating to family rights and duties.] is simply considered NOT MADE. Mars Rongo. CASE Kalaw v. shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of the Philippines. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides. even though living abroad. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 enough that the testator manifest his intent – he must manifest in a manner required by law.However. When a Filipino is in a foreign country. Art. etc. only his usual and customary signature. A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country. Relova . CJ Tan. ALIEN ABROAD  Has effect in the Philippines if made according to: a) Law of place where he resides b) Law of his own country c) Philippine law 3. . corrected or inserted UNLESS the portion involved is an essential part of the will.Hence. The will however has alterations/insertions. but at most only as regards the particular words erased. but at most only as respects the particular words erased. the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature. corrected or interlined. In case of any insertion. because it is not  RULES OF FORMAL VALIDITY 1. that “to state that the will as first written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. but which alteration did not have the signature of the testator. Except however. ALIEN IN THE PHILS. ART.To state that the will as first written should be given efficacy is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. the decedent’s sister as her sole heir and administrator. the will in not thereby invalidated as a whole. 816. and which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own country. FILIPINO ABROAD  According to the law in the country in which he may be  And may be probated in the Philippines 2. Such will may be probated in the Philippines. corrections and interlineations are made by the testator in a holographic will. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. or according to the formalities observed in his country. Such alteration was however not authenticated by the full signature of the decedent. but this was crossed out and changed to her brother Gregorio. Lea Mateo. or to the status.  ART.  NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE – Philippine law follows Filipino citizens wherever they may be.

. Filipino and Alien – Always VOID as to the Filipino.SUCCESSION REVIEWER When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consulate officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country. .The trial court held that since it must decide only the question of the identity of the will. Lea Mateo. Art15 for Filipinos 2.  Every testator. JOINT WILL – one document which constitutes the wills of two or more individuals. executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in the Philippines. Filipinos Abroad – VOID Art819. faithless or desperate. ART. or in the same instrument. wicked. Two or more persons cannot make a will jointly. .  If there are separate documents.  In Germany. Ajero with respect to the disposition in the will of a house and lot. as to the latter. it finds no reason for the disallowance of the will for its failure to comply with the formalities prescribed by law nor for lack of testamentary capacity of the testatrix. Aliens in Philippines – Controverted. the trial court still admitted the decedent’s holographic will to probate. or in any even. Art15 for Filipinos by analogy Outline on Joint Wills 1. Law of his Citizenship – Arts 816-817 for Aliens. or signed by not dated. It found that certain dispositions in the will were either unsigned or undated. 810-819 Ajero v CA ART.   Reason for Prohibition of Joint Wills 1. Law of Residence . Danger of one testator killing the other  When a will is made jointly or in the same instrument. By Filipinos in the Philippines – VOID Art818 2. .YES. . Cases for Arts. Prohibitive laws concerning persons.The holographic will of Annie San was submitted for probate. applying to aliens in the Philippines and to Filipinos by analogy 5. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. Mars Rongo. Whether the CA erred in holding that Articles 813 and 814 of the NCC were not complies with.Art816 for aliens abroad. depending if he is abroad or in the Phils. even if allowed by law in place of execution. may be tempted to kill or dispose of the other. this appeal. Cecille Natividad. applying to aliens in the Philippines and to Filipinos by analogy 4. on one view it is void because of public policy. the problem of unauthorized destruction would come in 2. the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution. the will was procured by petitioners through improper pressure and undue influence. whether Filipino or Alien. each serving as one independent will even if written on the same sheet. . prohibited by the preceding article. It also found that the erasures. has five choices as to what law to follow for the form of his will: 1. but either #3 or #4 governs. alterations and cancellations made had not been authenticated by decedent. Law of Domicile – Art816 for aliens abroad. joint wills are allowed but only between spouses. Wills.On appeal.  Where the will is not only joint but reciprocal. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  38 . and. The SC reversed the decision of CA. Danger of undue influence 4. even though authorized by the laws of the country where they may have been executed. wills and other public instruments follow the formalities of the law where they are executed.However. He claimed that said property could not be conveyed by decedent in its entirety. wherever he may be. it contained alterations and corrections which were not duly signed by decedent. Philippine Law – Arts 816-817 for aliens. 819. Julie Domingo.The petition was also contested by Dr. the CA reversed said Decision holding that the decedent did not comply with Articles 313 and 314 of the NCC. their acts or property and those which have for their object public order. Aliens Abroad – VALID.  1ST SEM 2006-2007 goes to the survivor.  LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS – contracts.A reading of Article 813 shows that its requirement affects the validity of the dispositions contained in the holographic Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. CJ Tan. .Private respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that: neither the testament’s body nor the signature therein was in decedent’s handwriting. 818. either one of the spouses who may happen to be unscrupulous. as she was not its sole owner. Diminution of testamentary secrecy 3. its due execution and the testamentary capacity of the testatrix. Law of place of Execution – Art17 3. This is an exception to the permissive provisions of Arts17 and 815. either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person. 3. knowing as he or she does the terms of the will whereby the whole property of the spouses both conjugal and paraphernal .Hence. they are not joint wills prohibited by the article. Limitation on modes of revocation  One of the testators would not be able to destroy the document without also revoking it as the will of the other testator. Art816 4. the spouse who is more dominant is liable to dictate the terms of the will for his or her own benefit or for that of the third persons whom he or she desires to favor. 5. another view says it is valid because Art817 governs. .

The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud. accordingly. testator may resort to either executing a holographic will or following the law of the place of execution. and not blind. Rule 76 of the Rules of Court and Article 839 of the Civil Code enumerate the grounds for disallowance of wills. the result is that these dispositions cannot be effectuated. It is enough that the qualifications in Art.SUCCESSION REVIEWER will. . - - Subsection 4 – Witnesses to Wills ART. 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. Mars Rongo. .Gonzales opposed the probate. Deaf or Dumb 4. or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. Not Blind. Among other grounds. . The following are disqualified from being witnesses to a will: (1) Any person not domiciled in the Philippines Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. but not its probate.YES. 806 of the NCC that the witness must be credible is an absolute requirement which must be complied with before a last will and testament may be admitted. perjury or false testimony. and o whether the execution of the will and its signing were the voluntary acts of the decedent. . These lists are exclusive. or that he is honest and upright. o whether said will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.  - - - SIX QUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES 1. WON the witnesses who attested to Gabriel’s will are qualified to be such.There is no mandatory requirement that the witness testify initially or at any time during the trial as to his good standing in the community. This separation and distinction adds support to the interpretation that only the requirements of Article 810 of the NCC – and not those found in Articles 813 and 814 – are essential to the probate of a holographic will. indeed. In a petition to admit a holographic will. In the case of holographic wills. 820 and 821 of the NCC. 820 are complied with. Section 9. the only issues to be resolved are: o whether the instrument submitted is. 821. Unless the authenticated alterations.Santiago filed a petition with the CFI for the probate of the will allegedly executed by the deceased Gabriel. their presence does not in validate the will itself. And hi age is proven as well as the fact that he is not deaf and dumb and that he is able to read and write. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 (2) Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document. . and still not credible as required by Art. may be a witness to the execution of a will mention in Article 805 of this Code. does not render the whole testament void.She claims that to be ca credible witness.She argues that the requirement in Art. 805. no other grounds can serve to disallow a will. such that the soundness of his mind can be shown by or deduced from his answers to questions propounded to him. CJ Tan. CA . Any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more. the decedent’s last will and testament. Julie Domingo. cancellations or insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or on testator’s signature. . At Least 18 years of age 3.His honesty and uprightness in order that his testimony may be believed and accepted by the trial court. 821. o whether the decedent had the necessary testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed. if no such witnesses are readily available. Able to read and write 5. Failure to strictly observe other formalities will no result in the disallowance of a holographic will that is unquestionable handwritten by the testator. ART. Such failure. As to applicability to wills executed abroad. Competence v. she contends that the witnesses who attested to the due execution of the will were not qualified witnesses. Of Sound Mind 2. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  39 . The lack of authentication will only result in disallowance of such changes. a holographic will can still be admitted to probate notwithstanding non-compliance with the provisions of Article 814. and that he is not disqualified under Art. . 820. Likewise. what assures authenticity is the requirement that they be totally authographic or handwritten by the testator himself. . Cecille Natividad. laws on this subject should be interpreted to attain these primordial ends.  -  - - CASES Gonzales v. It is also proper to note that he requirements of authentication of changes and signing and dating of dispositions appear in provisions (Article 813 and 814) separate from that which provides for the necessary conditions for the validity of the holographic will (Article 810). deaf or dumb. Domiciled in the Philippines 6. Lea Mateo. there must be evidence on record that the witness has good standing in the community. his reputation or trustworthiness and reliability. Must not have been convicted of falsification of a document. Credibility  The competency of a person to be an instrumental witness to a will is determined by the statute under Arts 820-821. perjury or false testimony.She further asserts that “credible” in the NCC should receive the same well-settled meaning it has under the Naturalization Law. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions. and able to read and write. however.Gonzales further contends that “credible” is not synonymous with “competent” because a witness may be competent under Arts.

 Assuming all other requisites for formal validity are met. and able to read and write. and not blind. Lea Mateo. 823. 822. . be void. or parent. NCC: Any person of sound mind and of the age of 18 years or more. However.  As in the case of testamentary capacity under Art801. SC did not reverse the findings of the CA. Article 823 lays down a disqualification of a witness to succeed to a legacy or devise when there are only 3 witnesses. . 805. In order that a codicil may be effective.  ART. A mere charge on the estate of the testator for the payment of debts due at the time of the testator’s death does not prevent his creditors from being competent witnesses to his will. or any one claiming under such person or spouse. 825. Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document. or child.Art. 824. CJ Tan. or child. the time of the execution of the will is the only relevant temporal criterion in the determination of the competence of the witnesses. ART.Art. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  40 . perjury or false testimony. Competence of the person as a witness is NOT AFFECTED. such devise or legacy shall. Cecille Natividad. 826. their becoming subsequently incompetent shall not prevent the allowance of the will. so far only as concerns such person. they need only meet the qualifications in Art820 and have none of the disqualifications in Art821.In probate proceedings.  But the distinction is purely academic because Art826 requires that the codicil be in the form of a will anyway.  Codicil v. or child of such person. such person so attesting shall be admitted as a witness as if such devise or legacy had not been made or given. the will is perfectly valid but the witness [or relatives specified in the article] cannot inherit. If the party is also entitled to a legitime or an intestate share.The contention that the term “credible” should be given the same meaning as that in the Naturalization Law is untenable.  Article is misplaced here because it talks about CAPACITY TO SUCCEED and not capacity to be a witness. or altered.SUCCESSION REVIEWER . Question – Supposing there are 4 witnesses. (Other assignments of error discussed in the case are factual.  May also say that dispositions are INVALID because the intent of the law is to avoid witnesses from attesting to the will based on the dispositions as a consideration for such act.  Subsequent will – makes independent and distinct dispositions. Julie Domingo. or parent. In naturalization proceedings. If all of the witnesses are recipients of testamentary dispositions. If the witnesses attesting the execution of a will are competent at the time of attesting. by which disposition made in the original will is explained. made after the execution of a will and annexed to be taken as a part thereof. A codicil is a supplement or addition to a will. 820. reputation and reliability. ART. to whom or to whose spouse.)  1ST SEM 2006-2007 Disqualification applies only to the testamentary disposition made in favor of the witness or the specified relatives. For the witnesses to be competent. If a person attests the execution of a will. unless there are three other competent witnesses to such will. deaf or dumb. the instrumental witnesses are not character witnesses for they merely attest the execution of a will or testament and affirm the formalities attendant to said execution.  ART. adds to or alters a disposition in a prior will. or spouse. 821. each a recipient of a testamentary disposition. a devise or legacy is given by such will. Subsection 5 – Codicils and Incorporation By Reference ART. The intent of the law is to cover all testamentary institutions. A holographic will can have an attested   Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. that portion is not affected by the party’s witnessing the will. then there is greater chance that they are all witnessing because a consideration has been given to them. Mars Rongo. . may be a witness to the execution of a will mentioned in Art. the character witnesses must prove their good standing. are the dispositions to them valid or void?  Arguable  May say that dispositions are VALID because the law only requires that there be 3 other competent witnesses to such will for the disposition to be valid. Must the Codicil conform to the form of the will to which it refers? NO.  Because the debt or charge is not a testamentary disposition. Subsequent Will  Codicil – explains. NCC: The following are disqualified from being witnesses to a will: 1. Article also applies to HEIRS. it shall be executed as in the case of a will. or parent. Any person not domiciled in the Philippines 2. added to.

canceling. or by some other person in his presence.SUCCESSION REVIEWER codicil and vice versa. Subsection 6 – Revocation of Wills And Testamentary Dispositions ART. This characteristic cannot be waived even by the testator. If burned.  Law of place where the WILL was made  Law of place where the testator was domiciled at time of revocation. ART. A revocation done outside the Philippines. (3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the document or paper referred to therein. and if the revocation takes place in this country. Lea Mateo. Both may also be of the same kind.   A will is essentially REVOCABLE or AMBULATORY. without the express direction of the testator. [Art829]  Philippine Law – consistent with domiciliary principle followed by this article  Law of place of Revocation – principle of lex loci celebrationis  Law of place where the WILL was made – by analogy with rules on revocation where testator is a non-Philippine domiciliary. Article only refers to documents such as: 1. incorporates into itself by reference any document or paper. Books of Accounts 3. or according to the law of the place in which the testator had his domicile at the time. when it is in accordance with the provisions of this Code. Documents of Title 4. and (4) It must be signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and every page. such document or paper shall not be considered a part of the will unless the following requisites are present: (1) The document or paper referred to in the will must be in existence at the time of the execution of the will. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 ART. or (2) By some will. Julie Domingo. codicil. If a will. Papers of Similar Nature  DOES NOT include documents that make testamentary dispositions. 1. Testator domiciled in Phils. if its contents. or (3) By burning. cancellation. No will shall be revoked except in the following cases: (1) By implication of law.  ART. or obliterated by some other person. and due execution. since only attested wills are witnessed. 828. A will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his death. executed as required by this Code. is valid when it is done according to the law of the place where the will was made. or other writing executed as provided in case of wills. the will may still be established. Inventories 2. Par4 of Art827 requires signatures of the testator and the witnesses on every page of the incorporated document [except voluminous annexes]. torn. 2. 827. (2) The will must clearly describe and identify the same. Testator not domiciled in Phils. tearing. or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it. 830. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  41 . and by his express direction.  Philippine Law  Revocation made Outside Philippines. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void.  Curious that the law departs from the nationality theory and adopts the domiciliary theory. and the estate distributed in accordance therewith. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Mars Rongo. CJ Tan. Cecille Natividad. cancelled. except in case of voluminous books of account or inventories. by a person who does not have his domicile in this country.  Can holographic wills incorporate documents by reference?  NO. stating among other things the number of pages thereof. 829. It seems therefore that only attested wills can incorporate documents by reference.  This characteristic is consistent with the principle in Art777 that successional rights vest only upon death. by the testator himself. There is no such thing as an irrevocable will. or else the formal requirements of a will would be circumvented. and the fact of its unauthorized destruction.  Unless testator executes a holographic will and superfluously has it witnessed.  RULES FOR REVOCATION  Revocation made in the Philippines . or obliteration are established according to the Rules of Court.

 Elements of a Valid Revocation by Physical Destruction a) CORPUS – physical destruction itself.Thus they filed an intestate proceeding for the settlement of the decedent’s estate. alienation or loss of the object devised or bequeathed – Art957 e) Judicial demand of a credit given as a legacy . that the same was cancelled or destroyed. in the absence of other competent evidence. if the will is holographic. . . different and more valuable than the one obtained by  MODES OF REVOKING A WILL UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW 1. he may put a stop to the destruction if he changes his mind. under certain circumstances. give rise to the presumption that it had been revoked by physical destruction  Where a will which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator when last seen. destroying. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. CJ Tan. Julie Domingo.  Loss or unavailability of a will may. . it cannot be probated if lost.The nieces and nephews of Adriana Maloto. it may be argued that the testator’s presence is required because at any time during the actual burning. where they adjudicated among themselves the properties in the ratio of ¼ each. destruction will become unauthorized. But what if with express direction but not in his presence?  Arguable. a document was delivered to the same court. etc. Lea Mateo. including Constancio Maloto and Aldina Casiano. 3. even if the loss or destruction was unauthorized. unless a copy survives. Express or Implied a) Total – whole prior instrument is revoked b) Partial – only certain provisions or dispositions of the prior instrument is revoked c) Express – revocation of prior instrument is stated in the subsequent instrument d) Implied – incompatibility between provisions of prior and subsequent instruments. BY A SUBSEQUENT WILL OR CODICIL  Requisites for valid revocation by a subsequent instrument – a) Subsequent instrument must comply with formal requirements of a will b) Testator must possess testamentary capacity c) Subsequent instrument must either contain an express revocatory clause or be incompatible with the prior will d) Subsequent instrument must be probated to take effect  Revocation by subsequent will may be Total or Partial. CASES Testate Estate of Adriana Maloto v.In the said will. the said relatives executed an extrajudicial petition of the estate. Cecille Natividad. this is possible only if the will is attested. thought that the latter died intestate. Aldina and Constancio have shares that are bigger. CA .Art936 2. and that is precisely why his presence is required?  Effect of unauthorized destruction – Will may still be proved as lost or destroyed [Art830 NCC and Rule 76 RoC]  However.  But such presumptions may be overcome by proof that the will was not destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke it.In the course of the proceeding. the presumption is. BY PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION  Four ways to destroy – a) Burning b) Tearing c) Cancelling d) Obliterating  Physical destruction may be done by the testator personally or by another person acting in his presence and by his express direction. and that the law does not provide that without the testator’s presence.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007  On the other hand. BY OPERATION OF LAW  May be total or partial  Examples of revocation by operation of law a) Preterition – Art854 b) Legal Separation – Art63 par4 FC c) Unworthiness to succeed – Art1032 d) Transformation. Mars Rongo. there must be evidence of physical destruction b) ANIMUS –  Capacity and intent to revoke  Testator must have completed everything he intended to do  Both corpus an animus must concur.  Unauthorized if without express direction of testator. . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  42 .Three years after. May say that it is authorized and therefore the destroyed instrument is revoked because of the intent and consent of the testator to revoke and destroy. which was believed to be the last will and testament of Adriana Maloto.  Same presumption arises where it is shown that testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his death.

.  In the old Civil Code.Thus. [i.In this view.  If the subsequent will contains a revocatory clause which is absolute or unconditional. even if the new will should become inoperative by reason of the incapacity of the heirs. .SC held in the affirmative. [Molo v. is the revocation of the prior will absolute or conditional?  Depends on the testator’s intent. Molo. is equivalent to the non-fulfillment of a suspensive condition. . But a mere intent to make at some time a will in place of that destroyed will not render the destruction conditional. Molo] It must be remembered that dependent relative revocation applies only if it appears that the testator intended his at of revocation to be conditioned on the making of a new will or on its validity or efficacy . or if the will does not contain a revocatory clause. Whether or Not the CFI correctly dismissed the petition. Mars Rongo. except only if the testator provides in the posterior will that the prior will was to subsists in whole or in part . . Casiano and Aldina filed a petition for the allowance of the will in the Special Proceeding initially filed by them. CJ Tan.  DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION   Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. for any reason. the Samson v. an absolute provision. An EXCEPTION is where the testator provides in the subsequent will that the revocation of the prior one is dependent on the Capacity or Acceptance of the heirs.The CFI denied the motion to reopen the proceedings on the ground that it has been filed out of time. no revocation of prior will]  This is in accord with the juridical nature of suspensive conditions. it is not proper to make a finding in an intestate estate proceeding that the discovered will has been revoked. In Molo v.  The present rule provides that the execution of a subsequent will does not ipso facto revoke a prior one.  ART. There were also other legatees named in the will. .The more appropriate remedy for them is to initiate a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will. 832. the revocation fails and the original will remains in full force.  1ST SEM 2006-2007  DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION  Where the act of destruction is connected with the making of another will as fairly to raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old to depend upon the efficacy of the new disposition intended to be substituted. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  43 . Naval doctrine was cited. Lea Mateo. revoked the prior one. A revocation made in a subsequent will shall take effect. the revocation will be absolute regardless of the happening or non-happening of the suspensive condition. containing a clause revoking a previous will. UNLESS the testator so provides. A separate petition for probate of the alleged will should be ordered filed. devisees or legatees designated therein. Cecille Natividad. inasmuch as said revocatory clause is void.First.Second. Revocation is generally speaking. providing that “A subsequent will. and hence prevents the revocation of the original will. Is the rule on dependent relative revocation applicable if the revocation of the will is by physical destruction? ART. annul only such dispositions in the prior wills as are inconsistent with or contrary to those contained in the latter wills.  Efficacy of the revocatory clause does not depend on the testamentary disposition of the revoking will. the revocation will depend on whether the condition happens or not.  But if the testator states in the subsequent will that the revocation of the prior will is subject to the occurrence of the suspensive condition. independent of the acceptance or capacity of the new heirs. cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will.SUCCESSION REVIEWER them in the extrajudicial partition. legatees or devisees in the subsequent will is subject to a suspensive condition. devisees or legatees instituted in the subsequent will. having been disallowed. provided that it is valid. upon whose validity the revocation depends.  This is the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. and if. or by their renunciation.” Question – supposing the institution of heirs. 831. . . the new will intended to be made as a substitute is inoperative. the order in the prior special proceeding is not a bar for the filing of a petition for the probate of the will of Adriana Maloto.The probate court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the probate of the alleged will of Adriana Maloto in the prior Intestate Proceeding.It is not proper to make a finding in an intestate proceeding that a discovered will has been revoked. . the institution is deemed never to have been made and the prior institution will be given effect. and is an instance of dependent relative revocation. for the reason that it was not executed in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure as to the making of wills. the revocation will be conditional and dependent upon the efficacy of the new disposition. Julie Domingo. . mere fact of a subsequent will.e.   Revocation of a will by a subsequent will or codicil may be express [through a revocatory clause] or implied [through incompatibility]. Subsequent wills which do not revoke the previous ones in an express manner. It must appear that the revocation is dependent upon the valid execution of a new will.  If the suspensive condition does not occur. The failure of the new testamentary disposition. the motion to reopen the proceedings has been filed out of time.

 The rule regarding nullity of revocation for an illegal cause limits the freedom of the testator to revoke based on an illegal cause. this article sets aside a revocation that does not reflect such intent. Mars Rongo. De Leon. precisely because the law respects the testator’s true intent. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  44 . in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. CJ Tan. in an obiter. However. THE TESTATOR MUST NOT KNOW OF ITS FALSITY 4. based on the inference made by the court in that case. and the revoked will is holographic .  ART. revocation of the prior will was not allowed because the court inferred that the testator meant revocation to depend on the validity of the new will. Lea Mateo. Can it not be argued that the act of the testator in destroying the will in fact confirmed his intent to revoke it? In the case of Diaz v. The court then held that the intention of revoking the will was manifest from the fact that the testator was anxious to withdraw or change the provisions he had made in his first will. Cecille Natividad. CAUSE MUST BE CONCRETE. but this is due to public policy considerations. the prior will was still revoked because such revocation was not dependent on the validity of the second will [?!!] 1ST SEM 2006-2007   REQUISITES FOR A FALSE / ILLEGAL CAUSE TO RENDER REVOCATION VOID – 1. the court concluded that original will presented having been destroyed with animo revocandi .SUCCESSION REVIEWER  YES. except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Art172. 2. the principle laid down in Art834 remains unaltered regarding these admissions contained in wills. then though the revocation be void. If testator executes a subsequent will revoking the prior will but conditioned on the validity of the subsequent will. A revocation of a will based on a false cause or an illegal cause is null and void. then if the subsequent will is declared invalid. The action must be brought within the same period specified in Art173.   The part of the will which recognizes an illegitimate child is NOT revocable because recognition is an irrevocable act. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. even though the will wherein it was made should be revoked. in De Leon.  However. the prior will subsists. In Molo v. it would just be prejudice and the revocation is valid because it is based on a subjective cause. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. so in that case the rule on dependent relative revocation was applied. UNLESS a copy of the holographic will survives. IT MUST BE FALSE 3. the testator executed a prior will but destroyed it and executed another will revoking the former. the recognition remains effective. SC held that the physical destruction of the will DID NOT revoke it. Under the Family Code. admission of illegitimate filiation in a will would constitute proof of illegitimate filiation.  It must be noted that the illegal cause should be stated in the will as the cause of the revocation . The recognition of an illegitimate child does not lose its legal effect. The testator does not need to have a reason to revoke the will. Julie Domingo. According to Article 175 of the Family Code – Art175. the second will was found to be not executed with all the necessary requisites to constitute sufficient revocation.    If the revocation is by physical destruction. probate will not be possible.   Basically. that the testator meant the revocation to depend on the validity of a new will. However. 834. IT MUST APPEAR FROM THE WILL THAT THE TESTATOR IS REVOKING BECAUSE OF THE CAUSE WHICH IS FALSE. Molo. In Molo. the original will and last testament cannot be probated and was effectively revoked.  ART. Wills are revocable ad nutum or at the testator’s pleasure. it is arguable whether the prior will should be deemed to subsist despite its physical destruction. FACTUAL AND NOT PURELY SUBJECTIVE  If a testator revoked on the stated ground that the heir was Ilocano and all Ilocanos are bad. Therefore. But apart from the fact that the statement is obiter because the facts did not clearly show that the will had been destroyed. court held that the testator’s intent to revoke the prior will was not dependent on the validity of the subsequent will so even if the second will was void and insufficient as revocation. Therefore. 833. even if the will is revoked.

SUCCESSION REVIEWER

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Subsection 7 – Republication and Revival of Wills ART. 835. The testator cannot republish, without reproducing in a subsequent will, the dispositions contained in a previous one which is void as to its form. ART. 836. The execution of a codicil referring to a previous will has the effect of republishing the will as modified by the codicil.

RE-CAP OF FORM AL REQUIREMENTS OF A WILL
k. Defects and imperfections in form of attestation and language used shall not make the will invalid if there is substantial compliance with requirements of Art805. l. Law to be followed a. Filipino abroad b. Alien abroad c. Alien in the Philippines m. Prohibition on joint wills, especially by Filipinos even if executed in foreign country allowing joint wills. n. Witnesses must possess all the qualifications in Art820 and none of the disqualifications in Art821. 2. HOLOGRAPHIC WILL a. Must be entirely written b. Executed in a language or dialect known to testator c. Dated by the testator d. Signed by the hand of the testator himself e. Witnesses required a) Knows the handwriting and signature of the testator b) Explicitly declares that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator f. Dispositions below testator’s signature must also be dated and signed. g. When several additional dispositions are signed but not dated, the last disposition must be signed and dated to validate the dispositions preceding it. h. Any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration must be authenticated by the testator’s full signature, otherwise it shall be deemed as not made. i. Prohibition on joint wills, especially by Filipinos even if executed in a foreign country where joint wills are allowed.

If the testator wishes to republish a will that is void as to form, the only way to republish it is to execute a subsequent will and reproduce [copy out] the dispositions of the original will. Mere reference to the prior will in the subsequent will is not enough. A will is void as to form if it does not comply with the requirements of Arts804-818; 810-814; 818-819.

RE-CAP OF FORM AL REQUIREMENTS OF A WILL
1. ATTESTED/ORDINARY WILL a. Must be in writing b. Executed in a language or dialect known to testator c. Subscribed by the testator or his agent in his presence and by his express direction at the end thereof, in the presence of the witnesses d. Attested and subscribed by at least 3 credible witnesses in presence of the testator & of one another e. Testator, or his agent, must sign every page, except the last, on the left margin in the presence of the witnesses f. The witnesses must sign every page, except the last, on the left margin in the presence of the testator and of one another. g. All pages numbered correlatively in letters on the upper part of each page. h. Attestation clause, stating: a) Number of pages of the will b) Fact that the testator or his agent under his express direction signed the will and every page thereof, in the presence of the witnesses c) Fact that the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. i. Acknowledgement before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. j. Handicapped Testator a) Deaf or deaf-mute – personally read the will if able to do so, otherwise designate 2 persons to read and communicate it to him. b) Blind – read to him twice, once by a subscribing witness and another time by the notary before whom it is acknowledged. 

If the testator wishes to Republish a will that is either: 1. VOID for a reason other than a formal defect, or 2. Previously REVOKED  The only thing necessary to republish it is for the testator to execute a subsequent will or codicil referring to the previous will. There is no need to reproduce the provisions of the prior will in the subsequent instrument. Why the difference on the rules between nullity as to form and nullity based on other grounds? Prof. Balane says because Art835 is from Argentine Law whole Art836 is from California Law. Go figure.

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

45

SUCCESSION REVIEWER

1ST SEM 2006-2007
- Had the oppositors in this case not filed an opposition and had limited their objection to the intrinsic validity of the will, their plan to defeat the will and secure the intestacy of the deceased would have been accomplished. - If the said will was denied probate, it is due to oppositor’s fault and is unfair to impute bad faith to petitioner simply because she exerted effort to protect her own interest and prevent the intestacy of the deceased. WON, notwithstanding the disallowance of the 1939 will, the revocatory clause is valid and still nullifies the 1918 will. - SC held that the clause is likewise void because: - The Court held in Samson v. Naval that it cannot produce the effect of annulling the previous will since said revocatory clause is void. - If it was really the intention of the deceased to revoke the first will, with the assumption that he in fact destroyed the original copy of the 1918 will since it cannot be found at present, he should also destroyed the duplicate copy of the said will which he had given to his wife. But he did not do so. Hence, it is possible that because of the long lapse of 21 yrs since the 1st will was executed, the original will had been misplaced or lost and forgetting there was a copy, he deemed it wise to execute another. - Granting that he did destroy the 1st will, the 1918 will can still be admitted under the principle of “dependent relative revocation,” which is predicated on the theory that the testator did not intend to die intestate. - The doctrine of dependent relative revocation is established where the act of destruction is connected with the making of another will so as fairly to raise the inference that the testator meant the revocation of the old to depend upon the efficacy of the new disposition intended to be substituted, the revocation will be conditional and dependent upon the efficacy of the new disposition; and if, for any reason, the new will intended to be made as a substitute is inoperative, the revocation fails and the original will remains in full force.

ART. 837. If after making a will, the testator makes a second will expressly revoking the first, the revocation of the second will does not derive the first will, which can be revived only by another will or codicil.

Illustration In 1985, X executed will 1 In 1987, X executed will 2 and expressly revoked will 1 In 1990, X executed will 3, revoking will 2 - When will 3 revoked will 2, it did not revive will 1. This article is based on the theory of INSTANT REVOCATION nd  That the revocatory effect of the 2 will is immediate.  However, such theory is inconsistent with the principle that wills take effect mortis causa.  Furthermore, to be effective for the purpose of revoking the first will, the second will must be probated. But it has already been revoked by the third will. A revoked will now has to be submitted to probate? Article applies only when the revocation of the first will by the second will is EXPRESS. If the revocation by the second will is implied due to incompatible provisions, the article will not apply and the effect will be that the first will is revived.  However, when will 3 is itself inconsistent with will 1, there is still revocation.  Also keep in mind Article 831 – Implied Revocations only annul such dispositions in the prior wills as are inconsistent with or contrary to those contained in the latter wills. EXCEPTION – when the second will is holographic and it is revoked by physical destruction, because then the possibility of its probate is foreclosed, unless of course a copy survives .

Gago v. Mamuyac
- On 27 July 1918, Miguel Mamuyac of Agoo, La Union executed a last will and testament. - After his death, Francisco Gago asked the court for the probate of the will but was opposed by Cornelio Mamuyac, Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciano Bauzon, and Catalina Mamuyac. - After the probate of the said will was denied, another will alleged to have been executed on 16 April 1919 was presented for probate to which the same oppositors resisted. - The oppositors argued that such will was not the original and was a mere copy; that the same had been cancelled and revoked by the testator; and that the same was not the last will and testament of Mamuyac. - The probate of the second will was likewise turned down for having been cancelled and revoked. - According to witnesses, the original of the said will was in the possession of Mamuyac before his death who revoked the same. WON Miguel Mamuyac’s last will has indeed been cancelled and revoked and therefore not admissible to probate. - YES. There is positive proof, not denied, that the will in question had been cancelled in 1920. - The law does not require any evidence of the revocation or cancellation of a will to prove the same.

Cases for Arts. 828-837 Molo v. Molo
- Mariano Molo died and was survived by his herein petitioner wife and his herein oppositors nieces and nephews. He left two wills one dated 1918 and the other 1939. The 2nd will contains a clause which expressly revokes the former will. - Upon death, his wife filed a petition for probate of the 1939 will which was later on admitted. However, oppositors eventually filed a petition which resulted to the denial of probate of the said will. Petitioner wife then filed a petition for probate of the 1918 will, which was likewise denied by the oppositors in this case. Whether or not petitioner voluntarily and deliberately frustrated the probate of the 1939 will. - SC held that she did not because if it was indeed her intention, she could have accomplished her desire by merely suppressing the will or tearing or destroying it, and then take steps in leading to the probate of the 1918 will.

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

46

SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- The fact that such cancellation or revocation has taken place must either remain unproved or be inferred from evidence showing that after due search the original will cannot be found. If it be shown that the will was in the possession of the testator when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed. - The same presumption governs when the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his death. - No presumption of destruction by any other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. - The force of presumption is never conclusive but may be overcome by proof that the will was not destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke it. - Copies of wills should be admitted by courts with great caution in view of the difficulty of finding witnesses and other evidence. - The duplicate may be admitted to probate if it was in the same manner executed with all formalities and requirements of the law. - The fact that such cancellation or revocation has taken place must either remain unproved or be inferred from evidence showing that after due search the original will cannot be found. - If it be shown that the will was in the possession of the testator when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or destroyed. - The same presumption governs when the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his death. - No presumption of destruction by any other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator. - In a proceeding to probate a will, the burden of proof is upon the proponent to establish not only the execution of the will but also its existence.

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Subsection 8 – Allowance and Disallowance of Wills ART. 838. No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court having jurisdiction for the allowance of his will. In such case, the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court for the allowance of wills after the testator’s death shall govern. The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional Rules of Court as may be necessary for the allowance of wills on petition of the testator. Subject to the right of appeal, the allowance of the will, either during the lifetime of the testator or after his death, shall be conclusive as to its due execution.
 

Probate of a will is MANDATORY. TWO KINDS OF PROBATE 1. POST MORTEM – after the testator’s death 2. ANTE MORTEM – during his lifetime, features:  Easier for the courts to determine mental condition of a testator  Fraud, intimidation and undue influence are minimized  Easier correction of formal defects in the will  Once a will is probated ante mortem, the only questions that may remain for the courts to decide after the testator’s death will refer to the intrinsic validity of the testamentary dispositions. Rules on Probate for both post and ante mortem are found in Rule 76 of the Rules of Court. Finality of a Probate Decree  Once a decree of probate becomes final in accordance with the rules of procedure, it is res judicata. Scope of a Final Decree of Probate  A final decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution of the will, i.e. as to the will’s extrinsic and formal validity only.

Diaz v. De Leon
- In this case, Diaz, the petitioner, denies that the will executed by the decedent Jesus de Leon. - However, the contestant says otherwise and alleging that the testator revoked his will by destroying it, and by executing another will expressly revoking the former. - Hence, this appeal. WON, the will executed by the Jesus de Leon, now deceased, was revoked by him. - The court finds that the will executed by the deceased is not clothed with all the necessary requisites to constitute a sufficient revocation. - But according to the statute governing the subject in this jurisdiction, the destruction of a will with animo revocandi constitutes, in itself, a sufficient revocation. - From the evidence presented, the decedent asked that the same be returned to him. - The instrument was returned to the testator who ordered his servant to tear the document. This was done in his presence and before a nurse who testified to this effect. - The intention of revoking the will is manifest from the established fact that the testator was anxious to withdraw or change the provisions he has made in his first will. - The original will herein presented for probate having been destroyed with animo revocandi cannot now be probated as the will and last testament of Jesus de Leon. - Judgment affirmed. - The destruction of a will with animo revocandi constitutes, in itself, a sufficient revocation.

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

47

When the probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Guevara and Rosario Guevara. but on the theory or assumption that he died intestate. did nothing judicially to invoke the testamentary dispositions made therein in her favor. legitimate son and natural daughter. .Neither may they do away with the presentation of the will to the court for probate. Cecille Natividad.The probate of a will. could be cheated of their inheritance thru the collusion of some of the heirs who might agree to the partition of the estate among themselves to the exclusion of others. not for the purpose of having it probated but only to prove that the deceased Victorino had acknowledged her as his natural daughter. respectively. aside from certain legacies and bequests. He also set aside 100 hectares of land either to be disposed of by him during his lifetime or for the payment of all his pending debts and expenses up to the time of his death. because the will had not been probated. they must first present that will to the court for probate and divide the estate in accordance with the will.In fact. . . De la Cerna v. as is attempted to be done in the instant case. whereby the testator acknowledged her as his natural daughter and. to ensure the presentation of the will to the court for probate the law punishes a person who neglects his duty to present it to the court (w/ a fine not exceeding P2000) and if he should persist in not presenting it. Julie Domingo. . . she asserted.But a little over four years after the testator's demise. By order of Oct. Mars Rongo. she commenced the present action against Ernesto. d) That the will is genuine. he/she will continue to enjoy the fruits of the lands mentioned.Victorino died.The law expressly provides that "no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court". Potot . .Upon that proof of acknowledgment she claimed her share of the inheritance from him.Even if the decedent left no debts and nobody raises any question as to the authenticity and due execution of the will.Victorino made a will distributing his estate to his children and granting devises to certain individuals.It was only during the trial of this case that she presented the will to the court. Lea Mateo. . devised to her a portion of the large parcel of land described in the will. Another way of defining the scope of a final decree of probate is to refer to art839. was never presented to the court for probate.They may not disregard the provisions of the will unless those provisions are contrary to law.Rosario Guevara. the petition was dismissed.   CASE Guevara v. 31. but because she and her attorney failed to appear in court. and  That all the formal requirements of the law have been complied with. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  48 . for which reason. its intrinsic nullity is patent. . however.  GENERAL RULE – A decree of probate.The presentation of a will to the court for probate is mandatory and its allowance by the court is essential and indispensable to its efficacy. . . Guevara.Absent legatees and devisees. nor has any administration proceeding ever been instituted for the settlement of his estate. judicial or extrajudicial. their niece and that while each of them are living. a probate court may pass upon the issue of intrinsic validity if on the face of the will. executed a joint last will ad testament where they willed that their 2 parcels of land be given to Manuela Rebaca. . .If the decedent left a will and no debts and the heirs and legatees desire to make an extrajudicial partition of the estate. the betterment therein made by the testator in favor of his legitimate son Ernesto should be disregarded. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. therefore does not concern itself with the question of INTRINSIC validity and the probate court should not pass upon that issue. even before it is probated. another petition for probate was instituted by Manuela. cannot be dispensed with and substituted by any other proceeding. or such of them as may have no knowledge of the will. because such suppression of the will is contrary to law and public policy. CJ Tan. because unless the will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole world. the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory. which is a proceeding in rem. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon.Bernabe died. he may be committed to prison and kept there until he delivers the will.When Gervasia died. Guevara .Ernesto M.   Gallanosa v. Arcangel enumerates what are covered by the term Formal Validity and therefore conclusively settled by a final decree of probate – a) That the testator was of sound and disposing mind b) That his consent was not vitiated c) That the will was signed by the required number of witnesses. . of the deceased Victorino L. among which are the publication and the personal notices to each and all of said heirs and legatees. without offending against public policy designed to effectuate the testator's right to dispose of his property by will in accordance with law and to protect the rights of the heirs and legatees under the will thru the means provided by law. 1939. Ca. . On the authority of Nepomuceno v. the Court admitted for probate the said will but only for the part of Bernabe. who appears to have had her father's last will and testament in her custody. . Any action based on any of the grounds for disallowance of a will enumerated in Article 839 can no longer be pursued once there is a final decree of probate .SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 . Whether the procedure adopted by Rosario Guevara is legal? . are litigating here over their inheritance from the latter. none of the heirs may sue for the partition of the estate in accordance with that will without first securing its allowance or probate of the court: . EXCEPTION . His last will and testament.The law enjoins the probate of the will and public policy requires it.Spouses Bernabe de la Serna and Gervasia Rebaca. Gervasia submitted the will for probated. the court should meet the issue.

. and the free portion thereof to Sofia. - 1ST SEM 2006-2007 executed the will and was not acting under duress. the issue as to the voluntariness of its execution cannot be raised anymore. CA . should Tecla predecease him.SUCCESSION REVIEWER . his ½ share would be assigned to spouses Gallanosa. The Civil Law rule that an action for declaration of inexistence of a contract does not prescribe cannot be applied to last wills and testaments.Martin named and appointed Sofia Nepomuceno as his sole and only executor of his estate. menace. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  49 . the will cannot be given effect. On appeal. these facts cannot again be questioned in a subsequent proceeding. the Judge admitted the will to probate. That means that the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time he - - Nepomuceno v. Pedro Gallanosa was Tecla’s son by her first marriage who grew up under the care of Florentino.Upon his death.Martin Jugo died in 1974. Arcangel . Tecla. the dismissal of the first civil case. The SC held that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its order of dismissal and ignoring the testamentary case and the first civil case which is the same as the instant case. .Later. After the period for seeking relief from a final order or judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of court has expired. . its validity. the legal heirs filed a case for “annulment of the will” alleging fraud and deceit. It is evident that second civil case is barred by res judicata and by prescription. . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. the court set aside the dismissal after the heirs filed a motion for reconsideration. Opposition was registered by Florentino’s brother. A decree of adjudication in a testate proceeding is binding on the whole world. in so far as the estate of the wife is concerned. Whether or not the will may be probated . The SC also held that the lower court erred in saying that the action for the recovery of the lands had not prescribed.Admittedly the probate of the will in 1939 was erroneous. . Thus as to the disposition of the wife. In the latter case. . .After a hearing. Lea Mateo. must be reexamine and adjudicated de novo. . . however. is binding upon the whole world. After the finality of the allowance of a will. The SC ruled that the Art. Julie Domingo.The joint will being prohibited by law.The court dismissed said action. where the oppositors did not present any evidence. and that the will is genuine.Sofia contends that the validity of the testamentary provision in her favor should be assailed in another proceeding and that the only purpose of the probate is to conclusively establish that will was executed with the formalities required by law and that the testator has the mental capacity to execute the same. leaving a last Will and Testament signed by him and 3 other witnesses. the legal heirs filed a case for recovery of 61 parcels of land against Pedro alleging that they had been in continuous possession of those lands and praying that they be declared owners thereof. because it was probated by a court of competent jurisdiction it has conclusive effect and a final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world.A decree of probate decree is conclusive on the due execution and the formal validity of the will subject to such probate. this appeal. . as was the case.NO. Cecille Natividad. they have been estranged and Martin had been living with Sofia as husband and wife.The undivided interest of the wife should pass upon her death to her intestate heirs and not to the testamentary heir. Moreover. Thus.CFI denied probate on the ground that Martin admitted in his will that he had been unlawfully cohabiting with Sofia. the order was reversed. the period for annulling the judgment is four (4) years from the discovery of fraud. .The legal heirs did not appeal from the order of dismissal. But since 1962.Rufina and her children opposed. 1410 of NCC (the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe) cannot apply to last wills and testaments. which is a judgment in personam. . - - - Gallanosa v. that the will was signed by him in the presence of the required number of witnesses. His other properties were bequeathed to his protégé Adolfo Fortajada.Sofia filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of Martin. fraud. having rendered in a proceeding in rem. . Hence. by whom he has 2 children. .15 years after the dismissal of the first civil case and 28 years after the probate of the will. . a final judgment or order can be set aside only on the grounds of: (a) lack of jurisdiction or lack of due process of law or (b) that the judgment was obtained by means of extrinsic or collateral fraud. It constitutes a bar by former judgment under the Rules of Court.The decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or formal validity of the will. in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law.CA reversed and admitted the will to probate. Florentino bequeathed his ½ share in the conjugal estate to his second wife.Florentino Hitosis was a childless widower and was survived by his brother Lito. but declared that the devise in favor of Sofia is void. . However.Martin devised to his forced heirs (Rufina and their 2 children) his entire estate. this is only with respect to the estate of the husband but cannot affect the estate of the wife. was an adjudication on the merits. Accordingly. .In his will. considering that a joint will is a separate will of each testator. the CFI declared the will void for being executed contrary to the prohibition on joint wills. CJ Tan. not even in a criminal action for the forgery of the will. Martin and Sofia were married in Tarlac before the Justice of the Peace. However. . .The testator’s legal heirs did not appeal from the decree of probate and from the order of partition and distribution.When the same was heard. The Rules of Court does not sanction an action for “annulment” of a will.The will specifically stated that Jugo was legally married to Rufina Gomez. . Whether the legal heirs have a cause of action for the “annulment” of the will of Florentino and for the recovery of the 61 parcels of land adjudicated under that will to the petitioners. A final decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution of the will. . and. a petition for the probate of his will was wile. Mars Rongo. or undue influence.Pedro moved for a dismissal which was later granted by the Judge on the ground of res judicata. . nephews and nieces. The SC also held that the decree of adjudication.

Age. family.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 WON the probate court validly passed upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of Sofia. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. FORMALITIES  Those referred to in Articles 804-818. ART. sex and condition of the person are borne in mind.Sofia cannot claim good faith. serious or irresistible force is employed. UNDUE & IMPROPER PRESSURE AND INFLUENCE  Undue Influence – when a person takes improper advantage of his power over the will of another. . or upon the person or property of his spouse. Circumstances such as the following shall be considered: confidential. She knew that Martin had a pre-existing marriage when they got married. A simple mistake of account gives rise to correction. depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice.GR: In probate proceedings. or fact that person unduly influenced was suffering from mental weakness or ignorant or in financial distress.The general rule is that in probate proceedings. A separate proceeding to determine its intrinsic validity would be superfluous.” the probate court is not powerless to pass upon certain provisions of the will even before it is probated. Mars Rongo.E: For “practical considerations. the probate court is usually limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the will. spiritual and other relations between parties. An Exclusive Enumeration of the grounds for disallowance of a will. SIGNATURE PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD  Fraud – when through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties. it is valid. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  50 .  There is no such thing as a Voidable Will.  GROUNDS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF A WILL 1. . Mistake as to identity or qualifications only vitiates consent when such were the principal cause of the contract. such decree forecloses any subsequent challenge on any of the matters enumerated in this article. The issue of formal validity or nullity is precisely what the probate proceedings will determine. 6. donations between persons living in adultery or concubinage is prohibited by the Civil Code. TESTATOR INSANE OR MENTALLY INCAPABLE AT TIME OF EXECUTION  Articles 798 – 801 on testamentary capacity and intent FORCE. (3) If it was executed through force or under duress. Lea Mateo. 818819 and 829-821 2. .YES. (2) If the testator was insane.  4. Cecille Natividad. . The will shall be disallowed in any of the following cases: (1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied with. (6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intent that the instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto. .  These are matters involved in formal validity. the court’s area of inquiry is limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the will. . Given exceptional circumstances.  A will is either valid or void. or threats. 5. 839. INFLUENCE OF FEAR OR THREATS  Force or Violence – when in order to wrest consent. CJ Tan. or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will. the other is induced to enter into a contract which. If none of the defects enumerated in this article are present. at the time of its execution.  Duress or Intimidation – when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of imminent and grave evil upon his person or property. Once a probate decree is final. Julie Domingo. on the part of the beneficiary or of some other person. or the influence of fear. . descendants or ascendants. MISTAKE OR TESTATOR DID NOT INTENT INSTRUMENT TO BE HIS WILL WHEN HE AFFIXED HIS SIGNATURE THERETO  Mistake – must refer to substance of the thing which is the object of the contract. (5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud. 3.Such rule is not inflexible and absolute.Further. (4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence. if any one of these defects is present. or to those conditions which have principally moved one or both parties to enter into the contract. he would not have agreed to. . Threat to enforce a just or legal claim through competent authority does not vitiate consent. the will is void. DURESS.  If any of these grounds for disallowance are proven. without them.A will no matter how valid it may appear extrinsically may be void. the will shall be set aside as VOID. the probate court is not powerless to pass upon certain provisions of the will. to give his consent.

Civil Code) but insofar as said renunciation partakes of a donation of his hereditary rights and his one-half share in the conjugal estate (Art. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  51 . that the properties of the testatrix should not be divided among her heirs during her husband's lifetime but should be kept intact and that the legitimes should be paid in cash is contrary to article '080 of the Civil Code Whether an heir may validly renounce his share .Exceptions: 1.SC held that the will must be admitted because: o The only issues decided during probate are: (a) whether the testator has animus testandi. In view of certain unusual provisions of the will. and in declaring it void. 2.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 . Sr. Cases for Arts.Meanwhile. When "practical considerations" demanded it as when there is preterition of heirs 3.NO. which are of dubious legality. The statement of the testatrix that she owned the "southern half" of the conjugal lands is contrary to law because. When the parties agree that the intrinsic validity be first determined. '79['] and '04'. (b) whether vices of consent attended the execution of the will. Montaña had no authority to ask for the dismissal of the petition for allowance of will and that the court erred in declaring the will void before resolving the question of its formal validity. (One of the exceptions is when on the defect is evident on the face of the will. CJ Tan. renouncing his hereditary rights in favor of his children in deference to the memory of his wife. Felix Balanay. could validly renounce his hereditary rights and his one-half share of the conjugal partnership (Arts.His recognized natural children with Galolo and his natural children with Agape opposed the probate of the will on the ground that Asuncion is not the legal wife of Torcuato since she was a relative within the fourth civil degree and she was previously married to a certain Lupo Ebarle. . A portion of the estate should be adjudicated to the widower for his support and maintenance. All doubts must be resolved in favor of the testator’s having meant just what he said."Where some of the provisions of a will are valid and others invalid. Thus.The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. . Lea Mateo.Torcuato Reyes died and left all his property to his wife Asuncion Reyes. . the valid parts will be upheld if they can be separated from the invalid without defeating the intention of the testator or interfering with the general testamentary scheme. '050['] Civil Code). Balanay v. and (c) whether the formalities of the will had been complied with. the probate court may also do so. . Civil Code). Jr. although she was a co-owner thereof. Martinez . 4. (In this case. the declaration of the testator that Asuncion is his wife already involves an inquiry on the intrinsic validity of the will and need not be inquired by probate court.The Court gave effect to the affidavit and conformity of the surviving spouse. Julie Domingo.GR: Courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated. . It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficacy of the will's provisions. her share was inchoate and pro indiviso 2. . before ruling on its allowance or formal validity. David Montaña. and the testamentary capacity of the testator. When the defect of the will is apparent on its face and the probate of the will may become a useless ceremony if it is intrinsically invalid. submitted to the court a document showing his father's conformity to the testamentary distribution. the court merely inquires on its due execution. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. or doing injustice to the beneficiaries" .Thereafter.Felix Balanay. the trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will’s intrinsic validity even before the formal validity had been established. even before it is probated. Felix Jr. . filed a petition for the approval of his mother's will which was opposed by the husband and some of her children. When the testamentary provisions are of doubtful legality. the preterited heir was the surviving spouse) Whether the court erred in converting the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding . .YES. . o There was never an open admission in the will of any illicit relationship which could be a reason for deciding on such issue during probate. The rule is that "the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions unless it is to he presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made" (Art.YES. disposing of her husband's one-half share.) o Testimonies of the witnesses against Asuncion were merely hearsay and even uncertain as to the whereabouts of existence of Lupo Ebarle. Whether the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will. Mars Rongo.Petitioner impugned the order of dismissal claiming that Atty. in her will.Leodegaria Julian. CA . Hence. Or at least his legitime should be respected. and providing that the properties should not be divided during her husband's lifetime but should remain intact and that the legitimes should be paid in cash to be satisfied out of the fruits of the properties. a certain Atty. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon. 792. the court should meet the issue. Cecille Natividad.Void provisions in the will: 1. it should be subject to the limitations prescribed in articles 750 and 752 of the Civil Code.Said motion was granted by the probate court. oA will is a testator speaking after death. . whether or not it complies with the formalities prescribed by law. Whether or not the will must be denied probate. moved to dismiss the probate proceedings on the ground that the will was void because Leodegaria cannot validly dispose of her husband’s share. . 838-839 Reyes v. . Sr. The intrinsic validity is not considered since the consideration thereof usually comes only after the will has been proved and allowed. partitioned her paraphernal as well as all the conjugal properties as if they were all owned by her.

even though it induces the testator to make an unequal and unjust disposition of his property in favor of those who have contributed to his comfort and ministered to his wants. having knowledge of such proceedings.900 Spanish duros by way of reimbursement for the expenses incurred by Rosario in taking care of him. not be in conformity therewith. . The parties challenging the will on the ground of undue influence were not able to discharge the burden of proving the same. . Cecille Natividad. executed by Leoanarda Macam who died on March 18. the fact that a will has been allowed without any opposition and the order allowing the same has become final and executory is not a bar to the presentation and probate of a codicil.The judge then entered an order allowing the probate of the will. the influence exerted must be of a kind that so overpowers and subjugates the mind of the testator as to destroy his free agency and make him express the will of another. nor does it deprive someone of the right to oppose the probate of said codicil. but the codicil may. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. .It is not necessary that the will and the codicil be probated together. Daza . 1933. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 Macam v.Hearing then was heard for the opposition on the probate of the codicil.Rosario Lopez took care of the testator in the said foreign land when he had been severely ill from 1909 to 1916. . Gatmaitan .Probate of the codicil was denied. it does not appear that her influence so overpowered and subjugated his mind as to “destroy his free agency and make him express the will of another rather than his own. one of the legatees instituted in the will which had already been allowed by final and executory judgment. 1932 and of the codicil thereof dated February 17. is not undue influence and does not invalidate a will. WON. . . at the time of is execution.With the judge absent that there being no opposition to the probate of the will. .NO. and kept close until the testator’s death in 1919. . . even if illegitimate. Lea Mateo.No imposition or fraud has been shown in the present case. .Mere affection.While it is shown that the testator entertained strong affections for Rosario Lopez. does not constitute an abandonment of a right. .When the testator came back to the Philippines in 1918. Rosario followed. as the codicil may be concealed by an interested party and it may not be discovered until after the will has already been allowed. Whether or not Rosario Lopez exerted undue influence over the testator of such character as to vitiate his will.Hence. . (With respect to the appeal of Macam regarding the probate of the will. is not a bar to the presentation and probate of a codicil.Hence this petition. . CJ Tan.On March 27. the probate of a will by final judgment prior to that of a codicil thereof a bar to the probate of said codicil. Doubts are resolved in favor of testacy especially where the will evinces an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate.This is because the purpose of the probate is merely to determine whether or not the will and the codicil meet all the legal requisites.” .A will is not rendered null and void by reason of the existence of some illegal or void provisions since the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions unless it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made.No imposition or fraud has been shown in the present case.SUCCESSION REVIEWER . clerk of court took the evidence relative to the probate of the will. . . if no imposition or fraud be practiced. having met her in 1898. even if illegitimate. . which Gatmaitan filed.No.Influence gained by kindness and affection will not be regarded as ‘undue’.Undue influence is said to have been exerted over the testator’s mind by Rosario as the will gave the tercio de libre disposicion to their illegitimate son and provided for the payment to Rosario of 1. the fact that Gatmaitan failed to file opposition to the probate of the will does not prevent her from filing opposition to the probate of the codicil thereof. the clerk of court deemed himself unauthorized to take evidence relative thereto and refrained from doing so. 1933. a married man.The failure of the oppositor to the probate of a codicil to fill opposition to the probate of the will.The testator. . Julie Domingo. . upon the instructions of the judge. . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  52 . rather than his own. the probate of a will is mandatory and it is the duty of the court to pass first upon its formal validity except in extreme cases where the will is on its face intrinsically void. Coso v. as her heart did dictate.The fact that a will has been probated and the order allowing the same has become final and executory. had illicit relations with Rosario Lopez in Spain.To be sufficient to avoid a will. and may well have been actuated only by a legitimate sense of duty in making provisions for the welfare of his illegitimate son and by a proper feeling of gratitude in repaying Rosario Lopez for the sacrifices she had made for him. .No.Generally. is not undue influence and does not invalidate a will.Mere affection. a lawyer by profession.) .Inasmuch as Gatmaitan opposed to the probate of the codicil. . WON.Testacy is favored. the order appealed from is reversed and it is ordered that the probate for the codicil and the opposition thereto be reinstated.) . 1933. (With respect to the opposition of Gatmaitan to the probate of the codicil. the failure to file the opposition to the probate of a will constitute a bar to the presentation of the codicil for probate. appears to have his known his own mind. . . Mars Rongo. . . although its existence was known at the time of the probate of the will. provided it complies with all necessary formalities for executing a will required by the Civil Code. Nicolasa Macam filed in the CFI a petition for probate of the will date July 12.This is because the will may satisfy all the external requisites necessary for its validity. and bore an illegitimate son by him.The testator was an intelligent man. if such disposition is voluntarily made.

This is usually done by giving the name and surname. If there is any AMBIGUITY in the designation.  The basic rule in testamentary succession always is respect for and compliance with the testator’s wishes.   HOW MUCH CAN BE DISPOSED OF BY WILL? 1. What is required is that the identity of the designated successor be sufficiently established. should he designate him in such manner that there can be no doubt as to who has been instituted. There are Compulsory Heirs – the disposable portion or the net hereditary estate minus the legitimes. A will shall be valid even though it should not contain an institution of an heir. ART. the testator’s intent becomes indeterminable and therefore intestacy as to that portion will result. and even though the person so instituted should not accept the inheritance or should be incapacitated to succeed. Mars Rongo.  The amount of the legitimes depends on the kinds and number of compulsory heirs.  REQUIREMENT FOR DESIGNATION OF HEIR  The heir.  ART. An error in the name. The designation of name and surname is DIRECTORY. If among the persons having the same names and surnames. surname.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 SECTION 2 – INSTITUTION OF HEIR ART. in any other manner. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  53 . Lea Mateo. However. Julie Domingo.  Even if the will does not contain any testamentary disposition. No Compulsory Heirs – Entire hereditary estate 2. 845. CJ Tan. and when there are two persons having the same names. the institution shall be valid. even with the use of the other proof. the person instituted cannot be identified. or circumstances of the heir shall not vitiate the institution when it is possible. Institution of heir is an act by virtue of which a testator designates in his will the person or person who are to succeed him in his property and transmissible rights and obligations. there is a similarity of circumstances in such a way that. there will be MIXED succession –  Testamentary succession as to the part disposed of by will. pass by strict operation of law. such as to one’s ‘eldest first cousin’. he shall indicate some circumstance by which the instituted heir may be known. ART. none of them shall be an heir. ART. and  Intestate succession as to the part not disposed of by the will. unless by some even or circumstance his identity becomes certain.  The legitimes.  If it is not possible to resolve the ambiguity. or such institution should not comprise the entire estate. In such cases the testamentary dispositions made in accordance with law shall be complied with and the remainder of the estate shall pass to the legal heirs. it will be formally valid provided it complies with all the formal requisites. One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene the provisions of this Code with regard to the legitime of said heirs. Even though the testator may have omitted the name of the heir.  If the testator disposes by will of LESS than he is allowed to.   Unknown Person This article refers to a successor whose identity cannot be determined because the designation in the will is so unclear or so ambiguous as to be incapable of resolution. 842. 843. Various combinations are possible and so the amount of disposable portion is also variable. legatee or devisee must be identified in the will with sufficient clarity to leave no doubt as to the testator’s intention.  Rules on institution of heir set forth in this section apply as well to institution of Devisees and Legatees. This is in keeping with the character of wills as dispositive of property under Art783. 841. it should be resolved in light of Art789 – by the context of the will and any extrinsic evidence available. One who has no compulsory heirs may dispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor of any person having capacity to succeed. The testator shall designate the heir by his name and surname. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. ART. 844. 840. Every disposition in favor of an unknown person shall be void. a disposition in favor of a definite class or group of persons shall be valid. to know with certainty the person instituted. except the testator’s oral declarations. Cecille Natividad. but there are other ways as can be gleaned from Art843 par2. of course.

 ART. he should so specify. Lea Mateo. the rule is different. Art. When the testator calls to the succession a person and his children they are all deemed to have been instituted simultaneously and not successively. Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  Reason – testamentary disposition is ultimately based on liberality.  Example – “I institute to ¼ of my estate A. 849. The statement of a false cause for the institution of an heir shall be considered as not written. [Art992] Art. 992. wherein siblings. this article follows the general rule of equality laid down in Art846. if the testator intends an unequal apportionment. Equality and Individuality of institution are presumed. therefore Art846 applied to C and D. but without prejudice to the rule prohibiting succession ab intestato between legitimate and illegitimate siblings. B. it established the PRESUMPTION that the heirs collectively referred to are designated per capita along with those separately designated.  In INTESTACY. unless it appears from the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity of such cause.    Equality and Individuality of Designation This article follows the basic rule of equality in the previous article. the inheritance shall be distributed equally unless a different intention appears. he should so specify. Heirs instituted without designation of shares shall inherit in equal parts. for in that case the heir will get his legitime and his testamentary portion. Question – Does Art848 apply even to illegitimate brothers and sisters.  It will NOT APPLY to an heir who is both a compulsory and a testamentary heir. in cases where the testator is of legitimate status and vice versa? YES. Julie Domingo. If the testator desires a different mode of apportionment.   ART. Cecille Natividad. he should so specify. unless it clearly appears that the intention of the testator was otherwise. The testator may institute somebody who is a perfect stranger to him.  ART. provided the identity is clearly designated in the will Also. nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. ART. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestate from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother.” those collectively designated shall be considered as individually instituted. Mars Rongo. 847. In addition. Are they to divide equally the remaining portion of the ¼ of the estate.  The article applies only in testamentary succession. “I designate as my heirs A and B. A and B have been designated their shares.SUCCESSION REVIEWER  1ST SEM 2006-2007  This does not refer to one with whom the testator is not personally acquainted. DIFFERENT RULE IN INTESTACY  Art848 only applies to testamentary succession. The applicable provision is Art 1006 which establishes a proportion of 2:1 between full and half blood brothers and sisters. regardless of whether full or half blood.  GENERAL PRESUMPTION  Equality in cases of collective designation. 850.  Not explicitly covered by this article is an instance where the shares of some of the heirs are designated and those of others are not. C and D. CJ Tan. because the article talks about heirs instituted without designation of shares. 846 and 847.  GENERAL RULE – the falsity of the stated cause for the testamentary institution DOES NOT AFFECT the validity or efficacy of the institution. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood. When the testator institutes some heirs individually and others collectively as when he says. 848. and only among testamentary heirs or devisees or legatees. If the testator should institute his brothers and sisters. and the children of C. of which A will get 1/3 and B is to get ¼. and he has some of full blood and others of half blood.  ART. the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter.  If the testator intends an unequal apportionment. Article lays down the same rule as Arts. Art848 does not distinguish. after deducting A’s and B’s portions [The remainder is 5/12 of ¼?]  YES. Once again. 846. get equal shares except if a different intention of the testator appears. he should so specify.  RE-CAP  Testamentary Succession – equality in shares of full and half blood brothers and sisters unless the testator provides otherwise [Art848]  Intestacy – Proportion of 2:1 between full and half blood brothers and sisters [Art1006]. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  Jen Laygo 3D 54 . and only if the disqualification in Art992 does not apply.  If the testator intends a block designation.” The shares of C and D are unspecified. 1006.

the cause must be shown to be false. . Benita Cruz-Meñez. and all the parts do not cover the whole inheritance. Cause for institution is stated in the will 2. she did not make it known in her will.Testacy is favored and doubts are resolved on its side. this article states exactly the same rule laid down in Art841. the language used in the will gives rise to the inference that the late Basilia was deceived into believing that she was legally bound to bequeath one-half of her entire estate to the respondents Perfecto Cruz. as was done in this case. . If the impelling reason or cause for the institution of the respondents as her heirs was the testatrix's belief that under the law she could not do otherwise. legal succession takes place with respect to the remainder of the estate. 852. Balane. or the whole free portion. . and cannot be the subject of a collateral attack. trickery or undue influence this Court held. and the institution is limited to an aliquot part of the inheritance. ante mortem.  Suggested Rewording – Art. According to petitioners. Reyes . Basilia died. and Luz Cruz-Salonga. If the testator has instituted only one heir.. Consuelo and Lauro Austria. Her express adoption of the rules on legitimes should very well indicate her complete agreement with that statutory scheme. it is its duty to give full expression to her will. . second. dismissed and the probate of the will allowed . the following requisites must concur: First. If the testator has instituted only one heir. ART. and it is the decedent's will does not state in a specific or unequivocal manner the cause for such institution of heirs. the and the legitimes do not pass by legal or intestate succession. .So compelling is the principle that intestacy should be avoided and the wishes of the testator allowed to prevail. and all the parts do not cover the whole inheritance. however. et al. however. fraud. was destined under the will to pass on to the respondents Perfecto Cruz. independent of her own wishes. Cause must be shown to be false 3. and each of them has been instituted to an aliquot part of the inheritance and their aliquot parts together do not cover the whole inheritance. Such institution may be annulled only when one is satisfied. and still others who. the cause for the institution of heirs must be stated in the will. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  55 . But even this. Mars Rongo. that the testator clearly would not have made the institution if he had known the cause for it to be false.One fact prevails.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 .  EXCEPTION – the falsity of the stated cause for institution will set aside the institution if the following factors are present: 1.More than two years after her will was allowed to probate. Moreover. The same rule applies if the testator has instituted several heirs.  There may after all be compulsory heirs whose legitimes will therefore cover part of the estate. each being limited to an aliquot part. admittedly. This opposition was. as the latter's legitime.  The wording of the article. in effect rendering these respondents mere strangers to the decedent and without any right to succeed as heirs.The legality of the adoption of the respondents by the testatrix can be assailed only in a separate action brought for that purpose. The same rule applies if the testator has instituted several heirs. that we could even vary the language of the will for the purpose of giving it effect. We cannot annul the same on the basis of guesswork or uncertain implications. Where the testator was possessed of testamentary capacity and her last will executed free from falsification.The bulk of the estate of Basilia. 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. and third. and that the five respondents Perfecto Cruz. all of whom had been assumed and declared by Basilia as her own legally adopted children. he would not have instituted the heir. Alberto Cruz.The petitioners filed in the same proceedings a petition in intervention for partition alleging in substance that they are the nearest of kin of Basilia. like the petitioner. It appears on the face of the will that if the testator had known of the falsity of such cause. according to Prof. Isagani Cruz. Cecille Natividad. If it was the intention of the testator that the instituted heirs should become sole heirs to the whole estate. less than the entire disposable portion. legal succession takes place with respect to the remainder of the estate. or the whole Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.Basilia Austria filed a petition for probate. are nephews and nieces of Basilia. and the institution is limited to an aliquot part of the inheritance. . Julie Domingo. Whether or not the institution of heirs would retain efficacy in the event there exists proof that the adoption of the said heirs by the decedent is false. .YES. CASE Austria v. as the case may be. there is absolutely no need for the redundancy. each being limited to an aliquot part. 851.Before the institution of heirs may be annulled under article 850 of the Civil Code. et al. had not in fact been adopted by the decedent in accordance with law. is erroneous because legal succession does not take place with respect to the remainder of the estate but to the remainder of the disposable portion. of her last will and testament. is highly speculative of what was in the mind of the testatrix when she executed her will. like the petitioners' own proposition. Lea Mateo.  ART. especially where the will evinces an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate. after an examination of the will. Surely if she was aware that succession to the legitime takes place by operation of law. The probate was opposed by the petitioners Ruben. CJ Tan. 851. she would not have found it convenient to name her supposed compulsory heirs to their legitimes.

shall be charged to his legitime. Testator designated a definite portion for each. 854. Testamentary dispositions that impair or diminish the legitime of the compulsory heirs shall be reduced on petition of the same.   1ST SEM 2006-2007 Castan’s Definition – “By preterition is meant the omission in the will of any of the compulsory heirs. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator.  The reason was there was no TOTAL OMISSION. as the case may be. etc. which is an express deprivation.  If the heir is given a legacy or devise. insofar as they may be inofficious or excessive. It is thus a tacit deprivation of the legitime. Art. they shall be reduced in the manner prescribed by this Code. The heir’s remedy is not found in Art854 but in Arts. Donations given to children shall be charged to their legitime. There are more than 1 instituted heir 2. Art. Donations made to strangers shall be charged to that part of the estate of which the testator could have disposed by his last will. Baretto-Datu: 1. Manresa’s Definition – “Preterition cons ists in the omission of an heir in the will. but from what? The answer to that question is the basic problem in preterition. 909. Testator intended them to get the whole estate or the whole disposable portion 3.  In both articles – 1.  PRETERITION – means omission. or the whole free portion. whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator. a proportionate increase is necessary. each part shall be increased proportionally. Such heir was instituted in the will 3. as distinguished from disinheritance. 910 and 1062. The preterition or omission of one. each part shall be reduced proportionally. 906 and 907 for Completion of Legitime. ART. 907. they shall be reduced according to the rules established by this Code. 852 – the total of all the portions is less than the whole estate or the whole disposable portion. 910.  If the heir received a donation inter vivos from the testator – the better view is that there is no preterition  Reason – donation inter vivos is treated as an advance on the legitime under Articles 906. and the parts together exceed the whole inheritance. either because he is not named. the total exceeds the whole estate or the whole disposable portion. ART. Lea Mateo. 906. although he is named as a father. Art. 853. Donations which an illegitimate child may have received during the lifetime of his father or mother. Julie Domingo. the institution shall be effectual. thus being tacitly deprived of his right to the legitime.  The difference cannot pass by intestacy because the testator’s intention is clear to give the instituted heirs the entire amount. some. ART.  Should the value of the legacy or devise be less than the recipient’s legitime. inasmuch as the heir received something from the inheritance..” OMISSION THAT CONSTITUTES PRETERITION  If the heir in question is instituted in the will but the portion given to him by the will is less than his legitime – there is no preterition.  In the case of Reyes v. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  56 . The testamentary disposition given to such heir was less than her legitime  Based on these. Thus a proportionate reduction must be made. There was a compulsory heir in the direct line 2. Mars Rongo. shall annul the institution of heir. son. but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. his remedy is only for completion of legitime under Articles 906 and 907. 909.  Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. nor assigned any part of the estate . CJ Tan. P TOTAL DISPOSED P TOTAL ESTATE DISPOSABLE ART. there is no preterition. he is neither instituted as an heir or expressly disinherited. without prejudice to the right of representation. Art. or. without being expressly disinherited. Therefore. Cecille Natividad. Any compulsory heir to whom the testator has left by any title less than the legitime belonging to him may demand that the same may be fully satisfied.SUCCESSION REVIEWER free portion. Insofar as they may be inofficious or may exceed the disposable portion. If each of the instituted heirs has been given an aliquot part of the inheritance. the holding was that there was NO PRETERITION. Should they exceed the portion that can be freely disposed of.   FORMULA FOR PROPORTIONATE INCREASE OR DECREASE P HEIR’S SHARE = X . 853 – the reverse occurs. or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line.

should there be a descendant of that heir who is himself preterited.  Should the preterited heir predecease or be unworthy to succeed the testator. Lea Mateo. who is himself completely omitted from the inheritance [A-1 being entitled to succeed X by representation]. EFFECT OF PRETERITION  Annulment of the institution of an heir but validity of legacies and devisees to the extent that these latter do not impair legitimes. IAC answers the question of whether an adopted child is within the contemplation of this article as “compulsory heir in the direct line” and rules in favor of the adopted child’s inclusion in the phrase. and in proper cases [in default of children or descendants] parents or ascendants  Surviving Spouse – does not fall within the purview of this article because although a compulsory heir. since the law does not distinguish. direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants.  The law cited was Art39 of PD603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code as supplanted by Art189[1] of the Gamily Code. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  57 . then the effects of preterition will arise.  Example – X has 2 legit kids: A and B. A-1. invoke Art854 in the same manner that a legitimate child can. unless the donation should be reduced as inofficious. is preterited within the contemplation of Art854 and can invoke its protection and consequences. The right of the heir.  For there to be preterition. not because A was preterited but because A-1 was preterited. Mars Rongo. then the adopted child can. such children are. ADOPTED CHILDREN  Case of Acain v. Legacy or devise 3. 2. 1062. without doubt. or 4. the institution shall be effectual. Julie Domingo. 4.  According to the case of Nuguid v. to be included within the purview of the protection of this article. A dies before X but leaves a legit child. under Articles 906 and 907.  Acain’s logic is that since an adopted child is given by law the same rights as a legitimate child. the question of preterition of that heir becomes moot. annulment of institution of heir means only the legacies and devises will merit consideration if Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  Manresa’s seems to be the better opinion. 5. whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs if the donor should have so expressly provided. X makes a will which results in preterition of A. by its terms.  Under Art964 par2. Are ILLEGITIMATE DESCENDANTS OR ASCENDANTS within the coverage of “compulsory heirs in the direct line”?  Manresa – YES. vis-à-vis the adopter. is not in the direct line. but not all of the estate is disposed of by the will – there is no preterition. should the vacant portion be less than his legitime. likewise supplanted by Secs 17 and 18 of RA8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998. QUASI-POSTHUMOUS CHILDREN –  There is a flaw in the wording of the article. without prejudice to the right of representation. in proper cases. Donation inter vivos.  However. 1.  The omitted heir in this instance would receive something by intestacy. or if the donee should repudiate the inheritance. if totally omitted in the inheritance. Art854 will apply.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007  However.  Art.  WHO ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE ARTICLE?  A compulsory heir in the direct line. therefore. from the portion not disposed of by the will [the vacant portion].  Distinction between heirs and legatees/devisees – This in the only instance when there is still a practical effect in the distinction between an heir and a legatee or devisee in Art782. Intestacy  Preterition means therefore – TOTAL OMISSION IN THE INHERITANCE. Cecille Natividad. Scaevola – NO. COMPULSORY HEIRS IN THE DIRECT LINE –  Covers children or descendants. the heir in question must have received NOTHING from the testator by way of: 1. include those compulsory heirs in the direct line born after the execution of the will but before the testator’s death [los cuasi posthumous] . PREDECEASE OF PRETERITED COMPULSORY HEIR – nd  2 paragraph of Art 854 provides: If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator. 3. will simply be to demand completion of his legitime. Nuguid.  An adopted child therefore.  If the heir is not mentioned in the will nor was a recipient of a donation inter vivos from the testator. The phrase “whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator” does not. CJ Tan. Testamentary succession 2.

Mars Rongo.The court then issued an order approving the project partition submitted by the executor wherein the properties of the estate were divided equally between Maria Lucy Christensen Duncan. Edward expressly mentioned that he bequeath unto Helen Garcia Php 3. this was cleared up in Acain v.If the heir in question is instituted in the will but the portion given to him by the will is less than his legitime. Julie Domingo. if the legitimes are impaired] but the institution of heirs.Bibiano Barretto. As to the heir. Fortunately. if the will contains only institutions of heirs and there is preterition. without the heir being expressly disinherited. The legal precept does not speak of children or descendants but of heirs.  Thus.The said order was based on the proposition that since Garcia had been preterited in the will. in the first she instituted both Salud and Milagros as heirs and in the second she revoked the same and left all her properties to Milagros alone. The implied basis of the rule is inadvertent omission by the testator. the only provision in the will was the institution of the petitioner a universal heir. the legacies or devises will stand. The 2nd will was probated and it was proved that Salud was not the daughter of Maria. Thus.  If there are legacies or devises and there is preterition. if any. by itself.SUCCESSION REVIEWER expressly given in the will. While the ½ share assigned to Salud impinged on the legitime of Milagros. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  58 . . . Salud went after the remnant of Bibiano’s estate. TOTAL INTESTACY will result. this article will not apply.In his will. and the fact that Salud happened not to be a daughter of the testator does not preclude her being one of the heirs expressly named in his testament. CA wherein it was ruled that the preterition of illegitimate children should annul the institution of the heir “only insofar as the legitime of the omitted heirs is impaired”. Duncan appealed. Salud did not for that reason cease to be a testamentary heir of Bibiano. who had been judicially declared as such after his death. .The will was admitted to probate. except insofar as the legitimes are concerned. intestate succession ensued. by a project of partition. died leaving a will. .Upon Maria Gerardo’s death. Therefore. by filing an action for the recovery of ½ thereof. CA wherein it was held that “Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate succession the entire inheritance. there is no preterition. Balane says this is not annulment but reduction. For Bibiano was at liberty to assign the free portion of his estate to whomsoever he choose.      RE-CAP – the correct rule of preterition is that:  Preterition abrogates the institution of heir but respects legacies and devises insofar as these do not impair the legitimes. because Salud is a spurious heir not entitled to any share. .None. Aznar v. thus annulling the institution of heirs in the will. a citizen of California with domicile in the Philippines. will be swept away. Salud admittedly has been instituted heir in the Bibiano’s will together with Milagros. the partition had between them could not be one such had with a party who was not believed to be an heir without really being one. Salud took immediate possession of her share and procured the issuance of land titles to her name. and this would erase the distinction between the effect of preterition on the institution of the heir and its effect on legacies and devises. which was given in usufruct to Maria. the heir is simply entitled to demand his rightful share. In the same decision. PRETERITION v. it was discovered that she executed 2 wills. . INEFFECTIVE DISINHERITANCE  Preterition is total omission from the inheritance. was held null and void. That institution. then there is preterition. this was muddled in the case of Solano v. died and left his properties to his daughters Salud and Milagros.Yes. whom the testator had expressly recognized in his will as his natural daughter and Helen Garcia. the institution of Duncan as heir was annulled. Duncan . . Baretto-Datu . the court declared that Maria Helen Christensen Garcia was a natural child of Edward. for absence of one or other of the requisites for a valid disinheritance. if the testator explicitly disinherits the heir. Hence. In that case.600 notwithstanding the fact she is not in any way related to him. Whether the estate should pertain to Duncan and Garcia in equal shares or whether the inheritance of Duncan as  CASES Reyes v.  Should the disinheritance be ineffective. Art854 does not mean that the mere institution of a universal heir in a will – void because of preterition – would give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance.Edward Christensen. There was no preterition even if Milagros was allotted a smaller share than her legitime because there was no total omission of a forced heir.Having lost her share in the estate of Maria. nor has she been at any time adopted by him. . married to Maria Gerardo.” 1ST SEM 2006-2007 . However. CJ Tan.This action afforded Milagros an opportunity to set up her right of ownership not only of the fishpond but sought recovery of all the properties acquired by Salud from Bibiano. except for the usufruct of a fishpond which he reserved for his widow. Cecille Natividad. distributed the estate and delivered the shares of the heirs. . the will is inexistent. Lea Mateo. Whether Salud may inherit from Bibiano . Whether there was preterition . to the extent of the free portion [merely to be reduced and not set aside. and was not null and void. and hence the properties passed to both of them as if the deceased had died intestate. The only provisions which do not result in intestacy are the legacies and devises made in the will for they should stand valid and respected.Maria Gerardo as administratrix. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Thus.Milagros also alleged that since what was allotted in her father’s will to her was smaller than her legitim e. Prof.

depriving them of their legitime. the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not officious. some. Lea Mateo.Petitioner herein was instituted as the universal heir and no specific legacies or bequests are provided for. either by not naming him at all or. thus. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  59 . there is preterition since she was totally omitted in the inheritance. 854 of the NCC: The preterition or omission of one. ." . testamentary Acain v. either because they are not mentioned therein.SUCCESSION REVIEWER instituted heir should be merely reduced to the extent necessary to cover the legitime of Garcia.Segundo pre-deceased Nemesio. single without descendants but was survived by her legitimate parents and 6 legitimate siblings.The Court mentioned Manresa and 3 decisions of the SC of Spain. 854.Whether the testator gave a legacy to a person.Preterition consists in the omission in the testator’s will of the forced heirs because they were not mentioned therein. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 . hence. the probate of the will must be denied. Cecille Natividad. It was held that in such cases. .Rosario Nuguid died. . . "shall annul the institution of heir". .In order that the right of a forced heir may be limited only to the completion of his legitime (instead of the annulment of the institution of heirs) is it necessary that he should be recognized or referred to in the will as heir? . Now.Since preterition annuls the institution of heir and no devises or legacies having been provided in the will. or though mentioned. Julie Domingo. 1854 provides that notwithstanding the annulment. but only that the legitime be completed. nullity of the will is complete. . . they are neither instituted as heirs not are expressly disinherited. Art.One of which was instituted as the universal heir and he filed an action for probate of the decedent’s will which was opposed by her parents on the ground that they were preterited and thus the institution of the universal heir is void. .Constantino Acain filed with the RTC a petition for the probate of the will of the late Nemesio Acain. etc. He refused to acknowledge Garcia as his natural daughter and limited her share to a legacy of Php 3600. who alone was expressly recognized by him .The Child and Youth Welfare Code gives an adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. Nuguid . the will is inexistent since there was no testamentary disposition separate from the nullified institution of the heir. whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator.The case is not a case of preterition but a case of completion of legitime. NCC: The preterition or omission of compulsory heirs in the direct line. . IAC . intestate succession ensues. There would be no intestacy. CJ Tan.The Court viewed such as in consonance with the expressed wishes of Edward as may be observed from the provisions of his will. This annulment is in toto.As to the widow (Rosa). the heir could not ask that the institution of heirs be annulled entirely. the children of Segundo are claiming to be heirs of Nemesio. . In each of those case. they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. . Segundo’s children (Constantino and his brothers & sisters) would receive Nemesio’s share in the conjugal property of Nemesio and Rosa. . in turn. It remanded the case with instruction to partition the hereditary estate by giving to Garcia no more than the portion corresponding to her legitime.Art.This is a case of preterition and not disinheritance since the will does not expressly disinherits the forced heirs. . shall annul the institution of heir." Disinheritance. in addition. or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line. There would be no intestacy. Nuguid v.As to the adopted child (Virginia). The institution in the will not be annulled.There is no preterition if the heir is given a legacy or devise. there is no preterition even if she is omitted from the inheritance. but without referring to the legatee as an heir or even as a relative. as she is not in the direct line. the testator left to one who was a forced heir a legacy worth less than the legitime. It simply omits their names. 854 on total or partial nullity. The institution in the will not be annulled. or. 906 of the NCC: Any compulsory heir whom the testator has left by any title less than the legitime belonging to him may demand that the same be fully satisfied. Nemesio instituted his brother Segundo as the heir. The fact that she was subsequently declared judicially to possess such status is no reason to assume that had the judicial declaration come during his lifetime his subjective attitude towards her would have undergone any change and that he would have will his estate equally to her and to Duncan.In the said will. "is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law. whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator. . . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. shall annul the institution of heir. .. . 854 does not apply. son. This is a clear case of preterition. unless in the will there are. although she is a compulsory heir. whom he characterized in the testamentary provision as not related to him.YES. . In case Segundo pre-deceased him.Art. while mentioning him as father. Whether or not the will is void. but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. Hence. equivalent to ¼ of the entire estate. though mentioned. we repeat. and will the rest of the estate to other persons.Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them. the case is not a case of preterition but a case of completion of legitime. . . equivalent to ¼ of the hereditary estate. . nor assigning to him some part of the properties.The SC set aside the project of partition. .Even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir. WON Rosa and Virginia were preterited.Preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code. but later his person was judicially declared to be his acknowledged natural child. An intestate settlement of the estate should proceed.Even if Art. by not instituting him as heir without disinheriting him expressly. Mars Rongo. SC held that it is because: The will completely omits the parents. . but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. .Preterition is the omission of the heir in the will.Rosa (the widow) and Virginia Fernandez (a legally adopted daughter of Nemesio) opposed the probate.Art.To consider the institution of an heir to be the same as legacy will defeat the purpose of Art.

the rules on representation shall apply. which last phrase was omitted in the case of preterition. 855. Mars Rongo. Coverage should extend not only to children and descendants but to all compulsory heirs. therefore it should speak only of voluntary or testamentary heirs. any compulsory heir whose legitime is impaired may demand that the same be fully satisfied. so much as may be necessary must be taken proportionally from the shares of the other heirs given to them by will. 1ST SEM 2006-2007  Senator Tolentino comments that article should be rephrased as follows The share of the compulsory heir omitted in a will must first be taken from the part of the estate not disposed of by t he will. legatees and devisees. if that is not sufficient. if any. incapacity.  Observations on the Article  Inaccurate and misleading because it suggests that there are exceptions to the rule that an heir. If there is preterition.  Representation does not constitute an exception because in representation the person represented does not transmit anything to his heirs. In ineffective disinheritance under Article 918 of the same Code. Proportionate reductions [after consuming the undisposed portion] should be borne not by the compulsory heirs as such but by the testamentary heirs. 910 and 911. transmits nothing to his own heirs. in disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived. it is testamentary dispositions that must be reduced if they impair or diminish the legitimes of compulsory heirs. 856. A voluntary heir who dies before the testator transmits nothing to his heirs. Julie Domingo. Rather. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  60 .  Article is redundant and completely unnecessary of it is made to apply to cases of preterition.  Inaccuracy – two inaccuracies 1.  Proper Application of Art855 – in cases where a compulsory heir is not preterited but left something [because not all the estate is disposed of by will] less than his legitime. put only "insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited". a person incapacitated to succeed. proportionally . voluntary or legal. properly understood.Representation Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. such disinheritance shall also "annul the institution of heirs". The share of a child or descendant omitted in a will must first be taken from the part of the estate not disposed of by the will. Lea Mateo. shall transmit no right to his own heirs except in cases expressly provided for in this Code.  That would be solving one problem by creating another. it is redundant. Art855 really talks of a completion of legitime. Outline of Rules PREDECEASE TN R INCAPACITY TN R RENUNCIATION TN R DISINHERITANCE TN R   Kind of Heir COMPULSORY VOLUNTARY LEGAL               NA NA  NA NA TN – Transmits nothing R .  HOW TO FILL UP COMPULSORY HEIR’S IMPAIRED LEGITIME?  From the portion of the estate left undisposed of by will. if that is not sufficient. Representation is rather a form of subrogation. incapacity or renunciation. as well as disinheritance of compulsory heirs. does not apply to preterition but to completion of legitime. ART. Cecille Natividad. Better stated yet. Superfluity and Inaccuracy of Art855 –  Superfluity – article.] mandate.SUCCESSION REVIEWER dispositions in the form of devises or legacies. and one who renounces the inheritance. the complete statement of the rule is –  An heir. As subsequent articles [906. because the rules and manner of completing impaired legitimes are laid down with greater detail in Articles 906.  As correctly stated by Art907. in case of predecease or incapacity of compulsory or legal heirs.  ART.  From the shares of the testamentary heirs.  To make the compulsory heirs qua compulsory heirs bear the reduction would mean reducing their own legitimes – a patent absurdity. 909. etc.  This rule of non-transmission is ABSOLUTE and there is no exception to it.  It says too little because it does not mention legal or intestate heirs nor does it provide for cases of disinheritance. transmits NOTHING to his heirs in case of predecease. A compulsory heir who dies before the testator. CJ Tan. only Art854 need be applied. renunciation or disinheritance. 907. so much as may be necessary must be taken proportionally from the shares of the other compulsory heirs. in case of predecease. However. including the devisees and legatees. whether compulsory.  It says too much because the article is in the chapter on testamentary succession under institution of heir. if any. 2.

C. CJ Tan. the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the property is transmitted must not be beyond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciary. B. herein respondents. . shall have also the obligation to deliver yearly 100 piculs of sugar to Maria Belleza. they should file a separate proceeding to re-open the estate and have it distributed to Aleja’s heirs. However.In simple substitutions. C. the property was titled in the name of the heirs of Nilo Viado.) And that if the heir shall later sell. forgery and undue influence. Non v.The SC affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in applying Art 882 of the Civil Code.In conditional substitution however. . . . Here. . the efficacy of the inheritance is subject to the condition. the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by reason of incapacity. affecting the efficacy of such institution. bequeathed a lot to Dr. with Nilo leaving behind his wife.The disposition was in the nature of modal institutions.In the case under consideration.. . the property referred to shall be seized and turned over to the testatrix's near descendants. lessee. . lease. CA . .Alicia claimed absolute ownership as evinced by a deed of donation in which the late Julian Viado donated his conjugal share of the property to Alicia’s deceased husband. Cases for Articles 854-856 Rabadilla v.Aleja Belleza. the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the property is transmitted must not be beyond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciary.Also. mortgagee. Whether or not the deeds were valid despite allegations of fraud. . Jorge Rabadilla or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil. the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil to alienate the property provided the negotiation is with the near descendants or the sister of the testatrix.In simple substitutions. La Loma. the CA ruled that indeed the heirs violated the obligations imposed upon them and therefore the land should be seized and reconveyed to the estate of Aleja. Rebecca and Delia raised co-ownership as a defense. . Whether or not the Article 882 of the CC on modal institutions govern the disposition rather than the provisions on institution through simple substitution. . in a codicil appended to her Last Will and Testament.) That in case of Jorge’s death. predecease or renunciation.In this case. . the buyer. Maria Belleza is entitled to forfeit the lots in favor of the testator’s descendants. mortgage this said Lot. On Appeal. . . there is no fideicommissary substitution.The Court held that the disposition in question in favor of Jorge Rabadilla could neither be simple substitution or fideicommissary.In case of doubt. Lea Mateo. the provisions of subject Codicil do not provide for said 3 conditions.Deceased spouses Julian and Virginia Viado owned several properties. the testator imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without. D. should Dr. Julie Domingo.Now. not a near descendant of the testator. the second heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by reason of incapacity.) that the heirs failed to deliver the piculs of sugar beg. Quezon City.) the lot was mortgaged to PNB. they had four children. Alicia and her two children demanded Rebecca and Delia to vacate. Mars Rongo. (2) the purpose or application of the property left by the testator.In this case. . predecease or renunciation.It could not also be a fideicommissary because the element that the first heir is obliged to preserve and transmit the property to a second heir is not present.Belleza Appealed. among them a house and lot located at Isarog St. .YES. . . What the Codicil provides is that. he shall be liable to deliver until he dies 75 piculs of sugar a year to Maria Belleza while she is still alive. lessor or mortgagor fails to fulfill said obligations. on account of the following: Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.) that PNB also did not comply with the obligation to deliver 100 piculs of sugar/year.An action for partition was brought by Rebecca Viado-Non and Delia Viado in which the court ruled in favor of Alice and her children. the property shall be inherited by the latter’s spouse and children B.There was also a deed of extrajudicial settlement where Rebecca Viado-Non and the late Leah Viado (without Delia Viado’s participation) waived their rights and interests over their share of the property inherited from their mother Virginia. Rebecca Viado-Non and Delia Viado are the petitioners in this case. his heirs shall also be imposed the same obligation. and two children.RTC dismissed the claim. the testator states (1) the object of the institution.) That if the ownership of the property is finally transmitted to Jorge. or (3) the charge imposed by the testator upon the heir. and his spouse and children succeeded him. however. .Elements in Fideicommissary Sub: A) the first heir is obliged to preserve and transmit the property to a second heir B) the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the property is transmitted must not be beyond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciary. .The other two siblings. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  61 . . .) That should Jorge die before the testator. . Alicia. the institution must be considered as modal and not institutional. Maria Belleza filed a complaint against Jorge’s heirs due to alleged violations of the Codicil and asked for the property to be reconveyed to the near descendants of Aleja Belleza on the ground that: A. .Leah Viado Jacobs and Nilo Viado both died in 1987. 1985. Cecille Natividad. .Thus.In modal institution. . CA . Without the duty to preserve. A "mode" imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the succession.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 . lessor or mortgagor be near descendants and sister of the testator.As the two parties lived in the Isarog property.The will also provided that in case the buyer.Jorge Rabadilla died. provided that the buyer. Jorge Rabadilla subject to certain conditions: A.

CAUSES OF SIMPLE SUBSTITUTION 1. Lea Mateo. there no proof shown as to why Julian Viado should be held incapable of exercising sufficient judgment in ceding his rights and interest over the property to Nilo Viado. Julie Domingo. In simple substitutions. in case the first choice does not inherit. Simple or Common [vulgar] – Art859 2. In fideicommissary substitutions. a substitution must be one or the other and cannot be both at the same time. the partition shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall be paid the value of the share pertaining to her. or should be incapacitated to accept the inheritance. Substitution of heirs may be: (1) Simple or common. The exclusion of Delia Viado has the effect of preterition. 775 and 776. while asserting the employment of fraud. (3) Reciprocal. . Predecease of the first heir 2. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  62 .Third. 858. . Mars Rongo. does not justify a collateral attack on the new title. The testator may designate one or more persons to substitute the heir or heirs instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before him.This kind of preterition. the 2 heir does not succeed in default.YES. Substitution is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted. there were pupilar and ejemplar substitutions under Arts. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 Art. Whether or not there was preterition in the deed of extrajudicial settlement with respect to the retardate Delia Viado. 859. CJ Tan. Rebecca Viado-Non and Delia Viado are vague on how and in what manner those supposed vices occurred. the heir originally substituted. The right to provide for substitutions is based on testamentary freedom. however. Renunciation of the first heir 3. Simple substitution is really a form of conditional institution.” With respect to Simple Substitution. in the absence of fraud and bad faith.  Brief or compendious and reciprocal substitutions are merely variations of either the simple or fideicommissary. These two are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. forgery and undue influence in procuring the signatures of the parties to the deeds of donation and of extrajudicial settlement. In the fideicommissary. KINDS OF SUBSTITUTION UNDER ART858 1.       ART. and that a substitute may be designated by an ascendant for a descendant who is over 14 but has been declared incompetent by reason of mental incapacity. . 857. the testator imposes what is essentially a RESTRICTION OR BURDEN on the first heir.SUCCESSION REVIEWER .   The definition of substitution is incomplete because it covers only simple substitution and excludes the nd fideicommissary. there are only 2 kinds of substitutions – the simple or common and the fideicommissary. . the partition shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall be paid the value of the share pertaining to her. Incapacity of the first heir HOW TESTATOR MAY PROVIDE FOR SIMPLE SUBSTITUTION WITH ALL 3 CAUSES 1. By merely providing for a simple substitution   Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. The complete definition of substitution should be – “Substitution is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of. providing that an ascendant or the parent may substitute the descendant below 14 years old in case the descendant should die before age 14. the fact alone that the two deeds were registered only five (5) years after their execution would not affect their validity or point to fraud.First. or (4) Fideicommissary.Article 1104 provides: where the preterition is not attended by bad faith and fraud. (2) Brief or compendious. A simple substitution. or subsequent to. in addition to the 4 enumerated. By specifying all 3 causes 2. but AFTER the first. this section is properly a part of the next section on conditional testamentary dispositions. or should not wish.Second. but such substitution shall be ineffective by a will executed by the incompetent during a lucid interval or after he ahs recovered his mental faculties. the testator simply makes a second choice. Fideicommissary [fideicomisaria] – Art863  SECTION 3 – SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS Art. In reality. coupled with a selection of a subsequent recipient of the property. Brief or Compendious [brevilocua / compendiosa] – Art860 3.  Under the old Spanish Code.Article 1104 provides the remedy: where the preterition is not attended by bad faith and fraud. Cecille Natividad. Reciprocal [reciproca] – Art861 4. unless the testator has otherwise provided.  This article provides for SIMPLE or VULGAR substitution. without a statement of the cases to which it refers. . . shall comprise the there mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

provided such substitution does 63 Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. so the former is also subjected to all the liabilities as well as rights of the latter. A gets ½.  The exception is where the testator provides for substitution in the event of the death or renunciation or incapacity of any one of the original heirs. B and C will acquire A’s ½ share in the proportion of 2:1 because their respective testamentary shares are ½ and 1/6. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  . they shall have the same share in the substitution as in the institution.  If the heirs in a will are given unequal shares. A and B will get C’s 1/6 portion in the proportion of 3:2 for the same reason.  ART. renounces. Lea Mateo. the substitute shall. A fideicommisary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part of the inheritance. unless the testator has expressly provided the contrary. CJ Tan. 863. the substitute shall acquire the share of the heir who dies. devise or legacy should be conditional. Should C predecease.”  Will the substitute be disqualified if the cause of the first heir’s predecease is that the substitute killed him?  ART.  Substitution will take place only if ALL the original heirs are disqualified. A and C will get his portion in the proportion of 3:1 because their respective shares are ½ and 1/6. and they are reciprocally substituted.   The substitute merely takes the place of the original heir. the substitutes will acquire the share of the original heir in the same proportion as they were given in the testamentary disposition. unless it clearly appears that the intention of the testator was otherwise. shall be valid and shall take effect. 860. in addition to his given share. If heirs instituted in unequal shares should be reciprocally substituted. If A predeceases the testator. acquire the share of the heir who he is substituting for due to predecease. B gets 1/3 and C gets 1/6. most commentators use the terms interchangeably. B will substitute and get the share of A [¼] in addition to his share.  The second sentence of Art861 provides for Proportionate Accrual.  Reciprocal substitution is a possible variation of the simple or fideicommissary substitution. so in total he gets ½. Two or more persons may be substituted for one. Should B predecease.  Example. may the successors of the substitute acquire the testamentary disposition?  Must have capacity – Art1034 par 3 providing that “If the institution.  Need not have capacity – Art1042 and 533 par2 which provides that the effects of the acceptance or repudiation of the inheritance shall always retroact to the moment of the death of the decedent” and that “one who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same. Cecille Natividad. Distinctions  Brief – 2 or more substitutes for 1 original heir  Compendious – 1 substitute for 2 or more orig. 861.  Example. They are reciprocally substituted. 862.” As a simple substitution is a form of conditional substitution. and one person for two or more heirs. If there are more than 1 heir instituted. ART. The substitute shall be subject to the same charges and conditions imposed upon the instituted heir. If there are more than one substitute. Mars Rongo. If a predeceases the testator. or the charges or conditions are personally applicable only to the heir instituted. and they are reciprocal substitutes of each other. Julie Domingo. the time of the compliance with the condition shall also be considered. therefore Art1034 can be applied. QUESTIONS –  May the testator provide for a substitution on grounds other than those provided in this article?  In case of renunciation by the first heir. Brief or Compendious substitution is a possible variation of either a simple or fideicommissary substitution.  ART. If 1 is substituted for 2 or more original heirs –  Effect of default of one but not all of the original heirs is that substitution will NOT take place but the share left vacant will accrue to the surviving original co-heir or co-heirs. or is incapacitated. renunciation or incapacity. including charges and conditions imposed upon the original heir.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007  Restricted Simple Substitution – the testator may limit the operation of simple substitution by specifying only one or two of the 3 causes. A gets ¼ and B gets ¼.  However. must the substitute have capacity at the time of the renunciation? Supposing the substitute dies before the first heir manifests his renunciation.

and always subject to the same. the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. or children. or children. This makes the position of the fiduciary basically that of a usufructuary. The provisions relating to incapacity by will are equally applicable to intestate succession. unless there is a provision to the contrary in their charter or the laws of their creation. First heir – fiduciary . organizations. it shall be understood to have been left to the fiduciary’s discretion. 41. private corporations. or any one claiming under such witness.  If there is no absolute obligation to preserve and transmit. shall be valid. Julie Domingo. but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it. chapter. 1025. the institution was held to be a simultaneous institution. In order to be capacitated to inherit. cultural. from the first heir to the second heir b) Second heir must be in the first degree of relationship with the first heir. the heir. any provision made by the ward in favor of the guardian when the latter is his ascendant. order. or when the time of delivery is in doubt.  In PCIB v. However. that the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are living at the time of the death of the testator. 1024. Art. Birth determines personality. like every other heir.SUCCESSION REVIEWER not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted. The following are incapable of succeeding: (1) The priest who heard the confession of the testator during his last illness. when it is proper. there is no fideicommissary substitution. provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article. (3) A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a ward in his favor before the final accounts of the guardianship have been approved. with the right to use and enjoy the property but WITHOUT JUS DISPONENDI. or the minister of the gospel who extended spiritual aid to him during the same period. or spouse. one after the other. 40. which means the delivery should be upon the FIDUCIARY’S DEATH. This distinguishes the fideicomisaria from the vulgar. or associations for religious. Art. community.  NOTE – though the fideicommissary heir does not receive the property upon the testator’s death.  BOTH heirs enter into the inheritance. municipal corporations. brother. parents. provinces. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  64 . in which the substitute inherits only if the first heir fails to inherit. 2. Second heir – fideicommissary ELEMENTS OF FIDEICOMISARIA st 1. A 2 heir who takes the property subsequently from the fiduciary  The fideicommissary heir does not receive the property until the fiduciary’s right expires. sister. his right thereto VESTS at that time and merely becomes subject to a period. This is based on the presumption that the testator intended the fiduciary to enjoy the property during his lifetime. if the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months. upon the opening of the succession. 1026.and sisters-in-law and not a fideicomisaria because no obligation is imposed upon the husband to preserve the estate or any part thereof for anyone else. 5. and provided further. educational. devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens. Mars Rongo. 1027. 3. each in his own turn. Art. parents. the spouse. A 1 heir who takes the property upon the testator’s death  Fiduciary enters upon the inheritance. The 2 heir must be 1 degree from the first heir  Means 2 things a) Only one transmission/transfer is allowed. For civil purposes. Art. scientific. Both heirs must be living and disqualified to succeed at the time of the testator’s death. Lea Mateo. Art. Cecille Natividad. or institution to which such priest or minister may belong. The second heir must either be a child or parent of the first heir 4.  Living – according to Articles 40-41 Art. except in case of representation. All other corporations or entities may succeed under a will. and that right passes to his own heirs should he die before the fiduciary’s right expires. the church. A testamentary disposition may be made to the State. nevertheless. or charitable purposes. which is when the testator dies. CJ Tan. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  The institution is not necessarily void. even if the testator should die after the approval thereof. a st nd nd  Qualified – according to Articles 10241034. descendant.  This requisite is the essence of the fideicomisaria.   1ST SEM 2006-2007 resolutory condition on the part of the husband while subject to a suspensive condition on the part of the brothers. organization. it may be valid as some other disposition but it is not a fideicomisaria. Escolin. (2) The relatives of such priest or minister of the gospel within the fourth degree.  If the testator DID NOT specify a day when the fiduciary will deliver the property to the fideicomissary. A child already conceived at the time of the death of the decedent is capable of succeeding provided it be born later under the conditions prescribed in article 41. Dual obligation imposed upon the 1 heir to: a) Preserve the property. Persons not incapacitated by law may succeed by will or ab intestato. it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb. and b) To transmit it after the lapse of the period to the fideicommissary heir. (4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a will. spouse.

his qualification at the time of the death of the decedent shall be the criterion. nd ART. (3) Any person who has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more. he should condone them in writing. 865. the 2 heir need not survive the first heir. Every fideicommisary substitution must be expressly made in order that it may be valid. in the absence of a contrary provision in the will are – a) Legitimate expenses – only necessary and useful expenses and NOT ornamental expenses b) Credits c) Improvements . in general terms and without specifying its application. who shall decide by a majority of votes all questions that may arise. and the other half to the State. the executor. or made through an intermediary. (8) Any person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the decedent. 1034. Art. credits and improvements. nurse. 866. Art. shall be deemed limited to the poor living in the domicile of the testator at the time of his death. without designation of particular persons or of any community. or 5 of Article 1032. devise or legacy should be conditional. by the executor. to be used for such prayers and pious works. according to law. 1ST SEM 2006-2007  NOTE – this 2-fold requirement is to be met only upon the testator’s death. In order to judge the capacity of the heir. Cecille Natividad. The following are incapable of succeeding by reason of unworthiness: (1) Parents who have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life.  ART. (4) Any heir of full age who. The fiduciary shall be obliged to deliver the inheritance to the second heir. having known of them subsequently. or from revoking one already made.  Legitime passes by strict operation of law.  FIDEICOMISARIA SHOULD BE EXPRESSLY IMPOSED. The only Deductions allowed. even though he should die before the Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  2 ways of making an express imposition – 1. Art. In all these cases. save in the case where the testator has provided otherwise. The cause of unworthiness shall be without effect if the testator had knowledge thereof at the time he made the will. or attempted against their virtue. it shall be necessary to wait until final judgment is rendered. if the nd nd 2 heir dies before the first heir. or undue influence should cause the testator to make a will or to change one already made. devisee or legatee. unless the authorities have already taken action. (7) Any person who by the same means prevents another from making a will. or if. and this applies not only to the fiduciary but to the second heir as well. The prohibitions mentioned in article 739. this prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein. (6) Individuals. In cases falling under Nos. violence. or ascendants.  Allowable Deductions 1. the approval of the Court of First Instance shall be necessary. descendants. or alters the latter's will. Testamentary provisions in favor of the poor in general. 3. Should the testator dispose of the whole or part of his property for prayers and pious works for the benefit of his soul. Mars Rongo. the time of the compliance with the condition shall also be considered. 864. the mayor. A fideicommissary substitution can never burden the legitime. (5) Any person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator. surgeon. Art. the expiration of the month allowed for the report. 1031. and the municipal treasurer. A testamentary provision in favor of a disqualified person. Julie Domingo. The second heir shall acquire a right to the succession from the time of the testator’s death. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  65 . therefore the testator has no power over it. Art. 1028. in default of such person. health officer or druggist who took care of the testator during his last illness. having knowledge of the violent death of the testator. there is no obligation to make an accusation. concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions. and in the case falling under No. Art. 1033. and should there be no executor. associations and corporations not permitted by law to inherit. By the use of the term fideicommissary or 2. Lea Mateo. 2. GR – fiduciary should deliver property INTACT and UNDIMINISHED to the fideicommissary heir upon the arrival of the period. without other deductions than those which arise from legitimate expenses. or who supplants. Art. The designation of the persons who are to be considered as poor and the distribution of the property shall be made by the person appointed by the testator for the purpose.SUCCESSION REVIEWER (5) Any physician. for the purposes mentioned in Article 1013. his or her spouse.  Thus. If the institution. if the accusation has been found groundless. the 2 heir’s own heirs merely take his place. even though made under the guise of an onerous contract.only necessary and useful improvements and NOT ornamental improvements Damage or Deterioration to Property  If caused by a fortuitous event or ordinary wear and tear – fiduciary is not liable  If caused by fiduciary’s fau lt or negligence – fiduciary is liable. CJ Tan. 1029. By imposing upon the first heir the absolute obligation to preserve and to transmit to the second heir. (2) Any person who has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator. (6) Any person who by fraud. The preceding paragraph shall apply when the testator has disposed of his property in favor of the poor of a definite locality. 1030. shall be void. 4. should fail to report it to an officer of the law within a month. by the justice of the peace. intimidation. ART. unless it should clearly appear that his intention was otherwise. 1032. with the court's approval shall deliver one-half thereof or its proceeds to the church or denomination to which the testator may belong. conceals. 2.

 If there is a fideicomisaria.  Thus. Imposes upon the heir the charge of paying a certain income or pension to various persons successively. nullify the institution. The following shall not take effect: (1) Fideicommissary substitutions which are not made in an express manner. one after the other. the limit is 20 years. a certain income or pension. The right of the second heir shall pass to his heirs. (4) Those which leave to a person the whole part of the hereditary property in order that he may apply or invest the same according to secret instructions communicated to him by the testator. the second heir does not have to survive the first heir in order for the substitution to be effective. The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void.  Nullity or ineffectivity of the institution of the first heir – article does not provide for a case where it is the institution of the first heir that is void or ineffective. ART.  ART. by that fact alone. either by giving them this name. the person intended to be benefited is the one to whom the secret instructions refer. beyond the limit fixed in article 863. (3) Those which impose upon the heir the charge of paying to various persons successively. If he fives the usufruct to various persons. 869. But there is no prohibition on simultaneous beneficiaries. and to another the usufruct. the prohibition is valid only for 20 years. shall be valid. Leave to a person the whole part of the hereditary property in order that he may apply or invest the same according to secret instructions communicated to him by the testator.  The ostensible heir here is in reality only a dummy. What is the rule in such a case? Provisions that shall NOT TAKE EFFECT 1. The purpose of such a surreptitious disposition is to circumvent some prohibition or disqualification  This paragraph makes the ENTIRE PROVISION VOID. Perpetual prohibition to alienate. A provision whereby the testator leaves to a person the whole or part of the inheritance. not simultaneously.  If the testator institutes successive usufructuaries. Fideicommissary substitutions which are not made in an express manner  Lack of this element does not. Julie Domingo. ART. beyond the limit prescribed in article 863 ART. one after the other. Cecille Natividad. Lea Mateo. (2) Provisions which contain a perpetual prohibition to alienate.  If there is no fideicomisaria. the provisions of Article 863 shall apply. CJ Tan. Mars Rongo. Supposing the ostensible heir conceals or destroys the secret instructions and claims as heir under the testamentary provision as worded? In connection with Art863 on element of fideicommissary that both heirs must be living and disqualified to succeed at the time of the testator’s death. and even a temporary one. or imposing upon the fiduciary the absolute obligation to deliver the property to a second heir. there can only be two usufructuaries. and even a temporary one. the institution of him is one subject to a suspensive term.  1ST SEM 2006-2007  There can only be 2 beneficiaries of the pension. The second heir’s own heirs simply take his place by succeeding to the vested right already possessed by the second heir.SUCCESSION REVIEWER fiduciary. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  66 . 868.  If the testator imposes a longer period than 20 years. beyond the limit fixed in article 863.  If the fideicommissary substitution is void or ineffective. but successively. The nullity of the fideicommissary substitution does not prejudice the validity of the institution of the heirs first designated. 2. all the requisites of Art863 must be present. the limit is the first heir’s lifetime. beyond the limit prescribed in article 863. 3. and the second must be one degree from the first. and as to the two of them. 4. the institution of the first heir simply becomes pure and unqualified. the fideicommissary clause shall simply be considered as not written. 867.  The second heir’s right vests upon the testator’s death. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. It only means that the institution is not a fideicomisaria. because in reality. 870. The problem is the difficulty of establishing the fact of circumvention. conformably with Art777 and Art878 since as far as the second heir is concerned.

RECIPROCAL  If the heirs in a will are given unequal shares. the substitute shall. Cases for Articles 857-870 Ramirez v. the vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda in relation to the usufructs are void. . .A vulgar substitution of heirs is valid even if the heir designated survives the testator. . Mars Rongo. albeit a real right. WON. And she submitted an inventory of the estate. With respect to the usufruct in favor of Wanda. With respect to the vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda in relation to the usufructs. . 1/3 of the free portion is charged with the widow’s usufruct and the remaining 2/3 with a usufruct in favor of Wanda. default of one but not all of the original heirs does not lead to substitution but the share left vacant will accrue to the surviving original coheir or co-heirs.In fact.  The second sentence of Art861 provides for Proportionate Accrual. . the appellants were correct in their claim that is void.Dying before the testator is not the only case for vulgar substitution for it also includes refusal or incapacity to accept the inheritance as provided in Art. FIDEICOMMISSARY  Elements of a Fideicommissary 1) A 1st heir who takes the property upon the testator’s death 2) A 2nd heir who takes the property subsequently from the fiduciary 3) The 2nd heir must be 1 degree from the first heir 4) Dual obligation imposed upon the 1st heir to: a. this time limitation will not apply.No. and b. . in addition to his given share. renunciation or incapacity. (b) the fideicommissary substitutions are also invalid because 1st heirs not related to second heirs within the 1st degree. In this case. WON. most commentators use the terms interchangeably. 859. heir o Compendious – 1 sub for 2 or more orig. CJ Tan.No. Cecille Natividad. Julie Domingo. (c) that the grant of the usufruct to Wanda violates the constitution.His will was admitted by the CFI and Maria Luisa Palacios was appointed administratrix of the estate.  Fideicommissary substitution should be expressly provided for in the will .Hence the vulgar substitution is valid. there is no absolute duty imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufruct to the substitutes as required by Arts. 3. the testator contradicts the establishment of a fideicommissary substitution when he permits the proper subject of the usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement of the usufructuaries and naked owners. . . Although. Art863 applies. the lower court approved the project of partition. The property of the deceased shall be divided to two parts. BRIEF or COMPENDIOUS  Distinctions o Brief – 2 or more substitutes for 1 orig. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  67 . no title vests upon Wanda. . inasmuch as vulgar substitution can take place also by refusal or incapacity to inherit of the first heir. the lifetime of the first heir. Wanda survived the testator or stated differently because she did not predecease the testator.No.The substitutes are not related to Wanda.Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition saying that: (a) provisions for vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda with respect to the usufructs are invalid because the first heirs survived the testator. To transmit it after the lapse of the period to the fideicommissary heir. . . the other part or free portion shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez. and they are reciprocal substitutes of each other. the heir originally instituted. and they are reciprocally substituted. which allows as a period. KINDS OF SUBSTITUTIONS 1. Lea Mateo. Ramirez Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.Notwithstanding their objections.The administratrix then submitted a project of partition.SUCCESSION REVIEWER  1ST SEM 2006-2007 If there is a fideicommissary substitution. the grant of the usufruct to Wanda is void under the constitution. Preserve the property. (look at the case for the inventory) . . the substitution should not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted. 11. . 1964 with his only his widow as compulsory heir.Jose Eugenio Ramirez. this does not avoid the substitution. . With respect to the fideicommissary. the substitutes will acquire the share of the original heir in the same proportion as they were given in the testamentary disposition.  If 1 is substituted for 2 or more original heirs. If there are more than 1 heir instituted. 5) Both heirs must be living and disqualified to succeed at the time of the testator’s death. acquire the share of the heir who he is substituting for due to predecease. . the fideicommissary substitutions are valid. o However. a Filipino national. SIMPLE or COMMON  Causes of Simple Substitution 1) Predecease of the first heir 2) Renunciation of the first heir 3) Incapacity of the first heir 2. The Civil Code specifically provides that to be valid. Hence this appeal.Furthermore.The constitutional provision which allows aliens to acquire lands by succession does not apply to testamentary succession. WON. does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to land in favor of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution. 4.A fideicommissary substitution is void if first heir is not related in the 1st degree to the 2nd heir. Furthermore. died in Spain on Dec. 865 and 867. Rather.One part shall go to the widow as part of her legitime. the said substitutions are not void.

while Charles could completely and absolutely dispose of her estate during his lifetime. a priest of the Roman Catholic Church. at the designated time. 2.The proviso must be respected and be given effect until the death or until the refusal to act as such of the instituted usufructuary/administrator.In said Last Will and Testament. Vicente Aranas as a usufructuary has the right to enjoy the property of his uncle with all the benefits which result from the normal enjoyment (or exploitation) of another's property." Arañas v. either the same thing. .No. . and provided PCIB v.An alien may be bestowed usufructuary rights over a parcel of land in the Philippines. which in turn was replaced by PCIB pursuant to an agreement of all the heirs of Hodges. provided such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted. Hodges are not substitutes for Charles because. both real and personal. the property can be properly disposed of. or in special cases its equivalent. devise and bequeath all of the rest. Aranas’ brothers) after deducting the expenses for the administration and the other 1/2 of the produce to be given to the Catholic Church for the eternal repose of the testator's soul. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.Therefore. and designated him also as recipient of 1/2 of the produce of the properties (those parcels of land to be given to Fr. 870. the usufruct of which has been given to Vicente prohibited from disposing of said naked ownership without prejudice of course to Vicente's continuing usufruct. incapacity of the latter to accept the inheritance as required by art.To void the designation of Vicente as usufructuary and/or administrator is to defeat the desire and the dying wish of the testator to reward him for his faithful and unselfish services rendered during the time when said testator was seriously ill or bed-ridden. all his rights to what may remain upon his death would then go his brothers and sisters-in-law. Arañas . 1ST SEM 2006-2007 further.YES.The will contained a disposition saying “at the death of my said husband. they are not to inherit what Hodges cannot. residue and remainder of my estate. . Whether the disposition in favor of the brothers and sisters is inoperative . Julie Domingo.Fr.Herein Petitioners challenged the validity of the disposition. partially resolutory insofar as Hodges was concerned and correspondingly suspensive with reference to his brothers and sisters-in-law. . when he died Joe Hodges and Fernando Mirasol replaced him. Likewise his designation as administrator of these properties is limited by his refusal and/or death and therefore it does not run counter to Art. Whether there is substitution. 870 of the Civil Code. . .SUCCESSION REVIEWER . There is no vulgar substitution because there is not provision in the will for either: 1.The Higdons. however. contends that there was no substitution in this case and that the testamentary disposition in favor of the brothers and sisters are inoperative and invalid. . would no or may not inherit. 1956. which provides: “The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void. with the obligation to return. subject to the limitations provided in Art. wherever situation to be equally dived among my brothers and sisters. Escolin . .None. . . they are also heirs instituted simultaneously with Charles. . but would inherit what he would not dispose of from his inheritance. then there is no fideicomisaria.This right of Vicente to enjoy the fruits of the properties is temporary and therefore not perpetual as there is a limitation namely his death or his refusal. 863 of the Civil Code concerning a fideicommissary substitution. relying on Art. refusal or 3. composed of brothers and sisters of Linnie now claims their share to her estate.Hence. . shall be valid and shall take effect.Be it noted that Vicente Aranas is not prohibited to dispose of the fruits and other benefits arising from the usufruct. 1953. 1946 his Last Will and Testament which was admitted to probate on August 31. Charles Newton Hodges.Article 863: "A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part of the inheritance. . died on January 19. CJ Tan. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  68 .Linnie Jane Hodges died in Iloilo leaving a will wherein she bequeathed all of her propertied to her husband. predecease of the testator by the designated heir.” Is the disposition in favor of Vicente valid? . share and share alike. under her will. .There is neither a fideicommissary substitution because no obligation is imposed thereby upon Charles to preserve the estate or any part thereof for anyone else. Mars Rongo. Neither are the naked owners (the other heirs) of the properties. subject to certain conditions. after which period. a faithful and serviceable nephew.Vicente’s right to enjoy the fru its of the property was to end upon his death or his refusal to act as administrator. Teodoro Aranas. Teodoro Aranas directed that certain properties acquired by him during his lifetime be given to his brothers Aniceto and Carmelo.If no obligation is imposed upon the first heir to preserve the property and to transmit it to the second heir. Fr. . . Cecille Natividad.He likewise appointed as special administration of the remainder of the estate Vicente Aranas. . The brothers and sisters of Mrs. 859. Lea Mateo. I give.Charles was appointed executor. that the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are living at the time of the death of the testator. .PCIB. He had executed on June 6.

Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good customs shall be considered as not imposed and shall in no manner prejudice the heir. General provisions – Arts 871 and 872 2.   The impossible or illegal condition is simply considered as not written. and it shall be regulated by the rules of the preceding Section. independent of the testator’s will. – annuls the obligation  Art. is demandable at once. Obligations with a resolutory period take effect at once. 2. Conditional dispositions 2. condition or substitution whatsoever upon the legitimes prescribed in this Code. those contrary to good customs or public policy and those prohibited by law shall annul the obligation which depends upon them. Illegal or impossible conditions in simple and remuneratory donations shall be considered as not imposed. on the contrary it becomes PURE. Art. the obligation is conditional.1 SECTION 4 – CONDITIONAL TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS AND TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS WITH A TERM GENERAL PROVISIONS ART. shall be demandable only when that day comes. On the other hand. 877. shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention.  This article is echoed by Art904 par2. Obligations for whose fulfillment a day certain has been fixed. That which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give security for compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he or they may receive. Mars Rongo. If he has the right to dispose of his estate mortis causa. even if the testator should otherwise provide. The testamentary disposition itself is not annulled. Dispositions with a term 3. 880. without prejudice to the effects of the happening of the event. 1179. Every obligation which contains a resolutory condition shall also be demandable. Should he do so. together with its fruits and interests. or for a certain purpose or cause. DISPOSITION WITH CONDITIONS – MAY BE BOTH RESOLUTORY OR SUSPENSIVE. the same shall be considered as not imposed. Julie Domingo.      Proper Order of Provisions in this Section Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Lea Mateo. The institution of an heir may be made conditionally. If the obligation is divisible. 881 and 884 3. CJ Tan. but terminate upon arrival of the day certain. 874. If the uncertainty consists in whether the day will come or not. 873. Modes – Arts 882 and 883 par. The testator cannot impose any charge.  GENERAL PROVISIONS  Art871 – The right of the testator to impose conditions.  TERM – defined obliquely in Art1173 pars 1 & 3 Art. Reason for difference in rule  Testamentary dispositions and donations are both gratuitous and spring from the grantor’s liberality. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  69 . 882.   The legitime passes by strict operation of law. Cecille Natividad. 1183. that part thereof which is not affected by the impossible or unlawful condition shall be valid. A day certain is understood to be that which must necessarily come. if he or they should disregard this obligation. the rule in Obligations is different. although it may not be known when. then he has the right to make the disposition subject to a condition. 3 KINDS OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS 1. ART. 1193. Dispositions with a mode [modal dispositions] Inaccuracies in Section heading and wording of this article  Incomplete Section Heading – should include4 modal dispositions  Incomplete wording of Article – does not include dispositions with a term Definitions  CONDITION – defined obliquely in Art1179 par1. term or mode. 876. 875. Every obligation whose performance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event. The condition not to do an impossible thing shall be considered as not having been agreed upon. The statement of the object of the institution. 879. 883 par. Impossible conditions. Terms – Arts 878 and 885 4. Conditions – Arts 873. Art. 872. or the application of the property left by the testator.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 1. or upon a past event unknown to the parties. The rule on Donations is the same. 871. 727. Th is article is a logical consequence of that principle. – considered as not imposed  Art. or the charge imposed by him. terms or modes springs from testamentary freedom. ART. MODE – defined obliquely in Art882.

par. Condition to contract marriage – This article does not prohibit the imposition of a condition to marry. This rule shall not apply when the condition. CJ Tan. Julie Domingo.  ART. The captatoria converts testamentary grants into contractual transactions   Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. cannot be fulfilled again.  These articles govern POTESTATIVE. it shall be deemed as complied with. Any disposition made upon the condition that the heir shall make some provision in favor of the latter of the testator or of any other person shall be void. unless he has provided otherwise. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 2. together with its fruits and interests. ART. It gives the testator the power to dispose mortis causa not only of his property but also of his heir’s.   What is declared void – it is not merely the condition that is declared void but the testamentary disposition itself which contains the condition. a means of terminating the testamentary benefaction should the heir contract marriage. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  70 . Should it have existed or should it have been fulfilled at the time the will was executed and the testator was unaware thereof. without the fault of the heir. 874. Neither does this article declare void a relative prohibition. are void. nd     ART. If the potestative condition imposed upon the heir is negative or consists in not doing or not giving something. CASUAL AND MIXED CONDITIONS A. a Caución Muciana is required. as in Art879. If imposed by anyone else – considered as not written The 2 paragraph of the article may provide the testator. RULES ON POTESTATIVE. Mixed Condition – one that depends partly on the will of the heir/devisee/legatee and partly either on the will of a third person or chance. whether to heirs or legatees. 879. The elimination of that condition for being impossible or illegal results in a failure of cause. 1. ART. Necessity of Caución Muciana – since this condition. It deprives the heir of testamentary freedom 3. either with reference to a particular person or not. POTESTATIVE  Positive – to do something Scriptura Captatoria – Legacy-hunting dispositions. and that in case of contravention he will return whatever he may have received. An absolute condition not to contract a first or subsequent marriage shall be considered as not written unless such condition has been imposed on the widow or widower by the deceased spouse or by the latter’s ascendants or descendants. 876. Mars Rongo. 877. ART. is NEGATIVE in nature. it shall be sufficient if it happen or be fulfilled at any time before or after the death of the testator. If he had knowledge thereof. the condition that is imposed becomes an integral part of the causa of the obligation. Reasons for the Prohibition 1. Any purely potestative condition imposed upon an heir must be fulfilled by him a soon as he learns of the testator’s death. If imposed by the deceased spouse or by his/her ascendants or descendants – valid 2. it should not be so worded as to constitute a prohibition forbidden in the first paragraph. 2. 2. Lea Mateo. Potestative Conditions – one that depends solely on the will of the heir/devisee/legatee. the right of usufruct. in obligations which are onerous. If the person interested in the condition should prevent its fulfillment.  Conditions prohibiting marriage  If a first marriage is prohibited – condition always considered as not imposed  If subsequent marriage is prohibited 1. ART. already complied with. the condition shall be considered fulfilled only when it is of such a nature that it can no longer exist or be complied with again. he shall comply by giving a security that he will not do or give that which has been prohibited by the testator. If the condition is casual or mixed.SUCCESSION REVIEWER The imposition of a condition does not displace liberality as the basis of the grant. On the other hand. or an allowance or some personal prestation may be devised or bequeathed to any person for the time during which he or she should remain unmarried or in widowhood. The wording of the disposition will be crucial. 875. Casual Condition – one that depends on the will of a third person or on chance 3. Nevertheless. even a first one. 883. assuming it is validly imposed. if he so desires. CASUAL and MIXED conditions. Cecille Natividad. the condition shall be deemed to have been complied with.

as the case may be.Art883 par2 a) If casual – not applicable b) If mixed  If dependent partly on chance – not applicable  If dependent partly on will of a third party rd  If interested 3 party – applicable  If not an interested party – not applicable 1ST SEM 2006-2007 The same shall be done if the heir does not give the security required in the preceding article. 884. as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired. shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition. in case of contravention. CASUAL or MIXED  GR – may be fulfilled at any time. Lea Mateo. unless the testator provides otherwise. Art. as well as the manner of administration and the rights and obligations of the administrator shall be governed by the Rules of Court. Mars Rongo. CJ Tan. Not applicable to institutions with a TERM – despite the wording of the article. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  71 . 881. Otherwise. and interests.  Between the time of the testator’s death and the time of the fulfillment of the suspensive condition or of the certainty of its non-occurrence – property is to be placed under administration. Procedural rules governing administrator – Rules 77-90 RoC. 1.  Suppletorily governing conditional institutions Articles 1179 and 1192 on conditional obligations. If it becomes certain that condition will not happen – property will be turned over to a secondary heir [if there is one] or to the intestate heirs.  Negative – not to do something a) Heir must give security to guarantee [caucion muciana] the return of the value of the property. Art. Cecille Natividad. appointment of nd    ART. which are governed by Art885 par 2. Julie Domingo. subject to the provisions of Article 1197. is demandable at once. are ART. without prejudice to the effects of the happening of the event. Every obligation which contains a resolutory condition shall also be demandable. The appointment of the administrator of the estate mentioned in the preceding article. it should not be applied to institutions with a term. or the application of the property left by the testator.SUCCESSION REVIEWER a) GR – must be fulfilled as soon as the heir learns of the testator’s death b) E – if the condition was already complied with at the time the heir learns of the testator’s death. Conditions imposed by the testator upon the heirs shall be governed by the rules established for conditional obligations in all matters not provided for by this Section. c) Constructive compliance – Art883 par2 – condition is deemed fulfilled.The designation of the day or the time when the effects of the institution of an heir shall commence  Art882 – When there is a statement of the object of the institution. 2 paragraph – the property shall be in the executor’s or administrator’s c ustody until the heir furnishes the caucion muciana. Every obligation whose performance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event. 1180. there will be an irreconcilable conflict with that article. If the heir be instituted under a suspensive condition or term the estate shall be placed under administration until the condition is fulfilled. the property should be given to the legal heirs. or upon a past event unknown to the parties. 1181. In conditional obligations. or until the arrival of the term.  QUALIFICATIONS – if already fulfilled at the time of the execution of the will a) If testator UNAWARE of fulfillment – deemed fulfilled b) If testator was AWARE of fulfillment  Can no longer be fulfilled again – deemed fulfilled  Can be fulfilled again – must be fulfilled again  Constructive Compliance . which mandates that before the arrival of the term. or the charge imposed by him. before or after the testator’s death. ART. the obligation shall be deemed to be one with a period. fruits. 880. 1179. Art. or until it becomes certain that it cannot be fulfilled. and the condition is of such a nature that it cannot be fulfilled again. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. b) 3 Instances when a Caucion Muciana is Required  Art879 – if the potestative conditions is negative  Art885 par2 . When the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so. the acquisition of rights. If condition happens – the property will be turned over to the instituted heir 2. B.

he shall be obliged to pay damages. the conditional obligation shall be void. Art. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation. the legal heir shall be considered as called to the succession until the arrival of the period or its expiration. Cecille Natividad. (2) If the thing is lost through the fault of the debtor. Therefore. loss or deterioration of the thing during the pendency of the condition: (1) If the thing is lost without the fault of the debtor. The condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment. In case of the loss. If term is Suspensive – before the arrival of the term. (1122) Art. before the fulfillment of the condition. he shall have no other right than that granted to the usufructuary. the obligation shall take effect in conformity with the provisions of this Code. In both cases. Art. (4) If it deteriorates through the fault of the debtor.  If term is Resolutory – before the arrival of the term. the following rules shall be observed in case of the improvement. the impairment is to be borne by the creditor. should the heir die before the arrival of the suspensive term. When the conditions have been imposed with the intention of suspending the efficacy of an obligation to give. if the latter should become impossible. when the obligation imposes reciprocal prestations upon the parties. or by time. bring the appropriate actions for the preservation of his right. in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones. with respect to the debtor. As for the obligations to do and not to do. If it cannot be determined which of the parties first violated the contract. devise or legacy should be conditional. 1188. When the fulfillment of the condition depends upon the sole will of the debtor.  ART. Nevertheless. A disposition with a suspensive term does not prevent the instituted heir from acquiring his rights and transmitting them to his heirs even before the arrival of the term. Art. 1186. 1185. A caucion muciana has to be posted by them. are laid down in the preceding article shall be applied to the party who is bound to return.  The rule in conditional institutions – what is the rule if the instituted heir dies before the happening of the condition? The section is silent on this matter. and each shall bear his own damages. in accordance with Articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law. No caucion muciana is required. “if the institution. If it depends upon chance or upon the will of a third person. the retroactive effect of the condition that has been complied with. The condition that some event will not happen at a determinate time shall render the obligation effective from the moment the time indicated has elapsed. the debtor shall appropriate the fruits and interests received. the time of the compliance with the condition shall also be considered. shall return to each other what they have received. (6) If it is improved at the expense of the debtor.  The rule in this article is similar to Art866 in fideicommissary substitutions. The effects of a conditional obligation to give. Art. If no time has been fixed. conformably with Art777. the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 1187 shall be observed as regards the effect of the extinguishment of the obligation. In case both parties have committed a breach of the obligation. 1182. even after he has chosen fulfillment. This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing. Art. 1187. the provisions which. the parties. those contrary to good customs or public policy and those prohibited by law shall annul the obligation which depends upon them. he merely transmits his right to his own heirs who can demand the property when the term arrives. Lea Mateo. When the heir’s right vests – in dispositions with a term. that part thereof which is not affected by the impossible or unlawful condition shall be valid. Art. The debtor may recover what during the same time he has paid by mistake in case of a suspensive condition. or disappears in such a way that its existence is unknown or it cannot be recovered. Julie Domingo. shall retroact to the day of the constitution of the obligation. Art. 1183. If the obligation is unilateral. with indemnity for damages in either case. with the payment of damages in either case. In obligations to do and not to do. the liability of the first infractor shall be equitably tempered by the courts. Mars Rongo. with the intervention of the instituted heir. (3) When the thing deteriorates without the fault of the debtor. unless from the nature and circumstances of the obligation it should be inferred that the intention of the person constituting the same was different. The condition not to do an impossible thing shall be considered as not having been agreed upon. the condition shall be deemed fulfilled at such time as may have probably been contemplated.  Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  The import is that in conditional institutions. the creditor may choose between the rescission of the obligation and its fulfillment. 1184. the heir should be Living and Qualified to succeed BOTH at the time of the testator’s death and at the time of the happening of the condition. When the conditions have for their purpose the extinguishment of an obligation to give. 1192. He may also seek rescission. The court shall decree the rescission claimed. The condition that some event happen at a determinate time shall extinguish the obligation as soon as the time expires or if it has become indubitable that the event will not take place. 1190. But in the first case he shall not enter into possession of the property until after having given sufficient security. unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period. the heir’s right vests upon the testator’s death. once the condition has been fulfilled. CJ Tan. 1189. par3. If the obligation is divisible. Art. the obligation shall be extinguished. the courts shall determine. But under Art1034. or goes out of commerce. 878. bearing in mind the nature of the obligation. or if it has become evident that the event cannot occur. The designation of the day or the time when the effects of the institution of an heir shall commence or cease shall be valid. (5) If the thing is improved by its nature. DISPOSITION WITH TERMS ART. the property should be delivered to the intestate heirs. the fruits and interests during the pendency of the condition shall be deemed to have been mutually compensated. 1191. Art. the same shall be deemed extinguished. deterioration or improvement of the thing. in each case. it is understood that the thing is lost when it perishes.SUCCESSION REVIEWER Art. 885. upon the fulfillment of said conditions. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  72 . The creditor may. This is the nd 2 instance where a caucion muciana is required to be posted. the improvement shall inure to the benefit of the creditor. the property should be delivered to the instituted heir. Impossible conditions.

. the property shall be seized and turned over to Aleja’s near descendants. . . lessee. CJ Tan.The RTC dismissed the case. . . the 2nd heir takes the inheritance in default of the first heir by reason of incapacity. it is similar to a resolutory condition.  The 1 paragraph defines a mode obliquely. Mars Rongo. In case of doubt. the condition must happen or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed the testator.Hence. 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. this appeal. What the codicil provides is that should Jorge or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed.The manner of institution of Jorge is evidently modal in nature because it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without.A “mode” imposes an obligation upon the heir or legatee but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the succession. modes could very well have been absorbed by the concept of resolutory conditions.  A mode must be clearly imposed as an obligation in order to be considered as one. the testator states: o the object of the institution. . since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality. and the mode obligates but does not suspend. .For alleged violations of the codicil. o That if ownership of the property is transmitted to Jorge. o the purpose or application of the property left by the testator. shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention. .It is clear.) . o That in case of Jorge’s death. CA set aside the decision of RTC and ordered that the heirs of Jorge reconvey title over the lot with its fruits and interests. or the application of the property left by the testator. That which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give security for compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he or they may receive.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 . the property shall be turned over to the Aleja’s near descendants. predecease or renunciation. Cecille Natividad. Dr. that should the obligation be not complied with. (Petitioner maintains that Article 882 does not apply as there was no modal institution and the testatrix intended a mere simple substation – Jorge was to be substituted by Aleja’s near descendants should there be noncompliance with the obligation to deliver the sugar to Maria.The SC affirmed the decision of the CA. appended to her last will and testament. affecting the efficacy of such institution. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  73 . .In a modal institution. . mortgagee shall have also the obligation to deliver yearly 100 piculs of sugar to Maria.On appeal.In a conditional testamentary disposition. not a near descendant of Aleja. Jorge Rabanilla was instituted as a devisee of parcel of land.Also. Maria filed a complaint against Jorge’s heirs and asked for the property to be reconveyed to the near descendants of Aleja on that ground that: o the lot was mortgaged to PNB and Republic Planters Bank. the property shall be inherited by the children and spouse. In simple substitutions. together with its fruits and interests. without suspending the effectivity of the institution [which a condition does].In the codicil of Aleja Belleza.YES. Whether Article 882 applies in this case. the institution should be considered as modal and not condition. incapacity or renunciation. In fact. Mere preferences or wishes expressed by the testator are not modes. The statement of the object of the institution.  A mode functions similarly to a resolutory condition. A mode is an obligation imposed upon the heir. .Articles 882 and 883 of the NCC. and o the banks failed to comply with the obligation to deliver sugar to Maria. lease. lessee or the mortgagee fails to respect Aleja’s command. The SC held that the CA erred in not ruling that the institution of Jorge under the codicil is in the nature of a modal institution. or the charge imposed by him.The codicil does not imply substitution. however. CA . Aleja did not make Jorge’s inheritance and the effectivity of his institution as a devisee dependent upon on the performace of the said obligation. . In this case. his hears shall be imposed the same obligation. o the heirs failed to deliver the sugar. the provisions of the codicil do not provide that should Jorge default due to predecease. DISPOSITION WITH MODES ART.In this case.The institution of an heir in the manner prescribed in Article 882 is what is known in the law of succession as an institucion sub modo or modal institution. the buyer. and o That should the buyer.The said codicil contained the following provisions: o That should Jorge die ahead of the testator. To some extent. though. . o That if the heir shall later sell. The condition suspends but does not obligate. or o the charge imposed by the testator upon the heir. if he or they should disregard this obligation. the testatrix’s near descendants would substitute him. Julie Domingo. . Maria shall immediately seize the lot and turn it over to Al eja’s near descendants and the latter shall have the same obligation of delivering 100 piculs of sugar to Maria. Lea Mateo. mortgage the said lot. Caucion Muciana – should be posted by the instituted rd heir [3 instance of caucion muciana] st  CASE Rabadilla v. 882. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. he shall have the obligation until he dies to give to Maria Belleza 75 piculs of export sugar and 25 piculs of domestic sugar until the said Maria dies. .

albeit a very variable share. . and any legatee who fails to comply with this would be prevented from receiving his legacy. nothing is lost from the estate in an onerous disposition. but on the part of the testator. Brimo ART. Major changes in the law of legitimes 1. called compulsory heirs. WON Andre Brimo can be validly excluded as a legatee.  The heirs for whom the law reserves a portion are called compulsory heirs. 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.Since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of liberality.  ART. .The remaining clauses of the will are valid despite the nullity of the clause stating that the testator’s testamentary dispositions be governed by Philippine laws. who are free to accept or reject the inheritance. since there is merely an exchange of values. Legitime is that part of the testator's property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are. (Old) Civil Code: Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good morals shall be considered as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever. Jospeh being a Turkish citizen. The surviving spouse’s share is upgraded from a usufructuary interest to full ownership. When without the fault of the heir. The condition imposed by the will of the testator is contrary to law because it ignores the testator’s national law. closely patterned after that of the Spanish Code. The grant of legitimary rights to children classified under the New Civil Code as illegitimate other than natural or spurious. the heirs in whose favor the legitimes are set aside are called compulsory heirs . therefore. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 Case for Arts 871-885 Miciano v.The subject of this case is the partition of the estate of the late Joseph Brimo. SECTION 5 – LEGITIME System of Legitimes – our successional system. . the institution should be considered as modal and not condition. Dispositions by onerous title are not prohibited because in theory. CJ Tan.   . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. 792. . Nature of Legitimes – the legitimes are set aside by mandate of law. 883 par1. Otherwise stated. The compulsion is not on the part of the heirs.  The intention of the testator should always be the guiding norm in determining the sufficiency of the analogous performance.Since the institution of legatees was conditioned upon Joseph’s wish. the appointed judicial administrator. the condition is considered unwritten and the institution of legatees in the will is unconditional and consequently valid and effective even as to Andre.NO. 3.Miciano. . Cecille Natividad. 886. Julie Domingo. such national law of the testator is to govern his testamentary dispositions.Andre Brimo. Mars Rongo. Abolition of the major or betterment in the Spanish Code 2.Andre contends that this was void because the Civil Code states that legal and testamentary successions shall be governed by the national law of the person whose succession is in question.Andre was excluded from as a legatee because of a clause in the will where Joseph wished that his property be distributed in accordance with Philippine laws. In case of doubt. reserves a portion of the net estate of the decedent in favor of certain heirs. Thus. an institution referred to in the preceding article cannot take effect in the exact manner stated by the testator.Art. . one of Joseph’s borthers. it is claimed that Andre is excluded by questioning the validity of applying Philippine laws in the partition of the estate (which was against his brother’s wish). it shall be complied with in a manner most analogous to and in conformity with his wishes. . .  The portion that is left available for testamentary disposition after the legitimes have been covered is the free or disposable portion. or groups of heirs or combination of heirs. even should the testator otherwise provide. either inter vivos or mortis causa. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  74 .  The portion that is so reserved is called the LEGITIME. the testator is prohibited from disposing by gratuitous title. of these legitimes.As such. filed a partition scheme. and further change under the Family Code abolishing the distinction between natural and spurious children and giving all illegitimate children the same legitimary shares.A will cannot be subject of a compromise agreement which would thereby defeat the very purpose of making a will. when according to the Civil Code.   This article gives the statutory definition of legitime. the testator is required to set aside or reserve them. . opposed stating that the partition was not in accordance with Turkish laws. . Lea Mateo. Because the testator is compelled to set aside the legitimes.SUCCESSION REVIEWER .

will exclude grandchildren and so on. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / DESCENDANTS 1. they will share EQUALLY regardless of age.  Question – if the consort dies during the pendency of a petition for declaration of nullity under Art36 or for nullity under Art40 of the FC. should the proceedings be dismissed or should they proceed?  Mere estrangement is not a ground for the disqualification of the surviving spouse as heir. 2. Legitimate Descendants – the GR is the nearer exclude the more remote. The rule – absolute in the ascending line – is that the nearer exclude the more remote. Illegitimate Descendants – Same rule applies as in the legitimate descending line. 1988. legitimate parents and ascendants. Secondary compulsory heirs – legitimate parents and / or ascendants . as distinguished from the legitimate child. Thus. Mars Rongo. Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. The following are compulsory heirs: 1) Legitimate children and descendants. Concurring compulsory heirs – surviving spouse. It should be noted that the illegitimate child can be represented by both legitimate and illegitimate descendants. if death occurred before effectivity of the Family Code on August 3. with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants. shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code. and exclude the secondary heirs. not the spouse of a child who has predeceased the decedent. neither do they exclude one another. Illegitimate Children – Family Code has abolished the distinction between natural and spurious children and gives all of them – indiscriminately called illegitimate children – equal legitimary portions. The qualification to this rule is representation when proper. 2) In default of the foregoing. 887. In all cases of illegitimate children. However. The enumeration is EXCLUSIVE and may be classified as follows: 1. Legitimate Children – specified in Arts164 and 54 of the Family Code. 3) The widow or widower. 3.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 fall under this classification [Art179 FC]. Lea Mateo. If voidable. sex or marriage of origin.  Illegitimate parents – only in default of any kinds of children/descendants. Legitimate Ascendants – Only in default of parents. the old distinctions will apply and the spurious child gets only 4/5 of the share of the natural child. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  75 . illegitimate parents  So called because they receive legitimes only in default of the primary heirs. children. 5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287. except only that illegitimate children / descendants exclude illegitimate parents. Marriage between the decedent and his/her surviving spouse must be either VALID or VOIDABLE.  Effect of Decree of Legal Separation a) On the offending spouse – disqualification b) On the innocent spouse . 3. Legitimated children Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. and natural children by legal fiction.   THE COMPULSORY HEIRS  LEGITIMATE CHILDREN / DESCENDANTS 1. Primary compulsory heirs – legitimate children and / or descendants  So called because they are preferred over.  This article enumerates the compulsory heirs. their filiation must be duly proved. The law does not specify how the legitimate children should share in the legitime. [Art895] 2. 2. who can be ART. the nearer exclude the more remote. there should have been no final decree of annulment at the time of the decedent’s death.nothing  Death of either spouse during pendency of a petition for Legal Separation – Dismissal of the Case. Legitimate Parents 2. if all qualified. Cecille Natividad. with respect to their legitimate children and descendants. 4. without prejudice to representation when proper. The spouse of the decedent. 4) Acknowledged natural children. pursuant to Art777. 2.  Legitimate parents/ascendants – only in default of legitimate children/ descendants. CJ Tan. Julie Domingo. 1 and 2. However. and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. illegitimate children and / or descendants  So called because they succeed as compulsory heirs together with primary or secondary heirs.  LEGITIMATE PARENTS / ASCENDANTS 1. [Arts889-890]  SURVIVING SPOUSE 1. The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned.

Cecille Natividad. The term “legitimate parents” includes.  Art189[3] of the FC provides that the adopted shall remain an intestate heir of his parents and other blood relatives. with the conditions specified in that article 3. Mars Rongo. The term “legitimate child” or “legitimate children” shall. which includes ascendants in whatever degree.  Sec16 of the law provides that “all legal ties between the biological parents and the adoptee shall be severed” but that is unavailing to answer the question because sec16 only has to do with parental authority. The term “legitimate child” or “legitimate children” includes a legally adopted child under Sec18 of RA8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998. Lea Mateo. The illegitimate parents are secondary heirs of a lower category that legitimate parents. 2.  Variations in the Legitimary Portions  The legitimary system of the Philippine Code rests on a double foundation – EXCLUSION and CONCURRENCE. [Art902 and 992] 1ST SEM 2006-2007  ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS 1.      Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. in proper cases. CJ Tan. This General Rule admits only of 3 EXCEPTIONS: 1. because the illegitimate parents are excluded by legitimate and illegitimate children [Art903] whereas legitimate parents are excluded only by legitimate children/ descendants. Unlike the legitimate ascending line. Julie Domingo. Question – Is an adopted child entitled to a legitime from his biological parents or ascendants? Uncertain. the illegitimate ascending line only includes the parents. Art900 par2 – surviving spouse in a marriage in articulo mortis . the adopted child was entitled to a legitime BOTH from his adopter and his biological parents. Art903 – surviving spouse and illegitimate parents. GENERAL RULE – there is a basic amount of ½ that is given to one heir or one group of heirs. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  76 .  Thus.  But now. in proper cases. the law is silent and it neither gives nor denies an adopted child the right to a legitime from his biological parents. legitimate ascendants other than parents. include legitimate descendants other than children. Art894 – surviving spouse and illegitimate children 2. it does not go beyond the parents.SUCCESSION REVIEWER represented only by legitimate descendants.

the widow or widower shall be entitled to onefourth of the hereditary estate. Mars Rongo. If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants. CJ Tan. 1LCSS One Legitimate Child and Surviving Spouse ½ of the estate to the legitimate child ¼ of the estate to the surviving spouse [taken from the free disposable portion of the estate] [Art892 par1] Art. the ½ of the estate shall be divided equally among them. 888. 892. NOTES Adopted Child has the same rights as LC If there is more than 1 legitimate child. In case of a legal separation. In case of a legal separation. Julie Domingo. surviving spouse is the innocent party – he/she gets her legitime [Art63 par4 FC] 2. the widow or widower shall be entitled to onefourth of the hereditary estate. the surviving spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had given cause for the same. the share of those who renounce accrue to the other legitimate children. the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. the surviving spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had given cause for the same. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  77 . the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be taken from the portion that can be freely disposed of by the testator. the grandchildren inherit in their own right and the ½ estate is divided equally among them. subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. The shares of the legitimate children LCSS Legitimate Children and Surviving Spouse ½ of estate to legitimate children Share equal to that of 1 child for the surviving spouse [taken from the free disposable portion of the estate] [Art892par2] LCIC Legitimate Children and Illegitimate Children ½ of estate to the legitimate children ½ of the share of 1 legitimate child to the illegitimate children Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. the nearer descendants exclude the farther. The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. so as long as there are legitimate children. If there are legitimate children and grandchildren. surviving spouse is the offending spouse – he/she is disqualified from inheriting [Art63 par4 FC] If after the final decree of legal separation there was a reconciliation between the parties. If only one legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives. In case total of the shares of all illegitimate children exceed the amount of the estate. If only one legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives. The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half. the grandchildren cannot inherit. If legitimate children PREDECEASE the testator or are INCAPACITATED to inherit. the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. the reciprocal right to succeed is restored because reconciliation sets aside the decree [Art66 par2 FC] Illegitimate child only gets half the share of a legitimate child. Art. 892. In both cases. their shares shall be reduced equally. Lea Mateo. LEGAL SEPARATION between the testator and the surviving spouse If there is a final decree of legal separation 1.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF COMPULSORY HEIRS CODE LC COMBINATION Legitimate Children Alone SHARE ½ of estate divided equally [Art888] CODAL PROVISION Art. the grandchildren get their respective parents’ [the legitimate children] shares by virtue of REPRESENTATION. If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants. In both cases. Cecille Natividad. But if ALL the legitimate children RENOUNCE. But if only a few of the legitimate children RENOUNCE or not all renounce. the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be taken from the portion that can be freely disposed of by the testator.

LPSS Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. 895. shall be equal in every case to four-fifths of the legitime of an acknowledged natural child. subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. The shares of the legitimate children and the surviving spouse cannot be reduced. but leaves legitimate ascendants. Julie Domingo. This fourth shall be taken from the free portion of the estate. Art. The legitime of the illegitimate children shall be taken from the portion of the estate at the free disposal of the testator. illegitimate children and surviving spouse ½ of estate to legitimate children Each illegitimate child will get ½ of the share of one legitimate child A share equal to that of 1 legitimate child for the surviving spouse. The shares of the legitimate children and the surviving spouse cannot be reduced. provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such illegitimate children exceed that free portion. the sharing shall depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity of the Family Code. LCICSS Legitimate children. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  78 . NOTES In case total of the shares of all illegitimate children exceed the amount of the estate. LP Legitimate parents alone There is NO RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION in the Ascending Line. Lea Mateo. 895. 893. and that the legitime of the surviving spouse must first be fully satisfied. nor a natural child by legal fiction. The legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an acknowledged natural. The children or descendants may freely dispose of the other half. Art. the surviving spouse shall have a right to one-fourth of the hereditary estate. If the testator leaves no legitimate descendants. The legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an acknowledged natural. and that the legitime of the surviving spouse must first be fully satisfied. shall be equal in every case to four-fifths of the legitime of an acknowledged natural child. Art. which shall be reduced if necessary [Art895] CODAL PROVISION Art. The legitime of legitimate parents or ascendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estates of their children and descendants. their shares shall be reduced equally. If the one of the legitimate parents PREDECEASE or is INCAPACITATED to inherit. Art. The legitime of the illegitimate children shall be taken from the portion of the estate at the free disposal of the testator. whose share is preferred over those of the illegitimate children which shall be reduced if necessary. their shares shall be reduced equally. nor a natural child by legal fiction. 1ST SEM 2006-2007 CODE 1LCICSS COMBINATION One legitimate child. illegitimate children and surviving spouse SHARE ½ of estate to legitimate children Each illegitimate child will get ½ of the share of a legitimate child ¼ of estate to the surviving spouse. his/her share accrues to the other parent [tama ba?] LPIC Legitimate parents and illegitimate children Legitimate parents and surviving spouse ½ of estate to legitimate parents ¼ of estate to illegitimate children ½ of estate to legitimate parents ¼ of estate to surviving spouse For the illegitimate children or descendants. Illegitimate children who may survive with legitimate parents or ascendants of the deceased shall be entitled to one-fourth of the hereditary estate to be taken from the portion at the free disposal of the testator. [Art895] ½ of estate [Art889] In case total of the shares of all illegitimate children exceed the amount of the estate. CJ Tan. provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such illegitimate children exceed that free portion.SUCCESSION REVIEWER [Art176 FC] cannot be reduced. The legitime of each of the acknowledged natural children and each of the natural children by legal fiction shall consist of one-half of the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. 896. Mars Rongo. 889. whose share is preferred over those of the illegitimate children. Cecille Natividad. The legitime of each of the acknowledged natural children and each of the natural children by legal fiction shall consist of one-half of the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants.

is one-half of the hereditary estate of such illegitimate child. The other half shall be at the free disposal of the testator. the legitime of the surviving spouse as the sole heir shall be onethird of the hereditary estate. 894. If the marriage between the surviving spouse and the testator was solemnized in articulo mortis. and the testator died within three months from the time of the marriage. If the only survivor is the widow or widower. the sharing shall depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity of the Family Code. CJ Tan. when such child leaves neither legitimate descendants. 903. If only the widow or widower survives with parents of the illegitimate child. 900. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants and with illegitimate children. Art. Mars Rongo. when such child leaves neither legitimate descendants. The testator may freely dispose of the remaining oneeighth of the estate. 903.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 CODE LPICSS COMBINATION Legitimate parents illegitimate children and surviving spouse SHARE ½ of estate to the legitimate parents ¼ of estate to the illegitimate children 1/8 of estate to the surviving spouse SS Surviving spouse alone ½ of the estate or 1/3 if the marriage. nor illegitimate children. she or he shall be entitled to one-half of the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse. the sharing shall depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity of the Family Code. 899. and the testator may freely dispose of the other half. nor a surviving spouse. Julie Domingo. When the testator dies leaving illegitimate children and no other compulsory heirs. the sharing shall depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity of the Family Code. and the illegitimate children shall be entitled to one-fourth of the estate which shall be taken also from the disposable portion. 901. Art. nor a surviving spouse. the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-third of the hereditary estate of the deceased and the illegitimate children to another third. For the illegitimate children or descendants. the parents are not entitled to any legitime whatsoever. Lea Mateo. and that of the surviving spouse also one-fourth of the estate. Cecille Natividad. the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be that specified in the preceding paragraph. The remaining third shall be at the free disposal of the testator. The legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate child. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  79 . If the testator leaves illegitimate children. If only legitimate or illegitimate children are left. falls under Art900 par 2 [Art900par1] SSIC Surviving spouse and illegitimate children SSIP Surviving spouse and illegitimate parents 1/3 of estate to surviving spouse 1/3 of estate to illegitimate children ¼ of estate to surviving spouse ¼ of estate to illegitimate parents [Art903] CODAL PROVISION Art. IP Illegitimate parents alone ½ of estate [Art903] Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. In the latter case. Art. If only the widow or widower survives with parents of the illegitimate child. such illegitimate children shall have a right to one-half of the hereditary estate of the deceased. such surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-eighth of the hereditary estate of the deceased which must be taken from the free portion. Art. the parents are not entitled to any legitime whatsoever. and that of the surviving spouse also one-fourth of the estate. Art. NOTES For the illegitimate children or descendants. IC Illegitimate children alone ½ of estate [Art901] For the illegitimate children or descendants. The legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate child. the legitime of the parents is one-fourth of the hereditary estate of the child. If only legitimate or illegitimate children are left. the legitime of the parents is one-fourth of the hereditary estate of the child. except when they have been living as husband and wife for more than five years. is one-half of the hereditary estate of such illegitimate child. being in articulo mortis. nor illegitimate children.

Instead.Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse. thus. . . . Consolacion filed an action for the recovery of certain parcels of land and for damages against Hipolito Paraguya.Soon after reaching the age of majority. . CJ Tan.Trinidad Motilde had a love affair with a priest. the funeral expenses and the damages caused to the tricycle but instead the petitioners paid to the estranged wife. .When Trinidad was almost four months and in order to conceal the affair.During the trial. . Lumain. Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse. De Aparicio v.It is clear under Article 887 that a surviving spouse and the legitimate children are the compulsory heirs of a decedent.Finally. (Art. .Petitioner daughter-in-law now seeks reconsideration.2.Paraguya claims ownership over the second parcel of land by virtue of a Pacto de retro sale executed by Roman Lumain and the former.3.SC held that the decision is final because: . . . he contended that the acknowledgement by Fr. the petitioners correctly paid Alicia and her son.The Court recognized that payment is one of the recognized modes in extinguishing obligations. Lumain.Legitimate ascendants succeed only in default of legitimate descendants whereas a spouse is a concurring heir and succeeds together with all classes of heirs.500 and in consideration for what she received. 887 refers to the estate of the deceased spouse in which case the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir. an extra-judicial settlement was entered into between Nacario’s spouse Alicia Baracena and the petitioners and the bus’ insurer (Philippine First Insurance Company).1. who is the petitioner herein. Lea Mateo.Motilde claims that she has inherited these lands from her biological father. Paraguya also contended that Motilde had no right over the properties of Fr.Above all this. . The widow is considered a third person as regards the estate of the parent-in-law. . .The tricycle being driven by Bienvenido Nacario met an accident with a bus. driven by Edgar Bitancor and owned and operated by Jose Baritua. CA . who are the successors-in-interest of Nacario.The CFI ruled in favor of Baritua and the driver but the CA reversed the decision upon appeal. to effect extinguishment. .The trial court awarded ¼ each to the deceased husband. the parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without any legitimate descendants.Paraguya also claimed another portion of the lands in question. The right of the widow’s husband was extinguished at the time of his death. . . Whether or Not CA erred in ruling that the petitioners are still liable to pay to the Nacarios’ parents . Lapuz v.2007 . . Eufemio Note – under the Lapuz ruling. . . Petra Rosales died intestate. . two daughters and grandchild.Mrs. . . Fr. . She was survived by her husband and her two children. Rosales . .The accident caused the death of Nacario. which he said he bought from Pelagio Torrefranca. Trinidad decided to marry Anastacio MAmburao. described as portion G. W/N a widow is an intestate heir of a mother-in-law. . Rosales v. the legitimate ascendants are excluded from succession.Paraguya further averred that the exceptions to the rule were not duly proved by Consolacion. Julie Domingo. W/N the decision of the TC is final as to the widow. Paraguya . it does not matter who dies. this petition. . . Her son predeceased her but left a grandchild and his widow. Hence. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  80 . it was found that the subject of the action were the three parcels of land originally owned by the Parents of Fr. . grandchild succeeded from decedent by right of representation and not from his deceased father. whether it be the offending or innocent spouse.Art. The provision in Art. It does not apply to the estate of the parent-in-law . the parents of Nacario filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners promised to indemnify for the death of their son. .According to Art 1240 of the CC.On the other hand.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. Cecille Natividad.When Fr. Felipe Lumain and in the process she conceived.No civil or criminal case was filed against the driver and Baritua.He averred that by virtue of Art 255 of the Family Code. 887 of the Civil Code: Intestate or legal heirs are classified into two groups namely those who inherit by their right and those who inherit by the right of representation. Rosales Rosales v. or to anyone authorized. children born after 180days of the marriage are presumed to a legitimate child.SC held that this ruling is erroneous. . . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Mars Rongo. Petitioner cannot assert the same rights as that of the grandchild because she has no filiation by blood with her mother-in-law. Lumain that Consolacion was his child cannot prevail over the said presumption of legitimacy. Since Nacario and Alicia begot a son.As such. Lumain died.A year after. the widow executed an affidavit of desistance in filing any case against the petitioners. payment must be made either to the person to whom the obligation is made.This is so even if Alicia had been estranged from Bienvenido. the spouse was given P18. he left a last will and testament wherein he acknowledged Consolacion as his daughter and instituted her as the sole and universal heir of all his property rights and interests. to his successors-in-interest.In that settlement. the spouses Roman Lumain and and Filomena Cesare. 981) ST CASE Baritua v.4.SC held that no provision in the Civil Code states that a widow is an intestate heir of a mother-in-law since she does not inherit by right or by right of representation.

he did not only acknowledge Consolacion as his daughter but also instituted her as his sole heir. Lumain. The children or descendants may freely dispose of the other half. If the testator leaves neither father nor mother. It is evident that the period to redeem the property.As Fr. [Art972 par1] 2. . Cecille Natividad. Lumain on the premise that she is the legitimate spouses of the mamburaos. . in which case the grandchildren become the nearest in degree. .This is because. If the ascendants should be of different degrees.   Note – also. . The rule goes on down the tine. 888. . Concolacion as the sole heir is entitled to all the properties of the former. if one of the parents should have died. grandchildren cannot inherit. Lumain died without no compulsory heir.  This rule in the ascending line admits of no qualification. Julie Domingo.2007 The only qualification to the rule that the nearer exclude the more remote in the descending line is representation when proper [Arts970-977] There is no limit to the number of degrees in the descending line that may be called to succeed. 889.Paraguya questions the right of Consolacion over the properties of Fr. 890. The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half. . The legitime reserved for the legitimate parents shall be divided between them equally.SC held in the affirmative. ST  ART.The evidence adduced shows that this Section is outside the land of Roman Lumain. The nearer exclude the more remote.The SC held that it is unnecessary to establish the paternity of Consolacion in this case. should there be more than one. ART. but is survived by ascendants of equal degree of the paternal and maternal lines. regardless of age. The legitime of legitimate parents or ascendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estates of their children and descendants.SUCCESSION REVIEWER Whether or Not Paraguya is entitled to the lot subject to a right of repurchase .Paraguya is also entitled to the land described as section G with all the improvements thereon. the whole shall pass to the survivor. it shall pertain entirely to the ones nearest in degree of either line. has already expired. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. sec or marriage of origin. The counterpart provision in intestacy [Art979 par1 and Art980] is quite explicit on this.  ARTICLES GOVERNING THE PARTICULAR COMBINATIONS ART. 3. .  Equal sharing – the legitimate children share the ½ in equal parts. whether in their own right or by representation. Whether or Not Consolacion is entitled to inherit from Fr. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  81 . Equal division within the line. Lumain . great grandchildren cannot inherit unless all the children and grandchildren renounce. The provision should have been explicit about this.  After the portion corresponding to the line has been assigned. Lea Mateo. there will be equal apportionment between or among the recipients within the line. unless all the children renounce. Mars Rongo.One who has no compulsory heir may dispose by will of all of his estate or any part of it in favor of any person having the capacity to succeed. Descendants other than children – the GR is that the nearer exclude the more remote. The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother.One who has no compulsory heir may dispose by will of all of his estate or any part of it in favor of any person having the capacity to succeed. subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. Hence. there is no right of representation in the ascending line. which is four years from the date of the contract. since the children will bar the. the legitime shall be divided equally between both lines.  Legitimate parents/ascendants as secondary compulsory heirs – the legitimate ascending line succeeds only in default of the legitimate descending line. Whether or Not Paraguya is entitled to the land described as Section G . in the Last Will and Testament of Fr.  1 ST SEM 2006.SC held that Paraguya is entitled to the 2nd parcel of land subject of the Pacto de retro sale. since there is no representation in the ascending line. subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. Division by line. 3 BASIC RULES ON SUCCESSION IN THE ASCENDING LINE 1. The legitime shall then be divided in equal parts between the paternal line and the maternal line.  This rule will apply if there are more than one ascendant in the nearest degree. CJ Tan.

A reappears [surprise!].     1 LEGITIMATE CHILD / SURVIVING SPOUSE – the sharing is ½ for the legitimate child and ¼ for the surviving spouse. One of the effects of the termination as given in Art43[5] is – “The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in BAD FAITH shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession. the very principle underlying the rule is questionable – why should consorts of a terminated marriage. Lea Mateo. Termination of Marriage by REAPPEARANCE of prior Spouse / Decree of ANNULMENT or ABSOLUTE NULLITY of marriage  Arts 41-43 of FC govern a subsequent marriage contracted by a party whose spouse has been      LEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE – The sharing is ½ for the children collectively and for the spouse. the determination of the share of the surviving spouse presents no problem. they continue to be heirs of each other. In both cases.4 and 5 of article 43 and by article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which are void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45. or one declared void ab initio continue to be heirs of each other? The marriage – which forms the basis of the right of succession no longer exists. If both consorts in the second marriage were in GOOD FAITH. But supposing ALL the children predecease or are disinherited or are unworthy to succeed? Since all the grandchildren would then inherit BY REPRESENTATION and therefore in different amounts. ST The operation of the principles of Division By Line and Equal Division within the Line may cause inequality of shares among ascendants of identical degrees. 2.  Determination of surviving spouse’s share 1.SUCCESSION REVIEWER  1 ST SEM 2006. Balane says that prescinding from the practical problem of having 2 husbands [or 2 wives] claiming the right to a legitime. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  82 . If only one legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives. the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants. The reappearance of the prior spouse TERMINATES the second marriage.2007 absent for the specified period and lay down the requisites therefor. the proceedings are TERMINATED and the surviving spouse inherits from the deceased spouse. 892. Mars Rongo. the widow or widower shall be entitled to onefourth of the hereditary estate. because of the provisions of Art50 par1 of the Family Code – “The effects provided for by paragraphs 2. the practical solution will still be to give the spouse the share that each child would have gotten if qualified. CJ Tan. or an annulled one. The problem here will arise should either or both partners in the defective marriage remarry later. Out of nowhere. Julie Domingo. PROBLEM – A and B are married. if there are 2 surviving maternal grandparents but only 1 surviving paternal grandparent – the ½ estate is divided equally between the maternal and paternal lines. What if B dies? Can A and C inherit from him/her? The same problem arises in cases of marriages judicially annulled or declared void ab initio. The implication of Art43 is that – 1. equivalent to that of each of the legitimate children or descendants. B then contracts a second marriage with C. the reciprocal right to succeed is restored because reconciliation sets aside the decree [Art66 par2 FC] DEATH PENDENTE LITE – if either spouse dies during the pendency of the proceedings for legal separation. both in good faith. It will always be equivalent of one child’s share. no matter which spouse died. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.3. 2. surviving spouse is the offending spouse – he/she is disqualified from inheriting [Art63 par4 FC]  If after the final decree of legal separation there was a reconciliation between the parties. Cecille Natividad. If only one of said consorts acted in bad faith. the surviving spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had given cause for the same. the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be taken from the portion that can be freely disposed of by the testator. surviving spouse is the innocent party – he/she gets her legitime [Art63 par4 FC] 2. Under Art43[5] the reciprocal right of succession between A and B as the original spouses remains. if both legitimate parents of testator predecease him and testator has no other legitimate descendants.  For example.   ART. the innocent one will continue by testate and intestate succession. As long as at least 1 of several children inherits in his own right. A disappears and is absent for the required period. but the 2 maternal grandparents must share the ¼ portion of the maternal line [they get 1/8 each] while the sole paternal grandparent gets the whole ¼ portion of the paternal line. and so the marriage between B and C is terminated. In case of a legal separation. If there has been LEGAL SEPARATION between the testator and the surviving spouse  If there is a final decree of legal separation 1.

SHARING PRIOR TO THE FAMILY CODE  If death occurred before the effectivity of the Family Code. and that the legitime of the surviving spouse must first be fully satisfied. Supposing ALL the Children RENOUNCE.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 3. CJ Tan. and ¼ for each illegitimate child. ONE LEGITIMATE CHILD / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE – the sharing is ½ for the illegitimate child. Should the spouse’s share still be computed on the basis of the chi ldren’s share had they accepted? If so.  ART.  For the parents or ascendants. This fourth shall be taken from the free portion of the estate. Sharing among illegitimate children 1. therefore will have to be made in accordance with the following rules –  ART.000  No natural children  Spurious child – 40. Mars Rongo.000  Natural child – 50. If the testator leaves no legitimate descendants. Julie Domingo. [Legitimate parents/ascendants as secondary compulsory heirs – the legitimate ascending line succeeds only in default of the legitimate descending line. LEGITIMATE CHILDREN / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE .the sharing is ½ for the ascendants collectively and ¼ for the surviving spouse. provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such illegitimate children exceed that free portion. The legitime of the illegitimate children shall be taken from the portion of the estate at the free disposal of the testator. inasmuch as the Family Code has abolished the old distinction between natural and illegitimate children other than natural or spurious [Arts 163.000  Spurious child – 40.  LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS / SURVIVING SPOUSE . These sharings are based on Art.] This article has been pro tanto amended by Articles 163. If the decedent died during the effectivity of the FAMILY CODE – the sharing will be equal. the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-third of the hereditary estate of the deceased and the illegitimate children to another third. the grandchildren would inherit PER CAPITA or in their own right and therefore equally. The legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an acknowledged natural.892 of NCC and Art176 of FC. the surviving spouse shall have a right to one-fourth of the hereditary estate. nor a natural child by legal fiction.  The legitime of the spurious child will only be 4/5 that of a natural child. and each natural child gets ½ the share of one legitimate child.000] divided by 5 so 1 Legit child – 100.2007 ST ART. 165 and 178 of FC] 2.  This ratio of 5:4 among natural and spurious children should be observed in all cases under the Civil Code where they concur. this article will govern – consequently. The legitime of each of the acknowledged natural children and each of the natural children by legal fiction shall consist of one-half of the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. shall be equal in every case to four-fifths of the legitime of an acknowledged natural child. 165 and 176 of the Family Code. Lea Mateo.    Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. the possibility exists that the total legitimes will exceed the entire estate. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  83 . the sharing will be in accordance with Articles 889-890.000  Should there be no natural children but only spurious children. should the natural and spurious children concur in the succession.   ILEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE – the sharing is 1/3 for the illegitimate children or descendants collectively and 1/3 for the surviving spouse.000 REDUCTION OF SHARES  Depending on the number of legitimate and illegitimate children. and ½ the share of one legitimate child for each illegitimate child. 895. If the testator leaves illegitimate children. Cecille Natividad.the sharing is ½ for the legitimate children collectively. according to the ratio established in Art895 par2. the old distinctions must be observed. each spurious child will get 4/5 the share of one natural child. but leaves legitimate ascendants. 894. ½ of estate [500.  1 legit child – 100. If the decedent died BEFORE the effectivity of the Family Code. The remaining third shall be at the free disposal of the testator. ¼ for the surviving spouse. then when will the word “or descendants” in the second paragraph of this article ever be operative? 1 ST SEM 2006. 893. Example  5 legitimate children and total estate is 1M. Reductions. a share equal to that of one legitimate child for the surviving spouse. each spurious child will get 2/5 share of one legitimate child.

the share of the surviving spouse shall be the same as that provided in the preceding article. if the following circumstances are present – a) The marriage was in articulo mortis b) The testator died within 3 months from the time of the marriage c) The parties did not cohabit for more than 5 years. she or he shall be entitled to onehalf of the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse. 896. the legitime of the surviving spouse as the sole heir shall be one-third of the hereditary estate. The legitimes of the illegitimate children will be reduced pro rata and without preference among them. Cecille Natividad. ART.   For the parents or ascendants. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or descendants. or natural children by legal fiction. Julie Domingo. the sharing shall depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity of the Family Code. The legitimes of the legitimate children should never be reduced. this article prohibits this. and acknowledged natural children. and the testator died within three months from the time of the marriage. 900.2007 fourth of the estate which shall be taken also from the disposable portion. For the illegitimate children or descendants. If the only survivor is the widow or widower. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  84 . ART. The law does not regard such marriages with eager approval. The testator may freely dispose of the remaining one-eighth of the estate. 897. 899. SURVIVING SPOUSE AS SOLE COMPULSORY HEIR –  General rule – ½ of the estate  Exception – 1/3 of the estate. 1 ST SEM 2006. The legitime of the surviving spouse should never be reduced. and d) The spouse who died was the party in articulo mortis at the time of the marriage. and with illegitimate children other than acknowledged natural. In the latter case.   For the parents or ascendants. and the testator may freely dispose of the other half. such surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-eighth of the hereditary estate of the deceased which must be taken from the free portion. the sharing shall depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity of the Family Code. the sharing will be in accordance with the rules laid down in Articles 889-890. the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be that specified in the preceding paragraph. For the illegitimate children or descendants. Mars Rongo. the sharing will be in accordance with the rules laid down in Articles 889-890.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1. 898. ¼ for the illegitimate children collectively and 1/8 for the surviving spouse. 3. CJ Tan. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants and with illegitimate children. such surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children which must be taken from that part of the estate which the testator can freely dispose of. Lea Mateo.  ART.  ST LEGITIMATE PARENTS / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE – the sharing is ½ for the legitimate parents collectively. or natural children by legal fiction. except when they have been living as husband and wife for more than five years. ART. If the marriage between the surviving spouse and the testator was solemnized in articulo mortis. they are PRIMARY and PREFERRED compulsory heirs 2. If the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or descendants.  The 2 articles are merely reiterations of the rules already laid down in Articles 892 and 895 and need not be explained. and the illegitimate children shall be entitled to oneJen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Illegitimate children who may survive with legitimate parents or ascendants of the deceased shall be entitled to one-fourth of the hereditary estate to be taken from the portion at the free disposal of the testator.  ART.  ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / LEGITIMATE PARENTS the sharing is ½ for the legitimate parents collectively and ¼ for the illegitimate children collectively. NOTE – the last requisite is not explicit in the article but can be derived from the sense and intent of the provision.

CJ Tan. Lea Mateo. an illegitimate child of a predeceased legitimate child cannot inherit by representation [Art992]. the illegitimate parents are inferior to legitimate parents. The other half shall be at the free disposal of the testator.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006.  ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS ALONE – they get ½ of the estate. Julie Domingo. the right DOES NOT go beyond the parents. Illegitimate parents EXCLUDED by all kinds of children – as secondary compulsory heirs. by virtue of Art992. nor a surviving spouse. If only the widow or widower survives with parents of the illegitimate child. is one-half of the hereditary estate of such illegitimate child. Cecille Natividad. A classic instance of unintended consequence. The legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate child. 901. Mars Rongo.2007 ST ART. The rights of illegitimate children set forth in the preceding articles are transmitted upon their death to their descendants.  ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN ALONE – they get ½ of the estate collectively. Whereas legitimate parents are excluded only by legitimate children. The sharing among the illegitimate children or descendants will depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity of the Family Code. when such child leaves neither legitimate descendants. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. 903. while an illegitimate child of an illegitimate child can [Art902].   ART. If only legitimate or illegitimate children are left. illegitimate parents are excluded by all kinds of children. nor illegitimate children. the right of representation is given only to legitimate descendants.  End of Midterms Coverage ART. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  85 . Note that in the illegitimate ascending line. 902.  Right of representation to the legitimate and illegitimate descendants of an illegitimate child. the legitime of the parents is one-fourth of the hereditary estate of the child. the parents are not entitled to any legitime whatsoever. Rule of Article 902 compared with Rule of Article 992 – In the case of descendants of legitimate children. legitimate or illegitimate. whether legitimate or illegitimate. Thus. When the testator dies leaving illegitimate children and no other compulsory heirs. such illegitimate children shall have a right to one-half of the hereditary estate of the deceased. and that of the surviving spouse also one-fourth of the estate.   ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS / SURVIVING SPOUSE – the sharing is ¼ for the parents collectively and ¼ for the spouse. The net effect of all this is that the right of representation given to descendants of illegitimate children is BROADER than the right of representation given to descendants of legitimate children.

Lea Mateo. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant. That said descendant without an issue. Subsequently. either to the legitime or by intestacy. Cecille Natividad. 3.  Reservas and Reversiones in the Spanish Code 1. First Transfer – by gratuitous title. 4. 3. o Should read – “that said person died without legitimate issue. there is no reserva [ Gonzales v CFI] REQUISITES OF RESERVA T RONCAL 1. from the transferee in the first transfer [prepositus] to another ascendant [reservista].  If there are only two transmissions. Third Transfer – from the transferee in the second rd transfer [reservista] to the relatives within the 3 degree of the Prepositus. the Prepositus dies intestate. coming from the line of the Origin.  Also to avoid the danger that property existing for many years in a family’s patrimony might pass gratuitously to outsiders through the accident of marriage and untimely death. the Reservista. o Acquisition is by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in return. called the reservatarios or rd reservees. Reserva Troncal 3. 2. the Origin. Second Transfer – by operation of law. brother or sister.2007 ST RESERVA TRONCAL Art. single and without issue. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  86 . and to avoid its being dissipated by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant [the reservista]. and o Transmission by operation of law is limited by succession. Mars Rongo. Reserva Viudal 2. 891. That the property is inherited by another ascendant [reservista] by operation of law. [ prepositus ] died By Gratuitous Title By Operation of Law Prepositus  The Prepositus inherits a piece of land from his father. That there are relatives within the 3 degree belonging to the line from which said property came [reservatarios]. Reversion Adoptiva  Purpose of the Reserva Troncal  The reserve troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the reservable rd property to the 3 degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came. because only legitimate descendants will prevent the property from being inherited by the legitimate ascending line by operation of law. or a brother or sister. That the property was acquired by a descendant [ prepositus ] from an ascendant or from a brother or sister [origin] by gratuitous title.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. Reversion Legal 4. are those that are within the 3 degree of the line of the Origin. and the land is in turn inherited by his mother. Julie Domingo. rd Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  The Reserva Troncal Origin Reservista Reservatarios (Relative w/in 3rd degree of Prepositus)  PROCESS – 3 Transmissions Involved 1. 2. The Reservista is then required to reserve the property in favor of the Prepositus’ paternal relatives within the rd 3 degree (Reservatarios). the one acquiring obviously is not a descendant. o These relatives. is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property came. It encompasses transmissions by donation or by succession of whatever kind. CJ Tan. It is this second transfer that creates the reserva. from a person to his descendant. o The term descendant should read person because if the grantor is a brother or sister.

3. 4. he has all the rights of ownership over it and may exercise such rights in order to prevent a reserva from arising. we should not make one.As long. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  87 . therefore.To those who hold the opinion that a reserva would not exist in such case of full blood siblings. while the property is owned by the Prepositus. the relatives rd within the 3 degree.” o Question – must the Reservatario also be related to the Mediate Source? . without regard to subdivisions. This means that if the relationship is Full Blood. . Lea Mateo. in the scheme of the reserva troncal. is it necessary that one must already be LIVING when the prepositus dies? . because [1] the law makes no distinction. No inquiry is to be made beyond the Origin/ Mediate Source. CJ Tan. a reserve may arise.Example: A receives by donation a parcel of land from his paternal grandfather X. All the relationships among the parties must be legitimate.  4 PARTIES TO THE RESERVA TRONCAL 1. the paternal and the maternal of the descendant. b) It does not matter whether the fraternal relationship is of the full or half-blood. . Manresa’s comment should be the norm: “that the question of line would be indifferent.One View – NO. the Mediate Source is either of the paternal or maternal line.Manresa says NO.NO. . . to prevent the property from leaving the line. collectively referred to as the Reservatarios [reservees]. o Reserva in favor of reservatarios as a CLASS to be qualified as a reservatario.If a half-brother or half-sister. Mars Rongo. o The law is clear . because another ascendant is one belonging to a line other than that of the reservista. Since the law makes no distinction. the Prepositus is deemed the Arbiter of the Reserva Troncal. The reserva arises only upon the second transfer. he qualifies as such. the article speaks solely of 2 lines. The provisions of Art891 only apply to legitimate relatives. Thus. and not in favor of specific individuals. even if he was Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. RESERVATARIOS [RESERVEES] o The reserva is in favor of a class. o Should the Origin/Mediate Source and the Reservista belong to Different Lines? . as the reservatario is alive at the time of the reservarista’s death. Upon A’s death. it is a brother or sister of the full blood. he is the FIRST transferee of the property. otherwise results would arise completely contrary to the purpose of this reserva.Another View – YES. He can do this by – a) Substituting or alienating the property b) Bequeathing or devising it either to the rd potential reservista or to 3 persons [subject to constraints of the legitime] c) Partitioning in such a way as to assign the property to parties other than the potential reservista [again subject to the constraints of the legitime]. II. . In either case. there would be no reserva troncal. . The property never left the line. o Ascendant from any degree of ascent. 2) He must belong to the line from which the property came. the same is true. Julie Domingo. because the reserva is established in favor of a GROUP or CLASS. it would not be possible to distinguish the lines. The Reservista must be an ascendant other than the Origin/ Mediate Source [if the latter is also an ascendant]. of whatever degree. o In this sense. This is determined by the Origin/Mediate Source.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006.Sanchez Roman says YES. there is yet NO RESERVA.If however. Cecille Natividad. is Y obliged to reserve? . o Brother/Sister – 2 Schools of Thought a) Relationship must be of HALF BLOOD – because otherwise the property would not change lines.e. PREPOSITUS o He is either the descendant or a brother/ sister of the Origin who receives the property from the Origin by gratuitous title. 2.2007 ST  2 BASIC RULES I. ORIGIN OR THE MEDIATE SOURCE o He is either the ascendant or a brother or sister of the Prepositus. there is no reserve because then it would not be possible to identify the line of origin. o REQUIREMENTS TO BE A RESERVATARIO: rd 1) He must be within the 3 degree of consanguinity from the Prepositus. o Consequently. If these two parties are the same person.If an ascendant. which is to prevent the property from passing to persons not of the line of origin. i. RESERVISTA [RESERVOR] o He is an ascendant of the Prepositus. and [2] the purpose of the reserve is not only curative but also preventive. o While the property is still with the Prepositus.it refers to the Origin/ Mediate Source as another ascendant. the parcel passes by intestacy to his father Y [X’s son]. It does not matter who the owner of the property was before it was acquired by the Origin. .

C. The reservista’s right of ownership is registerable.2007 ST  Juridical Nature of Reserva Troncal  The juridical nature of the reserve troncal may be viewed from 2 aspects – from that of the reservista and that of the reservatarios. Lea Mateo. inasmuch as the right granted by the Civil Code in Art811 is in the highest degree personal and for the exclusive benefit of designated persons rd who are the relatives withint the 3 degree of the person from whm the reservable property came. the LEGAL TITLE and DOMINION. in the manner and form already set forth in the Code referring to use and usufruct. reside in him while he lives. the right to dispose of the property reserved. The ownership is subject to a RESOLUTORY CONDITION. which is in case of the Prepositus being survived by brothers/sisters and children of a predeceased or incapacitated brother or sister. . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  88 .Nevertheless. . . he CAN DISPOSE of it in the manner provided in Articles 974 and 976 of the Code. under an express provision of law. as in the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came. In a word. After the right required by law to be reserved has been assured. o Representation Among the Reservatarios . Cecille Natividad.” . 1.The right of representation cannot be alleged when the one claiming the same as a reservatario of the reservable property is rd not among the relatives within the 3 degree belonging to the line from which such property came. and to dispose of is to alienate. because he is the one who possesses or should possess it and have title to it. although under a condition. relatives of the th 4 degree and the succeeding degrees can never be considered as reservatarios since the law does not recognize them as such. CJ Tan. Therefore. 1 ST SEM 2006. the existence of reservatorias at the time of the reservista’s death. the rights of use and usufruct. [Florentino v. These reservatarios have the right to represent their ascendants [fathers and mothers] who are the brothers of the said deceased rd person and relatives within the 3 degree in accordance with Art811. Mars Rongo. Juridical Nature from the viewpoint of the RESERVISTA . [Padura v. [Edroso v Sablan]  From Edroso. since Art891 does not specify otherwise. but subject to the same resolutory condition. The right of ownership is alienable.In other words. Julie Domingo. the reservable property should pass. The reservista’s right over the reserved property is one of ownership. excluding those reservatarios of more remote degree. moreover. the rule of preference of degree among reservatarios is qualified by the rule of representation.But since in addition to being the usufructuary. B. Baldovino] .e. not to all the reservatorios as a class.The conclusion is that the person required by Art811 to reserve the right has. D. the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession. there will only be 1 instance of representation among the reservatarios. .Upon death of the ascendant reservista. which subjects the choice of reservatarios to the rules of intestate succession. beyond any doubt at all. even though under a condition. .Clearly. the legal title and dominion. although a limited and revocable one.Manresa says that “the ascendant is in the first place a USUFRUCTUARY who should use and enjoy the things according to their nature. those reservatarios nearer in degree of relationship to the Prepositus will exclude those more remotely related. according to the Padura ruling. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. but within that group. i. the owner in fee simple of property. Florentino] . o Preference Among the Reservatarios . he can do anything that a genuine owner can do. He has the right to recover it.Thus. he has. He has.Actually. but only to those NEAREST in degree to the descendant [prepositus]. he is. although under a CONDITION subsequent [whether or not there exist at the time of his death relatives rd within the 3 degree of the descendant from whom they inherit in the line whence the property proceeds]. even though CONDITIONALLY.SUCCESSION REVIEWER conceived and born after the Prepositus’ death.As in intestate succession. the following may be derived: A. the reserve troncal merely determines the group of relatives [reservatarios] to whom the property should be returned. there is a right of representation on the part of the rd reservatarios who are within the 3 degree mentioned by law.

As already stated. the following may be derived: A. automatically and by operation of law. by will. said property merely reverting to the line of origin from which it had temporarily and accidentally strayed during the reservista’s lifetime. Sablan] . albeit conditionally. moreover. first because it is in no way. to the Prepositus by gratuitous title.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. to the proper reservatarios. of whom the reservees are the heirs mortis causa subject to the condition that they must survive the reservor. that is to say. o Note that while the property is with the Prepositus. the same property must come from the Mediate Source. the substitute cannot be reserved. Juridical Nature from the viewpoint of the RESERVATARIOS . CFI]. as incorporeal property. and. as held in Padura]. A sugar quota allotment. The reservatario is not the reservista’s successor mortis causa nor is the reservable property part of the reservista’s estate. the selection of which reservatarios will get the property is made by law and not by the reservista. since the basic requisites therefor appear of record. Julie Domingo. have only an EXPECTATION and therefore they do not even have the capacity to transmit that expectation to their heirs. the expectancy ripens into ownership if the reservatarios survive the reservista. Director]     Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. o Consequently. and does not even answer for the debts of the latter. The Prepositus is the arbiter of the reserva. Lea Mateo. B. i. the Prepositus has. which specific individual of the reservatarios were to get the reserved property. a second contingent place in said legitimate succession in the fashion of aspirants to a possible future legacy. the property passes by strict operation of law [according to the rules of intestate succession.” rd . is that upon the reservista’s death. constructively or formally.The relatives within the 3 degree in whose favor the right is reserved cannot dispose of the property. The reservatarios have a right of expectancy over the property. [Sienes v. CJ Tan. [As also held in Gonzales v. The right is alienable. [Padura v. either actually. Hence. therefore. QUESTION – would there be a reserva if the Prepositus sold the property under pacto de retro and then redeemed it? Reserved Property Does Not Form Part of the Reservista’s Estate Upon his Death o The contention that an intestacy proceeding is still necessary rests upon the assumption that the reservatario will succeed in. Rodriguez. o If the prepositus substitutes the property by selling. in order for the reserva to arise. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  89 . the CONDITION being that the alienation shall transfer ownership to the vendee only if an when the reserve survives the person obliged to reserve.2007 ST 2. there is yet no reserva. bartering or exchanging it. The reservees do not inherit from the reservoir but from the PREPOSITUS.e. Thus. CFI]  The rule in this jurisdiction. Cecille Natividad. Florentino v. after the right that in their turn may pertain to them has been assured. Mars Rongo. in their possession.The reserva instituted by law instituted by rd law in favor of the heirs within the 3 degree belonging to the line from which the reservable property came. that property is no part of the estate of the reservista. D. the owner of the reservable property. the reservable property from the reservista. the reservatario nearest to the prepositus becomes. but subject to the same suspensive condition. on the hypothesis that only when the person who must reserve the right should die before them will they take their place in the succession of the descendant of whom rd they are relatives within the 3 degree. Florentino also held that the reservista has NO POWER to appoint. constitutes a REAL RIGHT which the reserve may alienate and dispose of. Manresa says. and to the reservista by operation of law.  The Property Reserved  Any kind of property is reservable. Esparcia]  From Sienes. The right is subject to a SUSPENSIVE CONDITION. or inherit. C. [Cano v. Thus. This is not true. plenary powers of ownership. The right is registerable. that “during the whole period between the constitution in legal form of the right required by law to be reserved and the extinction thereof. the rd relatives within the 3 degree. Baldovino as cited in Gonzales v. the reservatario receives the property as a conditional heir of the Prepositus. its acquisition by the reservatario may be entered in the property records without necessity of estate proceedings. because they have no title of ownership or of fee simple which they can transmit to another. over the property.The nature of the reservatarios’ right is . o It is a consequence of these principles that upon the death of the reservista. [Edroso v. and he may exercise these powers to thwart the potential reserva.  Effect of Substitution o The very same property must go through the process of transmissions. was held to be reservable in Rodriguez v. which commences when the property id received by the reservista.

o 2 Theories have been Advanced . Legarda then executed in 1947 an affidavit adjudicating extrajudicially to herself the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006.On 1967. silent on 2 points: 1. To annotate the reservable character [if registered immovables] in the Registry of Property within 90 days from acceptance by the reservista. .Then in 1953. the son of Benito Legarda y Tuason died in 1933 and was survived by widow Filomena and their seven children. . Renunciation by ALL the Reservatarios. Lea Mateo. Legarda executed two handwritten identical documents wherein she disposed of the properties which she inherited from her daughter.Benito Legarda y De la paz. and holding as not subject to reserva troncal. IAC that the requirement of annotation remains. . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Death of the Reservista 2. Mars Rongo. Legarda and her children partitioned the properties consisting of the onethird share in the estate of Benito Legarda y Tuason which the children inherited in representation of their father. . . and [ii] the payment of the value of such reserved movables as may have been alienated by the reservista onerously or gratuitously. CJ Tan. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  90 .   The abolition of the reserva viudal has caused some uncertainty whether these requirements still apply. ST o Of course. To inventory the reserved properties b.  Sumaya is however. Within what period must the annotation be made. Total fortuitous loss of the reserved property 5. damages. o Reserva Minima is more widely accepted. Mrs. Julie Domingo.2007 conveyance and other dealings by registered owners.In 1939. Benito Legarda y De la Paz. Alejandro and Jose. partly by will and partly by operation of law. accounting. the properties which her mother inherited in 1943 from Filomena. and . o As a consequence of the rule laid down in Cano. further proceedings are unavoidable.  Rights and Obligations  There are no specific implementing articles on the reserva troncal. Mrs. the provisions viudal were extended to the troncal.During such proceeding. real properties left by Benito Legarda y Tuason were partitioned in three equal portions by his daughters and the heirs of the deceased son who were represented by Benito Legarda. Legarda died and on 1968 her holographic will was admitted to probate. . . This “maximizes” the scope of the reserva. where the registration decree merely specifies the reservable character of the property. Filomena Legarda. Prescription or adverse possession CASES Gonzales v. Cecille Natividad. as when the reservatarios acquire the reservista’s right by a contract inter vivos 6. despite the abolition of reserva viudal. reconveyance. c.The prepositus makes a will instituting the ascendant-reservista to the whole or a part of the free portion. Beatriz Gonzales filed a motion to exclude from the inventory of her mother’s estate the properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter.Reserva Maxima – as much of the potentially reservable property as possible must be deemed included in the part that passes by operation of law. property not reservable.  RESERVA MAXIMA – RESERVA MINIMA o Problem: if 2 circumstances occur .This is an appeal by Beatriz Gonzales from the decision of the CFI of Manila for dismissing her complaint for partition. it is not taken into account in determining the legitimes of the reservista’s compulsory heirs. as based on Sec51 of PD1529 providing for  Extinguishment of the Reserva Troncal  The reserve troncal is extinguished by: 1. Confusion or merger of rights.As a result of the affidavit of adjudication.Reserva Minima – every single property in the Prepositus’ estate must be deemed to pass. . provided that no other reservatario is born subsequently 4. To appraise the immovables d. Mrs. Filomena on the ground that such properties are reservable properties which should be inherited by Filomena Legarda’s three sisters and three brothers and not by the children of Benito. in the same proportion that the part given by will bears to the part not so given. without determining the identity of the reservatario or where several reservatarios dispute the property among themselves. Filomena Roces succeeded her deceased daughter Filomena Legarda as co-owner of the properties held proindiviso by her other six children.Then from the period of 1958 to 1959. .There is left in the Prepositus’ estate. To secure by means of mortgage: [i] the indemnity for any deterioration of or damage to the property occasioned by the reservista’s fault or negligence. This was opposed by the administrator. It was held in Sumaya v. CFI . and 2. upon his death.Mrs. Death of ALL the Reservatarios 3. in favor of the children of her sons. in addition to the reserved property. thus the rights of the reservatarios and the corresponding obligations of the reservista were: a. Whether the other requirements of the old viudal also remain. since the reserved property is not computed as part of the reservista’s estate.  Under the Old Code.

he did not hold his inheritance subject to a reservation in favor of his aunt.The nearest relatives should be the one who will inherit the property and Mrs. The reserva troncal applies to properties inherited by an ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from another ascendant or a brother or sister."The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of relationship by the whole blood. Clearly. Esteban. Salustia Solivio. but no conjugal property was acquired during her short-lived marriage to Esteban. Jr. . Julie Domingo.The reservation became a certainty when at the time of her death the reserves or relatives within the third degree of the prepositus Filomena Legarda were living or they survived Mrs. but she did agree to place all of Esteban's estate in the "Salustia Solivio Vda. she cannot convey these as they never really formed part of her estate.No. for Esteban. illegitimate children. Salustia. The persons for whom the property is reserved are the reservees (reservatorios) — relatives within the third degree counted from the descendant (propositus). Sr. the reservable properties should go to Mrs. because she too was an heir of the deceased. . for the purpose of helping indigent students in their schooling.Hence. Mrs. This was dismissed. leaving all her properties to her only child.The reservor cannot make a disposition morits causa of the reservable properties as long as the reserves survived the reservoir. Mars Rongo. . sisters. The person obliged to reserve is the reservor (reservista) — the ascendant who inherits by operation of law property from his descendants. . .She then filed an ordinary civil action for the purpose of securing a declaration that the said properties are reservable properties which Mrs."ART.Since the deceased. each. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters. Jr. Salustia. "2. CJ Tan. she did not waive her inheritance in favor of Celedonia.As regards Concordia’a ½ share--inasmuch as Concordia had agreed to deliver the estate of the deceased to the foundation in honor of his mother. 1003. ."ART.Salustia died. illegitimate children. His only surviving relatives are: (1) his maternal aunt.The persons involved in reserva troncal are: "1. It does not apply to property inherited by a descendant from his ascendant. the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate.NO. Legarda’s children and not to the grandchildren. ascendants. ascendants. Salustia Solivio. and (2) the private respondent. WON. Celedonia brought up Esteban. Whether the decedent's properties were subject to reserva troncal in favor of Celedonia. the reverse of the situation covered by Article 891. WON. .. Undoubtedly she was a reservoir. therefore. Concordia agreed to carry out the plan of the deceased. she is bound by that agreement. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  91 .Both plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellant being relatives of the decedent within the third degree in the collateral line. the properties in question are subject to reserve troncal under Article 891 of the Civil Code.. Legarda could not bequeath in her will. from whom he inherited the properties in question.Hence this appeal. . Cecille Natividad. . DE JAVELLANA FOUNDATION".Celedonia told Concordia about Esteban's desire to place his estate in a foundation to be named after his mother. died without descendants. Legarda.Therefore.' and is entitled to one-half (1/2) share and share alike of the estate.Yes. . . (2) the same property is inherited by another ascendant or is acquired by him by operation of law from the said descendant.In reserva troncal. who is his relative within the third degree on his mother's side. shall succeed to the subject estate 'without distinction of line or preference among them by reason of relationship by the whole blood. de Javellana Foundation" which Esteban. Jr. . CA . nor children of brothers or sisters. Legarda could not choose to whom the reservable property should be given and deprive the other reservees of their share therein. Esteban Javellana. surviving spouse. was not an ascendant.As Esteban’s parents died while he was still young. Jr. and (3) the said descendant should reserve the said property for the benefit of relative who are within the third degree from the deceased descendant and who belong to the line from which the said property came... what should apply in the distribution of his estate are Articles 1003 and 1009 of the Civil Code. sister of his deceased father. and belonging to the line from which the property came. petitioner Celedonia Solivio. during his lifetime. ." ST Solivio v. Esteban Javellana. "3. the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles. Legarda. Jr. her daughters and sons. Legarda as reservor can convey the reservable properties by will or mortis causa to the reserves within the 3rd degree to the exclusion of the reserves in the 2nd degree.2007 deceased and proceeded to set up the "SALUSTIA SOLIVIO VDA.The probate court declared Celdonia as sole heir of the estate of Esteban.l (1) a descendant inherited or acquired by gratuitous title property from an ascendant or from a brother or sister. or a surviving spouse. The propositus — the descendant who received by gratuitous title and died without issue. . . the property of the deceased.Ignoring the second degree reservees would be a glaring violation of Article 891.Four months later. . Concordia filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order declaring Celedonia as "sole heir" of Esteban. If there are no descendants.Esteban died of a heart attack. from whom his properties came. Jr. Salustia and her sister. Lea Mateo. nephews or nieces. 1009. . the spinster half-sister of his mother. Concordia Javellana-Villanueva. brought to her marriage paraphernal properties.Reserva contemplates legitimate relationship 1 ST SEM 2006. . his relative within the third degree on his mother's side from whom he had inherited them. Esteban’s mother. making his other ascendant inherit by operation of law. Three transmissions are involved. Jr. is not reservable property. but the descendant of his mother. . (see Doctrine portion) . It is true that by that agreement. Celedonia Solivio. brothers. . . planned to set up to honor his mother. Thereafter.. Esteban Javellana. the properties in the instant case were reservable properties in the hands of Mrs. she sold properties of the estate to pay the taxes and other obligations of the Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. .SUCCESSION REVIEWER . Sr. .

. in equal shares of the parcels of land.The reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives (reservatorios) to whom the property should be returned. . allegedly on the basis that they inherited by right of representation from their respective parents. proximity of degree and the right of representation of nephews are made to apply. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  92 . the reservable property should pass. speaks only of children or parents. . he had one child whom they named Manuel Padura. pro-indiviso. Remember: the object is to protect the patrimony of the legitimate family. 891 any longer. entitled to the reservable properties. Whether or not the law on reserva troncal applies to illegitimate relatives. the law in many articles. . Thus. If in determining the rights of the reservatorios inter se. Baldovino . so the aforementioned parcels of land passed to his father Francisco. Cecille Natividad. Benita. Mars Rongo. his widow and his son took possession of the said lands. .In a resolution of the CFI. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. are nephews of the descendants but some are nephews for the half blood and the otheres are nephews of the whole blood. The person obliged to reserve is a legitimate ascendant who inherits from a descendant property which proceeds from the same legitimate family. appellees maintained that they should all (the eleven reservees) be deemed as inheriting in their own right. However.Agustin Padura contracted 2 marriages during his lifetime.” In a case of reserve troncal where the only reserves surviving the reservista and belonging to the line of origin. so is the rule that whole blood bothers and nephews are entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half blood. With his first wife. or ascendants and descendants. . it has to be recognized that this is so because the legitimate relationship forms the general rule and the natural relationship the exception.Upon his death. . . . the properties were left among his children and surviving spouse.Years later. Juliana died intestate and her son Alfeo inherited from her several parcels of land. of the whole blood should likewise be operative. . Wih his second wife. Thus. While there are no previous cases on the subject.Segunda Maria Nieva sought to recover the parcels of land in question. and this being true. which is the reason why. Francisco subsequently married Manuela Alcala. the rule double share for immediate collaterals. it does not say father or mother. brothers or parents but of natural ascendants.Candelaria died leaving as her only heirs her four legitimate children. CJ Tan.Upon the death of the ascendant reservista.2007 . . Thus. Benita. Lea Mateo.While the provision of law does not make a distinction. the original reserves. Surviving him are his legitimate children. should the reserved properties be apportioned among them equally or should the nephews of the whole blood take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half blood? . . Julie Domingo. . because the line from which the properties proceed must be the line of that family and only in favor of that line is the reservation established. the respective share of each in the reversionary property should be governed by the ordinary rules of intestate succession. as she is the acknowledged natural daughter of Juliana. . there is no further occasion for its application. appellants and appellees took possession of the reservable properties. with whom he had a son. ST Nieva v. No. . and in them reference is of course made to those who are legitimate. the Court thought it proper to adopt the writings of Manresa and Scaevola on the matter. Alcala . . he had two children named Fortunator and Candelaria Padura Baldovino.In the relations between one reservatorio and another of the same degree. the parcels of land were inherited exclusively by his mother. excluding those reservatorios of the more remote degree.The lower court declared all the reservees (without distinction) co-owners. Gervacia.On the other hand. the legitimate children of the deceased Manuel and Candelaria were declared to be the rightful reserves and as such. not to all reservatorios as a class. According to her birth records. Segunda was treated and publicly exhibited as Juliana’s legitimate daughter. . Jose Deocampo. Benita. but natural father or natural mother.The provision on reserva troncal treats of legitimate relationship.Fortunato was adjudicated 4 parcels of land. the general rule applies that it only refers to legitimate ascendants. . they claim each should have an equal share. When Francisco died. as the law does not qualify. but within that group the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession. Manuel also died.The instant petitioner filed by the heirs of Candelaria seeks to have this properties partitioned.Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary intestate succession. and when it desires to make a provision applicable only to natural relationship. But from this time on. but subject to the condition that the properties were reservable in favor of relatives within the 3rd degree belonging to the line from which said property came.Reservatorios nearer in degree of relationship to Prepositus will exclude those more remotely related. it does not speak of ascendants. there is no call for applying Art. .Fortunato died unmarried without having executed a will. there can be no question.Upon the death of Benita (the reservista). Juliana gave birth to her and lived with her before Juliana’s marriage to Francisco. Alfeo died intestate and without issue. such that ½ of the same be adjudicated to them.Juliana Nieva married Francisco Deocampo and with whom she begot a son named Alfeo Deocampo. natural brothers or natural parents. under which.The stated purpose of the reserva is accomplished once the property has devolved to the specified relatives of the line of origin. but only to those nearest in degree to the descendant (prepositus).She applied for and later was issued a TCT in her name.The SC held that the reserves nephews of the whole blood are entitled to s share twice as large that of the others. Padura v. and the other half to the appellees.

– the plaintiffs in this case). among whom is her daughter. SC held that there is right of representation on the part of reservatarios who are within the third degree mentioned by law.Severina was duty bound. Francisco inherited the western portion of Lot 3368.Said property reverts to said line as long as the aforementioned persons who. within the third degree. the transferee in the sale made by Andrea only acquires the latter’s revocable and conditional owenership of the property. nor falls under. . . . The spouses procured a TCT over the land in their name. CJ Tan. was transmitted by same (by operation of law) to his legitimate mother and ascendant.The plaintiffs (which include the children of the deceased brothers and sisters of Encarnacion who inherit by virtue of their right to representation) now claim that the property received by Severina from her son was reservable property and thus. she did not thereby acquire the dominion or right of ownership but only the right of usufruct or of fiduciary with the necessary obligation to preserve and to deliver or return it as such reservable property to her deceased son's relatives within the third degree. was inherited by his son Apolonio III.SC held that there is Reserva Tronacal. She therefore has the obligation to preserve the property for the reservatorios or reservees. . together with her own.Andrea. Andrea Gutang. to her only daughter and forced heiress. of the descendant from whom the reservable property came. unmarried and without descendants. Upon Francisco’s death. . Mercedes succeeded her and the property she received included those which her mother received from Apolonio III. . use or trust. ascendants do not inherit the reservable property.Reservable property neither comes. Sablan Sienes v. . . Thus. WON the property was reservable. merely for the reason that said law imposes the obligation to reserve and preserve same for certain designated persons who.As between the transfer made by Andrea Gutang and the transfer made by Cipriana. . Lea Mateo.Saturnino had four children with his first wife Teresa Ruales. Esparcia . . . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  93 . al.After reaching the age of 20. the absolute dominion of the ascendant who inherits and receives same from his descendant. she only inherits it as a reservista. Hence. .YES. Florentino .As to the children of the brothers and sisters of Encarnacion. It becomes his own property only in case that all the relatives of his descendant shall have died (reservista) in which case said reservable property losses such character. to reserve the property thus acquired for the benefit of the relatives.It is clear from the facts that Francisco Yaeso inherited by operation of law from his father Saturnino. Francisco died with no other heir except his mother Andrea. within the third degree. therefore it does not form part of his own property nor become the legitimate of his forced heirs. the vendees demanded from Paulina Yaeso the surrender of the OCT covering the said land. still being single. if Andrea dies and she is survived by the reservees. They claim that since the property was transferred to Mercedes (who was part of the family). of the line from which such property came.The father left a will instituting all his children from both marriages and Severina as the universal heirs. title pass to the latter by operation of law. . it was accordingly transferred in the name of Francisco. but its enjoyment. then executed an extra-judicial settlement and sale.2007 . Antonia died.Apolonio II married Antonia with whom he has 9 children (Encarnacion.Defendants demurred claiming that the object of the law is to avoid the transfer of the reservable property to those extraneous to the family of the owner.Apolonio II again married.Second. . as in the case of nephews of the deceased person from whom the reservable property came. the latter being born after the father’s death.Apolonio III died ahead of his mother and the latter succeeded to all the son’s property. the surviving half-sisters of Francisco. ST Florentino v. .Agaton.Hence she is under obligation to reserve it for the benefit of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which said property came. where he sold the land to appellants. they are each entitled to 1/7 of the fruits of the reservable property. Andrea Gutang as the sole heir inherited the land from the former.First. Mercedes and Apolonio III. . Cipriana and Paulina Yaeso. et. and are relatives. Severina.When Saturnino died. nevertheless this property had not lost its reservable nature inasmuch as it originated from the common ancestor of the litigants. the latter is the only one deemed valid and binding.Lot 3368 originally belonged to Saturnino Yaeso. .Subsequently. Mars Rongo. acquire in fact the right of reservatarios (person for whom property is reserved).SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006.Andrea Gutang died in December 1951 while being survived by Cipriano Yaeso.According to the provisions of law. on the death of the said ascendants reservists acquire the ownership of said property Edroso v. . In this case.Saturnino also had a second wife. Paulina and Cipriana. Mercedes. This time with Severina and had 2 children. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Fernando. Even if Severina left in her will said property. Cecille Natividad. although Andrea Gutang inherited the land. declared the property in their name and executed a deed of sale in favor of the spouses Fidel Esparcia and Paulina Sienes. Apolonio Isabelo. . These reservatarios have the right to represent their ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are the brothers of the said deceased person and relatives within the third degree. Upon the death of Severina. . according to article 811 of the Civil Code. hence. with whom he had an only son named Francisco. Whether or not there was Reserva Troncal . Whether or Not the Spouses Esparcia are entitle to the land sold to them by Cipriana yaeso . the object of the law has not been violated and thus the property has lost its reservable character. . Julie Domingo.If this property was in fact clothed with the character and condition of reservable property when Severina inherited same from her son Apolonio III. from the death of the ascendant-reservists. Mercedes. . these are the half-sisters of Francisco. but the latter refused.

However.The contention that there is a need for a separate proceeding rests upon the assumption that the reservatorio will succeed or inherit the reserved property from the reservista. Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco as well as Dalisay Camacho.And that sister died intestate in 1915. The proceeding being final.That Balbino died intestate surivived by his legit children by his wife and legit grandchildren. they are excluded from the succession by his niece. 3 parcels of land were adjudicated as the inheritance of the late Toribia Tioco. where there will be first a declaration that the elements of reserve troncal are existing. . entitled as reservatorios. Mars Rongo. all relatives of the praepositus within the 3rd degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista . .The property is no part of the estate of the reservista.The reserved property is not part of the reservista’s estate and the reservatario acquires the property automatically and by operation of law.SUCCESSION REVIEWER .The reserved property is subject to two suspensive conditions: a) death of the ascendant obliged to reserve. . The expectancy ripens into ownership if the reservatorios survive the reservists. 891 does not specify otherwise. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. . a final decree and title over a parcel of land was adjudicated in favor of Maria Cano. subject to Reserva Troncal in favor of Eustaqia Guerrero. father of the plaintiffs and great grandfather of defendant. . .Trinidad Dizon-Tongko died intestate and her rights and interests in the parcels of land were inherited by her only child.First. Dalisay Camacho. 1 ST SEM 2006. as aunts and uncles. the sister of Balbino gratuitously donated to the legitimate sister of plaintiffs 4 parcels of land. . . who in turn inherited the same from her father Evaristo Guerrero. b) the survival.Romana Tioco. . . Whether or not a separate judicial proceeding is required . . respectively of Faustino Dizon. to one-half of the seven parcels of land in dispute. There is no reason why a different rule would apply in this case. they succeed without distinction.Lower court judgment is reversed and the complaint is dismissed. hence the former excludes all other relatives. . hence its acquisition by the reservatario may be entered in the property records without the necessity of estate proceedings. Julie Domingo.Had the property been passed directly. Cano v. but within that group. Lea Mateo. The sale therefore made by Cipriana and Pualina is deemed effective.2007 ST De Papa v. the reservista. which is not the case.Yes.The lower court declared the plaintiffs Francisco Tioco. . the 3 parcels of land devolved upon her 2 legit children one of which is Faustino Dizon. survived by her husband and 2 legit children and leaving the four parcels of land as the inheritance of her said 2 children in equal pro indiviso shares. having survived Gutang. .There is no need for a separate intestate proceeding.In the partition of his estate. the child mentioned above. the defendant-appellant. Hence. The right is registrable. but as she had predeceased her father. the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession since Art. they can not recover the same. insisted that the ownership of the reservatorio requires a separate judicial administration proceeding (intestestate proceeding). there is no doubt that they would have been excluded by the defendantsappellees under the rules of intestate succession. or relatives within the third degree belong to the line from which the property came. although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter.Faustino then died intestate leaving his ½ share in the 7 parcels of land to his father Eustacio subject to reserve troncal.Eustacio then died survived only by his only legit descendant . And the rules on intestacy shall govern as held in a previous decision by this Court.Despite opposition.Upon the death of the reservista. . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  94 . .They have a common ancestor the late Balbino Tioco. in so much as the Esparcia spouses did not appeal the decision reverting the property in the estate of Cipriano.Third. the plaintiffs-appelless must be held without any right thereto because. . the owner of the reserved property.Reserva merely determines the group of relatives to whom the property should be returned. Director .Nephews and nieces of whole blood were each entitled to a share double that of each of the nephews and nieces of half blood in accordance with the Civil Code.a nd hat the Oct therefore be cancelled and a new one issued in favor of Eustaqia Guerrero.Defendant Camacho and Plaintiffs are legitimate relatives.Cipriana. . had the right to alienate the property even before Gutang’s death. .In a Land Registration case. Cipriana as the reservee. .It appears from the stipulation of facts in the registration case that the subject lot was acquired by Maria Cano from her deceased daughter. the oppositors are barred from questioning the existence thereof.Thereafter the counsel of Eustaqia fileda motion with the Cadastral Court alleging the death of maria Cano. at the time of death. . Cecille Natividad.The reservatorios have a right of expectancy over the property. the reservatario becomes.Dalisay now owns ½ of all the 7 parcles of land. Camacho . plaintiffs being the grandaunt and granduncles of the defendant. . She now also claims the other half the said parcels of land by virtue of the reserve troncal upon the death of Faustino Dizon. the stipulation of facts in the registration proceedings already manifests the existence of reserve troncal infavor of Esuataqia. .It was found that Eustaquia Guerrero was of the nearest kin of Evaristo. the lower court granted the petition for the new issuance of a new certificate. . . falling squarely under Art 891. .The right is alienable but subject to the same suspensive condition.The oppositors. heirs of Maria Cano. . .The Defendant-appellee Dalisay Camacho is entitled to the entirety of the reversionary property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs-appellees. .Hence this appeal. CJ Tan. In which case. the sale becomes absolute if the reservee survives the reservista. . now obtains exclusive ownership over the land and the sale made by Gutang is of no legal effect. . .Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession. automatically and by operation of law. WON.

Consolacion then died intestate leaving no direct heir either in the descending or ascending line except her brother and sisters. Sumaya v. Cecille Natividad. namely. single. he sired three children.Consuelo later sold the 2nd property to Villa Honorio which later transferred and assigned the same to Laguna AgroIndustrial. Juana died and her daughter Concepcion was declared to be her sole heir. it is gratuitous. who was then already the owner of the other half.The reservable right may be lost to the holder when he fails or neglects to oppose the registration of the land in which such right exists under the Torrens System. When Militar died.SUCCESSION REVIEWER . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  95 .No. CJ Tan.Juanito died intestate without any issue. Mars Rongo. Juana Reyes. . to wit: (1) that the property was acquired by a descendant from an ascendant or from a brother or sister by gratuitous title.After 6 years.971.In the first marriage of Jose Frias Chua with Patricia S. namely: Ignacio. that the legatees were to pay the interest and cost and other fees resulting from Civil Case No. Tomas registered the properties and after a year his title thereto became absolute and complete. However. 399 and the sum of P8. Paterno . what is essential is that the transmission be made gratuitously. be declared as reservable property for the reason that the lot in question was subject to reserva troncal pursuant to Article 981 of the New Civil .00 in favor of Lorenzo. without requiring from the transferee any prestation.The subject properties were the conjugal property of Tomas G.It is evident from the record that the transmission of the property in question to Juanito upon the death of his father Jose was by means of a hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous. Then Jose died intestate leaving his widow Consolacion and his son Juanito. the property in question was not acquired by Consolacion and Juanito gratuitously but for a consideration. Jose Frias Chua. IAC . .Unless a reservable right is protected during the pendency of the action for the registration of land.Subsequently. 5300 to Standard Oil Co. without imposing any obligation on the part of the recipient. . and leaving only his mother. and that the person receiving the property gives or does nothing in return. the brothers in full blood of Raul and the surviving children of another brother of Raul filed a case to recover the properties which they claimed were subject to reserva troncal in their favor. Julie Domingo.The documents were registered in the RD of Laguan and corresponding certificates of titles were issued. The order of the court does not change the gratuitous nature of the transmission of the property to him. and Dominador and Remedios Chua. 891 of the New Civil Code. the essential thing is that the person who transmits it does so gratuitously. .The transmission is gratuitous or by gratuitous title when the recipient does not give anything in return It matters not whether the property transmitted be or be not subject to any prior charges. In order that a property may be impressed with a reservable character the following requisites must exist. Jose contracted a second marriage with Consolacion de la Torre with whom he had a child by the name of Juanito. CFA .The CFI rendered a decision dismissing the complaint of petitioners. Ignacio. Whether or not the plaintiff may still recover the property after the lapse of one year from the finality of the registration proceedings on the ground of reserve troncal.000. . P3. . so as to exclude uncles and aunts of the descendant from the reservable property by his niece or nephew. This being the case the lot in question is subject to reserva troncal under Art. As long as the transmission of the property to the heirs is free from any condition imposed by the deceased himself and the property is given out of pure generosity. as his sole surviving heir to the real properties. on the basis of reserva troncal. . Sumaya sold it Villa Honorio which transferred and assigned it in favor of Agro-Industrial.Raul Balantakbo inherited 1/3 interest in a parcel of land from his father (1st property) and a 1/7 interest in 10 parcels of lands from his maternal grandmother (2nd property). Del Rosario and his wife. . . such right is lost forever. Ignacio. . and subject to the rules of intestate succession. Lorenzo and Manuel. Concepcion died at the age of 9 and all her rights to the half of the property passed to her father. ST Frias v. .00 in favor of Ignacio. Manuel died without leaving any issue. . . (2) that said descendant died without an issue: (3) that the property is inherited by another ascendant by operation of law.000.In the "Intestate Estate of Consolacion de la Torre".When Consuelo died. and Lorenzo. the successional rights of the relatives of the praepositus within the 3rd degree are determined by. and (4) that there are relatives within the third De Los Reyes v.Raul died intestate.In reserva troncal. As far as the deceased Jose is concerned the transmission of the property to his heirs is gratuitous. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.2007 degree belonging to the line from which said property came. of New York the amount of P3. or within the allowable period to contest such as prescribed by law. Lea Mateo. After his death. plaintiff in this case seeks to recover one half of the subject properties.550. 399 which formerly belonged to Juanito Frias Chua but which passed to Consolacion. Consuelo adjudicated unto herself the said properties by way of an affidavit. Consuelo. Militar. gratuitously or not. In the Intestate Proceeding. among others. the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No. 1 ST SEM 2006. is mother Consolacion succeeded to his pro-indiviso share of her son Juanito.The obligation of paying the Standard is imposed upon Consolacion and Juanito not personally by the deceased Jose in his last will and testament but by an order of the court. the petitioners herein. . . the other half in favor of Juanito. According to it. the supposed legitimate children of the deceased Lorenzo filed the complaint praying that the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No.00 in favor of Consolacion. . or by an act of mere liberality of the person making it. from pure generosity. the court issued an orderadjudicating.20 Whether the property in question as acquired by Juanito Frias Chua from his father. and P1.Consuelo sold the first property to Sumaya. Tomas.The parties admit that the certificates of titles covering these properties do not contain any annotation of its reservable character.

. . they could not have acquired a better title than that held by Maria Corral and if the latter's title was limited by the reservation and the obligation to note it in the registry of deeds. the property must not be deemed transmitted to the heirs from the time the extrajudicial partition was made. The fact remains that the affidavit of self-adjudication executed by Consuelo stating the source of the properties thereby showing the reservable nature thereof was registered with the RD of Laguna. Pablo later returned parcels 1-6 to Maria saying that they were erroneously included in the sale made by Maria to Marcelina.Consistent with the rule in reserva viudal where the person obliged to reserve (the widowed spouse) had the obligation to annotate in the Registry of Property the reservable character of the property. . the obligation to register the same is transferred to the purchaser. .SUCCESSION REVIEWER .When a conveyance has been properly recorded. WON the 11 parcels were reservable properties. This is sufficient notice to the whole world. who later sold them to Pablo Rocha.Jose married Marcelina and had one child who died before Jose.The jurisprudential rule requiring annotation in the Registry of Property of the right reserved in real property subject of reserva viudal insofar as it is applied to reserva troncal stays despite the abolition of reserva viudal in the New Civil Code. . in connection with the relatives benefited. such record is constructive notice of its contents and all interests. CJ Tan. . . the duty to annotate also.Hence. . Marcelina and Maria (the mother) entered into a contract where they divided the property left by Jose between themselves.The reservoir is bound to register the reservation within 90 days from the date of adjudication of the property to the heirs by the court. the court found that the the partiers were long time acquaintances. Magin and Consolacion. the reservor (the ascendant who inherited from a descendant property which the latter inherited from another descendant) has the duty to reserve and therefore. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. this petition. . They had 3 children. The 11 parcels of land were acquired by Jose by lucrative title from his father Mariano and that after the death of Jose.The CA affirmed the decision.Mariano left a will dividing his property between Santiago and Jose. .2007 ST Rioso v. included therein.In this case. legal and equitable. . . in reserva troncal.Pablo was also ordered to register parcels 10 and 11 as reservable property in the RD since he knew that the property was reservable. Raul. Whether the defendants were innocent purchasers for value. This rule is consistent with the rule provided in the second paragraph of Section 51 of P.It was clearly stated in the affidavit that the properties were inherited by Raul from his father and maternal grandmother respectively. The cause of action of the reservees did not commence upon the death of the propositus Raul Balantakbo but upon the death of the reservor Consuelo. Santiago. Severina died during infancy.Moreover. if the latter knew of the reservable character of the property. without having registered its reservable character.When Jose’s will was going to be probated.Under the rule of notice. Julie Domingo. . . .As to Marcelina and Pablo. giving the latter 11 parcels of land.Magin (the daughter of Santiago) is now claiming that she and her sister Consolacion had a share in the 11 parcels passed on to Marcelina by Jose. Such presumption is irrebutable. but from the time said partition was approved by the court.YES. Rocha .NO. .Magin and Consolacion were the nearest relatives within the 3rd degree of the line from which the property came. there is sufficient proof that the petitioners had actual knowledge of the reservable character of the properties before they bought the same from Consuelo. The failure of the RD to annotate the reservable character of the property in the certificate of title cannot be attributed to Consuelo. Cecille Natividad.No. it is presumed that the purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title.Maria was married to Mariano. . 10 and 11 to Marcelina. who can bring a reivindicatory suit therefor. Severina. Jose.Santiago (now deceased) was married to Francisca and had 2 children. . they passed on to Maria by operation of law. 1529. Lea Mateo. .Maria was ordered to acknowledge the right of Magin and Consolacion to the reservation of the parcels of land. . The reserva is extinguished upon the death of the reservor.Maria later sold parcels 1-6. was registered with the RD. Mars Rongo. . . .The trial court ordered the petitioners to return the parcels of land the plaintiffs and to account and pay for the produces from the said properties. . He was a legatee in the will. which provides that: "The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned. Whether the cause of action of private respondents has prescribed. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  96 . .Moreover. . They knew all along that the properties litigated in this case were inherited by Raul from his father and from his maternal grandmother and that Consuelo inherited these from his son Raul. which has likewise inherited by the latter from another descendant." 1 ST SEM 2006.For purposes of reservation and the rights and obligations created thereby.Where a reservable property is sold by the reservoir. Upon Jose’s death. which was to be recorded in the RD.D. the affidavit executed by Conseulo which contained a statement that the property was inherited from a descendant. as it then becomes a right of full ownership on the part of the reservatarios. he named his wife Marcelina as his only heir.

related articles  Art855 – if the title by which the testator transmitted property is intestate succession Art.2007 ST Art. 904. which determines the transmission of the legitimes. the heir’s right is simply inchoate.” B. The share of a child or descendant omitted in a will must first be taken from the part of the estate not disposed of by the will. Article 1083 par1 – “Every co-heir has a right to demand the division of the estate unless the testator should have expressly forbidden its partition. so much as may be necessary must be taken proportionally from the shares of the other compulsory heirs.” Art.  Testator Devoid of Power to Impose Burdens on Legitime  As also reiterated in Art872. 905. the grounds being set forth under Arts919-921. Article 1080 par2 – “A parent who. Cecille Natividad. and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor. or manufacturing enterprise intact.” Art.  Cross-References. not the testator. 906. if that is not sufficient. it is not within the testator’s power to deprive the compulsory heirs of their legitime.  Scope of Prohibition  This article applies only to transactions of compromise or renunciation between the predecessor and the prospective compulsory heir.  As already laid down in Art886. or substitution of any kind whatsoever.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006.  EXCEPTION – the only instance in which the law allows the testator to deprive the compulsory heirs of their legitimes is DISINHERITANCE under Arts915923.  RIGHT OF COMPLETION OF LEGITIME  This rule applies only to transmissions by gratuitous title. desires to keep any agricultural. It passes to the compulsory heirs by strict operation of law. be paid in cash. The testator cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime.  Duty to Collate  Any property which the compulsory heir may have gratuitously received from his predecessor by virtue of the renunciation or compromise will be considered an advance on his legitime and must be duly credited. Mars Rongo. Article 159. This power of the testator to prohibit division applies to the legitime. if any. in which case the period of indivision shall not exceed 20 years as provided in article 494. Neither can he impose upon the same any burden. but they must bring to collation whatever they may have received by virtue of the renunciation or compromise. as a consequence of the principle that the legitime passes by strict operation of law.  QUESTION – Is a transaction between the prospective compulsory heir and another prospective compulsory heir. Every renunciation or compromise as regards a future legitime between the person owing it and his compulsory heirs is void. the testator cannot impair the legitime. Consequently.  Testator Devoid of Power to Deprive Compulsory Heirs of Legitime  It is the law. or between a prospective compulsory heir and a stranger.  In relation to Arts909 and 910  Restrictions on Legitime Imposed by Law A. Lea Mateo. encumbrance. in the interest of his or her family. Julie Domingo. This rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns the property or constituted the family home.” 2. The Reserva Troncal Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. except in cases expressly specified by law. and the latter may claim the same upon the death of the former. Family Code “The Fam ily Home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried head of the family for a period of 10 years or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary. Any compulsory heir to whom the testator has left by any title less than the legitime belonging to him may demand that the same be fully satisfied.  EXCEPTIONS – When the Law grants the Testator Some Power over the Legitime 1. may avail himself of the right granted him in this article. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  97 . condition. 855. interdicted?  YES under Article 1347 par2: “No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly provided by law. CJ Tan. industrial. the legitime is not within the testator’s control. by ordering that the legitime of the other children to whom the property is not assigned.  Reason for the Rule  Before the predecessor’s death.

e. unless the testator provides that it should be considered part of the legitime. To allow the testator to make testamentary dispositions that impair the legitime would in effect allow him to deprive the compulsory heirs of part of their legitime – an act which is prohibited by Art904. since the donation transfers ownership to the donee. CJ Tan. MANNER OF COMPUTING T HE HEREDITARY ESTATE 1.  Based on the same principle as art904. Any increase or decrease in value from the time they were made to the time of the decedent’s death shall be for the account of the donee. 2. the compulsory heirs may demand their reduction to the extent hat the legitimes have been impaired. i. Art1062 – if the predecessor gave the compulsory heir a donation inter vivos and provided that it was not to be charged against the legitime. Thus. the value of the property left at the death of the testator shall be considered. the property which they received from him.  COLLATION  Collation is the act by virtue of which descendants or other forced heirs who intervene in the division of the inheritance of an ascendant bring into the common mass. 3. c) The sum of the available assets and all the donations inter vivos is the NET HEREDITARY ESTATE. Deduct Unpaid Debts and Charges a) All unpaid obligations of the decedent should be deducted from the gross assets.  Collation is only required of compulsory heirs succeeding with other compulsory heirs and involves property or rights received by donation or gratuitous title during the lifetime of the decedent. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  98 . either inheriting alone or in various combinations. shall be added the value of all donations by the testator that are subject to collation. Those articles gave the legitimes in the form of fractions. Julie Domingo. Lea Mateo. Inventory all the Existing Assets a) This will involve appraisal/valuation of the existing assets at the time of the decedent’s death b) These assets include only those properties that survive the decedent. c) The value determined by this inventory will constitute the GROSS ASSETS. Cecille Natividad. at the time he made them.  The purpose is to attain equality among the compulsory heirs in so far as possible for it is presumed that the intention of the testator or predecessor in interest in making a donation or Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. insofar as they may be inofficious or excessive.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006.  This article should be read together with Art911.  The NET HEREDITARY ESTATE  Articles 888-903 set forth the legitimes of the compulsory heirs. c) The difference between the gross assets and the unpaid obligations will be the AVAILABLE ASSETS. If the testamentary dispositions exceed the disposable portion.  This article makes possible the computation of the absolute amounts of the legitimes by laying down the manner of computing the net value of the estate [the net hereditary estate]. deducting all debts and charges. 908. s that the division may be made according to law and the will of the testator. Art. Mars Rongo. on which the proportions are based. which shall not include those imposed in the will. Art. Add the Value of Donations Inter Vivos a) To the available assets should be added all the inter vivos donations made by the decedent.2007 ST  The principle underlying this rule on completion of legitime is that anything that a compulsory heir receives by gratuitous title from the predecessor is considered an advance on legitime and is deducted therefrom  EXCEPTIONS 1. Art1063 – testamentary dispositions made by the predecessor to the compulsory heir. 907. or proportions of the decedent’s estate. b) The donations inter vivos shall be valued as of the time they were respectively made. those which are not extinguished by his death [in relation to articles 774 and 777]. To determine the legitime. 2. Testamentary dispositions that impair or diminish the legitime of the compulsory heirs shall be reduced on petition of the same. b) Only those obligations with monetary value which are not extinguished by death are considered. those obligations which are purely personal are not taken into account. To the net value of the hereditary estate.

After the legitime has been determined in accordance with the three preceding articles. and that the predecessor’s will is to treat all his heirs equally.SUCCESSION REVIEWER gratuitous transfer to a forced heir is to give him something in advance on account of his share in the estate. even if in the process the disposition is reduced to nothing. whose value may be considered greater than that of the disposable portion. Insofar as they may be inofficious or may exceed the disposable portion. without any distinction whatever. An apparent conflict exists between this article and Art950.  Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. regarding the order of preference among legacies and devises. should reductions be necessary. Third. Cecille Natividad. hence any increase in value or any deterioration or loss thereof is for the account of the heir or donee. Second. if necessary. [Vizconde v CA] 1 ST SEM 2006. the compulsory heirs may choose between complying with the testamentary provision and delivering to the devisee or legatee the part of the inheritance of which the testator could freely dispose. reducing or annulling. the oldest is the most preferred] [Art773].  Thus. reduce pro rata the non-preferred legacies and devises [Art911 (2)].e. 886 and 904 . the gratuitous dispositions of the testator [either inter vivos or mortis causa] have to be set aside or reduced as may be required to cover the legitimes.  This provision implements the principle laid down in Articles 872.the inviolability of the legitime. they shall be reduced in the manner prescribed by this Code. Donations made to strangers shall be charged to that part of the estate of which the testator could have disposed by his last will.] C. reduce the donations inter vivos according to the inverse order of their dates [i. they shall be reduced according to the rules established by this Code. Exception o This rule of imputation to the legitime will not apply if the donor provided otherwise [in relation to Article 1062]. but rather the value of such property at the time it was donated. What is brought to collation is not the property donated itself. 910. Collation does not impose any lien on the property or the subject matter of collationable donation. if the legitimes are impaired. Donations which an illegitimate child may have received during the lifetime of his father or mother. last par. the rationale being that the donation is a real alienation which conveys ownership upon its acceptance. Julie Domingo. Should they exceed the portion that can be freely disposed of.   Donations Inter Vivos to Strangers  A stranger is anyone who does not succeed as a compulsory heir. Art. (3) If the devise or legacy consists of a usufruct or life annuity. [See discussions under Art950] Art.2007 ST  Art. Mars Rongo. i. reduce pro rata the preferred legacies and devises [Art911. in which case the donation will be imputed to the disposable portion of the estate. the devises or legacies made in the will.  Donations Inter Vivos to Compulsory Heirs  Donations inter vivos to a compulsory heir shall be imputed to his legitime. considered as an advance on his legitime.  These reductions shall be to the extent required to complete the legitimes. in the absence of any expression to the contrary. If the testator has directed that a certain devise or legacy be paid in preference to others. B. and the testamentary dispositions [Art907]. Donations given to children shall be charged to their legitime. the reduction shall be made as follows: (1) Donations shall be respected as long as the legitime can be covered. This rule applies to them as well. there is no preference. First. CJ Tan. 911.  Coverage of Rule o Applies to ALL compulsory heirs o Note that these 2 articles omit [inadvertently] ascendants who succeed as compulsory heirs.e. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  99 . it shall not suffer any reduction until the latter have been applied in full to the payment of the legitime. Among these legacies. Lea Mateo.  Donations inter vivos to strangers are necessarily imputed to the DISPOSABLE PORTION. shall be charged to his legitime. devises and testamentary dispositions. 909. this rule has no application to a surviving spouse. thus – A.  Method of Reduction  There is an order of priorities to be observed in the reduction of the testator’s gratuitous dispositions. (2) The reduction of the devises or legacies shall be pro rata. o For obvious reasons.

If. De Tupas v. it impairs the legitime]. he donated some three parcels of land in favor of Tupas Foundation. although the court recognized the right of individuals to donate.  Note – this rule of constructive partition is similar to that in co-ownership [Art498] and in partition of the decedent’s estate [Art1086].If he does. Subject to the 2 rules stated. Any other heir or devisee. so much of what is donated as exceeds what he can give by will is deemed inofficious and the donation is reducible to the extent of such excess. in these two latter cases.It was found that a year before Epifanio’s death. . any heir or devisee who did not have such right may exercise it. Complying with the terms of the usufruct or life annuity or pension. though without prejudice to its taking effect in the donor's lifetime or the donee's appropriating the fruits of the thing donated Art. Inc. Ceding to the devisee/legatee the free portion[or the proportional part thereof corresponding to the said legacy/devise. there should be pecuniary reimbursement to the party who did not get his physical portion of the thing devised. and 2) The thing given as a devise is indivisible  RULES 1.  Simply a re-statement of Art842. CA Vda. the property shall be sold at public auction at the instance of any one of the interested parties.SC held in the negative. but the former and the latter shall reimburse each other in cash for what respectively belongs to them. or ii. it shall go to the devisee if the reduction does not absorb onehalf of its value. If the extent of reduction is ½ OR MORE of the value of the thing – it should be given to the compulsory heir.  How the Thing Devised Should be Disposed Of: A. which cannot be conveniently divided. the compulsory heirs may elect between: i. it has to be reduced.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. 106 1.First. If the devise subject to reduction should consist of real property. CJ Tan.  This rule covers cases where: 1) The devise has to be reduced. The testator may devise and bequeath the free portion as he may deem fit. as the sole heir to the estate of the latter. may acquire the thing and pay the parties [the compulsory heir and the devisee in question] their respective shares in money. and (3) Tupas Foundation. If the extent of reduction is LESS THAN ½ of the value of the thing – it should be given to the devisee. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  100 . because the legitime cannot be impaired. the same is subject to certain limitations.e. the donation inter vivos made in its favor was not subject to collation under Art.Hence. . The testator can impose no usufruct or any other encumbrance on the part that passes as legitime.The wife is contending that the donationw as inofficious as it left her destitute of any inheritance. except that. Cecille Natividad. to the compulsory heirs. being a stranger and not a compulsory heir. the acquisition by one of the co-owners or co-heirs can be done only if all the co-owners or co-heirs agree to such acquisition. . . Whether or not the lower court decided correctly. Inc. The devisee who is entitled to a legitime may retain the entire property. she prayed to have the donation declared inofficious insofar as it prejudiced her legitime. 912. who elects to do so. Art. 914. 2. and in a contrary case. one of which is that he cannot give by donation more than he can give by will . If no heir or devisee elects to acquire it. therefore reducible by such proportion as might be deemed justified and the resulting deduction delivered to her.2007 ST  DEVISES/LEGACIES OF USUFRUCT/ LIFE ANNUITIES/ PENSIONS UNDER PAR. should the latter not make use of it. Mars Rongo. the value of the grant exceeds the free portion [i.  This article applies if neither party [the compulsory heir/s and the devisee] elects to exercise his right under Art912. C. RTC . Art. Lea Mateo. upon being capitalized according to actuarial standards. B. . it shall be sold at public auction and the net proceeds accordingly divided between the parties concerned. B. . 3  The following principles shall be borne in mind: A. If the heirs or devisees do not choose to avail themselves of the right granted by the preceding article.  In either case. wife of Epifanio Tupas. Julie Domingo. CASES Vizconde v. provided its value does not exceed that of the disposable portion and of the share pertaining to him as legitime.The lower court contended that a) Article 900 relied upon by plaintiff is not applicable because the properties which were disposed of by way of donation were no longer part of his hereditary estate at the time of his death b) the donated properties were Epifanio's capital or separate estate.The petition is brought by Paternza Lucerna. 913. in case there are other dispositions].

the SC ordered the case remanded for further determination as to whether the donation is inofficious insofar as it is in excess of the disposable free portion of the deceased’s estate and should thereby be reduced to the amount of such excess. CJ Tan. his/her descendants/ascendants. 7. descend ants or ascendants b) Accused Testator of Crime punishable by 6 years or more.If this is not present. be deprived of his legitime. by Fraud. Intimidation or Undue Influence causes Testator to Make Will or Change 1 already made. for causes expressly stated by law. Lea Mateo. it must be Proved by the proponent. unless there has been reconciliation between them . . .For Ascendants [Article 920] a) Abandoned children or induced daughters to live corrupt or immoral life or attempted against their virtue b) Convicted of attempt against life of testator. because disinheritance results in deprivation of legitime. Cecille Natividad. d) Has given cause for legal separation e) Has given grounds for loss of parental authority f) Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or the other spouse . 5. f) Loss of Parental Authority for causes specified in this Code g) Refusal to support Children or Descendants W/O justifiable cause h) Attempt by 1 of the parents against the life of the other. collationable. It must Specify the cause [Arts 916 and 918] . Mars Rongo. The sole exception to this rule is DISINHERITANCE. Violence. b) Accused Testator of a Crime punishable with imprisonment for 6 years or more. moreover. c) Spouse. one of which is that he cannot give by donation more than he can give by will. SECTION 6. such a donation is. It must be made in a Will . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  101 . 3.If the controverted cause is not proved. It must be Unconditional It must be Total The cause must be True If the truth of the cause is Denied. 6. or the cause specified is not among those set forth in the Code. . Thus. Intimidation or Undue Influence causes testator to Make a Will or Change one already made. and the accusation is fond to be False. Intimidation. or Undue Influence causes the testator to make a Will or change one already made. his or her spouse. Violence. although the language of Article 1061 of the Civil Code would seem to limit collation to the latter class of donations. so much of what is donated as exceeds what he can give by will is deemed inofficious and the donation is reducible to the extent of such excess. (This is true likewise with respect to donations made to strangers as in gifts made to compulsory heirs.For Descendants [Article 919] a) Guilty of an Attempt Against the Life of the Testator or the latter’s spouse.A person's prerogative to make donations is subject to certain limitations. though without prejudice to its taking effect in the donor's lifetime or the donee's appropriating the fruits of the thing donated. 2. .If he does.If this is not present.SUCCESSION REVIEWER .  Note – the strictness of the requisites indicates the policy of the law. A compulsory heir may. and the accusation is found to be Groundless c) Convicted of Adultery or Concubinage with Spouse of the Testator d) By Fraud. 915. there is ineffective disinheritance under article 918. e) Refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent or ascendant who disinherits f) Maltreatment of testator by word/deed g) Leads dishonorable or disgraceful life h) Conviction of a crime carrying civil interdiction 4.All the disinherited heir need do is deny the cause and the burden is thrown upon those who would uphold the disinheritance. The value of the thing donated is imputable into the hereditary estate of the donor at the time of his death for the purpose of determining the legitime of the forced or compulsory heirs and the freely disposable portion of the estate. if the accusation has been found to be False d) Convicted of adultery / concubinage with the spouse of the testator e) By Fraud.Must be formally valid and admitted to probate It must be for a Cause specified by law under Articles 916 in relation to Articles 919-921 . REQUISITES OF A V ALID DISINHERITANCE 1.For Surviving Spouse [Article 921] a) Convicted of Attempt against life of Testator. – DISINHERITANCE Art.The said properties being collationable. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. there is ineffective disinheritance under article 918. Julie Domingo. It regards disinheritance with disfavor and will grant it only with reluctance. descendant or ascendants c) Accused testator of a Crime punishable by Imprisonment for 6 years or more.) .Second. in consequence of disinheritance.  Art904 sets forth the rule that the testator cannot deprive the compulsory heirs of the legitime. 1 ST SEM 2006. disinheritance is the only instance in which the testator may deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime. there is ineffective disinheritance under article 918. Violence.2007 ST .

Art.  There are 8 Causes for disinheritance of Children or Descendants – Whether Legitimate or Illegitimate [Exclusive enumeration] 1.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006.  Made in a Will – the 1 clause of this article constitutes the first requisite of disinheritance. (7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life. or consummated. 920 [for ascendants] and 921 [for the surviving spouse]. (8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction. but the devises and legacies and other testamentary dispositions shall be valid to such extent as will not impair the legitime. The causes allowed by law are enumerated in Articles 919 [for descendants]. the compulsory heir will be entitled to his corresponding share of the free portion as well. the heir in question gets his legitime. All the disinherited heir need do is deny the cause and the burden is thrown upon those who would uphold the disinheritance. His legitime. Mars Rongo. (6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed. Julie Domingo. by the child or descendant. (4) When a child or descendant by fraud.  The will obviously. o If he did. some. legitimate as well as illegitimate: (1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an attempt against the life of the testator. but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. o All stages of commission are included – whether attempted. The burden of proving the truth of the cause for disinheritance shall rest upon the other heirs of the testator. or which is not one of those set forth in this Code. that it must be made in a will.  Legal Cause – is the 2 requisite for a valid disinheritance. descendants or ascendants o The word attempt here is used nontechnically and should not be construed to limit the provision to the attempted stage of the felony. 917. the disinherited heir forfeits: A. B. or ascendants. Disinheritance without a specification of the cause.  This article sets forth requisites 3 and 6 of disinheritance. (3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator. must be FORMALLY VALID and must be admitted to PROBATE. if the disinherited heir should deny it. if contradicted. ST  EFFECT OF DISINHERITANCE  The effect of disinheritance is not just deprivation of the leigtime. (5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent or ascendant who disinherits such child or descendant. 919. Thus.  INEFFECTIVE DISINHERITANCE  If the disinheritance lacks one or other of the requisites mentioned in this article. Has been found Guilty of an Attempt Against the Life of the Testator or the latter’s spouse. it must be proved. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator. his or her spouse. The preterition or omission of one. His intestate portion. Cecille Natividad. frustrated. CJ Tan. (2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more. Art. or undue influence causes the testator to make a will or to change one already made. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. the institution shall be effectual.2007 o If the testator did not. but total exclusion of the disinherited heir from the inheritance.  As to whether he will also get any part of the intestate portion or not. Lea Mateo. shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited. whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator. this depends on whether the testator gave away the free portion through testamentary dispositions. 916. if any. 854. nd st Art.  7 requisite – it must be noted that the truth here is not presumed. descendants. intimidation. if the accusation has been found groundless. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  102 . 918. Any testamentary disposition made in a prior will of the disinheriting testator. these dispositions are VALID and the compulsory heir improperly disinherited gets only his legitime. TH Art. or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line. Disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. without prejudice to the right of representation.  Note the difference between the effect of ineffective disinheritance and that of preterition under article 854: Art. or for a cause the truth of which. violence. shall annul the institution of heir. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and descendants. and C. is not proved.

The obligation to give support shall be demandable from the time the person who has a right to receive the same needs it for maintenance. but it is required that the act of verbal or physical assault is of a serious nature. and the accusation is found to be Groundless o The word accused here is used generically and will include: a) Filing of a complaint before the prosecutor. 1 day beyond that places it within the next higher penalty of prision mayor. o Question – must the disinheritance be subsequent to the conviction or may it precede the conviction? . 203. o The dishonorable or disgraceful conduct or pattern of behavior need not be sexual in nature. o FINAL CONVICTION is required. i. the judgment of acquittal must state that either – a) No crime was committed or b) The accused did not commit the crime o An acquittal based on reasonable ground will not be a ground for disinheritance. However. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  103 . can fall under this paragraph. the latter’s spouse. 8. or c) Even suppressing exculpatory evidence o The crime of which the testator is accused must carry a penalty of at least 6 years imprisonment. 6.If the penalty prescribed is prision correccional. o The accusation must be found to be groundless . Refusal may be justified if the obligor does not have enough resources for all whom he is obliged to support. Art. Conviction of a crime carrying civil interdiction o Final Conviction is required.e. When the obligation to give support falls upon two or more persons. the payment of the same shall be divided between them in proportion to the resources of each. Intimidation or Undue Influence causes the Testator to Make a Will or Change one already made. Cecille Natividad. 5. but it shall not be paid except from the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand. does it fall under the contemplation of this paragraph? o The testator must be ACQUITTED. Leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life o The operative word here is “lead. When two or more recipients at the same time claim support from one and the same person legally obliged to give it. should the latter not have sufficient means to satisfy all claims. reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal [under Articles 40-41 of the RPC]. a physical assault that would not fall under par1 as an attempt against the life of the testator. Julie Domingo. although it may often be that. Support pendente lite may be claimed in accordance with the Rules of Court. descendants or ascendants. it seems that it must be subsequent [?] 2. o Same question – must the disinheritance be subsequent to the conviction? 4.” There must be habituality to the conduct to make it fall under this paragraph. in fact. Surely. Refusal W/O justifiable cause to Support the parent or ascendant who disinherits o There must have been a need and a demand for support [in relation to Art 203 of the Family Code] Art. .SUCCESSION REVIEWER o The felony. the order established in the preceding article shall be followed. Mars Rongo. Has been Convicted of Adultery or Concubinage with the Spouse of the Testator o Final Conviction is required o Same question – must the disinheritance be subsequent to the conviction? By Fraud. Violence. a child or descendant whose livelihood is drug-pushing or smuggling is living a dishonorable and disgraceful life. 1 ST SEM 2006. 200. obviously. o The accessory penalty of civil interdiction is imposed with the principal penalties of death. in case of urgent need and by special circumstances. in which case the child shall be preferred. without prejudice to his right to claim from the other obligors the share due from them. must be an intentional one. Has Accused the Testator of a Crime punishable by 6 years or more. the judge may order only one of them to furnish the support provisionally. 7. Lea Mateo.By the wording of the law.Prof. unless the concurrent obligees should be the spouse and a child subject to parental authority. it is not even required that any criminal case be filed. Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed o This will include a wide range of misdeeds. CJ Tan. The ascendants are rd only 3 in the hierarchy of preference among claimants of support [under Art200 par3 of the Family Code].2007 Payment shall be made within the first five days of each corresponding month or when the recipient dies. his heirs shall not be obliged to return what he has received in advance. o No conviction is required. . ST o The demand must have been unjustifiably refused. o Consequently. or b) Presenting incriminating evidence against the testator. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Balane says that the terminology used should be “more than 6 years imprisonment” because 6 years still falls within prision correccional . 3.

(7) The refusal to support the children or descendants without justifiable cause. 3. if the accusation has been found to be false. (3) When the parent or ascendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more. whether legitimate or illegitimate: (1) When the parents have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life. mere acquiescence without more is not sufficient to constitute abandonment. CJ Tan. 3. Julie Domingo. 6. a) Judicial deprivation of parental authority based on ground of sexual abuse [Arts232 FC] b) Loss of parental authority as a result of Judicial declaration of abandonment of a child [Art229(3) FC] c) Judicial Deprivation of Parental Authority on the grounds of: i. However.  There are also 8 Causes for the Disinheritance of Parents or Ascendants.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. his or her spouse. Cabangbang. violence. Attempt against Virtue conviction is required here. 8. iii. counsel or example. (5) When the parent or ascendant by fraud. if the accusation has been found to be False. Only those causes which involve culpability on the part of the parents will provide grounds for disinheritance. when the mother completely withheld her presence. Excessively harsh or cruel treatment of the child ii. – no c) 2. 4. Compelling the child to beg. 5. or iv. descendants. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  104 . descendant or ascendants. Subjecting the child or allowing him to be subjected to acts of lasciviousness [Art231 FC] Refusal to support the Children or Descendants without justifiable cause Attempt by one of the parents against the life of the other. Question – will consent to adoption of a child constitute abandonment? b) Inducement to live a corrupt and immoral life – under Art231[2] of the Family Code as a ground for suspension or deprivation of parental authority. (2) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator. her care and the opportunity to show maternal affection. her love.  Paragraphs 2. whether Legitimate or Illegitimate. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. 920. Mars Rongo. For instance. intimidation. and totally denied her support and maintenance. Giving the child corrupting orders. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of parents or ascendants. unless there has been a reconciliation between them. (8) An attempt by one of the parents against the life of the other. According to the case of Chua v. Lea Mateo. 5 and 7 are the same grounds for disinheritance of a descendant or child. Has Accused testator of a Crime punishable by Imprisonment for 6 years or more. his or her spouse. Convicted of attempt against life of testator. or ascendants. unless there has been a reconciliation between them. Cecille Natividad. Article 59 of PD603 and all conduct constituting repeated or total refusal or failure to care for the child. or undue influence causes the testator to make a will or to change one already made. 4. or attempted against their virtue.2007 ST Art. (6) The loss of parental authority for causes specified in this Code. then it can be legally inferred that there is abandonment. (4) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator. The Loss of Parental Authority for causes specified in this Code o Not all causes for loss of parental authority are grounds for disinheritance. her silence and inaction having been prolonged for such a time. [Exclusive enumeration] 1. Violence. Has been Convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator. attainment of the age of majority is not a ground. 7. When the parents have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life or attempted against their virtue o This paragraph encompasses 3 grounds: a) Abandonment – also includes those penalized by law under articles 276277 of the RPC. By Fraud. Intimidation or Undue Influence causes testator to Make a Will or Change one already made.

Has given grounds for loss of parental authority Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or the other spouse  Paragraphs 1. 3. 1. or Undue Influence causes the testator to make a Will or change one already made. a common child or a child of the petitioner [natural or adopted]. Julie Domingo. Art. 5 and 6 are also enumerated under grounds for disinheritance of a descendant or child. and the accusation has been found to be false. The disinherited heir is restored to his legitime ii.  Meaning of Reconciliation – either an express pardon extended by the testator to the offending heir or unequivocal conduct of the testator towards the offending heir which reveals the testator’s intent to forgive the offense. Spouse is convicted of an Attempt against the life of the Testator. Spouse has given cause for legal separation o A decree of legal separation is not required. b) If conduct – the intent to forgive must be clear. such dispositions remain valid. there are 10 grounds for legal separation: a) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner. it must be a pardon expressly and concretely extended to the offender. Cecille Natividad. (3) When the spouse by fraud. Mars Rongo. 3. or a child of petitioner [natural or adopted] to engage in prostitution or connivance in such corruption or inducement. and the accusation is fond to be False. 922. Spouse Accused Testator of a Crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for 6 years or more. 6. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. or undue influence cause the testator to make a will or to change one already made. or ascendants. If the disinheriting will disposed of disposable portion [or any part thereof] in favor of testamentary heirs. The effects of setting aside the disinheritance are: i. Lea Mateo. violence. CJ Tan. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  105 . 4. The Spouse. (6) Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or the other spouse. by the courts. Violence. in case of controversy. legatees or devisees.  Effect of Reconciliation a) If it occurs before disinheritance is made – right to disinherit is extinguished b) If it occurs after the disinheritance is made – disinheritance is set aside. iii. This is ultimately a question of fact which will be resolved.  Article 922 is in relation to Article 1033. (5) When the spouse has given grounds for the loss of parental authority. The following shall be sufficient causes for disinheriting a spouse: (1) When the spouse has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator. e) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent f) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent g) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage. 2. his or her descendants. A subsequent reconciliation between the offender and the offended person deprives the latter of the right to disinherit. of the disposable portion. Intimidation. by Fraud. d) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than 6 years. who accepts it. (2) When the spouse has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment of six years or more. and renders ineffectual any disinheritance that may have been made. 921. o According to Art55 of the Family Code. b) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation c) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner.  There are 6 causes for disinheriting a Spouse – these grounds are exclusive. a) If Express Pardon – a general pardon extended by the testator on his deathbed to all who have offended him will not suffice. (4) When the spouse has given cause for legal separation. the disinherited heir is entitled to his proportionate share [in intestacy] if any. his or her descendants or ascendants. intimidation. 2. even if pardoned. ST Art.SUCCESSION REVIEWER i) 1 ST SEM 2006. whether in the Philippines or abroad h) Sexual infidelity or perversion j) 5. If the disinheriting will did not dispose of the disposable portion.2007 Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner Abandonment of the petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than 1 year. a common child.

 However. Should he not charge anyone in particular.  The wording of Art925 is erroneous because a compulsory heir.Devise: testamentary disposition of real property by particular title o Castan . Art.  It is important. this article is carelessly worded. then the heir. As far as the heir. Lea Mateo. a disinherited child will be represented by his children or other descendants. Alfonso Art. to distinguish it from a testamentary disposition to an heir because of the effects of preterition.  This liability will also attach to the executor or administrator in the proper cases. ST Art.”  Thus. the children or the descendants of the disinherited heir do not have any right of representation. if he accepts the disposition in his favor. be bound to deliver the legacy or devise to the person specified. If two or more heirs take possession of the estate. The children and descendants of the person disinherited shall take his or her place and shall preserve the rights of compulsory heirs with respect to the legitime. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  106 .  WHO is charged with the Legacy  General Rule – the Estate Exception – however. The compulsory heirs shall not be liable for the charge beyond the amount of the free portion given them. as such. the testator may impose the burden on a testamentary heir or a legatee or devisee.  Extent of liability of heir.  Definition of Legacies and Devises – legacies and devises are codally defined [by indirection] in Art782 par2  A more accurate definition of the terms can be found either in Art660 of the Spanish Code or in Castan – o Article 660 of the Spanish Code . but the disinherited parent shall not have the usufruct or administration of the property which constitutes the legitime. 927. If he does so. he alone shall be bound. but never in the ascending.  What can be devised or bequeathed . respectively.2007 difference is that an heir receives an aliquot or fractional part of the inheritance.Legacy: testamentary disposition of specific or generic personal property . Cecille Natividad.  Extent of Representation  The representative take the place of the disinherited heir not only with respect to the legitime. all shall be liable in the same proportion in which they may inherit. All things and rights which are within the commerce of man be bequeathed or devised. When the testator charges one of the heirs with a legacy or devise. 923. This will be in the nature of a subsidiary legacy or devise.  Limitations on Legacy or Devise – it should not impair the legitime. SECTION 7. cannot be burdened with a legacy or devise because that would impair his legitime. Thus.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. even though only one of them should have been negligent. Julie Domingo.  Right of Representation in Disinheritance  The right of representation is granted only to descendants of disinherited descendants. Mars Rongo. 925. devisee or legatee in case of subsidiary legacies or devises – the value of the benefit received from the testator.  Representation therefore occurs in compulsory and intestate succession. A testator may charge with legacies and devises not only his compulsory heirs but also the legatees and devisees. if the heir disinherited is a parent/ascendant or spouse. but not in testamentary succession. 926. Essentially. but also to any intestate portion that the disinherited heir would have inherited. It is not required that the thing devised or bequeathed belong to the testator. LEGACIES AND DEVISES Art. legatee or devisee charged is concerned. the Art.  The liability imposed by this article is based on malice. legatee or devisee charged will. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. CJ Tan. they shall be solidarily liable for the loss or destruction of a thing devised or bequeathed. whereas a legatee or devisee receives specific or generic personalty or realty. CASE Francisco v. Only a testamentary heir can be so burdened. The latter shall be liable for the charge only to the extent of the value of the legacy or the devise received by them. 924.  This rule is laid down in Art972 par1 which provides: “the right of representation takes place in the direct descending line.Devise: testamentary disposition of specific or generic real property.Legacy: testamentary disposition of personal property by particular title . fault or negligence. in defining a legacy or a devise. it will be a MODE.anything within the commerce of man.

or legatee owns only a part of. The legacy or devise of a thing which at the time of the execution of the will already belonged to the legatee or devisee shall be ineffective. perpetual or temporary. CJ Tan. Art. In the second case. If the testator expressly orders that the thing be freed from such interest or encumbrance. the legacy or devise shall be valid to that extent. should he request one. by analogy with Art931. Mars Rongo. In both cases. or demands an excessive price therefor. by whatever title. 929. the estate is obliged to pay the debt. heir. 933. Any other charge. the estate should give the legatee/devisee the monetary equivalent. 928. The heir who is bound to deliver the legacy or devise shall be liable in case of eviction. or an interest in the thing bequeathed. unless the testator expressly declares that he gives the thing in its entirety. In the first case. Lea Mateo. Art. Art.  WHO is Liable in case of EVICTION?  General Rule – the Estate  In case of a subsidiary legacy or devise – the heir. The legacy or devise of a thing belonging to another person is void. 937. If the testator orders that a thing belonging to another be acquired in order that it be given to a legatee or devisee. the estate shall comply with the legacy by assigning to the legatee all rights of action it may have against the debtor. if the thing is indeterminate and is indicated only by its kind. should bring an action against the debtor for the payment of his debt. viz: a) He may convey more than he owns – the estate should try to acquire the part or interest owned by other parties. Art. Cecille Natividad.  Legacy / Devise of a thing owned in part by the testator [Art929]  General Rule – conveys only the interest or part owned by the testator  Exception – if the testator provides otherwise. Art. The legacy referred to in the preceding article shall lapse if the testator. The same rule applies when the thing is pledged or mortgaged after the execution of the will. But if the thing bequeathed. b) He may convey less than he owns [Art794] ST Art. though not belonging to the testator when he made the will. Art. the legacy or devise shall be without effect. the heir upon whom the obligation is imposed or the estate must acquire it and give the same to the legatee or devisee. the legacy or devise shall be understood limited to such part or interest. the disposition shall take effect. passes with it to the legatee or devisee. afterwards becomes his. by giving the legatee an acquittance. unless the contrary intention appears. he can claim nothing by virtue of the legacy or devise. the heir or the estate shall only be obliged to give the just value of the thing. even if such payment should not have been effected at the time of his death. 930. If the legatee or devisee acquires it gratuitously after such time. If the thing bequeathed belonged to the legatee or devisee at the time of the execution of the will. but if the owner of the thing refuses to alienate the same. If the testator. if the testator erroneously believed that the thing pertained to him. Art. but not subsequent ones. the legacy shall comprise all interests on the credit or debt which may be due the testator at the time of his death. even though another person may have some interest therein.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. If the other parties are unwilling to alienate. but if it has been acquired by onerous title he can Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. even though it may have subsequently alienated by him. The legacy of a credit against a third person or of the remission or release of a debt of the legatee shall be effective only as regards that part of the credit or debt existing at the time of the death of the testator. legatee or devisee charged. A generic legacy of release or remission of debts comprises those existing at the time of the execution of the will.2007 demand reimbursement from the heir or the estate. The legacy to the debtor of the thing pledged by him is understood to discharge only the right of pledge. Art. If the testator should bequeath or devise something pledged or mortgaged to secure a recoverable debt before the execution of the will. 932. Julie Domingo. with which the thing bequeathed is burdened. 935. Art. 936. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  107 . 934. 931. after having made it.

If the thing was owned by another person at the time of the making of the will and acquired thereafter by the legatee/devisee: a) If the testator erroneously believed that it belonged to him – legacy or devise is VOID b) If the testator was not in error – .   NOTE – articles 932 par 1 and 933 par 1 say essentially the same thing and should be merged. c) Instruction to pay more than what is due – effective only as to what is due.  Legacy / Devise of a thing pledged or mortgaged under Article 934 – the encumbrance must be removed by paying the debt. UNLESS the testator intended otherwise. the legatee/devisee should be given the monetary equivalent. Mars Rongo. b) Instruction to pay non-existing debt – should be DISREGARDED. Julie Domingo. ST  Legacy / Devise of a Thing Belonging to Another [Arts930-931]  If the testator ordered the acquisition of the thing – the order should be complied with. Art. there is a doubt. 938.  Testamentary Instruction to Pay a Debt [Art939] a) This is not a testamentary disposition. the excess may be demanded as an obligation of the estate. the disposition is validated. The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every expression some effect. because this would solution indebiti. 939. The most rational solution seems to be that such a disposition should be considered VALID. o EXCEPT if subsequent to the making of the disposition. Art. if the encumbrance can be removed for a consideration.  Legacy of Credit or Remission [Articles 935-937]  Applies only to amount still unpaid at the time of the testator’s death [under Art935]  Revoked if testator subsequently sues the debtor for collection [[Article 936]  If Generic. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  108 . In the latter case. If the thing was owned by the testator at the time of the making of the will and acquired thereafter from him by the legatee/devisee – Articles 932 and 933 are SILENT on this. because: a) The fact that the testator. unless a contrary intention appears.  Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. unless otherwise provided. unless the bigger  Legacy / Devise of a Thing Already Belonging to the Legatee / Devisee or Subsequently Acquired by Him [Articles 932 and 933]  If the thing already belonged to the legatee/devisee at the time of the execution of the will – the legacy or devise is VOID. the thing is acquired by the testator onerously or gratuitously. of the credit or of the legacy or devise. CJ Tan. unless the testator so expressly declares. that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy. the excess is not due. but Article 957 par 2 can be applied and the legacy/devise should be deemed revoked.” He will be much better off renouncing the legacy/devise and filing a claim for the credit. A legacy or devise made to a creditor shall not be applied to his credit. the disposition shall be considered as not written. 791. if any. The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the fulfillment of natural obligations. If the owner is unwilling to part with the thing.2007  Legacy / Devise to remove an encumbrance over a thing belonging to the legatee / devisee under Art932 par2 – VALID. bequeathed the thing.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. the creditor shall have the right to collect the excess. It is not validated by an alienation by the legatee /devisee subsequent to the making of the will.  NOTE – if the testator does provide that the legacy / devise should be imputed to the debt and the amount of the debt is equal to or more than the value of the legacy/devise it would be folly for the creditor to accept the “benefit. applies only to those existing at the time of execution of the will [under Articles 937 and 793].  Exception – will be imputed to the debt if the testator so provides. Art. . If a testamentary disposition admits of different interpretations. implies an order to acquire b) At worst.If the thing was acquired onerously by legatee/devisee – the legatee or devisee is entitled to reimbursement.  If the testator erroneously believed that the thing belonged to him – the legacy or devise is VOID. rather than one which will render any of the expressions inoperative.If the thing was acquired gratuitously by legatee/devisee – nothing more is due. with knowledge of the other person’s ownership. Cecille Natividad. If the testator orders the payment of what he believes he owes but does not in fact owe. but merely a direction to discharge a civil obligation. and if the debt exceeds the legacy / devise. that interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred.  If the testator knew that the thing did not belong to him but did not order its acquisition – the Code is SILENT on this. and of two modes of interpreting a will. Lea Mateo. 788. If as regards a specified debt more than the amount thereof is ordered paid.  Legacy / Devise to a Creditor [Art938]  General Rule – will be treated like any other legacy / devise and therefore will not be imputed to the debt. and doubts should be resolved in favor of testacy [Arts 788 and 791] Art. in case of doubt.

dies before making it. CJ Tan. In the alternative legacies or devises. once made. his right shall pass to his heirs. If the heir. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  109 . legatee. b) If the choice belongs to an heir. B. This rule applies whether the choice belongs to the executor/administrator or the legatee/devisee. 1 ST SEM 2006. Neither can the debtor deliver a thing of inferior quality. Mars Rongo. the choice is presumed to be left to the heir upon whom the obligation to give the legacy or devise may be imposed. or to the heirs on whom the obligation to give the benefit is imposed [in a subsidiary legacy or devise]  Limitation on Choice – the choice must be limited to something which is neither superior nor inferior in quality. Art. Art. In alternative legacies or devises. If the choice belongs to the legatee/devisee and he dies before making the choice – the right passes to his heirs. The estate will simply have to acquire what is given by legacy. Cecille Natividad. legatee or devisee. except as herein provided. acting for the estate.  If the person who is to choose dies before choice is made: a) If the choice belonged to executor or administrator – the right is transmitted to his successor in office. the former may give or the latter may choose whichever he may prefer.  The choice is irrevocable. legatee or devisee – the right is transmitted to his own heirs.2007 ST Art. the provisions of this Code regulating obligations of the same kind shall be observed. the creditor cannot demand a thing of superior quality.  Provisions suppletorily governing – Articles 1199-1205. analogously.   Art. whose quality and circumstances have not been stated. If the heir. who may have been given the choice. Transmissibility of Right to Choose 1. or the executor or administrator of the estate if no particular heir is so obliged. this right shall pass to the respective heirs. Julie Domingo.” Finality of Choice – irrevocable. Once made. or devisee charged – in a subsidiary legacy or devise   These parties are.  Right of Choice [Article 942-943]  General Rule – the executor or administrator. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.SUCCESSION REVIEWER amount specified constitutes a natural obligation under Articles 1423 – 1430.  Alternative legacies / devises  Definition – One which provides that. o Exception – if the testator gives the right of choice to the legatee / devisee. among several things mentioned.  Generic legacies / devises  Rules on Validity [Article 941] A. 940. The purpose of the obligation and other circumstances shall be taken into consideration. through the executor or administrator – in a direct legacy or devise 2) The heir. on alternative obligations. save such modifications as may appear from the intention expressed by the testator. Lea Mateo. 943. legatee or devisee cannot make the choice. 941. o In relation to Art1246 of the CC – “When the obligation consists in the delivery of an indeterminate or generic thing. Generic Legacy – valid even if no such movables exist in the testator’s estate upon his death. If the choice belongs to the executor / administrator and he dies before making the choice – the right is transmitted to his successor in the position. in case it has been granted him. A legacy of generic personal property shall be valid even if there be no things of the same kind in the estate. in the position of the debtor.  Note – this distinction as found in the Spanish Code perpetuates the rule in the Partidas even if it has become artificial and arbitrary in modern times. if the testator so provides.  Right of Choice  General Rule 1) The estate. the choice is irrevocable. but a choice once made shall be irrevocable. 942. Whenever the testator expressly leaves the right of choice to the heir. A devise of indeterminate real property shall be valid only if there be immovable property of its kind in the estate. Exception – the legatee/devisee. The right of choice shall belong to the executor or administrator who shall comply with the legacy by the delivery of a thing which is neither of inferior nor of superior quality. 2. only one is to be given. Generic Devise – valid only if there exists such an immovable in the testator’s estate at the time of his death. or to the legatee or devisee.

However. Cecille Natividad. Mars Rongo. the date of effectivity shall retroact to the decedent’s d eath. and for the following ones which shall be due at the beginning of each period.  Legacy for Support  Duration – the legatee’s lifetime. even though the legatee should die before the expiration of the period which has commenced. should the legacy prove to be inofficious.e. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  110 . as determined by 2 variables: [1] the social standing and circumstances of the legatee. The legatee or devisee acquires a right to the pure and simple legacies or devises from the death of the testator. or a certain annual. 947. A legacy for education lasts until the legatee is of age. CJ Tan. if the testator has not otherwise provided.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006.  Legacy for Education  Duration – age of majority or the completion of a professional. if acquired from a 3rd person – upon acquisition Upon arrival of the term. if from testator’s estate – upon testator’s death b. whichever comes later. 945. if the condition is fulfilled [under Art1187] Fruits Upon the testator’s death [under Art948] Upon determination. such payment shall not be returned. but the right to it vests upon the testator’s death [under Art878] Upon the testator’s death. only if the legatee pursues his studies diligently. or weekly amount is bequeathed. If Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. it shall be fixed in accordance with the social standing and the circumstances of the legatee and the value of the estate. to Art1187] With a Suspensive Condition Upon the happening of the condition Art. Art.  NOTE – this should be harmonized with the rules on settlement of estates. If the testator or during his lifetime used to give the legatee a certain sum of money or other things by way of support. the legatee may petition the court for the first installment upon the death of the testator.  Demandability. i.  Legacy of a Periodical Pension  Demandability – upon the testator’s death and the succeeding ones at the beginning of the period without duty to reimburse should the legatee due before the lapse of the period. Art.  Amount o Primarily – that fixed by the testator o Secondarily – that which is proper. If the thing bequeathed should be subject to a usufruct. A legacy for support lasts during the lifetime of the legatee. and transmits it to his heirs. shall retroact to the day of the constitution of the obligation. monthly. Nevertheless. the same amount shall be deemed bequeathed. 946.  This article lays down the same rule as Art934 par3. unless testator provides otherwise [Art884 in rel. In the latter instance. provided he pursues his course diligently. unless the testator has provided otherwise  Amount o Primarily – that fixed by the testator o Secondarily – that which the testator during his lifetime used to give the legatee by way of support. If the testator has not fixed the amount of such legacies. vocational or general course. unless it be markedly disproportionate to the value of the estate. and [2] the value of the disposable portion. the fruits and interests during the pendency of the condition shall be deemed to have been mutually compensated.2007 ST Art. when the obligation imposes reciprocal prestations upon the parties. or beyond the age of majority in order that the legatee may finish some professional. 1187. Lea Mateo. the legatee or devisee shall respect such right until it is legally extinguished. Ownership and Fruits of Legacies/ Devises Demandability Pure and Determinate Pure and Generic Upon Testator’s death Upon Testator’s death When Ownership Vests Upon Testator’s death a. The effects of a conditional obligation to give. on the basis of 2 variables: [1] the social standing and the circumstances of the legatee. once the condition has been fulfilled. vocational or general course. and [2] the value of the disposable portion of the estate. If a periodical pension. Julie Domingo. 944. Art. unless testator provides otherwise [Art949] With a Suspensive Term Upon the arrival of the term Upon the arrival of the term [implied from Art885] Upon the happening of the condition. the debts should first be paid before any testamentary grants can be complied with [unless the legatee files a BOND under Rule 90 sec1 of ROC]. unless markedly disproportionate to the value of the disposable portion o Tertiarily – that which is reasonable.

If the legacy or device is of a specific and determinate thing pertaining to the testator. 950. even though they may not have been mentioned  The crucial time is the testator’s death.  Order of Preference among Legacies and Devises in case the Estate is Not Sufficient for All of them 1. Legacies or devises of a specific. Cecille Natividad. 1244. In obligations to do and not to do. and shall be benefited by its increase or improvement. its fruits and interests from the time of the death of the testator shall pertain to the legatee or devisee if the testator has expressly so ordered. an act or forbearance cannot be substituted by another act or forbearance against the obligee's will. must deliver the very thing bequeathed if he is able to do so and cannot discharge this obligation by paying its value. 948. the debtor shall appropriate the fruits and interests received. unless from the nature and circumstances of the obligation it should be inferred that the intention of the person constituting the same was different. or uncollected income. 952. determinate thing which forms a part of the estate 6. although the latter may be of the same value as. as well as any growing fruits. (5) Legacies or devises of a specific.SUCCESSION REVIEWER the obligation is unilateral. the legatee or devisee acquires the ownership thereof upon the death of the testator. (4) Legacies for education. Lea Mateo. therefore. That is why the thing must be delivered in the condition in which it is at that time. (6) All others pro rata. ST Art. 949. if the legacies/devises have exceeded the disposable portion o Article 950 will apply if the reason for the reduction is not the impairment of legitimes. Legacies of money must be paid in cash. The obligation to give a determinate thing includes that of delivering all its accessions and accessories.  Possible reconciliation between the 2 articles – each article can be given its own area of applicability. Art. even though the heir or the estate may not have any.e. (2) Legacies or devises declared by the testator to be preferential. (3) Legacies for support. Mars Rongo. or the executor or administrator of the estate. pro rata  Article 950 and Article 911  Article 911 also contains a rule for reduction of legacies and devises and the order of preference there is different: it simply provides that all the non- Art. charged with a legacy or devise. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  111 . 1166. determinate thing which forms a part of the estate. or more valuable than that which is due. 1 ST SEM 2006. because that is when successional rights vest [under Art777]. All others. From the moment of the testator's death. but is generic or of quantity. in each case. The heir. Legacies or devises declared by the testator to be preferential 3. If the estate should not be sufficient to cover all the legacies or devises. o Article 911 will apply if reductions have to be made because the LEGITIMES have been impaired. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. CJ Tan. 951. who shall. i. the courts shall determine. Art.  This article conforms to the rule of identity in the performance of obligations [under Art1244]: Art. In obligations to do or not to do.e. their payment shall be made in the following order: (1) Remuneratory legacies or devises. Julie Domingo. The debtor of a thing cannot compel the creditor to receive a different one. The thing bequeathed shall be delivered with all its accessories and accessories and in the condition in which it may be upon the death of the testator. the thing bequeathed shall be at the risk of the legatee or devisee. This is the same rule laid down in Art1166. Remuneratory legacies or devises 2. there are no legitimes because there are no compulsory heirs or the legitimes have already been satisfied through donations inter vivos. The expenses necessary for the delivery of the thing bequeathed shall be for the account of the heir or the estate. or unborn offspring of animals.2007 preferred legacies/devises will be reduced pro rata. without prejudice to the responsibility of the executor or administrator.  The obligation to deliver the accessions and accessories exists even if the testator does not explicitly provide for it. If the bequest should not be of a specific and determinate thing. Art. which provides: Art. but without prejudice to the legitime. bear its loss or deterioration. and the preferred legacies/devises are reduced last. Legacies for support 4. but not the income which was due and unpaid before the latter's death. the retroactive effect of the condition that has been complied with. Legacies for education 5. i. It is a rule different from that set forth in Art950.

Secondarily – ACCRETION 3. Mars Rongo. as implied under Art954 par1. some of the latter may accept and the others may repudiate the share respectively belonging to them in the legacy or devise. Nevertheless. Any compulsory heir who is at the same time a legatee or devisee may waive the inheritance and accept the legacy or devise. Art. or waive or accept both. except in cases of substitution and of the right of accretion. the legacy or devise shall not thereafter be valid. one of which is onerous.  2 Legacies/Devises to the Same Recipient o If both gratuitous – the recipient may accept or renounce either or both o If both onerous – same rule.  Rules in Case of Repudiation by or Incapacity of Legatee/Devisee 1. the legacy/devise and the legitime. cannot renounce the onerous one and accept the other. Should he die before having accepted the legacy or devise. Debts first have to be paid. it being understood that in the latter case the legacy or devise shall be without effect only with respect to the part thus alienated. it shall be merged into the mass of the estate. The legatee or devisee of two legacies or devises. leaving several heirs. or of the executor or administrator of the estate should he be authorized by the court to deliver it. actual delivery does not take place at that time. the testator’s w ishes shall govern. but shall request its delivery and possession of the heir charged with the legacy or devise. may accept or renounce either or both o If one gratuitous and the other onerous – the recipient cannot accept the gratuitous and renounce the onerous.  Rules on Acceptance and Repudiation of Legacies / Devises  Legacies ma be total or partial. Any other combination is permitted. unless the reacquisition shall have been effected by virtue of the exercise of the right of repurchase. then legitimes have to be determined. If there is a stipulation. he shall be free to accept or renounce both. (2) If the testator by any title or for any cause alienates the thing bequeathed or any part thereof. Any other combination however is permitted. Primarily – SUBSTITUTION 2. or to renounce either. If after the alienation the thing should again belong to the testator.2007 ST Art. 955. or renounce the latter and accept the former. The legatee or devisee cannot take possession of the thing bequeathed upon his own authority. the recipient cannot accept the gratuitous part and renounce the onerous part. o Exception – If the legacy/devise is partly onerous and partly gratuitous. if the latter be onerous. If the legatee or devisee cannot or is unwilling to accept the legacy or devise.  Acceptance or Repudiation by Heirs of Legatee/ Devisee – if the legatee or devisee dies before accepting or renouncing. and in the same manner as the legatee or devisee. The legatee or devisee cannot accept a part of the legacy or devise and repudiate the other. 956. his heirs shall exercise such right as to their pro-indiviso share. Tertiarily – INTESTACY Art. Julie Domingo. 957. the person obliged to pay the legacy or devise shall be liable for Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Legacy/Devise to One who is Also a Compulsory Heir – the recipient may accept either or both. (3) If the thing bequeathed is totally lost during the lifetime of the testator. CJ Tan. or after his death without the heir's fault. and the testamentary dispositions (including legacies and devises) computed lest they impair the legitimes. or if the legacy or devise for any reason should become ineffective. [in relation to Art1055] Effect if the Will Provides Otherwise – all of the above rules apply in the absence of a stipulation in the will providing otherwise.   Art.  Although the efficacy of a legacy or devise vests upon the testator’s death. If both are onerous or gratuitous. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  112 . 954. 953. It is only after these steps have been taken that the beneficiaries of the will can take possession. But if the testator intended that the two legacies or devises should be inseparable from each other. even if it be by reason of nullity of the contract.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. the legatee or devisee must either accept or renounce both. Cecille Natividad. Art. The legacy or devise shall be without effect: (1) If the testator transforms the thing bequeathed in such a manner that it does not retain either the form or the denomination it had. Lea Mateo.

A disposition made in general terms in favor of the testator's relatives shall be understood to be in favor of those nearest in degree.  But the draft Code. and no right of accretion takes place. o The alienation revokes the legacy/devise even if for any reason the thing reverts to the testator. BPI Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. 958. Lea Mateo. or with a void will. or one which has subsequently lost its validity. fortuitous loss after the testator’s death will simply be an instance of “res perit domino” and will be borne by the legatee/devisee. or if the heir dies before the testator. Validity should read “efficacy. CJ Tan. (2) When the will does not institute an heir to. 3.  This article is misplaced because it applies not just to legatee/devisees but to all testamentary heirs as well. In such case. b) If the reversion is by virtue of redemption in a sale with pacto de retro. unlike testamentary and mixed succession. Mars Rongo. or repudiates the inheritance. as well as the Spanish Code defines intestate succession as taking place “by operation of law in the absence of a valid will. is of no consequence.2007 ST CHAPTER 3 LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION SECTION 1. in accordance with the provisions of Article 928. o A will that has subsequently lost its validity is one that has been REVOKED under Articles 830-837 without a later one taking its place. In such case. Legal or intestate succession takes place: (1) If a person dies without a will. TOTAL LOSS o This will be a cause for revocation only if it takes place before the testator’s death. A mistake as to the name of the thing bequeathed or devised.” 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. except in cases provided in this Code. either by reason or incapacity or duress. Julie Domingo. legal succession shall take place only with respect to the property of which the testator has not disposed. 960.  This principle is already set forth in Art789 Art.”  And the Spanish Code provides that “succession results from a person’s will as manifested in a testament.” CASES Articles 924-959 Belen v. (3) If the suspensive condition attached to the institution of heir does not happen or is not fulfilled.SUCCESSION REVIEWER eviction if the thing bequeathed should not have been determinate as to its kind. Art. or dispose of all the property belonging to the testator. there being no substitution. It should be placed under the chapter on “Institution of Heir. 1 ST SEM 2006. or one which has subsequently lost its validity. legal succession shall take place only with respect to the property of which the testator has not disposed. 2. or with a void will. if it is possible to identify the thing which the testator intended to bequeath or devise. If a person dies without a will. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  113 . the disposition takes effect upon death. When the will does not institute an heir to. TRANSFORMATION o If for example the testator converts a plantation to a fishpond. 959. o 3 instances with the same legal result – there is no will. (4) When the heir instituted is incapable of succeeding. ALIENATION o The alienation by the testator may be gratuitous or onerous.  This article enumerates the instances when the legacy/devise is REVOKED BY OPERATION OF LAW 1.  Legal or Intestate Succession Defined  Not defined by the Code. o Exceptions a) If the reversion is caused by the annulment of the alienation and the cause for annulment was vitiation of consent on the grantor’s part.”  INSTANCES WHEN LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION OPERATED 1. Cecille Natividad. or in default thereof. o Fortuitous loss after the testator’s death will not constitute revocation because legally. by operation of law. o Therefore. or dispose of all the property belonging to the testator.

which would distribute the estate in accordance with the love and affection he has for his family and close relatives. and of Article 987. there being no substitution and no right of accretion takes place o Intestacy here may also be total or partial.2007 sideways. intestacy may be total or partial. Cecille Natividad. Happening of a Resolutory Condition 6. A series of degrees forms a line. Intestacy here may be total or partial. 978-1010. 962. c) The Rule of Division by line in the Ascending Line under Art987 par2 d) The Distinction between Full-Blood and Half-Blood relationship among Brothers and Sisters. Art. depending on the extent of the disposition that turns out to be inoperative. 4. 964. the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones. it is said first descends. Proximity of relationship is determined by the number of generations. and c) The collateral  The law lays down an order of preference among these lines.SUCCESSION REVIEWER o In these instances.  Exclusion and Concurrence in Intestacy  Intestacy operates on the same principles as succession to the legitime. 1028 and 1032. Art. Julie Domingo. and in the State.  BASIC RULES OF INTESTACY 1. and finally spreads SUBSECTION 1. which may be either direct or collateral. There are 2 principles operating sometimes simultaneously. Love. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  114 . saving the right of representation when it properly takes place. Each generation forms a degree. Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares. Thus. o Incapacity to succeed under Articles 1027. concerning division between the paternal and maternal lines. CJ Tan. A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants. Other Causes of Intestacy 5.  Groups of intestate heirs and the different combinations in intestacy are outlined under Arts. Preterition The Rule of Proximity of Degree  The nearer exclude the more remote [Art962 par1] without prejudice to representation. in the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of the deceased. always preferring those closer in degree than those of remoter degrees. logically those of equal degree should inherit in equal shares [Art962 par2]  5 EXCEPTIONS a) The rule of preference of lines b) The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate filiation [the ratio under present law is 2:1] under Article 983 in relation to Article 895 as amended by Art176 of the Family Code. the presumed desire of the decedent to promote charitable and humanitarian activities. Mars Rongo.  Manresa says that the law of intestacy is founded on the presumed will of the deceased. Art. or if the heir dies before the testator. except in cases provided in this Code. . 963. then ascends. 2. and in default of these persons. such that the descending excludes the ascending and the collateral. The Rule of Equality Among Relatives of the Same Degree  This rule is corollary of the previous one: If the nearer exclude the more remote. paragraph 2. When the heir instituted is incapable of succeeding. in accordance with the rules hereinafter set forth. sometimes singly – EXCLUSION and CONCURRENCE. subject to the provisions of article 1006 with respect to relatives of the full and half blood. and the ascending excludes the collateral. 961. Lea Mateo. the law first calls the descendants. In default of testamentary heirs. A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. The Rule of Preference of Lines  The 3 lines of relationship are: a) The descending b) The ascending. in the surviving spouse. e) Representation 3. If the suspensive condition attached to the institution of an heir does not happen or is not fulfilled. 1 ST SEM 2006. In every inheritance. as well as nephews and nieces under Articles 1006 and 1008. Expiration of a Resolutory Term 7.Relationship Art. or repudiates the inheritance. then the ascendants and finally the collaterals. ST 3.  Basis of Intestate Succession  The presumed will of the decedent. the law vests the inheritance.

In the line. Descending direct and Ascending direct – importance of distinction – the descending is preferred over the ascending. First cousins of a parent iii. Lea Mateo. o Collaterals by Degrees . Brothers/sisters of a greatgrandparent iv. who is the brother of his father. ii. Direct Line – there is no legal limit to the number of degrees for entitlement to intestate succession. Cecille Natividad.Third degree i. Grandchildren of a brother/sister [grand-nephews/grand-nieces] . three from his uncle. as many degrees are counted as there are generations or persons. excluding the progenitor. Mars Rongo.Fifth degree i. Descending – Unites the head of the family with those who descend from him [Article 965 par2] ii. Children of a first cousin ii. the child is one degree removed from the parent. ascent is made to the common ancestor. The practical limit is of course. Then descend to the other reference point iii. two from the grandfather. Art.2007 ST DIRECT LINE COLLATERAL LINE  COMPUTATION OF DEGREES A. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. 965. Collateral Line – computation of degree is important in the collateral line because intestate th succession extends only to the FIFTH [5 ] DEGREE of Collateral relationship (Art1010) o Mode of Counting Degrees in the Collateral Line [Art966 par3] i. Uncles / Aunts ii. The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him. In the collateral line. In the direct line. Nephews / Nieces . human mortality.SUCCESSION REVIEWER ascendants and descendants. Thus. choose any one.] ii. and so forth. Julie Domingo.One generation = one degree . The direct line is either descending or ascending.Second degree – brothers / sisters .Fourth degree i. Number of generations constituting the ascent and the descent is the degree of the collateral relationship. First Cousins ii. CJ Tan. Direct and Collateral – importance of distinction: the direct is preferred over the collateral. and three from the greatgrandparent.Parent to child = 1 degree . ascent is made to the common ancestor and then descent is made to the person with whom the computation is to be made.First degree – none . Thus. a person is two degrees removed from his brother. four from his first cousin.Great-Grandparent to Great-Grandchild = 3 degrees B. o Mode of Counting Degrees in Direct Line .degrees among ascendants and descendants [Art964 par2] i. Ascending – binds a person with those from whom he descends [Article 965 par3] b) Collateral – Degrees among persons who are not ascendants or descendants but come from a common ancestor [Article 964 par3] i. Great grandchildren of a brother/sister DESCENDING DIRECT LINE COLLATERAL ASCENDING DIRECT & COLLATERAL DESCENDING DIRECT & ASCENDING DIRECT  LINE – a series of degrees forms a line [Article 964 par1] a) Direct . Brothers/Sisters of a grandparent [grand-uncles / grandaunts] iii. ascend to nearest common ancestor [if there are more than 1 nearest common ancestor. From the reference point. The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends. Art. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  115 . DEGREE 1 ST SEM 2006. but who come from a common ancestor. 966.Grandparent to Grandchild = 2 degrees .

972. will PREVENT accretion from occurring. Cecille Natividad.2007 The descending line first – if all the descendants of a certain degree renounce. The right of representation takes place in the direct descending line. and so on. Julie Domingo. a grandparent and a brother of the decedent [even if they nd are all related to him in the 2 degree] because they are not inheriting together in the first place. If the inheritance should be repudiated by the nearest relative. In the collateral line.  ACCRETION IN INTESTACY  There is accretion in intestacy among heirs of the same degree. respectively. [Arts1006 and 1008]  With respect to collateral relatives. but not the same mother. 971. because there is no representation in renunciation. in such manner that the representative or representatives shall not inherit more than what the person they 116 Art. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  . 968. or the same mother. This is because of the principle of the preference of lines in intestate succession. and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have inherited. CJ Tan. INCAPACITY or RENUNCIATION of any one of them. if proper. save the right of representation when it should take place. are equally applicable to such situation. there is a ratio of 2:1 for full-blood and half-blood relationship. it takes place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters. grandchildren]. should there be several. Thus: Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1) 1 ST SEM 2006. Whenever there is succession by representation. by virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented. Art. Art.  Importance of distinction between full-blood and halfblood relationship – with reference to brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces. 974. ST Art. the heirs in the ascending line acquire the right of succession.  EFFECT OF RENUNCIATION BY ALL IN THE SAME DEGREE  The right of succession should first be passed on the heirs in succeeding degrees [in successive order] before the next line can succeed. his portion shall accrue to the others of the same degree. The representative does not succeed the person represented but the one whom the person represented would have succeeded. except in cases where REPRESENTATION is proper [in descending line]  Representation does not apply in cases of universal renunciation outlined above. 970. [Art1015] 1) In case of predecease or incapacity. The representative is called to the succession by the law and not by the person represented. If there are several relatives of the same degree. Lea Mateo. [Art977] SUBSECTION 2. because of the rule of preference of lines. or by all the nearest relatives called by law to succeed. it is necessary that the representative himself be capable of succeeding the decedent. In order that representation may take place. 969. 2) 3) Art. and one or some of them are unwilling or incapacitated to succeed. however. but never in the ascending. 2) Relatives must be in the same kind of relationship – for accretion to take place the heirs involved must be in the same kind of relationship to the decedent. 967. Mars Rongo.Right of Representation Art. The ascending line next – should no one be left in the descending line. again in order of degrees of proximity. Half blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father. there can be no accretion among a grandchild. .e. the full-blood and half-blood relationship is NOT MATERIAL. should there be one only. those of the following degree shall inherit in their own right and cannot represent the person or persons repudiating the inheritance.  Predecease or Incapacity by All in the Same Degree  This eventuality is not provided for by the article. whether they be of the full or half blood. Art. representation. but not the same father. 973. Representation is a right created by fiction of law. The collateral line last – only if ALL the descendants and ascendants renounce will the collateral relatives acquire the right to succeed. Full blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father and the same mother. succession passes to the descendants of the next degree [i. in case of PREDECEASE. ad indefinitum . Art. The rules outlined. Thus. the division of the estate shall be made per stirpes.

INTESTACY or legal succession  There is no representation in testamentary succession  REPRESENTATION BY RENOUNCER  Although a renounce cannot be represented. EXCEPT in one instance. the representative does not succeed the person represented but the one whom the person represented would have succeeded. Lea Mateo. and acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he could have inherited. they shall inherit from the latter by representation. and the law needs no resort to fictions but merely to make use of its power to designate those who are to take the inheritance. C can still inherit from A in representation of B. B. Cecille Natividad. Heirs who repudiate their share may not be represented. by virtue of which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented. C is inheriting from A and not from B. This is because in the 2 sentence of Art971. Del Val] Instance when Representation NEVER operates – RENUNCIATION  IN WHAT KINDS OF SUCCESSION REPRESENTATION OPERATES A. But if they alone survive. Art. as well. LEGITIME or compulsory succession o There is no express provision on representation in the legitime. Mars Rongo. [Teotico v. B2 ST Should A and B both predecease X. because the law has ample authority to predetermine who are to be called to inherit. 977. then divide the portion EQUALLY. B1 Illegitimate B Illegit. When children of one or more brothers or sisters of the deceased survive. except Art923 in case of disinheritance. A2 Legit. only A1 can represent A but both B1 and B2 can represent B  Representation OF and BY and adopted child – an adopted child can NEITHER represent nor be represented. B.  HOW REPRESENTATION OPERATES  PER STIRPES – the representative or representatives receive only what the person represented would have received. This is because in the latter case. If there is more than 1 representative in the same degree. A1 Illegit. With respect to the LEGITIME – in the direct descending line only [Art972] B. if they survive with their uncles or aunts. o The rationale for the rule barring an adopted from representing and being represented is that the legal relationship created by adoption is strictly between the adopted and the adopted. he can represent the person whose inheritance he has nd renounced [Art976]. CJ Tan.  Predecease Incapacity or Unworthiness. without prejudice to the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children when applicable. The term “fiction of law” is criticized as inaccurate. A person may represent him whose inheritance he has renounced.  INSTANCES WHEN REPRESENTATION OPERATES A.  REPRESENTATION  Definition – a right created by fiction of law. in the collateral line – in case of Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. it has been suggested that a better term to call this legal process is either hereditary subrogation or successional subrogation because the person inheriting in another’s stead actually represents no one and truly succeeds in his own right. 989 and 990]  Thus X Legitimate A Legit. 975.  Example – A is the father of B and C is the son of B. Art. It does not extend to the relatives of either party. if he were living or could inherit. B dies and C renounces his inheritance.SUCCESSION REVIEWER represent would inherit. Julie Domingo. [Art970] o Criticisms – the term “representation”. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  117 . But if A dies and there is a right of representation. and Disinheritance 1 ST SEM 2006.2007 nephews and nieces representing brothers and sisters of the deceased [Art975]  REPRESENTATION BY ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN  If the child to be represented is legitimate – only legitimate children/descendants can represent him [Art992]  If the child to be represented is illegitimate – BOTH legitimate and illegitimate children/descendants can represent him [Arts902.  IN WHAT LINE DOES REPRESENTATION OBTAIN A. even if C previously renounced his inheritance from B. 976. and therefore the grandchild of A. they shall inherit in equal portions. With respect to INTESTACY – the general rule is in the direct descending line as well. Art. C.

who will get P37.000 divided by 5 kids = 60. or P150. who will each get P37. Mars Rongo. Cecille Natividad. o Therefore. B. A. how is X’s estate to be apportioned? o A. I’m not sure about the answers. C. incapacity or disinheritance. the rationale is found in the 2 sentence of Art971. by ACCRETION. please re-check  X has 5 legit kids. then C predeceases him. CJ Tan.000. since C predeceased the testator. A and B will each get ½ of the P300. the share of C who predeceased X. B. B.500 [the P75k share of C to be divided by 2. assuming both C1 and C2 are legitimate children of C]. 3 of whom have their own kids.  Some Suggestions – more explicit provisions on: o What are the occasions or causes for the operation of representation? o In what kinds of succession does representation operate?  PROBLEM ON REPRESENTATION Note.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. D and E are supposed to get 60. the share of D who is unworthy. X Supposing X dies INTESTATE.000 to be apportioned? o A. If ALL the brothers/sisters are disqualified – the nephews and nieces inherit PER CAPITA under Art975. C. his P60k portion will. will all accrue to A and B as co-heirs.000 each. C and D will get an additional P15. If ALL the children are disqualified – the grandchildren still inherit by representation [what the parents should have gotten] under Art982. D and E are supposed to get 60. Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.2007 ST  RULES ON QUALIFICATION A. stating that the representative does not succeed the person represented but the one whom the person represented would have succeeded.000 divided by 5 kids = 60. there is NO REPRESENTATION in Testamentary Disposition. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  Jen Laygo 3D 118 .000 each [the free portion is ½ of the whole estate so the free portion is P300. since E renounced his share. The representative must be qualified to succeed the decedent.000 each]. The representative need not be qualified to succeed the person represented [Art971] The person represented need not be qualified to succeed the decedent. the reason why representation is taking place is that the person represented is not qualified. he may be represented by C1 and C2. o Therefore. [Art973] nd o Again. they will get 75k each.000 each plus their own P60k portion.000 each]. be divided equally among the rest of the kids of X. o So. 960-977 Bagamon v Piedad Teotico v. all the other facts being the same. since D is unworthy to succeed. B. he may be represented by D1 and D2. E renounces. because of predecease. o In fact. Julie Domingo. worth P600. and the share of E who renounced. o However. o However. D is unworthy to succeed and upon his death. Lea Mateo. o However. Del Val A B C1 C C2 D1 D D2 E1 E E2  Supposing X makes a WILL [TESTAMENTARY] instituting all his 5 kids to the free portion.000 each [the free portion is ½ of the whole estate so the free portion is P300. B.500 each [P75k share divided by 2] CASES FOR ARTS.   REPRESENTATION BY GRANDCHILDREN AND REPRESENTATION BY NEPHEWS/NIECES: Difference in Rule A. How is X’s estate. C. o Also.

equally divided PROVISION Art. whether legitimate or illegitimate. and the State All other collateral th relatives up to 5 degree and the state Collaterals remoter in degree. 2. If a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left. divided equally. illegitimate parents and brothers. and even if they should come from different marriages. legitimate children and the legitimate parents Illegitimate children and the surviving spouse Surviving spouse Legitimate children. 5. Lea Mateo. sisters. including the surviving spouse Whole estate. 996. and the state No one CONCUR The surviving spouse and illegitimate children Surviving spouse. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  119 . Legitimate children SHARE Whole estate. nephews and nieces Other Collaterals The State Legitimate & illegitimate children. sisters. the shares of the former shall be in the proportions prescribed by Article 895. Cecille Natividad. 176 FAMILY CODE. Julie Domingo. 983. 4. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother. 176 FAMILY CODE. the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the children. all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional rights shall remain in force. Legitimate children and Illegitimate children Whole estate with ½ share of 1 legit child for EACH illegitimate child 3. Art. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. nephews and nieces. nephews and nieces. the spouse getting the share of 1 legitimate child and the illegitimate child getting ½ the share of 1 legitimate child. – ORDER OF INTESTATE SUCCESSION INTESTACY – RULES OF EXCLUSION AND CONCURRENCE HEIRS 1. 999. Surviving spouse ARE EXCLUDED BY No one 2. 8. sisters. and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.2007 ST SECTION 2. 979. Legitimate Children Illegitimate Children Legitimate Parents Illegitimate Parents Surviving Spouse EXCLUDE Parents. No one Legitimate children Legitimate and illegitimate children No one 6. surviving spouse and illegitimate children Whole estate. Art. 4. Except for this modification. legitimate parents. Legitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants. EXCEPT brothers. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. CJ Tan. Art. Except for this modification. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or their descendants and illegitimate children or their descendants. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother. If illegitimate children survive with legitimate children.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. such widow or widower shall be entitled to the same share as that of a legitimate child. Brothers. Art. 7. Mars Rongo. all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional rights shall remain in force. without distinction as to sex or age. Collaterals and the State Illegitimate parents. An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate child. and legitimate & illegitimate parents All others Everyone Collaterals in the same degree No one COMBINATIONS IN INTESTATE SUCCESSION HEIR 1. illegitimate children. and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. 3. collaterals and the state Collaterals and the state Collaterals and the state Collaterals. Legitimate children and surviving spouse Legitimate children. Art.

the illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. the surviving spouse gets ¼ and the illegitimate children get ¼. If the widow or widower should survive with brothers and sisters. such widow or widower shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance. Cecille Natividad. Illegitimate children and surviving spouse 12. division equally by line 7. the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-half of the estate. equally Art. nephews and nieces 15. 998. In each line the division shall be made per capita. nephews and nieces. Whole estate. If legitimate ascendants are left. under article 1001. 994. whether legitimate or illegitimate. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. but by analogy to Art997. and the illegitimate children or their descendants. Art. Art. Illegitimate children 11. the ascendants nearest in degree shall inherit. Should there be more than one of equal degree belonging to the same line they shall divide the inheritance per capita. one-half shall go to the paternal and the other half to the maternal ascendants. 987. In default of the father and mother. to the exclusion of collateral relatives. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants. 991. sisters. In default of the father or mother. nephews and nieces. without prejudice to the rights of brothers and sisters. 1000. 6. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased. the surviving spouse shall inherit the entire estate. she or he shall inherit one-half of the estate. Art. In the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants. Surviving spouse The whole estate. should they be of different lines but of equal degree. Surviving spouse and legitimate brothers. the ascendants shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance. Art. nephews and nieces Spouse gets ½ of estate. Art. Art. CJ Tan. taking one-half of the estate. with representation No provision. If the widow or widower should survive with brothers and sisters. surviving spouse and illegitimate children 8. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower. the surviving spouse. and illegitimate children are left. Art. and the latter the other half. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  120 . and the illegitimate children the other fourth. Art. 10. In default of the father or mother. and the legitimate parents or ascendants to the other half. illegitimate parents get the other ½ Spouse gets ½ and the legitimate BSNN get ½. Lea Mateo. the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half. Art. 997. 988. Legitimate parents and illegitimate children Legitimate parents and surviving spouse Legitimate parents.2007 ST 5. Legitimate parents get ½ of the estate divided equally between them and the illegitimate children get ½ of the estate divided also equally Legit parents get ½ of the estate and the surviving spouse gets the other half Legit parents get ½. 985. 1001. 994.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. she or he shall inherit one-half of the estate. whatever be the number of the ascendants or of the illegitimate children. an illegitimate child shall be succeeded by his or her surviving spouse who shall be entitled to the entire estate. and the other half shall be divided between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate children so that such widow or widower shall have one-fourth of the estate. and illegitimate children and their descendants. nephews and nieces. 9. should there be any. Mars Rongo. an illegitimate child shall be succeeded by his or her surviving spouse who shall be entitled to the entire estate. Legitimate parents alone Legitimate ascendants Whole estate. 995. If a widow or widower survives with illegitimate children. If legitimate ascendants. and the legitimate parents or ascendants to the other half. with the nephews and nieces inheriting by representation in proper cases Spouse gets ½ while illegitimate BSNN get ½. sisters. Surviving spouse and illegitimate parents 14. divided equally The illegitimate children get ½ and the surviving spouse gets the other ½ The whole estate 13. the illegitimate children shall divide the inheritance with them. and the latter the other half. Art. whether legitimate or illegitimate. the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-half of the estate. to the other half. In the absence of legitimate descendants and ascendants. 997. Julie Domingo. Surviving spouse and illegitimate brother. Art. his parents and ascendants shall inherit from him.

the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes. Illegitimate parents The whole estate Art. Legitimate brothers & sisters. they shall inherit from him share and share alike. Illegitimate brothers & sisters. they shall inherit in equal shares. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes. Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews and nieces. 1008. Nephews and nieces with uncles and aunts Uncles and aunts are excluded. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  121 . Art. nephews & nieces Whole estate. PER CAPITA. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood. 993. the State shall inherit the whole estate. 975. The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of relationship by the whole blood. 1008. Art.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. 1011. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or sisters. 2:1 for half blood. who are the children of the descendant's brothers and sisters of the full blood. his father or mother shall succeed to his entire estate. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood. 2:1 ratio Art. Art. with representation for nephews and nieces 20. either legitimate or illegitimate. who are both living. nearer excludes the more remote in degree 25. Nephews and nieces Whole estate. The state Whole estate Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. 1004. half blood gets ½ of full blood’s share [2:1] 19. Legitimate brothers and sisters Illegitimate parents are excluded by the children Whole estate. 993. in accordance with the rules laid down for the brothers and sisters of the full blood. Illegitimate brothers and sisters 22. Illegitimate parents and any children 18. 1010. 2:1 full and half blood Whole estate Whole. they shall inherit in equal portions. If an illegitimate child should die without issue. his father or mother shall succeed to his entire estate. Lea Mateo. The nephews and nieces get the whole estate 21. the former shall inherit per capita.2007 ST 16. PER CAPITA. The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of relationship by the whole blood. and if the child's filiation is duly proved as to both parents. Julie Domingo. Art. And the case of Bacayo v Borromeo No article governing No article governing 17. In default of persons entitled to succeed in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Sections. they shall inherit from the latter by representation. Art. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend beyond the fifth degree of relationship in the collateral line. the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. If an illegitimate child should die without issue. 24. When children of one or more brothers or sisters of the deceased survive. Other collaterals Whole. But if they alone survive. and the latter per stirpes. in accordance with the rules laid down for the brothers and sisters of the full blood. either legitimate or illegitimate. Art. Cecille Natividad. nephews & nieces 23. Art. the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. and if the child's filiation is duly proved as to both parents. they shall inherit from him share and share alike. who are both living. 1009. Mars Rongo. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or sisters. Art. CJ Tan. Art. Art. if they survive with their uncles or aunts. 1005. 1006. 1009.

i. Illegitimate Children/Descendants C. Succession pertains. in the first place.Descending Direct Line Art. The State    The first 5 classes of intestate heirs are also compulsory heirs. Art. CJ Tan. Art. Brothers.  WHO ARE THE INTESTATE HEIRS [not in order] A. the second step in the process will not even be feasible. ST  AS TO THE STATE  Assignment and disposition of decedent’s asses a) If decedent was a resident of the Philippines at ANY Time i. There is a very close parallel between the rules of compulsory succession and those of intestate succession. which lays down the same rule that an adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate child. Art. Personal Property – to municipality of last residence ii. the legitimes of the ILLEGITIMATES will have to be reduced pro rata. and even if they should come from different marriages. 984. Should children of the deceased and descendants of other children who are dead. Legitimate Parents/Ascendants D. in such case. . apportion it in the proportion of 2:1. There is also an overlapping of compulsory and intestate succession. In fact. An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate child. 981.  How property is to be used a) For the benefit of public educational and charitable institutions in the respective municipalities/cities b) Alternatively. The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right. Real Property – where situated b) If decedent was NEVER a resident of the Philippines – where property is situated. Art. the portion pertaining to him shall be divided among the latter in equal portions. leaving several heirs. 979. Legitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants. Consequently. survive. whether real or personal property. the former shall inherit in their own right. then the grandchildren will inherit in their own right / per capita. 983. and the latter by right of representation. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  122 . The grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of representation.2007  The right of an adopted child in relation to the adopter is governed by sections 17 and 18 of RA8552. a 2-step process should be observed – 1) Segregate the legitimes of the children – both legitimate and illegitimate 2) If any residue is left. Mars Rongo. or motu proprio. Surviving Spouse F. If illegitimate children survive with legitimate children.e. 978. 982. dividing the inheritance in equal shares.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. without distinction as to sex or age. and if any one of them should have died. Nephews.  In this combination. Cecille Natividad. Illegitimate Parents E. in which case. Sisters. In case of the death of an adopted child. the legitime and the intestate portions merge.  It is possible – depending on the number of legitimates and illegitimates – that the estate may not even be sufficient to satisfy the legitimes. court may order creation of a permanent trust for the benefit of the institutions concerned. – ORDER OF INTESTATE SUCCESSION SUBSECTION 1. leaving no children or descendants. Art. his parents and relatives by consanguinity and not by adoption.  Repealed by Sections 17 and 18 of RA8552. at the instance of an interested party. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. the shares of the former shall be in the proportions prescribed by Article 895. shall be his legal heirs. Legitimate Children/Descendants B. care should be taken lest the legitimes of the legitimate children be impaired. EXCEPT if ALL children renounce. Art. SECTION 2.  Grandchildren do not inherit per capita even if all children die – they inherit per stirpes.  The proportion of the shares of legitimate and illegitimate children has been simplified to 2:1 by virtue of the amendments introduced by Articles 163 and 176 of the Family Code. to the descending direct line. Lea Mateo. Nieces th G. Julie Domingo. Other Collaterals up to the 5 degree H. 980.

Should there be more than one of equal degree belonging to the same line they shall divide the inheritance per capita. his parents and ascendants shall inherit from him. In each line the division shall be made per capita. Julie Domingo. In the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants. In default of the father and mother. there should survive descendants of another illegitimate child who is dead. the illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased.The probate court however approved the project of partition.Teodoro was the son of Luis Rafael Yangco and Ramona Arguelles. as a legal heir. 989. Mars Rongo. Should one only of them survive.2007 ST SUBSECTION 2. . 1907.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. Since Teodoro was an acknowledged natural child or was illegitimate and since Juanita was the legitimate child of Jose Corpus. children of his half brother Pablo). . . 985. nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. The father and mother. together with illegitimate children. 988. the former shall succeed in their own right and the latter by right of representation. dated June 14. if living. . and Juanita (daughter of his half brother Jose).NO. Art. Yangco was a natural child. 978-987 Sayson v. . Art. to the exclusion of collateral relatives. nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. 992. If. WON Juanita is entitled to a share in intestate estate of Teodoro. taking one-half of estate. . in Yangco's estate. CA Art. Lea Mateo.Ascending Direct Line Art.  There is no right of representation in the ascending line. illegitimate children shall divide inheritance with them." SUBSECTION 3.  MEMORIZE!  This is the well-known and much criticized successional barrier between legitimate and illegitimate relatives of a decedent.Art. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased. . two of whom were the Pablo and Jose. we hold that appellant Tomas Corpus has no cause of action for the recovery of the supposed hereditary share of his mother. . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. .Corpus concedes that if Teodoro R. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother.) . (Juanita is a legitimate daughter of Romana and Tomas. the widow of Tomas Corpus. whatever be the number of ascendants or of the illegitimate children. Luis Rafael Yangco. the the the the Art. shall inherit in equal shares. the ascendants nearest in degree shall inherit. that Teodoro and his three other children were his acknowledged natural children. While a legitimate child can only be represented by a legitimate child of his.  Only difference – an illegitimate child can be represented bi either an illegitimate or legitimate child of his. 992 of the NCC provides that "an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. onehalf shall go to the paternal and the other half to the maternal ascendants. he or she shall succeed to the entire estate of the child. he (Tomas Corpus) would have no legal personality to intervene in the distribution of Yangco's estate. himself a legitimate child. Ramona had begotten five children with Tomas Corpus. CASE FOR ARTS. 987. His will was probated. Juanita Corpus was not a legal heir of Yangco because there is no reciprocal succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. If legitimate ascendants are left. Art. Corpus .Teodoro died without forced heirs.It appears that Teodoro was an acknowledged natural child and not a legitimate child was the statement in the will of his father. . should they be of different lines but of equal degree. CASES Corpus v. Art.Illegitimate Children Art. Cecille Natividad.At his death his nearest relatives were: Luis (his half brother). Juanita Corpus. The hereditary rights granted by the two preceding articles to illegitimate children shall be transmitted upon their death to their descendants. 991. CJ Tan. who shall inherit by right of representation from their deceased grandparent.The project of partition was opposed by the estate of Luis whose counsel contended that intestacy should be declared because the will does not contain an institution of heir.Before her union with Luis Rafael Yangco. 986. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  123 . Paz (his half sister). 990.

SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- The rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate family is, in turn, hated by the illegitimate child.

1 ST SEM 2006- 2007
- ART 992 prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother (who must be a legitimate child). (However note that descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, can inherit by right of representation if the person to be represented is an illegitimate child.).

ST

Leonardo v. CA
- Francisca Reyes died intestate and was survived by her two daughters and grandson, who is the son of her 3rd daughter who predeceased her. Grandson died eventually 2 yrs after. - Leonardo now claims ownership over some properties of Francisca because he was a son of the grandson. W/N Leonardo may inherit. - SC held that he cannot because: - 1. He was an illegitimate child of grandson. He was born outside of wedlock and while his father’s first marriage is still subsisting. - 2. An illegitimate child may not inherit by right of representation from the legitimate relatives of his father. - ART. 992

Diaz v. IAC 182 SCRA 427 (1990)
- The illegitimate children of Pablo Santero filed a 2nd Motion for Reconsideration on the decision of the SC holding them disqualified from inheriting from the estate of Simona Jardin. (same facts as above) - Said grandchildren are now invoking Arts 902, 982, 989 and 990 of the New Civil Code to bolster their right to succeed. Whether or not the illegitimate children of a legitimate child can inherit by right of representation from the children and relatives of such legitimate parent - No. - First, Articles 902, 989 and 990 clearly speaks of successional rights of illegitimate children, which rights are transmitted to their descendants upon death. The descendants (of these illegitimate children) who may inherit by virtue of the right of representation may be legitimate or illegitimate. - Second, although Art 982 provides that "the grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of representation", the same is limited by Art 992 to the end that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother (who must be legitimate children themselves). - Third, it is true that while the NCC granted successional rights to illegitimate children, those articles must however be read in conjunction with Art 992, which prohibits the right of representation from being exercised where the person to be represented is a legitimate child. The determining factor therefore is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the person to be "represented." It must be emphasized that illegitimate children have only those rights expressly garnted to them by law. - Fourth, the term "relatives", in accordance with the rules of statutory construction, must be understood to have a general and inclusive scope inasmuch as the term is a general one. In fact, if the law wants to distinguish it expressly says so by adding qualifiers such as the word "collateral". - From the aforementioned, SC affirmed its earlier decision that the illegitimate grandchildren are barred from inheriting ab intestato from Simona's estate.. - ART 992 prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother (who must be a legitimate child). (However note that descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, can inherit by right of representation if the person to be represented is an illegitimate child.)

Diaz v. IAC 150 SCRA 645 (1987)
- Simona Jardin has a niece Felisa Jardin from her legitimate sister Juliana Jardin. At the same time, Simona also had a legitimate son, Pablo santero, who predeceased her. On the other hand, Pablo Santero was survived by his 6 acknowledged natural children. - Simona Jardin died intestate with only her niece Felisa as the sole surviving heir. During the intestate proceedings of the estate of Simona, the illegitimate children of Pablo Santero intervened and contended that as the illegitimate children of the deceased Simona they have the right to succeed by representation. - The grandchildren premised their rights to succeed under Art 990 of the NCC, which grants the right of representation to descendants whether legitimate or illegitimate. Hence, by said proviso, the grandchildren has the right to represent their deceased father in the estate of their grandmother. Who between Felisa Jardin and the Illegitimate grandchildren of Simona are to be considered the legal heirs of Simona Jardin. - Felisa Jardin is the sole legal heir of the decedent. - The SC held that the grandchildren's reliance in Art 990 is misplaced and that the applicable law is Art 992. Art 990 is not applicable because Pablo Santero is a legitimate child of Simona while the oppositors are the former's illegitimate children. (Art 990 applies to the right of the descendants of an illegitimate child to inherit by representation.) - Art 992 provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of of the father or mother of said legitimate child. Between the legitimate and illegitimate family there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility. - It is clear therefore from Art 992 of the NCC that the phrase "legitimate children and relatives of his father and mother" includes Simona Jardin. Hence, the illegitimate grandchilren are barred from asserting their right to succeed from Simona, who is a legitimate relative of their father.

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

124

SUCCESSION REVIEWER

1 ST SEM 2006- 2007

ST

Vda. De Crisologo v. CA
- Petitioners in this case filed an action for ownership, annulment of sale, and delivery of possession of various properties against Bernardo Mallillin. - Bernardo claims that petitioners are complete strangers to the decedent Julia Capiao inasmuch as Lutgarda is the decedent’s illegitimate daughter, a product of her extramarital relations with one Victoriano Taccad. - The petitioners claim to be legal heirs being relatives of Lutgarda within the fifth civil degree. - The lower court said that they cannot inherit because they are legitimate relatives of Julia Capiao and they cannot inherit from an illegitimate daughter of the latter pursuant to Article 992 of the Civil Code. Whether or not the relatives of Julia Capiao, namely, the petitioners in this case, can inherit from Lutgarda Capiao, the original owner of the properties in dispute. - NO. - It is clear from the records that the petitioners cannot inherit the properties in question because of Article 992 of the Civil Code. - Being relatives on the legitimate line of Julia Capiao, they cannot inherit from her illegitimate daughter. - Article 992.

Art. 996. If a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the children.
 This rule holds even if there is only 1 legitimate child, in which case, the child and the surviving spouse will divide the estate equally.  When the law speaks of “brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces” as legal heirs of an illegitimate child, it refers to illegitimate brothers and sisters as well as to the children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of such brothers and sisters.

Art. 997. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-half of the estate, and the legitimate parents or ascendants to the other half. Art. 998. If a widow or widower survives with illegitimate children, such widow or widower shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the illegitimate children or their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, to the other half. Art. 999. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or their descendants and illegitimate children or their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, such widow or widower shall be entitled to the same share as that of a legitimate child. Art. 1000. If legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse, and illegitimate children are left, the ascendants shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the other half shall be divided between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate children so that such widow or widower shall have one-fourth of the estate, and the illegitimate children the other fourth. Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half. Art. 1002. In case of a legal separation, if the surviving spouse gave cause for the separation, he or she shall not have any of the rights granted in the preceding articles.

Art. 993. If an illegitimate child should die without issue, either legitimate or illegitimate, his father or mother shall succeed to his entire estate; and if the child's filiation is duly proved as to both parents, who are both living, they shall inherit from him share and share alike. Art. 994. In default of the father or mother, an illegitimate child shall be succeeded by his or her surviving spouse who shall be entitled to the entire estate. If the widow or widower should survive with brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, she or he shall inherit one-half of the estate, and the latter the other half.

SUBSECTION 4. - Surviving Spouse
 There are no rules on marriage mortis cause [unlike in legitimes]

Art. 995. In the absence of legitimate descendants and ascendants, and illegitimate children and their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, the surviving spouse shall inherit the entire estate, without prejudice to the rights of brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, should there be any, under article 1001.

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

125

SUCCESSION REVIEWER

1 ST SEM 2006- 2007
first, where the widow or widower survives with legitimate children (general rule), and the second, where the widow or widower survives with only one child (exception), Art. 996 omitted to provide for the second situation, thereby indicating the legislator's desire to promulgate just one general rule applicable to both situations. - The resultant division may be unfair as some writers explain, — and this we are not called upon to discuss — but it is the clear mandate of the statute, which we are bound to enforce. - When intestacy occurs, a surviving spouse concurring with only one legitimate child of the deceased is entitled to onehalf of the estate of the deceased spouse under Article 996 of the Civil Code.

ST

CASES FOR ARTICLES 995-1002 Santillon v. Miranda
- Santillon died without testament in Tayug, Pangasinan, his residence, leaving one son Claro, and his wife, Perfecta Miranda. During his marriage, Pedro acquired several parcels of land located in that province. - About four years after his death, Claro Santillon filed a petition for letters of administration. Opposition to said petition was entered by the widow Perfecta Miranda and the spouses Benito U. Miranda and Rosario Corrales on the following grounds: (a) that the properties enumerated in the petition were all conjugal, except three parcels which Perfecta Miranda claimed to be her exclusive properties; (b) that Perfecta Miranda by virtue of two documents had conveyed 3/4 of her undivided share in most of the properties enumerated in the petition to said spouses Benito and Rosario; - Claro rests his claim to 3/4 of his father's estate on Art. 892, of the New Civil Code which provides that: - "If only the legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives, the widow or widower shall be entitled to onefourth of the hereditary estate. . . .'As she gets one-fourth, therefore, I get 3/4, says Claro. - Perfecta, on the other hand, cites Art. 996 which provides: "If a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the children." - Replying to Perfecta's claim, Claro says the article is unjust and inequitable to the extent that it grants the widow the same share as that of the children in intestate succession, whereas in testate, she is given 1/4 and the only child 1/2. - Perfecta, on the other hand, contends that Art. 996 should control, regardless of its alleged inequity, being as it is, a provision on intestate succession involving a surviving spouse and a legitimate child, inasmuch as in statutory construction, the plural word "children" includes the singular, "child". How shall the estate of a person who dies intestate be divided when the only survivors are the spouse and one legitimate child? - Art. 892 of the New Civil Code falls under the chapter on Testamentary Succession; whereas Art. 996 comes under the chapter on Legal or Intestate Succession. Such being the case, it is obvious that Claro cannot rely on Art. 892 to support his claim to 3/4 of his father's estate. Art. 892 merely fixes the legitime of the surviving spouse and Art. 888 thereof, the legitime of children in testate succession. While it may indicate the intent of the law with respect to the ideal shares that a child and a spouse should get when they concur with each other, it does not fix the amount of shares that such child and spouse are entitled to when intestacy occurs. Because if the latter happens, the pertinent provision on intestate succession shall apply; i. e. Art. 996. - Children:— It is a maxim of statutory construction that words in plural include the singular. 2 So Art. 996 could or should be read (and so applied): "if the widow or widower and a legitimate child are left, the surviving spouse has the same share as that of the child." - Our conclusion (equal shares) seems a logical inference from the circumstance that whereas Article 834 of the Spanish Civil Code, from which Art. 996 was taken, contained two paragraphs governing two contingencies, the

Pascual v. Pascual Bautista Landayan v. Bacani
- Teodoro Abenojar owned parcels of land in Pangasinan and a house and lot in Manila. - He died intestate. - Maxima Adrada, the surviving spouse of Teodoro, and Severino Abenojar, executed an extra-judicial partition whereby they adjudicated between themselves the properties left by Teodoro. - Severino represented himself as the only and forced heir and descendant of Teodoro. - About 18 years after the execution of the said document, petitioners filed a complaint seeking a declaration that they are legal heirs of Teodoro and that they be given the shares that they are entitled to with respect to the properties of Teodoro. - Petitioners alleged that they are the legitimate children of Guillerma Abenojar, who was the only child of Teodoro with his first wife named Florencia Bautista and that while Teodoro contracted a 2nd marriage with Antera Mandap and a 3rd with Maxima Andrada, he did not have any offspring. They aver that Severino is an illegitimate son of Guillerma Abenojar. - Private respondents alleged that Teodoro married only once and that was with Maxima. They claimed that Severino is an acknowledged natural child of Teodoro with Florencia. They aver that Guillerma, the mother of petitioners, was Teodoro’s spurious child with Antera Mandap. - Private respondents also alleged that the action had already prescribed. - The trial court dismissed the action because of prescription. Whether the action is barred by prescription. - NO. The lower court erred assuming that the extra-judicial partition to be merely a voidable contract and not a void one. Thus, there should first be a determination of the judge regarding the legal status of Severino. - The SC ordered the lower court to try the case on the merits to determine the legal status of the Severino. - If the claim of the petitioners is correct, then Severino has no rights of legal succession from Teodoro because of Art. 992 of the NCC. - The right of representation is denied by law to an illegitimate child who is disqualified to inherit ab intestate form the legitimate children and relatives of his father. Whether Severino may be considered as legal heir of Teodoro. - The right of Severino to be considered a legal heir of Teodoro depends on the truth of his allegations that he is

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

126

leaving as his survivors his legitimate parents A and B and his wife Y. are the only survivors.000. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  127 . without any children. who are the children of the descendant's brothers and sisters of the full blood.Art. Julie Domingo. 1 ST SEM 2006. the sharings would have been – [according to Art997] o A and B to ½ of the estate = P300. THE PROBLEM OF PARTIAL INTESTACY  The combinations laid down in Articles 978-1014 cover only cases of TOTAL intestacy. since part of the free portion was given away by will. illegitimate children. He left a will giving 1/8 of his entire estate to Caritas Manila. the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles.000 o Y to ½ of the estate = P300.  Hence. Art. 1010.000 estate. Caritas Manila gets 1/8 or P75. 1005. they shall inherit in equal shares.000. 992 of the NCC: An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. the former shall inherit per capita. but an acknowledged natural child of Teodoro. Art.  Prescriptive period for the claim is FIVE YEARS from the delivery of the property to the state or political subdivision concerned. 1105 of the NCC: A partition which includes a person believed to be an heir. but not all. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes. since it disposes only of 1/8 of the estate. ferrer Del Rosario v. In case brothers and sisters of the half blood. 1007.000  In total intestacy. nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. Cecille Natividad. 1008.000  The intended recipient of the undisposed portion is Y since she is the one to whom the entire free portion went in total intestacy [since A and B simply got their legitimes. 1009. 1004. All shares total to the P600. in accordance with the rules laid down for the brothers and sisters of the full blood. The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of relationship by the whole blood. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or sisters.  EXAMPLE  X died. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood.000 divided between them. . Conanan SUBSECTION 5. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood. the portion of the deed of extra-judicial partition adjudicating properties of Teodoro in his favor shall be deemed inexistent and void from the beginning.  Therefore. shall be void only with respect to such person. and what is left of the free portion should then be given to the intended beneficiary in intestacy. the remainder should be given to Y. . Mars Rongo. . ascendants.Art.  Who may make the claim – any person entitled by succession to the estate. the disposable portion being ¼. legitime.SUCCESSION REVIEWER not an illegitimate child of Guillerma. If there are no descendants. A and B get ½ or P300. Art. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend beyond the fifth degree of relationship in the collateral line. including any heir of any kind of succession. thus: 1) Trace where the free portion went in total intestacy 2) Since part of that free portion was disposed of by will. 1006.000 o Y as surviving spouse – ¼ of estate = P150. the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter. so P150. Art.  The legitimes of the compulsory heirs are – o A and B as legitimate parents – ½ of estate = P300. Lea Mateo. the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate.000 each.  How then should the estate be divided if the decedent died with a will but the will does not dispose of the entire free or disposable portion? The problem is solved by inference.000.2007 ST Manuel v. Y then gets P225. the testamentary provision should be carried out. His net estate is worth P600. . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. all shall inherit in equal shares without distinction as to the origin of the property. 1003. bearing in mind the law’s intent.  PROCESS/ANSWER  The will is not inofficious. or a surviving spouse. CJ Tan.Should it be proved that Severino is not a legal heir. Art. but who is not. testamentary or intestate. Art. and the latter per stirpes.Collateral Relatives Art. Art. There is no provision to govern cases of partial intestacy when the decedent has left a will disposing of part. of the disposable portion. Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews and nieces. some on the father's and some on the mother's side.

If the deceased never resided in the Philippines. or co-legatees. when two or more persons are called to the same inheritance. In default of persons entitled to succeed in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Sections. Almanza CHAPTER 4 PROVISIONS COMMON TO TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSIONS SECTION 1. the part assigned to the one who renounces or cannot receive his share. is added or incorporated to that of his co-heirs.” Or  The co-heirs are instituted with the specification that they share equally [“in equal shares”] or that they have the same fractional sharing for each [Art1017]. or renounce the inheritance. 1012. “I institute A and B to ½ of my estate. After the payment of debts and charges. may order the establishment of a permanent trust. Art.  In case of partial intestacy CASES FOR ARTICLES 1003-1014 Abellana v.  ACCRETION  Definition – a right by virtue of which. the State shall inherit the whole estate. . the personal property shall be assigned to the municipality or city where the deceased last resided in the Philippines. 1015. or to the same portion thereof. The court shall distribute the estate as the respective needs of each beneficiary may warrant. B and C to  Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Art. the whole estate shall be assigned to the respective municipalities or cities where the same is located. or who died before the testator. pro indiviso. 1016. when 2 or more persons are called to the same inheritance. Accretion is a right by virtue of which. Art.2007 ST SUBSECTION 6. Mars Rongo. The court. and the real estate to the municipalities or cities. or on its own motion. Ferraris Tioco de Papa v. Art. devise or legacy. 1013. co-devisees. 1011. Julie Domingo. In order that the State may take possession of the property mentioned in the preceding article. the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court must be observed. at the instance of an interested party.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. – RIGHT OF ACCRETION Art.The State Art. Camacho Bicomong v. 1014. it shall be necessary: (1) That two or more persons be called to the same inheritance. ex. or to the same portion thereof. Lea Mateo. In order that the right of accretion may take place in a testamentary succession.  Occasions for Operation of Accretion a) RENUNCIATION b) PREDECEASE c) INCAPACITY ELEMENTS FOR ACCRETION IN TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION 1) 2 or more persons are called to the same inheritance. and public charitable institutions and centers. in such municipalities or cities.” or “I institute A. the part assigned to the one who renounces or cannot receive his share. pro indiviso o Meaning of pro indiviso:  Either the co-heirs are instituted without individual designation of shares. B and C to ½ of my estate in equal shares. devise or legacy. If a person legally entitled to the estate of the deceased appears and files a claim thereto with the court within five years from the date the property was delivered to the State. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  128 . respectively. or be incapacitated to receive it. such person shall be entitled to the possession of the same. CJ Tan. Cecille Natividad. in which the same is situated. or who died before the testator. or if sold the municipality or city shall be accountable to him for such part of the proceeds as may not have been lawfully spent. so that only the income from the property shall be used. Such estate shall be for the benefit of public schools. and (2) That one of the persons thus called die before the testator. Examples: “I institute A.

this rule will not substantially affect the operation of the legitime. 1022.  EXCEPTIONS to general rule that accretion should be proportional – a) b) In testamentary succession. only if representation does not take place. accretion will occur even if the sharings are unequal.  In intestacy. All that the law requires is that the institution be pro indiviso. Among the compulsory heirs the right of accretion shall take place only when the free portion is left to two or more of them. or to any one of them and to a stranger. as long as the result is co-ownership.  General Rule . testamentary and intestate. if there is neither substitution nor accretion. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. 1018. In incapacity or unworthiness. Art. The heirs to whom the inheritance accrues shall succeed to all the rights and obligations which the heir who renounced or could not receive it would have had. The words "one-half for each" or "in equal shares" or any others which. In testamentary succession.2007 ST Art. Thus.  1 paragraph – 3 kinds of succession: compulsory. there shall be a right of accretion. In case of money or fungible goods. These 3 are distinct. Julie Domingo. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  129 . In repudiation or renunciation – accretion is subordinate to representation in intestacy. although they may operate simultaneously. This is because substitution is the testator’s express intent. 1019. if the testator so provided. The heirs to whom the portion goes by the right of accretion take it in the same proportion that they inherit.  Example.SUCCESSION REVIEWER ½ of my estate. predecease or incapacity of one or more but LESS THAN ALL of the instituted heirs. accretion occurs – A.  Obviously. if X dies intestate and is survived by his wife Y and his brothers A.”  Will accretion occur if the fractional sharings of the co-heirs are unequal? YES. not being of the same category or class. accretion is subordinate to substitution. Should the part repudiated be the legitime. CJ Tan. Art. If the obligation is purely persona. if the testator provides otherwise. the other co-heirs shall succeed to it in their own right. If C renounces. his portion goes to A and B by accretion. Lea Mateo. shall not exclude the right of accretion. when the right of accretion does not take place. if the share of each heir is not earmarked.  In the testamentary succession. o Renunciation. The term does not import equality of shares. The possible significance of this is when it comes to the computation of legitimes of illegitimate children or the surviving spouse. who shall receive it with the same charges and obligations.  The co-heirs in whose favor accretion occurs must be coheirs in the same category as the excluded heir. 1 ST SEM 2006. Cecille Natividad. legatees and usufructuaries under the same conditions established for heirs. which means “as undivided” or “in common”. Accretion shall also take place among devisees. when concurring with legitimate children. ND  2 paragraph – there is NO ACCRETION in the LEGITIME. 1017. Art. whereas accretion is merely his implied intent. 2) One of the persons thus called die before the testator. B and C. 1021. Y is not an accruing co-heir. each of them to take 1/3 of such ½. do not identify it by such description as shall make each heir the exclusive owner of determinate property. the vacant portion of the instituted heirs. B. only if representation does not take place C. Art. shall pass to the legal heirs of the testator. ST Art.Accretion should be proportional. or renounce the inheritance or be incapacitated to receive it. Art. though designating an aliquot part. and hence intransmissible. In legal succession the share of the person who repudiates the inheritance shall always accrue to his co-heirs. and not by the right of accretion. In predecease. In most cases. Mars Rongo. if no substitute has been designated. 1020. Consequently. 1023. accretion is restricted in its operation within the confines of the particular kind of succession involved. the part left vacant will lapse into intestacy and will be disposed of accordingly.

the provisions of this article notwithstanding. except in case of representation. partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the law grants a juridical personality. the heir. Art. The enumeration of juridical persons is found in Art 44: Art. Incapacity must be based on some legal ground and must be shown. their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law.  The second paragraph is inaccurate. the successor need not be alive. General rule – must be LIVING when succession opens 1. partner or member. educational. private corporations. Article 1032 – applicable to ALL kinds of succession C. unless there is a provision to the contrary in their charter or the laws of their creation. Julie Domingo. Meaning of “living” – it is enough that the heir.  For representation to occur. in a conditional institution. B was disinherited by X. A child already conceived at the time of the death of the decedent is capable of succeeding provided it be born later under the conditions prescribed in article 41. If institution subject to a Suspensive Term o The requirement of being alive applies only at the moment of the decedent’s death.2007 ST SECTION 2. organizations. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  130 . – CAPACITY TO SUCCEED BY WILL OR BY INTESTACY Art. because of the provisions of Articles 971 and 973. Thus.  REQUIREMENT FOR CAPACITY OF JURIDICAL PERSONS TO SUCCEED  It must already EXIST as a juridical person when the decedent dies. Lea Mateo. 1025. In order to be capacitated to inherit. A testamentary disposition may be made to the State.  The articles laying down the cause of incapacity to succeed are Articles 1027. CJ Tan. in accordance with Articles 40 and 41. created by law. provided it be born later. 1026. Inheriting is favorable to the child. municipal corporations. provinces.  For institutions subject to suspensive conditions or terms. X died in 1985. and always subject to the same. Article 1027 par6 – applicable to ALL kinds of succession C. When succession opens – the decedent’s death under Art777 2. when the term arrives [Art878]  Representation NOT an exception to Requirement  The requirement that the successor should be alive when the decedent dies is absolute. they would not exist. separate and distinct from that of each shareholder.  Organizations or associations which do not possess juridical personality cannot succeed. Cecille Natividad. A. devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens. 44.  The general rule is in favor of capacity to succeed. (3) Corporations. Mars Rongo. or charitable purposes. scientific. or associations for religious. the rules outlined in the previous article apply. In 1988 B begot a child. institutions and entities for public interest or purpose. The following are juridical persons: (1) The State and its political subdivisions.  REQUIREMENT FOR CAPACITY TO SUCCEED OF NATURAL PERSONS A. Article 1028 – applicable only to testamentary succession D. 1-5 – applicable only to testamentary succession B. as long as the successor has juridical personality. All other corporations or entities may succeed under a will. If institution is subject to a Suspensive Condition o Successor must ALSO be living when the condition happens [Art1034 par3]. B. when it is proper. The provisions relating to incapacity by will are equally applicable to intestate succession. 1024. the successor must be living BOTH when the decedent dies AND when the condition happens. Article 1027 pars. (2) Other corporations. There is no exception to this rule. devisee or legatee be already conceived when the decedent dies. because legally.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. 2028 and 1032. Art. Some grounds for incapacity to succeed by will have no application to compulsory or intestate succession.  Example – X has 2 sons A and B. B’s child cannot represent B in the succession to X. the representation must at least already be conceived when the decedent dies. Persons not incapacitated by law may succeed by will or ab intestato. cultural.

the spouse. or spouse.  Pars. surgeon. sister or spouse of the ward-testator is excluded from the prohibition. Proof of absence of duress or influence is irrelevant and will not remove the disqualification. 4. It should be made a separate article. 1-5 – the law. (3) A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a ward in his favor before the final accounts of the guardianship have been approved. Guardian as to disposition before Final Accounting o When disqualification applies – the will must have been executed by the ward during the effectivity of the guardianship. the mischief sought to be averted can be perpetrated by the spouse. Mars Rongo. 1027. brother. the church. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Cecille Natividad. or institution to which such priest or minister may belong. nurse. seeks to prevent any possible abuse of the moral or spiritual ascendancy for purposes of testamentary benefit. which clearly limits its application to testamentary dispositions] do not state clearly that they only apply to testamentary succession and not to the legitime or intestacy. Lea Mateo. Parents. brother. No actual duress or influence need be shown. the priesthood or ministry of other denominations or religions are not.  Par6 is misplaced because it provides for TOTAL disqualification. Julie Domingo. (5) Any physician. order. thus exception is not allowed in the other paragraphs. sects or cults. o Exception – a guardian who happens to be an ascendant. but also to all individuals belonging to other religions. Although the Catholic priest s celibate. of the purpose of the prohibition. whose office or function is to extend the peculiar spiritual ministrations of their creed. it applies not only to Christian priests. or children. 1-5 apply only to TESTAMENTARY Succession. in imposing a disqualification. 2. community. or any one claiming under such witness. the argument that this prohibition should apply as well to guardians over the person is most tenable. health officer or druggist who took care of the testator during his last illness. o Spouse of religious minister – does the prohibition apply to the spouse of the minister? YES. o Notwithstanding the seemingly restrictive terms of this disqualification. spouse. these are conclusively presumed. Priest’s 4 degree relatives and his Church o Purpose of disqualification – to prevent indirect violations or circumventions of par1. ministers and so forth. They have no application to the legitime or to intestacy. (4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a will.  This disqualification is peremptory. any provision made by the ward in favor of the guardian when the latter is his ascendant.  PERSONS INCAPACITATED TO SUCCEED 1. pastors. (6) Individuals. even if the testator should die after the approval thereof. CJ Tan. (2) The relatives of such priest or minister of the gospel within the fourth degree. Thus. nevertheless.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. but cast more in general terms. c) The will must have been executed during or after the spiritual ministration.  It is unfortunate that these paragraphs. however. Curiously. since this article nullifies not just legacies and devises but all testamentary dispositions made in the witness’ favor. shall be valid. Certainly. which means at anytime between the commencement of the guardianship and its dissolution. spouse. o What kind of guardianship covered – terms of disqualification seem to be limited to guardians over the property. organization. or children.  Rationale of Pars. chapter. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  131 . descendant. Attesting witness or Spouse. o NOTE – there is a discrepancy between this paragraph and Art823. The following are incapable of succeeding: (1) The priest who heard the confession of the testator during his last illness. Children or any one claiming under such witness. descendant. parents.2007 ST Art. associations and corporations not permitted by law to inherit. In view. [except Par3. a person may be disqualified to succeed by will under these paragraphs but will still be entitled to a legitime or to an intestate portion. parents or children o Essentially a reiteration of the disqualification in Art823. parents. sister. which allows for th 3. or the minister of the gospel who extended spiritual aid to him during the same period. Priest or minister of the gospel o Requisites: a) The will must have been executed during the testator’s last illness b) The spiritual ministration must have been extended during the last illness.

Manaloto and Mrs. Escobar. he was excommunicated. Obviously. . or having been ordained a priest.  The Disqualification laid down by this article applies only to TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION  By the provisions of this article. on the ground that the testator had a grandnephew (born after the testator's death). devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens. he must have had in mind his nephew or a son of his sister. 739. . Lea Mateo. Named as devisees in the will were the testator's nearest relatives. having been ordained a priest. 1028. by reason of his office. when the testator died. it shall be merged into the estate. . except in cases of substitution and those in which the right of accretion exists" . was likewise inoperative. the Code of Civil Procedure and the ideas of the Code Commission. Julie Domingo. as envisaged in the will. Mrs. died leaving a will which was probated by the CFI.This case is also covered by article 960(2). Inasmuch as no nearest male relative of the testator claimed the devise and as the administratrix and the legal heirs believed that the parish priest of Victoria had no right to administer the ricelands. (3) Those made to a public officer or his wife. Fortunato Gamalinda.Inasmuch as the testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest. Art. Did the testator contemplate only his nearest male relative at the time of his death? Or did he have in mind any of his nearest male relatives at anytime after his death? . which provides that legal succession takes place when the will "does not dispose of all that belongs to the testator. The following donations shall be void: (1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation. Quiambao. and who would be obligated to say annually twenty masses with prayers for the repose of the souls of the testator and his parents. CASES FOR ARTICLES 1015-1028 Parish Priest v. he was excommunicated. The latter. which provides that if "the bequest for any reason should be inoperative. the administration of the ricelands by the parish priest of Victoria.During the testate proceedings. in consideration thereof. . after first declaring the bequest inoperative. health officer or druggist o Scope of Prohibition – the person must have taken care of the testator during the latter’s final illness.Father Rigor.It may be deduced that the testator intended to devise the 44 ha. who was forbidden to sell the ricelands. Rigor . 5. Belina Rigor-Manaloto and Nestora Rigor-Quiambao. descedants and ascendants. had not yet entered the seminary or.2007 studies for the priesthood. later reconsidered its findings in an order. the CFI approved the project of partition and directed the administratrix to deliver to the devisees their respective shares. he could not specify that his nearest male relative would be his nephew or grandnephews (the sons of his nephew or niece) and so he had to use the term "nearest male relative". in this case because no nephew of the testator manifested any intention to enter the seminary or ever became a priest. Mars Rongo.e. associations and corporations not permitted by law 1 ST SEM 2006. the same were not delivered to him. his three sisters: Florencia Rigor-Escobar. who would be his third-degree relative. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  132 .SUCCESSION REVIEWER an exception: i. That exception should be read into this paragraph . . (2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal offense. In the case referred to in No. Therefore. when the testator specified his nearest male relative. when it is proper" ." ST 6. his nearest legal heirs were his three sisters or second-degree relatives. Riceland owned by him to his nearest male relative who would become a priest. o However. "In order to be capacitated to inherit. surgeon. and directed the administrator of the estate to deliver the ricelands to the parish priest of Victoria as trustee. or possibly a grandnephew. who desired to become a priest.The lower court. 1. the pharmacist who only happens to fill a prescription does not fall under the interdiction.The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or reasonably construed. who would lose the devise if he discontinued his Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. . and the guilt of the donor and donee may be proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action.  Bewildering variations in the rules –  Why do some paragraphs [pars 2 and 4] disqualify relatives but another [par5] does not?  Why is the exception in par3 not applied to paragraphs 1 and 5?  The reason is that the article is derived from various sources – from the Old Code. except in case of representation. To construe them as referring to the testator's nearest male relative at anytime after his death would render the provisions difficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of his estate. those are disqualified from receiving donations under Art739 are likewise disqualified from receiving testamentary dispositions from the parties specified in that article. the heir. CJ Tan. The prohibitions mentioned in article 739. if there are 3 other competent witnesses. Physician.In 1935. That could not have been his intention. But since he could not prognosticate the exact date of his death or state with certitude what category of nearest male relative would be living at the time of his death.The bequest refers to the testator's nearest male relative living at the time of his death and not to any indefinite time thereafter. Mrs. Those two contingencies did not arise. who was a seminarian. the unavoidable conclusion is that the bequest in question was ineffectual or inoperative. Art. however. “Taking Care” means medical attendance with some regularity or continuity that the possibility of duress or influence exists. namely. The testator gave a devise to his cousin. Individuals. concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions. and could not have arisen. petitioned for delivery of the ricelands to the church.This case is covered by article 956. Bulacan. It should be understood that the parish priest of Victoria could become a trustee only when the testator's nephew living at the time of his death. the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee. Cecille Natividad. the parish priest of Pulilan. nurse.

Javier Art. Testamentary provisions in favor of the poor in general. Cecille Natividad. appointed Sofia Nepomuceno as his sole and only executor of his estate.NO.In this case. the mayor. The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to the said ricelands. The given cannot give even assuming that the recipient may receive. concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions. The person authorized by the testator or in his default. 1029.The Civil Code recognizes that a person may die partly testate and partly intestate. The designation of the persons who are to be considered as poor and the distribution of the property shall be made by the person appointed by the testator for the purpose. Should the testator dispose of the whole or part of his property for prayers and pious works for the benefit of his soul. CA Martin Jugo. Sofia filed a petition for the probate of the last will of Martin.2007 ST Resurrecion v. Whether Sofia can validly claim the devise made in her favor. The administrator. . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  The named beneficiaries here are the poor. Mars Rongo. by the executor. It is the donation which becomes void. the approval of the Court of First Instance shall be necessary. who shall decide by a majority of votes all questions that may arise.Art. CJ Tan. by the justice of the peace. or that there may be mixed succession. B. In all these cases. and the free portion thereof to Sofia. in general terms and without specifying its application. 739. C.There being no substitution nor accretion as to the said ricelands. with the court's approval shall deliver one-half thereof or its proceeds to the church or denomination to which the testator may belong.SUCCESSION REVIEWER . the beneficiaries shall be the poor of the testator’s domicile. there will be intestate succession as to the property covered by the said legacy 1 ST SEM 2006. The will state that Jugo was legally married to Rufina Gomez. . One-half [1/2] to the State. Martin devised to his forced heirs (Rufina and their 2 children) his entire estate. The prohibition in Art. they have been estranged and Martin had been living with Sofia as husband and wife. The preceding paragraph shall apply when the testator has disposed of his property in favor of the poor of a definite locality. in default of such person. The old rule as to the indivisibility of the testator's will is no longer valid. the executor. 739 of the NCC is against the making of a donation between person who are living in adultery or concubinage. . to be applied as provided for under Art1013 Nepomuceno v. for the purposes mentioned in Article 1013. in his will. One-half [1/2] to the Church or denomination to which the testator belonged B. without designation of particular persons or of any community. Rufina and her children opposed. and the municipal treasurer. In the latter case. No specification of application of the disposition  Apportionment of the Disposition or its Proceeds A. or in his default. 1028 of the NCC: The prohibitions mentioned in Art. The CA reversed and admitted the will to probate but declared that the devise in favor of Sofia is void. and should there be no executor.  REQUISITES A. Julie Domingo. and the other half to the State.YES. either of a definite locality [par3] or of no designated locality [par1]. CFI denied probate on the ground that Martin admitted in his will that he had been unlawfully cohabiting with Sofia. the wordings of the Will invalidate the legacy because the testator admitted he was disposing the properties to a person with whom he had been living in concubinage. Lea Mateo. . the same should be distributed among the testator's legal heirs. The executor. Disposition for prayers and pious works for the benefit of the testator’s soul B. . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  133 . by who he has 2 children and that since 1962. Thus.  Who are to determine the individual beneficiaries within the class designated by the testator? A. The rule that only the extrinsic validity of the will is looked upon in probate proceedings is not absolute. to be used for such prayers and pious works. unless excluded by the testator in his will. - Whether the probate court could validly pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of Sofia. Art. if a conditional legacy does not take effect. shall be deemed limited to the poor living in the domicile of the testator at the time of his death. unless it should clearly appear that his intention was otherwise. the probate court is not powerless to pass upon certain provisions of the will even before it is probated. For practical considerations. 1030. Sofia contends that the validity of the testamentary provision in her favor should be assailed in another proceeding.

his or her spouse. having knowledge of the violent death of the testator. or from revoking one already made. 7. 6. if the accusation has been found to be groundless o Also a ground for disinheritance under Art919. hence ineffective both as to the intended beneficiary and the intermediary. 5.  Rationale – What cannot be done by direction cannot be done by indirection. or ascendants. Cecille Natividad. conceals.  This article applies to all kinds of succession Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. The same rules apply. Julie Domingo. even though made under the guise of an onerous contract. Person who accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribed imprisonment for 6 years or more. or alters the latter’s will Art. descendants. unless the authorities have already taken action. descendants or ascendants o Also a ground for disinheritance under Art919. there is no obligation to make an accusation. (6) Any person who by fraud. if the accusation has been found groundless. The following are incapable of succeeding by reason of unworthiness: (1) Parents who have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life. The same rules apply. conceals. have the right to claim the nullity. Parents who have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life. for this article to apply. 2. Person convicted of adultery or concubine age with the spouse of the testator o Also a ground for disinheritance under Art919. o However. (2) Any person who has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator. 1032. (7) Any person who by the same means prevents another from making a will. to whom the property would go. The same rules apply. the Requisites of this paragraph are – a) The heir has knowledge of the violent death of the decedent b) The heir is of legal age c) The heir fails to report it to an officer of the law within a month after learning of it d) The authorities have not yet taken action e) There is a legal obligation for the heir to make an accusation. (8) Any person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the decedent. shall be void. or from revoking one already made. (4) Any heir of full age who. Person who by the same means prevents another from making a will.2007 ST  GROUNDS FOR UNWORTHINESS 1. Lea Mateo. Any heir of full age who. (5) Any person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator. The same rules apply. 3.  Effect of simulation or circumvention – The article provides that the disposition is void. 4. A testamentary provision in favor of a disqualified person. or made through an intermediary. according to law. CJ Tan. having knowledge of the violent death of the testator. 1 ST SEM 2006. or who supplants. his or her spouse. intimidation. violence. violence. The same rules apply. or who supplants. or attempted against their virtue o There are 3 grounds given: 1) Abandonment of the child 2) Inducement of a daughter to lead a corrupt or immoral life 3) Attempt against a daughter’s virtue o All these 3 grounds are also grounds for disinheritance of parents or ascendants under Art920. Mars Rongo. Art. should fail to report it to an officer of the law within a month. 1031. Any person who by fraud. this prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein. (3) Any person who has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more. or undue influence should cause the testator to make a will or to change one already made. unless the authorities have already taken action o One requisite of this ground for disqualification makes this paragraph nonoperative – a legal obligation to make an accusation. should fail to report it to an officer of the law within a month. the committee specified in this article will have no occasion to function. intimidation or undue influence should cause the testator to make a will or to change one already made o Also a ground for disinheritance under Art919.SUCCESSION REVIEWER  In fact. Person convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  134 . The intestate heirs. or alters the latter's will. or attempted against their virtue. There is no such obligation under the present law. The simulation must be proved.

If offended party MAKES A WILL subsequent to the occurrence of the common cause – a. If he disinherits – art922. In cases falling under Nos. Unworthiness is disinheritance imposed by law.  Restoration to Capacity – the unworthiness is set aside and the unworthy heir restored to capacity in 2 ways: 1. or 5 of Article 1032. If he institutes or pardons the offender – offender restored to capacity. devise or legacy should be conditional.  Supposing that there is a reconciliation but nothing in writing. Person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the decedent   EFFECT OF UNWORTHINESS  Unworthiness gives rise to total disqualification. The execution by the offended party of a will with knowledge of the cause of unworthiness. a subsequent reconciliation is enough (Art922). Julie Domingo. If will is silent – this is disputed. If offended party DOES NOT MAKE A WILL subsequent to the occurrence of the common cause – apply article 1033. If the institution. unworthiness and disinheritance have identical effects. it shall be necessary to wait until final judgment is rendered. unworthiness sets in ipso facto and written condonation is necessary to restore capacity. CJ Tan. i. 2. Mars Rongo. devisee or legatee. General Rule – the time of the decedent’s death o Because that is when successional rights vest. having known of them subsequently. But the better opinion is that the unworthiness stays. Balane says this seems unacceptable because that would make the rules on unworthiness [which is by operation of law and is only the implied will of the offended party] prevail over those on disinheritance [which is his express will] Art. or if. THUS. however. A written condonation. If institution is subject to suspensive condition – 1. 3.2007 ST 8.  When Capacity is to be Determined A. ii. Most of the grounds for unworthiness are also grounds for disinheritance under Art1032.  Thus.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. his qualification at the time of the death of the decedent shall be the criterion. 1034. elect to disinherit the offender. If he did not know of the cause – unworthiness stays Art. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  That unworthiness deprives the unworthy heir even of the legitime is clear from Article 1035. the time of the compliance with the condition shall also be considered. will it be correct to conclude that the heir is restored to capacity under the rule on disinheritance but stays disqualified under the rule on unworthiness? B. and in the case falling under No. 4. the will must either institute the unworthy heir or restore him to capacity. Lea Mateo. In order to judge the capacity of the heir. b. 2. 1033. is it enough that the offended party execute a will with knowledge of the existence of the cause of unworthiness? o Balane says that the better opinion is that it is NOT enough. iii. because then only the rules of unworthiness will operate.  Question – regarding the second mode. the most acceptable reconciliation seems to be the following: 1. either a written pardon or a subsequent will is required. or 2. Cecille Natividad.  Common Grounds for Unworthiness and Disinheritance: Conflicting Modes of Lifting Disqualification [Articles 1033 and 922] A.  There is no problem if the offended party does not choose to disinherit the offending heir. C. Time of the decedent’s death AND 2. under those on unworthiness.e. he should condone them in writing. If he knew of the cause i.  Should the offended party. Time of the happening of the condition If final judgment is a requisite of unworthiness – at the time of final judgment. disinheritance is ineffective. B. The cause of unworthiness shall be without effect if the testator had knowledge thereof at the time he made the will. the unworthy heir is incapacitated to succeed from the offended party by ANY FORM OF SUCCESSION. the expiration of the month allowed for the report. the 2 set of rules on disinheritance and unworthiness would overlap.  The problem then arises: HOW IS THE DISQUALIFIED HEIR RESTORED TO CAPACITY?  Under the rules on disinheritance. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  135 .

both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions.  The right of reimbursement granted by this article to the excluded heir is irrespective of his bad faith because the expenses referred to in this article are necessary expenses which have to be reimbursed even to a possessor in bad faith [under Articles 443 and 546 par1] Art.  This is the same principle as Art16 par2. Any person incapable of succession. Julie Domingo. The unworthy heir who is excluded from the succession has a right to demand indemnity or any expenses incurred in the preservation of the hereditary property. shall be obliged to return it together it its accessions. 1037. Liability for fruits which were received and could have been received.  Good Faith of Transferee as Determining Factor of Validity  The validity of the alienation is determined by the good faith or bad faith of the transferee. the rightful heirs are not without a remedy: they may go after the disqualified heir for damages. but the co-heirs shall have a right to recover damages from the disqualified heir.  Note that in cases of valid alienations by the disqualified heir. his children [nephews and nieces of the decedent] will represent under art972 par2.  The disqualified heir. Art. Art.  Representation in Unworthiness  Unworthiness is one of the 3 occasions for representation to operate. Mars Rongo. with accessions 2.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. he must have acquired the thing for value and without knowledge of the defect of the transferor’s title. intestate and testamentary successions. is a possessor in bad faith. 1036.  National law of decedent governs capacity – note that it is the national law of the DECENDENT and not that of the heir that governs the capacity to succeed. who. whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. CJ Tan. As to usufruct – the prohibition in this provision has become unnecessary because of Art226 par2 of the Family Code. The obligation to return. 1039. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. before the judicial order of exclusion. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  136 . Art. referred to in this article. disregarding the prohibition stated in the preceding articles.”  Hence. entered into the possession of the hereditary property. Lea Mateo.  Extent of Representation  Representation in unworthiness [as also in predecease and disinheritance] extends not only to the legitime but also to whatever portion in intestate succession the person represented may have been entitled to. B. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.  Thus. Cecille Natividad. a donee cannot claim the benefit of this provision. He shall be liable for all the fruits and rents he may have received.2007 ST Art. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent. because he took possession “disregarding th e provision stated in the preceding articles. and to enforce such credits as he may have against the estate. Alienations of hereditary property. not of the transferor [the excluded heir]  For the transferee to be in good faith. As to administration – the disqualification remains.  Second Paragraph – Articles 225-226 of the Family Code should be read together with the second paragraph of this article – A. Art. are valid as to the third persons who acted in good faith. 1035. the latter shall acquire his right to the legitime. If the person excluded from the inheritance by reason of incapacity should be a child or descendant of the decedent and should have children or descendants.  Representation in the Collateral Line  If the unworthy heir is a brother or sister. 1038. and this right shall be exercised either by a judicially appointed guardian or those vested by law with substitute parental authority under Art216 of the Family Code. since he did not acquire for value. shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration.  Period for action to recover – Under Art 1040. 16. However. or could have received through the exercise of due diligence. the law applies to him the rules on possession in bad faith: 1. who took possession of the hereditary property. 5 years. and acts of administration performed by the excluded heir.  These are the same rules laid down in Art549. The person so excluded shall not enjoy the usufruct and administration of the property thus inherited by his children.  The first paragraph of the article should not be taken to imply that representation is confined to the legitime.

Art. The rules for renunciation are stricter than those for acceptance. The effects of the acceptance or repudiation shall always retroact to the moment of the death of the decedent. It should be noted that the rules for acceptance are much more LIBERAL than those for repudiation. representation. The right to accept an inheritance left to the poor shall belong to the persons designated by the testator to determine the beneficiaries and distribute the property. Mars Rongo. with the same retroactive effect. B. like the acceptance of a donation. Consequently. Lea Mateo. Parents or guardians may repudiate the inheritance left to their wards only by judicial authorization. Upon the happening of the condition. CJ Tan. Conditional Institutions – the principle of retroactivity is not overridden even if the institution is subject to a suspensive condition. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Cecille Natividad. or in their default.  In effect. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  137 . The moment of death is the time succession vests. Julie Domingo.  Acceptance of Inheritance a Free Act  The acceptance of property through succession – whether in the form of a legitime. 1043.2007 renouncer is deemed to have owned and possessed it from the moment of the decedent’s death. 1044. for renunciation there is the added requirement of court approval. However. this is a special prescriptive period for this action. the property should be placed under administration during the interim. 1040. his acceptance or renunciation is not effective.  RETROACTIVITY – A. essentially free and voluntary. No person may accept or repudiate an inheritance unless he is certain of the death of the person from whom he is to inherit. to wit. the property goes to the appropriate successor.  The following articles lay down the requirements for acceptance and repudiation.  No one can be required to accept a benefit: Non potest liberalitas nolenti adquiri. It is an exception to the prescriptive periods for recovery of movables [8years] and of immovables [30years] laid down respectively in Articles 1140 and 1141. testamentary succession or intestacy – is. 1041. 1042. the substitute. for conditional institutions. The acceptance or repudiation of the inheritance is an act which is purely voluntary and free. etc. Unless the successor has knowledge of the two things mentioned in this article.  However.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. Similarly. This rule has consequences with respect to acquisitive prescription.  Acceptance or renunciation must be made knowingly. co-heir or intestate heir who gets the property in default of the Art. Any person having the free disposal of his property may accept or repudiate an inheritance. ST Art.  Acceptance of Testamentary Grants to the Poor  The persons empowered in Art1030 to select the recipients of testamentary grants to the poor in general are likewise empowered to accept on their behalf. SECTION 3. Of Acceptance – the successor will be deemed to have owned and possessed the property from the precise moment of the decedent’s death. Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons may be accepted by their parents or guardians. capacity to succeed. and of his right to the inheritance. It may be brought by any one who may have an interest in the succession.  This has the same underlying philosophy as Art777.  Requirement for Personal Acceptance or Renunciation  Capacity to act is required for personal acceptance or renunciation.  Acceptance or Renunciation on behalf of minors or other incapacitated parties  Minors and other capacitated parties may accept or renounce only through their legal representatives . This is because acceptance is beneficial whereas repudiation is prejudicial to the successor. to those mentioned in Article 1030. Of Renunciation – the renouncer is deemed never to have owned or possessed the property. The action for a declaration of incapacity and for the recovery of the inheritance. if the condition does not happen.  5 years prescriptive period – applies both to the declaration of incapacity of the heir and the recovery of the inheritance or portion thereof wrongfully possessed by the disqualified heir. devise or legacy shall be brought within five years from the time the disqualified person took possession thereof. Art. C. the provisions of Art880 should be complied with. This is the same principle enunciated in conditional obligations [Art1187]. ACCEPTANCE AND REPUDIATION OF THE INHERITANCE Art. the property passes to the heir but with retroactive effect.

An inheritance is deemed accepted: (1) If the heirs sells. A tacit acceptance is one resulting from acts by which the intention to accept is necessarily implied. Art. court approval is. and can accept or renounce on his own behalf. associations. some or all of his co-heirs or to a stranger. A married woman of age may repudiate an inheritance without the consent of her husband. Art. Public official establishments can neither accept nor repudiate an inheritance without the approval of the government. [Art1044] Art. These guardians may repudiate the same with judicial approval. B. Acts of mere preservation or provisional administration do not imply an acceptance of the inheritance if. Should they not be able to read and write. It partakes of the nature of Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. and deaf-mutes who do not know how to write.  Instances of Tacit Acceptance A. Par2 – Gratuitous renunciation in favor of one or some of his co-heirs.  KINDS OF ACCEPTANCE A. 1046.  Thus. 2. or to any of them. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  138 . or which one would have no right to do except in the capacity of an heir. The persons selected as qualified recipients are. These authorized individuals can only accept. 1045. Par1 – Onerous or gratuitous conveyance in favor of one. The lawful representatives of corporations. but for renunciation. Public Documents or 2.  TACIT ACCEPTANCE  Inferred from acts revealing an intent to accept. which necessarily implies that the heir has accepted the inheritance.  The rule is more accurately worded as follows – A married person of age and not incapacitated for any reason may accept or renounce an inheritance without his or her spouse’s consent. for the benefit of one or more of his co-heirs. or to his co-heirs. which provides: Art. 1047. a deaf-mute who can read and write has contractual capacity. the inheritance shall be accepted by their guardians. Express 1. 1049. An express acceptance must be made in a public or private document. the approval of the court shall be necessary. through such acts. (2) If the heir renounces the same. donates. Acceptance may be express or tacit. the inheritance shall not be deemed as accepted. Lea Mateo. for their own part. (2) Insane or demented persons. or assigns his right to a stranger. but if this renunciation should be gratuitous. an illiterate deaf-mute is incompetent and the rules on acceptance and renunciation through a representative apply. Deaf-mutes who can read and write may accept or repudiate the inheritance personally or through an agent. This is an act of ownership. Art.2007 ST  Note that: 1. Julie Domingo. Art. CJ Tan. free to accept or renounce the benefit. 1048. Tacit C.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. and the co-heirs in whose favor it is made are those upon whom the portion renounced should devolve by virtue of accretion.  Capacity of Deaf-mute to accept or renounce – this article must be correlated with Art1327. even though gratuitously. but in order to repudiate it.  The enumeration in this article is illustrative but not exclusive. not reject the grant. This is not in fact a renunciation but a conveyance in favor of the coheirs specified. Implied [Art1057] Art. additionally required. Mars Rongo. In general.  However. 1327. institutions and entities qualified to acquire property may accept any inheritance left to the latter. Cecille Natividad. (3) If he renounces it for a price in favor of all his co-heirs indiscriminately. 1050. The legal representatives may accept or renounce the testamentary grant on behalf of the entity represented.  Acceptance or renunciation by a Married person  There is no suggestion in this article that a married man of age does not have the capacity to renounce without his wife’s consent. The following cannot give consent to a contract: (1) Unemancipated minors. Private Writing B.  These provisions lay down rules similar to those concerning acceptance or renunciation on behalf of minors and incompetents. the title or capacity of an heir has not been assumed. a tacit acceptance is inferred from acts of ownership performed by the heir over the property.

C.  The same rule applies even if the part renounced in this manner is the legitime. Art. after having pursued the property in possession of the debtor to satisfy their claims. gratuitously made. it may belong.  A fortiori. if the renunciation in favor of one or some of the co-heirs is for an onerous consideration. some of them may accept and the others may repudiate it.  This rule is a consequence of the principle that the rieght of succession vests at the moment of death.  FORMS OF RENUNCIATION A. Julie Domingo.  Thus. Par3 – Onerous renunciation in favor of all the coheirs indiscriminately. himself dies before accepting or renouncing the inheritance.  If the gratuitous “renunciation” is in favor of ALL the heirs but in proportions DIFFERENT from those in which they would receive by accretion. Therefore. The repudiation of an inheritance shall be made in a public or authentic instrument. B and C each has the right to accept or renounce his corresponding 1/3 interest in whatever Y was entitled to inherit from X. but shall be adjudicated to the persons to whom. the heir of the heir can exercise the right granted by this article only if he [the heir’s heir] accepts his own predecessor’s inheritance. Art.SUCCESSION REVIEWER donation and therefore must conform to the prescribed form of donations under Arts 748-749. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. in favor of all the coheirs who would get the renounced portion by virtue of accretion. The excess. If the heir repudiates the inheritance to the prejudice of his own creditors.  Gratuitous renunciation in favor of the coheirs indiscriminately – this is a true renunciation and cannot be treated as a tacit acceptance. the latter may petition the court to authorize them to accept it in the name of the heir. in accordance with the rules established in this Code. Any amount in excess of that may be validly renounced by the debtor-heir. B and C as his own heirs – A. 1053. Cecille Natividad. Public or Authentic [genuine] Instrument B. If the heir should die without having accepted or repudiated the inheritance his right shall be transmitted to his heirs. CJ Tan. should there be any. Indiscriminate renunciation means a renouncement. shall in no case pertain to the renouncer.  Question – should one or more of the heirs renounce. leaving A. Art. it is still a conveyance and must be treated as a tacit acceptance. Creditors are protected in cases of contracts intended to defraud them.  The right to the inheritance itself forms part of the inheritance of the heir and therefore. since it is not beneficial to the heir.  The same principle is expressed in Art1177 and Art1313 of the Civil Code. obviously he cannot exercise this right. Should there be several heirs called to the inheritance. his heir. may exercise all the rights and bring all the actions of the latter for the same purpose. if X dies and Y.  The right of the creditor to accept the inheritance in the name of the debtor extends only to the amount or value necessary to satisfy the credit. the right of the heir who dies before accepting or renouncing is already vested and is transmitted to the heir’s heirs. to whom will the repudiated portion go? To the ones who accept. which is the right given to creditors to impugn or set aside contracts. Art. The creditors.  This is an instance of accion pauliana. there is an acceptance. as long as the renunciation is indiscriminate.2007 transactions or dispositions of their debtors which will prejudice or defraud them. Lea Mateo. 1 ST SEM 2006.  If there are several heirs. notwithstanding that there is no accretion in the legitime. this is not in fact a renunciation but a sale f his portion and therefore constitutes a tacit acceptance. 1054. Petition filed in the Settlement Proceedings  Form of renunciation stricter – the law has stricter requisites for renunciation. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  139 . The acceptance shall benefit the creditors only to an extent sufficient to cover the amount of their credits. their right to accept or right corresponds to the aliquot share to which they are entitled. they may also impugn the acts which the debtor may have done to defraud them. Mars Rongo. 1177. or by petition presented to the court having jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate proceedings. 1052. ST Art. If he renounces. 1313. 1051. by accretion? Or to the intestate heirs of the decedent whose inheritance the predecessor of the heirs was unable to accept or renounce? Art. save those which are inherent in his person.

Violence 2. B. Cecille Natividad.  Rationale – the testamentary disposition is the express will of the testator.  This is IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE – the failure to signify the acceptance or renunciation within the 30-day period specified by this article  Qui tacet consentire videtur – silence means yes. but not the other way around.2007 ST Art. he can accept either or both. The acceptance or repudiation of an inheritance. . and Angelina Avelino. 1055. Within thirty days after the court has issued an order for the distribution of the estate in accordance with the Rules of Court. they are deemed to have accepted the inheritance.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF FINALITY OF ACCEPTANCE OR RENUNCIATION A. If they do not do so within that time.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006.  This article governs the situation when a person is BOTH a testamentary heir [or legatee or devisee and an intestate heir]. Undue Influence 4. Julie Domingo. Fraud B. repudiates the inheritance in his capacity as a testamentary heir. without knowledge of his being a testamentary heir. he may still accept it in the latter capacity. irrespective of the decedent’s wishes.. 1056. who is called to the same inheritance as an heir by will and ab intestato.  The legitime passes not because of any implied will or wish of the decedent but by strict operation of law. WON the RTC Judge was in error in granting the motion and converting the petition for issuance of letters of administration to an action for judicial partition. may he accept in the latter capacity? Balane says YES.  To the same effect is the rule laid down in Art955 par2. with respect to the same inheritance. Vitiated Consent – the factors are: 1. should the heir be simultaneously a compulsory heir and a testamentary heir. Mars Rongo. the term ab intestate in this article refers solely to intestate succession.The private respondents filed an opposition by filing a motion to convert the petition for issuance of letters of administration to an action for judicial partition. whereas intestacy is only his implied will.  RULES A. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. the heirs. Lea Mateo. Maria’s siblings. or when an unknown will appears. except when it was made through any of the causes that vitiate consent. CA .Maria filed a petition with the RTC-QC for issuance of letters of administration of the estate of Antonio. Art. If he renounces as testamentary heir [or legatee or devisee] – he is deemed to have renounced as intestate heir as well. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  140 .The petitioner Maria Socorro is a daughter of Antonio Avelino. Should he repudiate it as an intestate heir. CJ Tan.RTC granted the motion of the private respondents. Sr. is irrevocable.Hence. and Sharon. and cannot be impugned.  Question – supposing the heir renounces as intestate heir with knowledge of his being testamentary heir. One who renounces the express will is deemed to have renounced the implied also. Maria duly opposed. he is understood to have repudiated it in both capacities. devisees and legatees shall signify to the court having jurisdiction whether they accept or repudiate the inheritance. Thus. . this petition alleging that the judge committed grave abuse in granting the motion. regarding a person who is simultaneously a compulsory heir and a legatee or devisee. If a person.The private respondents are Angelina. CASES FOR ARTICLES 995-1002 Avelino v. The new will [assuming it is valid and admitted to probate] reopens the whole affair and will call for a new acceptance or renunciation. . A subsequent MR by Maria was denied. . Sr. . Art.  NON-APPLICABILITY OF RULE TO LEGITIME  In view of the rationale of the rule. the 2nd wife of Antonio. who died intestate. She asked that she be appointed administrator of the estate. Sr. If he renounces as intestate heir without knowledge of his being a testamentary heir [or legatee or devisee] – he is NOT deemed to have renounced as testamentary heir and may therefore accept or renounce separately in the latter capacity. Mistake 5. once made. Appearance of an unknown will – this applies if the newly-discovered will is subsequent to any will which may have formed the basis for the acceptance or renouncement. in light of the rationale of the rule. 1057. Intimidation 3.

1. Natividad.When a person dies without leaving pending obligations. but it shall not be appointed guardian of the person of a ward.4. and in the account of the partition. the general rule is that the estate shall be judicially administered and the court shall appoint a qualified administrator. Lea Mateo.NO. the lots are therefore subject to collation. alone contests the validity of the sale. or refuses the trust. 1 ST SEM 2006.5. even if the estate of Maximino Sr. since an implied trust was created. .  In relation to Articles 2239-2251 and 2244 Art.SC held that it was valid because: . who later on sold the same to her brother. whereby the value of all donations inter vivos made by the decedent is added to his available assets in order to arrive at the value of the net hereditary estate. Mars Rongo. – COLLATION  THREE MEANINGS OF THE TERM “COLLATION” AS USED IN THE FF ARTICLES: 1. – EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS Art.6.2. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  141 . No.Sec. 1060. . 8.The case involves the sale of Maximino SR and his wife of 6 lots to one of their daughters. his heirs. . or fails to furnish the bond required.2007 ST SECTION 4. the provisions of Articles 2239 to 2251 on Preference of Credits shall be observed. Art. All matters relating to the appointment. The judgment in a previous case vesting ownership in Maximino Jr. . powers and duties of executors and administrators and concerning the administration of estates of deceased persons shall be governed by the Rules of Court.SUCCESSION REVIEWER . . Collation as COMPUTATION – [add] o This is a simple accounting or arithmetical process. It cannot be denied that the spouses intended to give the 6 lots to Natividad as the latter is the only female and unmarried member of the family. and which was filed by Romeo and his wife does not bind the estate of Maximino Sr. 1 of Rule 74 allows the heirs to divide the estate among themselves without need of delay and risks of being dissipated. nor apply for the appointment of an administrator by the court. CA .  With reference to Rules 78-90 of the Rules of Court. are not required to submit the property for judicial administration. 1058. or trustee.Romeo then filed this present case on behalf of the estate of Maximino Sr. Cecille Natividad. the spouses locked him out of the house. . . W/N the sale was valid. in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir. Maximino Jr. The lone testimony of Romeo that the said lots were sold to Natividad for no consideration was found to be credible by the TC and CA. guardian of an estate. administrator. SECTION 5. the outcome of the suit will bind the estate of his wife as if no sale took place at all. . If the assets of the estate of a decedent which can be applied to the payment of debts are not sufficient for that purpose. and (2) summary settlement of estates of small value. in like manner as an individual.The exception to the above rule is found in Secs. . . Julie Domingo. Upon knowing of Maximino Jr’s ownership over the said land.Every compulsory heir who succeeds with other compulsory heirs must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received from the decedent. o Article 908 2. or if testate. for the annulment of the sale of the lot in question.3. Thus. Any void contract may be questioned by any party affected by it. shall be those involved in the administration of the decedent's estate. 1 and 2 of Rule 74 . Collation as IMPUTATION – [subtract] o This is the process by which donations inter vivos made by the decedent are correspondingly charged either to the Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. .Natividad eventually sold the lots to an innocent purchaser for value. When a person dies intestate. provided that the expenses referred to in Article 2244.In one of the said lots was where respondent in this case Romeo and his wife and one of the petitioners Maximino Jr are residing. . CJ Tan. hence. Nazareno v. The TC and CA found that the Nazareno spouses transferredtheir properties to their children by fictitious sales in order to avoid the payment of inheritance taxes. A corporation or association authorized to conduct the business of a trust company in the Philippines may be appointed as an executor. . which does not require the appointment of an administrator in cases of (1) extrajudicial settlement by agreement between the heirs. 1059.  Rule 78 of the RoC governs the issuance of letters testamentary and of administration and should be read together with this article. or any other gratuitous title. failed to name an executor in his will or the executor so named is incompetent. in this case which also has a right to recover properties which were wrongfully disposed. The fact that the document was notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.

B. if the testator has not otherwise provided. This rd is the 3 step in the process of computing the net hereditary estate under Art908.  Purpose of the Article is to determine the amount of the net estate so as to ensure that the legitimes are not impaired. by way of donation. Then the testamentary disposition in favor of the heir WILL be MERGED with his legitime. o In case either exception applies. 1 ST SEM 2006.  RULE ON TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS TO COMPULSORY HEIRS  GR: they should NOT be imputed to the legitime but to the free portion. Donations inter vivos to strangers o Imputed to the free portion Instances when donations inter vivos are to be imputed to the FREE PORTION 1. 1063. must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received from the decedent. Mars Rongo.SUCCESSION REVIEWER donee’s legitime or against the disposable portion.  Collation in the sense of IMPUTATION. during the lifetime of the latter. 1062. Art. The process is purely arithmetical. Julie Domingo.e.  This article refers to the COMPUTATION of all donations inter vivos made by the decedent. 1061. Art. here the testamentary disposition is as a general rule. to the free portion. in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir. who succeeds with other compulsory heirs. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs if the donor should have so expressly provided. Hence.2007 ST Art. the compulsory heir receives the testamentary disposition in addition to his legitime. o EXCEPTIONS – 1. Donations inter vivos to compulsory heirs o GR: Should be imputed to the heir’s legitime and is considered as an advance on the legitime.  Thus. CJ Tan. When made to compulsory heirs who renounce the inheritance 4. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Collation as RETURN – o This takes place when a donation inter vivos is found to be inofficious [i.  This is exactly the same thing that is referred to in Art908 par2. the donation will have to be imputed to the FREE PORTION. should be included in the computation of the net hereditary estate. Property left by will is not deemed subject to collation. unless the donation should be reduced as inofficious. for the purpose of determining the value of the net estate. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  142 .  RULES ON IMPUTATION OF DONATIONS INTER VIVOS: A. Every compulsory heir.  This article applies to Donations Mortis Cause [the previous article applies to donations inter vivos]. Therefore. o Question – supposing the compulsory heir received a donation inter vivos from the decedent but the value of the donation exceeds the donee’s legitime ? The donation will be imputed to the donee’s legitime to the extent of the lefitime’s value and the excess. as a general rule. exceeds the disposable portion] and so much of its value as is inofficious is returned to the decedent’s estate to satisfy the legitimes. C.  Collation in the sense of IMPUTATION  That donations inter vivos made by the decedent to a compulsory heir are.  What Should be Included in the Computation  ALL donations inter vivos – whether made to compulsory heirs or to strangers. Lea Mateo. not deemed as an advance on the legitime. and is merely paper computation. When made to compulsory heirs. and the donor so provides that it will be imputed to the free portion 3.  EXCEPTION: if the testator provides otherwise. or if the donee should repudiate the inheritance. If the donor provides in the Deed of Donation otherwise 2. o Articles 909 and 910 also provide for this. and in the account of the partition. When made to strangers 2. imputed to or charged against the heir’s legitime. as to the excess. or any other gratuitous title. and any decrease is for his account. but the legitime shall in any case remain unimpaired. When in excess of the compulsory heir’s legitime. Cecille Natividad. That will make the disposition illusory.  Value to be Computed  Only the value of the property donated AT THE TIME THE DONATION WAS MADE is to be computed since in donations ownership transfers at the time the donation is perfected. because in this case the donee gives up his status as a compulsory heir and therefore cannot be considered as one. any subsequent increase in value is for the donee’s benefit. If the donee renounces the inheritance. o Articles 909 and 910 3.

they shall bring to collation all that their parents. Cecille Natividad. This is in effect a qualification of or an exception to the rule in Art1061. They shall also bring to collation all that they may have received from the decedent during his lifetime. The reason is that it would be extremely impractical or impossible to make an accounting of all these items. and in the absence of designation. subject to the same rules and exceptions in Art1062. education. When the grandchildren of the decedent inheriting by representation concurrently with children of the decedent [uncles and aunts of the grandchildren] who are inheriting in their own right. The following shall be excluded from the community property: (1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse. The grandchildren inherit by representation with other grandchildren [cousins of the grandchildren]. the child shall be obliged to bring to collation one-half of the thing donated. Parents are not obliged to bring to collation in the inheritance of their ascendants any property which may have been donated by the latter to their children. Art. 1067. The following shall be the exclusive property of each spouse: (2) That which each acquires during the marriage by gratuitous title. Art. shall pertain to the donee-spouses as his or her own exclusive property. in which case his wishes must be respected. even in extraordinary illness. B. 92. o This presumption of equality of aliquot shares [as to the ½ division between spouses] will yield to a different designation by the donor. would have been obliged to bring. 1064. According to Tolentino. ordinary equipment. 1 Art. Art. educational expenses in the elementary and high school levels are considered as expenses and not subject to collation. one-half belongs to the donor’s child and should be treated in accordance with Art1062 and the other half is the property of the donor’s son or daughter-in-law and should be treated as a donation to a stranger. If the donation is made to the spouse JOINTLY. Donations made by a person to his son-in-law or daughter-in-law are SEPARATE property of the donee and should not be imputed to the legitime of the donor’s child [the donee’s spouse]. vocational or other career because these are items governed by Art1068. Expenses for support. Neither shall donations to the spouse of the child be brought to collation. unless the testator has provided otherwise. Art. unless it is expressly provided by the donor. but higher levels of education should be collated.  These rules are consistent with the Family Code – A.  Collation in the sense of IMPUTATION  This article applies to 2 instances: 1. medical attendance. if the legitime of the coheirs is not prejudiced.  Collation in the sense of IMPUTATION Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006.  Collation in the sense of COMPUTATION [add]. 1065.  RULES ON DONATIONS TO THE SPOUSE OF THE CHILD A. In ACP – Article 92 par. Whatever they themselves have received from the grandparent by gratuitous title. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  143 . inherit from their grandparents in representation of their father or mother. testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property. The donation is one made to a stranger. or 2.  Justice Hofilena says these are not really donations but expenses. it DOES NOT include expenses for the recipient’s professional. Whatever the parent whom they are representing would have been obliged to collate. CJ Tan. apprenticeship. 113. Art. When the grandchildren. B. even though such grandchildren have not inherited the property. without prejudice to the right of accretion when proper.  The expenses mentioned should not even be included in the computation of the decedent’s estate.2007 ST Art. Mars Rongo.  A person should not collate what his parent gave to his child since he is not the recipient of the conveyance. and B. or cousins. 109. In CPG – Art109 (2) and Article 113. jointly and with designation of determinate shares. or customary gifts are not subject to collation. and the fruits as well as the income thereof. since the donation is to a stranger.  “Support” in this article has a restrictive meaning. 1066. if any. share and share alike.  Against what part of the estate the conveyance is imputable – the donation to the grandchild should be imputed to the FREE PORTION. if alive.  Collation in the sense of IMPUTATION. Julie Domingo. Lea Mateo.  What the Grandchildren have to Collate or Impute to the Legitime A. aunts. who survive with their uncles. but if they have been given by the parent to the spouses jointly. Property donated or left by will to the spouses.

that would be governed by Art1062. even though their just value may not then have been assessed. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  144 . A joint donation by them will be treated. Art. 1069. The same things donated are not to be brought to collation and partition. clothing. although donations.e. clothing and wedding outfit. 1072. courses beyond the secondary level] are an exception to the rule laid down in Art1062. but only their value at the time of the donation.  Scope and Operation of this Article – A.  This article applies only to wedding gifts given by parents or ascendants to children or descendants. 1071. 1068. as pertaining in equal shares to the estate of each. It does not include other property. Expenses incurred by the parents in giving their children a professional. if not inofficious. vocational or other career [i.  Collation in the sense of IMPUTATION  This article states that as a general rule: o The expenses incurred by the parents for the child’s professional. Literally construed.  Contrary Provision by parents o Should the parents provide otherwise. only the thing’s value at the time the donation was made should be impited whether to the legitime or to the free portion. the excess will be imputable to the recipient’s legitime . one-half shall be brought to the inheritance of the father.  Collation in the sense of IMPUTATION  The items under this article constitute donations by the parent to the child and therefore should be treated like other donations to compulsory heirs under art1062. B. and similar expenses shall be brought to collation. fines. to that of the mother. upon dissolution of the property regime.  DONATIONS BY ONE PARENT ALONE  Such a donation will be of separately-owned property and should be treated as such. vocational or other career shall not be brought to collation unless the parents so provide. and the other half. Any Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. According to Manresa. Art. this is to be imputed to the free portion. be it accidental or culpable.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. Wedding gifts by parents and ascendants consisting of jewelry. Manresa interprets the article to mean that the gift will be imputed to the free portion to the extent of 1/10 of the free portion. It further seems that as o the allowable 1/10. CJ Tan. Julie Domingo. Any sums paid by a parent in satisfaction of the debts of his children. but when their collation is required. Lea Mateo. these expenses. and outfit. 1070. ST Art.  Reason – any appreciation or depreciation of the thing after that time should be for the donee’s acc ount. That given by one alone shall be brought to collation in his or her inheritance. or unless they impair the legitime.2007 excess will be considered inofficious and should be returned in the same manner and at the same time as other inofficious donations. should NOT be charged against the recipient’s legitime but against the FREE PORTION. Art. o The question is why should the gift be reduced as inofficious just because it exceeds 1/10 of the free portion? o SO.  Collation in 2 senses: COMPUTATION & IMPUTATION  What value is to be computed and imputed: o Only the value of the thing donated at the time the donation was made should be considered in the computation of the donor’s estate. the child is entitled under this article to deduct from the said amount the sum corresponding to what his parents would have spent on him had he stayed at home and loafed. Art. unless the parents provide otherwise. In the collation of a donation made by both parents. outfit includes the items necessary for an individual’s personal use.  Collation in 2 senses: COMPUTATION & IMPUTATION  JOINT DONATIONS st  The 1 sentence of this article presupposes either a regime of ACP or of CPG between the donor spouses. o Similarly. Beyond that value. since the donation transfers ownership to him. shall not be reduced as inofficious except insofar as they may exceed one-tenth of the sum which is disposable by will. The article covers only wedding gifts consisting of jewelry. Mars Rongo. Their subsequent increase or deterioration and even their total loss or destruction. whether real or personal. shall be for the benefit or account and risk of the donee. election expenses. Cecille Natividad. this article seems to state that the value of such wedding gifts cannot go beyond 1/10 of the free portion of the donor’s estate. the sum which the child would have spent if he had lived in the house and company of his parents shall be deducted therefrom. o Hence.

Julie Domingo. useful [par2] and ornamental [par3] expenses incurred by the donee who is now obliged to return. Art. Mars Rongo. 1073. only if the donation is TOTALLY inofficious . the right to remove them. Ornamental expenses – NO reimbursement demandable. and should there be neither cash or marketable securities in the estate. If the thing has to be returned in its ENTIRETY because the donation is totally inofficious – a. however. This is in relation to Article 548: Art. the fruits and interest of the property of the estate of the same kind and quality as that subject to collation shall be made the standard of assessment. as much as possible. the co-heirs shall be entitled to receive its equivalent in cash or securities. the person who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof. If the property donated was movable. which is the time of the decedent’s death. 1076. 1075. so much of the other property as may be necessary shall be sold at public auction.2007 If the donation is only partially inofficious . For the purpose of ascertaining their amount. This is in relation to Art546 par1: Art. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  Collation in the sense of RETURN  Rationale  If any donation turns out to be inofficious. in case there are not enough of the same things to distribute among all. but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor. class and quality. Lea Mateo. at the rate of quotation. 546. As to works made on the estate for the mere pleasure of the donee. but as far as possible.SUCCESSION REVIEWER  1 ST SEM 2006. The donee's share of the estate shall be reduced by an amount equal to that already received by him.  Collation in the sense of RETURN  The rules in this article govern necessary [par1].  Extent of Right to Fruits  The entirety of the fruits and interests shall pertain to the compulsory heir. and his co-heirs shall receive an equivalent. and which exist at the time the partition if effected. Should the provisions of the preceding article be impracticable.  This article provides for the closes analogue to strict equivalence. thus: 1. 1074. no reimbursement is due him for them.  TOTAL OR PARTIAL RETURN  The extent of the application of the rules in this article depends on the extent of the obligation to return. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  145 . b. but the right to removal is granted if no injury to the estate will be cause. in proportion to their respective interests over the property. This is in relation to Art546 par2: Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same right of retention. Cecille Natividad. The co-heirs are bound to reimburse to the donee the necessary expenses which he has incurred for the preservation of the property donated to him. in property of the same nature. because it is from that time the compulsory heir’s right to the inheritance becomes absolute. this will yield to a contrary agreement among the heirs. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor. The donee who collates in kind an immovable which has been given to him must be reimbursed by his co-heirs for the improvements which have increased the value of the property. The fruits and interest of the property subject to collation shall not pertain to the estate except from the day on which the succession is opened. From that time therefore the compulsory heir is entitled to the fruits. c. if the property donated was immovable. if he can do so without injuring the estate.  Collation in the sense of IMPUTATION  This article requires not only equivalence in amount. the right to the fruits and interests shall be PRORATED between the compulsory heir and the donee.  Again. CJ Tan. also in the kind of property received. then the obligation to return it to the estate arises as of the time the succession vests. Useful expenses – reimbursement must be to the full extent provided that the improvement is still in existence. he has. though they may not have augmented its value. Necessary expenses – reimbursement must be to the full extent of the expenses incurred. This of course will yield to a different agreement among the heirs. ST Art. Art. the co-heirs shall only have a right to select an equivalent of other personal property of the inheritance at its just price.

but he may remove the ornaments with which he has embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby. has impaired the legitime. Florentino and Alberta. during the lifetime of the latter by way of donation or any gratuitous title. the SC held a partition inter vivos is valid although the same should not encroach upon the legitimes. 910 and 911. the only exception being those acquired through succession. . CA .Alberta Zaragoza Morgan. .Felix Adan brought an action for the judicial partition against his sister Victoria and the latter’s husband of four (4) parcels of land left by their deceased mother. . Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  146 . 1077. 548. Mars Rongo. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. should there be controversy as to the inclusion of certain items in the computation of the estate’s value or the imputation of the heirs’ shares.The SC held that the certificate of title. . ST 2. during the lifetime of the latter by way of donation or any gratuitous title.Flavio Zaragoza died intestate leaving four children: Gloria. . . Hence. . Ornamental expenses – the same rule as in total return. If the thing has to be returned only in PART because the donation is only partially inofficious a.The SC is convinced by the documentary and testimonial evidence thus presented that indeed a partition over the estate of Flavio Zaragoza was executed during the latter's lifetime. in the absence of fraud. expenses in his professional study of surveying. collation must be resorted to in order to determine whether what has been received from the decedent.Collation must be resorted to in order to determine whether what has been received from the decedent. b. livestock and expenses for his education amounting to around P3000. denied that there was any partitioning of the estate of Flavio during his lifetime. The SC held that the petition must therefore be dismissed without prejudice to the institution of a new proceeding where all the indispensable parties are present for the rightful determination of their respective legitimes. Julie Domingo. collation can not be done as not all the indispensable parties are impleaded in the case.2007 respondents. Cecille Natividad. their father already partitioned his estate while he was still living and was able to convey these parcels of land to his three children through Deeds of Sale although. the same could not be modified or altered except in limited circumstances. except in some proceeding allowed by law. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in good faith.As to the validity of this partition. more than the value of the lots in dispute.Unfortunately. Lot 871 is still in the name of Flavio and that Lot 973 has already been sold to Florentino by the decedent for a valuable consideration. . It is in this partition that Alberta anchors her claim for the disputed lots as in fact. disqualified her to own lands. there is a valid title over Lot 943 and the complaint in respect thereof should be dismissed.Unfortunately.In fact. Casili . Zacariaz.  The distribution can proceed on the items that are not controverted. in this case. Lea Mateo. in proportion to the value to be returned. in which case he will have all the rights of ownership. provided adequate security is given.According to Alberta. Once registered. unless the property is physically divided and the ornament happens to be located in the portion assigned to the donee.Art 1061 . Art. Necessary and useful expenses – the reimbursement is also partial.The validity of the Deed of Sale could not be collaterally attacked in this petition pursuant to the provisions of PD 1529. and that the Felix has received more than his share consisting of money.  The division and distribution of the estate can be made partially. 1 ST SEM 2006. Should any question arise among the co-heirs upon the obligation to bring to collation or as to the things which are subject to collation.The RTC ruled that Flavio partitioned his properties during his lifetime and that there is an intention to convey Lot 871 to Alberta.SUCCESSION REVIEWER Art.However. . Alberta's share could not yet be conveyed to her because her marriage with an American. palay. . . it was admitted by the respondents that Lots 943 and 871 were supposedly the inheritance shares of youngest sibling. Whether or not the validity of the Deed of Sale over Lot 943 can be resolved in an action for delivery of share . CASES FOR ARTICLES 1058-1077 Zaragoza v. the youngest of the siblings. CJ Tan. has impaired the legitime. Alberta now contends that it was the intention to give to her Lots 943 and 871 in accordance with the partition earlier executed Florentino Zaragoza and his spouse. . converting to her to an American citizen. The confusion would have been avoided if the Code had not insisted on using the term collation so variedly. the defendants averred that said lots were ceded by their mother to Victoria as her share of the inheritance. Whether or not a Partition inter vivos is valid .As provided for in Art 1061. as the Adan v. and real property. .  Confusion in terminology – the situation treated in this article is really a case of reduction of inofficious donations and the rules set forth in this article really belong in the provisions on inofficious donations in Articles 910.In opposition to the judicial partition.The lower court found that the donation of the parcels of land to Victoria were unsubstantiated by any written document but that Felix had indeed received various sums during the lifetime of their mother in palay. the distribution of the estate shall not be interrupted for this reason. is the evidence of title real interest of the owner. and if his successor in the possession does not prefer to refund the amount expended. filed an action for the delivery of her inheritance shares namely Lots 943 and 871. the contracts were made without consideration. thus absolving Victoria and her husband. livestock.

is a CO-OWNERSHIP of the heirs over the entire mass. or its value. thus he is no longer entitled to the said lots. devisees] at the precise moment of death. Upon decedent’s death – co-ownership of heirs over net hereditary or partible estate 2. is a mass of properties. Art. and cash of P1. . Mars Rongo. .000 spent on Felix’s education. debts first have to be paid. substantive law and procedural law intersect. ST Whether or not Felix is entitled to any share in the four (4) parcels of land left by their mother in the possession of Victoria. the money which the child would have spent if it had lived in the house and company of its parents shall be deducted therefrom.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. The thing itself may be divided.NO. the other half being considered as the amount which the plaintiff would have spent if he had lived in the house and company of his mother. attendance in illnesses. – PARTITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE SUBSECTION 1. . The immediate effect therefore. legatees. other than physical division.Partition  The immediate effect of the decedent’s death is the vesting of the successional rights of the successors. By extrajudicial agreement under Rule 74 Sec1 of the ROC b.Compensation operates as to the fruits received by Victoria and her husband from the said lots as against the fruits or interests received by Felix from the money and property he had received. Lea Mateo.See Articles 1041 and 1042 in the next column. division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. subject to the payment of debts of the deceased. if the debts exceed the assets. Art. or if there are inofficious donations to be Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. which terminates the co-ownership [such rd as sale to a 3 person – in relation to Articles 1082 and 1086]. apprenticeship. and since the expenses incurred by plaintiff's mother in giving him that career encroached upon the legitime. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  147 . the partition of the estate. owned in common by such heirs. or customary presents are not subject to collation. the whole estate of the decedent is. and the value of all the donations inter vivos is added. of the decedent’s death as far as successional rights are concerned. of the P1.  If however the decedent’s gross assets exceed his liabilities. Cecille Natividad. is the separation.2007 returned. . there will be no estate to speak of. Extrajudicial agreement among the heirs. the judicial proceeding in which the partition is ordered comprises the entire settlement of the estate of the decedent. Dizon Rivera v. Where there are two or more heirs. that after the debts are paid.e. less the funeral expenses. 1078. Dizon SECTION 6. .  Partition ends the co-ownership among the co-heirs as to the thing partitioned. allowances for support. Partition. Julie Domingo. even though unusually expensive.100 taken by Felix from his mother’s trunk.It also provides that in cases in which it is proper to collate them.  What the successors acquire vested rights over is the net estate and the net estate is what remains after all the unpaid debts of the decedent are paid. CJ Tan.  The estate however. i.Under the article 1041 of the Civil Code. . ordinary equipment. Constructive – any act. it is possible. before its partition. 300 cavans of palay. usually consisting of various items. Thus.The value of the four (4) parcels of land in the possession of Victoria. is less than the total amount received by Felix. P500 is chargeable against his legitime. Through judicial order in appropriate proceedings under Rule 90 RoC  Actually.  KINDS OF PARTITION A. .Thus. his net estate passes to his successors [heirs. assuming the legacies and devises are not inofficious. education. The legatees and devisees will acquire a right to the specific items given to them.Since the career of surveyor is a professional one. Judicial proceedings  The sequence may be outlines as: 1. Actual – physical division of the thing among the co-heirs B. 1079. . in general.  The actual partition of the estate among the heirs terminating the co-ownership can be done basically through 2 methods: 1. it is proper to collate one-half of the amount spent by her for him during the two years he studied surveying. covered by Rules 73-90 of the RoC  In this part of successional law. because the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.But article 1042 of the same Code provides that expenses which may have been incurred by the parents in giving their children a professional or artistic career shall not be brought to collation unless the parent so orders or they encroach upon the legitimate. Subsequent Partition a. to be included in the value of the 12 carabaos. . . or 2.

in such case. IAC] ii. after which a will is executed. make testamentary dispositions because that would circumvent the requirement that dispositions mortis causa can be made only by means of a will. hence the causante can change or modify it. Cecille Natividad. CA provides that the partition inter vivos is void even if a 3. intrust the mere power to make the partition after his death to any person who is not one of the co-heirs. the subsequent will DOES NOT cure the private writing.  Alsua –Betts v.  Paragraph 2 – Partition to Keep an Enterprise Intact  It seems only a parent is allowed the privilege of this paragraph. In case of a partition inter vivos. a mere partition inter vivos which does not observe the formalities of a will cannot by itself. The provisions of this and of the preceding article shall be observed even should there be among the co-heirs a minor or a person subject to guardianship. the partition is not effective.  The case of Legasto v. that would be a donation inter vivos. a partition inter vivos can be validly made even without a prior supporting will. in our law. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  148 . Fajardo] But in an obiter. but the partition/distribution may be done by will or in writing.  Limitation on Partition by Causante  The legitimes of the causante’s compulsory heirs cannot be impaired by partition made by him. Mars Rongo. 2. be paid in cash. b. the creditors. must there be a prior will?  Certainly. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. pursuant to Art904. such partition shall be respected.e. A person may. Under no circumstances should the legitimes be impaired.  It is understood that this privilege to make the partition in such a way as to keep the enterprise intact can be exercised only if enough cash or other property is available to satisfy the legitimes of the other children. 1. in the guise of making a partition.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. A parent who. not succession. o These characteristics stem from the fact that the partition is based on succession as the mode of transfer and succession is necessarily mortis causa. ST Art. Still. 1080. industrial. the only way a partition without a will can be valid is by following strictly the intestate portions provided by law: i. Under the present provision. 1081. shall make an inventory of the property of the estate. It takes effect only upon death. insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.  Justice HOFI says that if partition is made by private writing.2007 subsequent will is executed in conformity with the provisions of the prior partition. Julie Domingo. PARTITION BY CAUSANTE  The causante [decedent] can himself effect the partition of his estate. after notifying the co-heirs. Therefore. the partition should conform exactly to the portions provided by law in intestate succession. Nature of Partition by Causante – a partition made by the causante has the ff. Possible Effect of Amended Wording of Art1080:  The old Code used the term “testator” while Art1080 used the term “person”. may avail himself of the right granted him in this article. CJ Tan. cannot take place during the causante’s lifetime. Lea Mateo. SC held that even an oral partition is valid. for then the causante would not be making testamentary dispositions in the partition – the dispositions would be by virtue of intestate succession. in the interest of his or her family. By WILL. A person cannot. Art. Succession. The act of disposition has to be by will. By Act Inter Vivos i. by an act inter vivos or mortis causa. or by will. make disposition of property to take effect upon his death. but the mandatary. or b. desires to keep any agricultural. or manufacturing enterprise intact. Should a person make partition of his estate by an act inter vivos. It is revocable as long as the causante is alive. Form of Partition by Act Inter Vivos – there is authority to the effect that a partition inter vivos should be in writing and in a public instrument.  Hence. by ordering that the legitime of the other children to whom the property is not assigned. Verzosa provides that a mere partition not connected to a will is not binding. whether in a will or by an act inter vivos. it must be pursuant to or connected to a WILL. or even rescind it during his lifetime. characteristics: a. How causante may make the Partition – a. [Chavez v. [Fajardo v. provided that it is not used to make mortis causa dispositions Nothing can take the place of a will to dispose of property mortis causa. and the legatees or devisees.

A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years. Art. by the express will of any partner at any time. (4) A partner wilfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement. (2) At any time if the partnership was a partnership at will when the interest was assigned or when the charging order was issued. This is the same rule laid down in Art494 par1: Art. and exchange. has only transferred to the partnership the use or enjoyment of the same. (2) A partner becomes in any other way incapable of performing his part of the partnership contract. an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the coownership. (2) In contravention of the agreement between the partners. perishes before the delivery. Cecille Natividad. Art. On the application of the purchaser of a partner's interest under Article 1813 or 1814: (1) After the termination of the specified term or particular undertaking. the co-ownership terminates when any of the causes for which partnership is dissolved takes place. or any other transaction. (7) By the civil interdiction of any partner. 1831. This article refers to cases of constructive partition. when the partner who contributed it having reserved the ownership thereof. (d) By the expulsion of any partner from the business bona fide in accordance with such a power conferred by the agreement between the partners. No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. Lea Mateo. CASE Tuason v. in which case the period of indivision shall not exceed twenty years as provided in article 494. 1082. but the partnership shall not be dissolved by the loss of the thing when it occurs after the partnership has acquired the ownership thereof.2007 ST  Mandatary cannot be a co-heir – the reason for this prohibition is to ensure fairness and impartiality. any co-heir may demand partition at any time. Julie Domingo. This power of the testator to prohibit division applies to the legitime. (6) By the insolvency of any partner or of the partnership. On application by or for a partner the court shall decree a dissolution whenever: (1) A partner has been declared insane in any judicial proceeding or is shown to be of unsound mind. (5) By the death of any partner.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. (4) When a specific thing which a partner had promised to contribute to the partnership. Art. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common. Even though forbidden by the testator. 1083. 1830. either before or after the termination of any specified term or particular undertaking. (3) By any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership. when no definite term or particular is specified. Nevertheless. or when the court finds for compelling reasons that division should be ordered. This term may be extended by a new agreement. in any case by the loss of the thing. insofar as his share is concerned. (c) By the express will of all the partners who have not assigned their interests or suffered them to be charged for their separate debts. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  149 . (3) A partner has been guilty of such conduct as tends to affect prejudicially the carrying on of the business. where the circumstances do not permit a dissolution under any other provision of this article.  EXCEPTIONS – despite this imposed indivision. When any of the causes for dissolution of a partnership occurs. Tuason & Gregorio Araneta Inc. Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. (6) Other circumstances render a dissolution equitable. who must act in good faith. or otherwise so conducts himself in matters relating to the partnership business that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with him. Every co-heir has a right to demand the division of the estate unless the testator should have expressly forbidden its partition. 494.  CONSTRUCTIVE PARTITION  Partition may be actual or constructive. 1830-1831: Art. CJ Tan.  Partition Generally a Matter of Right  As a general rule. Every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition. Dissolution is caused: (1) Without violation of the agreement between the partners: (a) By the termination of the definite term or particular undertaking specified in the agreement. in relation to Article 1079. not exceeding ten years. shall be valid. (8) By decree of court under the following article. upon petition of one of the co-heirs. (b) By the express will of any partner. (5) The business of the partnership can only be carried on at a loss. partition may be demanded: 1. Mars Rongo. a compromise. under Arts. although it should purport to be a sale.

SUCCESSION REVIEWER

1 ST SEM 2006- 2007

ST

2. When the Court finds compelling reasons for partition.  When the co-heirs agree on indivision for a period not exceeding 10years, renewable for like periods.

Art. 1084. Voluntary heirs upon whom some condition has been imposed cannot demand a partition until the condition has been fulfilled; but the other co-heirs may demand it by giving sufficient security for the rights which the former may have in case the condition should be complied with, and until it is known that the condition has not been fulfilled or can never be complied with, the partition shall be understood to be provisional.
 Application of Article – Institutions with a Suspensive Condition  Rationale  The heir instituted under a suspensive condition acquires no rights unless and until the condition happens.  The other heirs not so instituted, however, should not be deprived of their right to demand partition, subject to the obligation to protect the inchoate right of the conditional heir, by furnishing adequate security.

Art. 1086. Should a thing be indivisible, or would be much impaired by its being divided, it may be adjudicated to one of the heirs, provided he shall pay the others the excess in cash. Nevertheless, if any of the heirs should demand that the thing be sold at public auction and that strangers be allowed to bid, this must be done.
 This is another instance of constructive partition: sale of the thing and division of the proceeds among the heirs. This will have to be resorted to if the thing is essentially indivisible or in physical partition will so diminish its value that it becomes unserviceable or useless.  To whom thing may be sold: rd 1. To a 3 person, or 2. If none of the co-heirs object, to any one of them who is interested. If more than one are interested in buying, they may buy it jointly and have the proceeds distributed among the others to the extent of their respective shares. But the co-ownership will continue as to the buyers.

Art. 1087. In the partition the co-heirs shall reimburse one another for the income and fruits which each one of them may have received from any property of the estate, for any useful and necessary expenses made upon such property, and for any damage thereto through malice or neglect.
 MUTUAL ACCOUNTING  Upon partition, the co-heirs shall render a mutual accounting of benefits received and expenses, both necessary and useful, incurred by each of them.  Thus, any heir who between the decedent’s death and partition time, received fruits from the estate shall reimburse his co-heirs their respective shares, in proportion to the hereditary interest of each.  Similarly, any heir who incurred necessary or useful expenses on the hereditary estate may demand reimbursement from his co-heirs in the same proportion.  This article lays down the same rule contained in the Title on Co-ownership under Art500: Art. 500. Upon partition, there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made. Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud.

Art. 1085. In the partition of the estate, equality shall be observed as far as possible, dividing the property into lots, or assigning to each of the co-heirs things of the same nature, quality and kind.
 EQUALITY AMONG CO-HEIRS  Quantitative – the shares of the co-heirs are not necessarily equal in value, but are determined by the law and by will.  Qualitative – whatever the aliquot portions be, however, the law mandates equality in nature, kind and quality, so that if A gets a parcel of rice land, B should also be given one.  EXCEPTIONS / QUALIFICATIONS to the requirement of Qualitative Equality – 1. If the causante has made the partition himself 2. If the co-heirs agree otherwise 3. If qualitative equality is impossible or impracticable.

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

150

SUCCESSION REVIEWER

1 ST SEM 2006- 2007
case, ALL the co-owners wishing to redeem may do so, but in proportion to each one’s hereditary interest over the mass.

ST

Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.
 Right of an Heir to Convey Share Before Partition  Successional rights vest upon the decedent’s death. Consequently, an heir may dispose of his aliquot share after that time; he may do this gratuitously or onerously.  RIGHT OF REDEMPTION IN CASE OF SALE  In the event any co-heir sells his aliquot portion to a stranger before partition time, this article entitles any co-heir to redeem the portion sold. A. Sale must be to a stranger – a stranger within the meaning of this article is anyone who is not a co-heir. [Basa v. Aguilar] B. When right of redemption may be exercised – the right may be exercised only before partition, not after. [Caro v. CA]  Requirement of Written Notice  The article gives the co-heirs the right of redemption, which can be exercised within one month from written notice to them by the vendor.  Written notice therefore is required; without it the period does not commence to run. The SC has, as a rule, interpreted this requirement of written notice strictly.  Garcia v. Calaliman – Written notice is indispensable, actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some other manners by the redemptioner, notwithstanding. He or she is still entitled to written notice to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its validity, and to quiet any doubt that the alienation is not definitive. The law not having provided for any alternative, the method of notifications remains exclusive, though the Code does not prescribe any particular form of written notice nor any distinctive method for written notification of redemption.  The same rule is laid down in Art1620 which applies where the co-ownership covers specific property. While Article 1088 applies where the co-ownership covers the mass of the hereditary estate. But the distinction is academic and the rule is the same. Art. 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one. Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share they may respectively have in the thing owned in common.  When more than one co-owner wish to redeem – implicit in article 1088 and explicit in article 1620 is that in such

Art. 1089. The titles of acquisition or ownership of each property shall be delivered to the co-heir to whom said property has been adjudicated.
 This is particularly important in case of registered land because the old title has to be surrendered so that a new title in the name of the heir may be issued.

Art. 1090. When the title comprises two or more pieces of land which have been assigned to two or more co-heirs, or when it covers one piece of land which has been divided between two or more co-heirs, the title shall be delivered to the one having the largest interest, and authentic copies of the title shall be furnished to the other co-heirs at the expense of the estate. If the interest of each co-heir should be the same, the oldest shall have the title.
 This article only provides for the right over the document.  The co-heirs however have the right to have the title divided into individual titles, a separate one for each of the owners to correspond to the separate portions held by them respectively.

SUBSECTION 2. - Effects of Partition Art. 1091. A partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to him.
 The effect of partition is termination of co-ownership.

Art. 1092. After the partition has been made, the co-heirs shall be reciprocally bound to warrant the title to, and the quality of, each property adjudicated.
 OBLIGATION OF MUTUAL WARRANTY  Partition among co-heirs imposes upon them the same mutual obligation of warranties imposed among co-owners in general.  According to Art501: “Every co-owner shall, after partition, be liable for defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of the other coowners.”

Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

151

SUCCESSION REVIEWER

1 ST SEM 2006- 2007 Co-heirs do not warrant bad debts, if so known to, and accepted by, the distributee. But if such debts are not assigned to a coheir, and should be collected, in whole or in part, the amount collected shall be distributed proportionately among the heirs.
 Credit Assigned to Co-Heir in Partition  The warranty covers only insolvency of the decedent’s debtor at the time of partition, not subsequent insolvency, for which the co-heir takes the risk.  Foolhardy is the co-heir who will accept a collectible as part of his share in the partition. A credit, even under the best of circumstances, is aleatory.  The warranty has a special prescriptive period of FIVE (5) YEARS.  Bad Debt Assigned to a Co-Heir  A co-heir who accepts a known bad debt as his share is either a fool or a masochist.

ST

 RULE ON WARRANTIES  The applicable rules on warranties are found in Articles 1547-1580 in the title on Sales, insofar as those articles are not inconsistent with the rules given in this subsection.

Art. 1093. The reciprocal obligation of warranty referred to in the preceding article shall be proportionate to the respective hereditary shares of the co-heirs, but if any one of them should be insolvent, the other co-heirs shall be liable for his part in the same proportion, deducting the part corresponding to the one who should be indemnified. Those who pay for the insolvent heir shall have a right of action against him for reimbursement, should his financial condition improve.
 Proportional Liability of Co-heirs on Warranty  Burdens should be proportional to benefits.  Insolvency of One of Obligors – should one of the coheirs bound to make good the warranty be insolvent, his portion shall be borne proportionally by all, including the one entitled to the warranty: Example  Co-heirs are A, B, C, D and E in equal shares of P60k each. B claims warranty for the total amount of his share because he was evicted.  A, C, D and E have to contribute P12k each to make good the warranty. Since there was eviction in the amount of P60k, the total value to be partitioned was only P240k, hence P48k each.  Should A be insolvent, his P12k share shall be borne by all the others, including B. Hence, C, D and E have to contribute P3k more, making their individual liability P15k. B receives a total of P45k, having borne his own share of P3k from A’s insolvency.  EXCEPTION to right to reimbursement from insolvent obligor: insolvency that is judicially declared, under the Insolvency Law, since judicially declared insolvency extinguishes all obligations.

Art. 1096. The obligation of warranty among coheirs shall cease in the following cases: (1) When the testator himself has made the partition, unless it appears, or it may be reasonably presumed, that his intention was otherwise, but the legitime shall always remain unimpaired; (2) When it has been so expressly stipulated in the agreement of partition, unless there has been bad faith; (3) When the eviction is due to a cause subsequent to the partition, or has been caused by the fault of the distributee of the property.
 This article enumerates the instances when there is NO MUTUAL WARRANTY. It is not accurate to refer to it as a cessation, since there was none to begin with. These are – 1. Partition by the testator himself – save where the legitime is impaired. 2. Agreement among the co-heirs to suppress the warranty. 3. Supervening events causing the loss or the diminution in value. 4. Fault of the co-heir 5. Waiver

Art. 1094. An action to enforce the warranty among heirs must be brought within ten years from the date the right of action accrues. Art. 1095. If a credit should be assigned as collectible, the co-heirs shall not be liable for the subsequent insolvency of the debtor of the estate, but only for his insolvency at the time the partition is made. The warranty of the solvency of the debtor can only be enforced during the five years following the partition. Jen Laygo 3D

Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga, Cecille Natividad, CJ Tan, Julie Domingo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nina Rances & Ryan Quan 

152

ST SUBSECTION 3. Art1098 applies. 1390. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  Amount of Lesion  The minimum extent of lesion for rescission to be available is ONE-FOURTH or 25%. Art. 1098.  AN EXCEPTION TO THIS ARTICLE IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE. or consenting to a new partition. even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract. in cases of partition of the inheritance. than the share to which he is entitled. A partition may be rescinded or annulled for the same causes as contracts. The following contracts are voidable or annullable. Indemnity may be made by payment in cash or by the delivery of a thing of the same kind and quality as that awarded to the plaintiff. violence. If a new partition is made. A partition. except when the legitime of the compulsory heirs is thereby prejudiced. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  153 . that the intention of the testator was otherwise. He has 2 choices: 1. Lesion is exceedingly difficult to determine and evaluate and is viewed with increasing disfavor by modern civil law.Rescission and Nullity of Partition Art.  A partition made by the Testator himself is NOT subject to rescission even in case of lesion in the amount specified in the preceding article. They are susceptible of ratification. The action for rescission on account of lesion shall prescribe after four years from the time the partition was made. Art. may also be rescinded on account of lesion. Art. (4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority. CJ Tan. Evidently. it shall affect neither those who have not been prejudiced nor those have not received more than their just share.  This article is an exception to the preceding article. 1101. 1381. Mars Rongo. Cecille Natividad. or 2. 1097.  CAUSES FOR ANNULMENT Art.  Paragraphs 1 and 2 are modified by the following article. Lea Mateo. 1100. (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake. Art.SUCCESSION REVIEWER  1 ST SEM 2006. unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. where the party receives less than he is entitled to receive. 1099. To have a Re-partition. if the latter suffer the lesion stated in the preceding number. (3) Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due them. The heir who is sued shall have the option of indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss.  Prescriptive period of FOUR (4) YEARS – this is the same period laid down in the general rule of rescission of contracts under article 1389. undue influence or fraud. considering the value of the things at the time they were adjudicated. The following contracts are rescissible: (1) Those which are entered into by guardians whenever the wards whom they represent suffer lesion by more than one-fourth of the value of the things which are the object thereof. when any one of the co-heirs received things whose value is less. judicial or extra-judicial. These contracts are binding.  EXCEPT in the following cases: 1.  OBLIGOR’S OPTIONS – it is the co-heir who is sued for rescission who has the option. or when it appears or may reasonably be presumed. by at least one-fourth. To indemnify the co-heir the amount of the lesion suffered. Julie Domingo. (2) Those agreed upon in representation of absentees.  CAUSES FOR RESCISSION Art. (5) All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to rescission. The partition made by the testator cannot be impugned on the ground of lesion. .  LESION is economic injury.2007 Note the slight variation from paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art1381 which specifies MORE than ¼. Impairment of the legitime [even if the lesion is less than one-fourth] 2. Mistake by the testator or vitiation of his intent. intimidation.

An heir who has alienated the whole or a considerable part of the real property adjudicated to him cannot maintain an action for rescission on the ground of lesion.A person who disposes of his property gratis inter vivos is not called a testator. but failing in this. unless it be proved that there was bad faith or fraud on the part of the other persons interested. CJ Tan.Unfortunately. took possession of their respective parcels thus ceded by Sabina Almadin.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. the partition made by the testator in pursuance of its provisions is likewise null and void. a domestic corporation. it necessarily refers to that property which he has devised to his heirs. Nievaes and Antonio Tuason Jr. but a donor. such partition shall stand in so far as it does not prejudice the legitime of the forced heirs. Lea Mateo.  Incompleteness of the partition is not a ground for rescission. as the cessation of the cause implies the cessation of the effect. for where these provisions cease to exist.NO. Toribia Verzosa. but the latter shall be proportionately obliged to pay to the person omitted the share which belongs to him. designating the parcels to be given to each. or by will. Tuason . A partition which includes a person believed to be an heir. therefore. Art. but he must first make a will with all the formalities provided for by law. and have been cultivating them as exclusive owners thereof. when the law. . she offered to sell her 1/3 portion. to her four nieces. this article is unnecessary since anyway it is the party sued who is given the option. and if this will be declared null and void. Verzosa . Art.A testator may. Almadin's will is null and void for lack of the legal requisites. the will of Sabina was not admitted to probate.On May 13. Julie Domingo. A partition made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded. . shall be void only with respect to such person. by an act inter vivos. CA]  If the compulsory heir is one in the direct line and is totally omitted from the inheritance. As Sabina Almadin's will was disallowed for the reason that it did not contain all the essential requisites provided by law for its validity. Here an outsider is mistakenly included in the partition. .The assignees. and Ruperta Palma. daughters of her sister Catalina Almadin. The obvious remedy is to recover the property from him and have it redistributed among the proper recipients. 1103. Oliva Verzosa. Her sister. Toribia Verzosa." the law evidently desired to distinguish between one who freely donates his property in life and one who disposes of it by will to take effect after his death. 1056. the partition which she made of her estate among her nieces the defendantsappellants herein. but he shall have a right to be indemnified in cash. are co-owners of a land in Sampaloc. And it could not be otherwise. executing separate Deeds of Sale in favor of each of her nieces. speaks of the partition inter vivos made by a testator of his property.ART. Art854 applies. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  154 .On August 8. and Ruperta Palma.The new co-owners executed a MOA to the effect that they all agreed to improve the property by filling it and Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. The omitted heir simply gets his rightful share [Non v. Sabina Almadin partitioned her property among her aforesaid sister and nieces. Tuason v. 1105. the partition made in conformity therewith also becomes null and void. This is simply an omission of a compulsory heir in the partition. If the testator should make a partition of his property by an act inter vivos. 1925. In employing the word "testator. Maria Verzosa.  This is the reverse of the preceding article.And since Sabina. during her lifetime is likewise null and void. CASES FOR ARTICLES 1078-1105 Legasto v. the assumption being something is left for him in the form of an undisposed portion of the estate. .  This is NOT preterition under Art854. Manila. Nieves wanted and asked for a partition of the property. The remedy is a supplemental partition. consequently. but the partition shall be completed by the distribution of the objects or securities which have been omitted. partition his property. 1104. for without a will there can be no testator. 1925. . Maria Verzosa. . Art. 1102. each owning an undivided 1/3 portion. Mars Rongo. but who is not. .2007 ST Art.  Correlated with the preceding article. The omission of one or more objects or securities of the inheritance shall not cause the rescission of the partition on the ground of lesion. brother and mother declined to buy her share so she sold it to Gregorio Araneta. can the aforesaid partition of her estate made by said testatrix among her nieces be deemed valid? .. Cecille Natividad. It is an indispensable condition precedent to a testator partitioning his estate inter vivos that he have made a valid will disposing of said estate among his heirs. . A complaint was filed by the administrator seeking delivery of the parcels of land in the possession of Sabina’s nieces. Sabina Almadin executed a will devising certain parcels of land belonging to her. Oliva Verzosa.The siblings Angela.

partitioned her paraphernal as well as all the conjugal properties as if they were all owned by her. 1088.No.SUCCESSION REVIEWER constructing roads and curbs on the same and then subdivide it into small lots for sale. to remove all uncertainty as to the sale. v. . its terms and its validity.By citing another case. the parties thereto practically and substantially entered into a contract of partnership as the best and most expedient means of eventually dissolving the co-ownership. .2 weeks after. acted as the attorney in fact of Angela and Antonio Tuason. David Montaña.Felix Balanay.Also. . J. . Mars Rongo. . . another group of heirs sold to Spouses Calaliman their shares. Sr. in her will. a certain Atty. the 30-day period provided in Art. In the same document. . Art.This motion was granted by the probate court and the petition for the allowance of the will was dismissed. .No notification in writing was ever received by petitioners about the sale of the hereditary interest of some of their coheirs in the parcel of land they inherited from the late Gelacio Garcia.Hence. . 1 ST SEM 2006. ST Balanay Jr. and secondly for declaring the entire land as theirs. . the 30-day period has not even begun to run. The SC reversed the decision of the CA and reinstated the decision of the trial court. .Thus. the method of notifications remains exclusive. Angela revoked the powers conferred on her attorney in fact and decided to rescind the contract and asked that the property be partitioned.n his death the property was inherited by his nephews.The trial court ruled in favor of petitioners and ordering defendants to resell the property. the CA reversed the decision and ordered for the dismissal of the complaint. . 400: No co-owners shall be obliged to remain a party to the community.Felix appealed the decision of the trial court declaring the will void before resolving the question of its formal validity. . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.Meanwhile.Gelacio Garcia died intestate.O . . the SC held that petitioners have not lost their right to redeem. Calinisan .During and after the execution of the MOA Atty. the life of the said partnership to end when the object of its creation shall have been attained. . allegedly. moved to dismiss the probate proceedings and requested authority to proceed by intestate proceedings on the ground that the will was void (because Leodegaria cannot validly dispose of her husband’s share). . renouncing his hereditary rights in favor of his children in deference to the memory of his wife. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  155 . is a mere incident to the main object of dissolving the co-ownership. filed a petition for the approval of his mother's will which was opposed by the husband and some of her children. Buenaventura and Marcos. 1088 has not even begun to run. . disposing of her husband's one-half share. leaving a parcel of unregistered land Iloilo. Simeon. interest and participation in the same parcel of land. though the Code does not prescribe any particular form of written notice nor any distinctive method for written notification of redemption. . . demand the partition of the thing held in common. for in the absence of a written notification of the sale by the vendors. a member of the board of Araneta.The Court gave effect to the affidavit and conformity of the surviving spouse. . . Each may. this petition. Whether petitioners exercised their right of redemption within the period fixed by Art. The law not having provided for any alternative. in behalf of the petitioner.Leodegaria Julian. 400 of the Civil Code.In the absence of a written notification of the sale by the vendors.In the interpretation of a related provision (Article 1623 of the New Civil Code) this Court had stressed that written notice is indispensable.The document was inscribed in the RD of Iloilo.During the pendency of the probate proceedings Felix submitted to the court a document showing his father's conformity to the testamentary distribution. Martinez Garcia v. not exceeding ten years. notwithstanding. at any time. shall be valid.2007 . nieces. the Court did not consider the registration of the deed of sale with the Register of Deeds sufficient notice. some of the heirs (petitioners herein) filed a case for legal redemption of the ¾ of the land which was sold by their co-heirs to Spouses Calaliman. .400 of the CC is not applicable. most specially because the property involved was unregistered land. The contract far from violating the legal provision that forbids a co-owner from being obliged to remain a party to the community. precisely has for its purpose and object the dissolution of the co-ownership and of the community by selling the parcel held in common and dividing the proceeds of the sale among the co-owners. He or she is still entitled to written notice. Lea Mateo. . actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some other manners by the redemptioner. . Jr. the heirs transferred the land to Spouses Calaliman.Art. The obligation imposed in the contract to preserve the co-ownership until all the lots shall have been sold. Cecille Natividad.The will also provided that the properties should not be divided during her husband's lifetime but should remain intact and that the legitimes should be paid in cash to be satisfied out of the fruits of the properties. for refusing redemption.YES.A group of heirs signed a document entitled “Extrajudicial Partition and Deed of Sale”. first. WON the contract be declared null and void because its terms violate the provision of Art. . Pedro. and to quiet any doubt that the alienation is not definitive. read and understood the contents of the deeds of sale.However. rights. Julie Domingo.Nevertheless. This period may be a new agreement. CJ Tan.5 months after. .By virtue of the document. grandnephews who are the descendants of his late brothers. The Deed of Sale was registered in the RD of Iloilo. . the SC held untenable the argument of respondents that the requirement that the notice must be in writing is deemed satisfied when petitioner Francisco Garcia went to the Office of the Register of Deeds and saw for himself. .After some time. It also provided that the co-ownership shall be preserved until all the lots have been sold. Antonio Araneta. as exacted by the Code.The SC also declared that petitioners can claim attorney's fees for bad faith on the part of respondents. an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a specified length of time. although they knew some heirs had not sold their shares.

and because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate (which the lower court assumed to have been filed with the petitioner's authorization). .Sometime after Macaria’s death. . part of whose estate is a share in the mother’s inheritance.The written notice under said article has been declared mandatory by the court so as to remove all uncertainties about the sale. Cecille Natividad.000. .This provision of the will is void. the inheritance derived from his mother was transmitted to the wife.Hence. the prohibition lasting for the husband’s lifetime shall be limited to 20 years. . the provision stating that the legitimes should be paid in cash is contrary to article 1080 of the Civil Code . its terms and conditions. Calaiman Verdad v. and in declaring it void.The only instance when the legitimes could be paid in cash is when an agricultural.No.Art 1080 Whether or not the cause of action already prescribed . Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.It must be remembered that David survived his mother. before ruling on its allowance or formal validity. Julie Domingo.The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Hence. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon. David Rosal es likewise died intestate leaving his wife Socorro and his brothers and sisters as his only heirs. in which case the legitimes of the other children to whom the property was not assigned shall be paid in cash.Yes. apparently she is not one. . which will commence the prescriptive period for the filing of an action for legal redemption granted to heirs. CJ Tan. . Ramon burdeos and her children from the second marriage.Socorro discovered the sale while she was on the City Treasurer’s Office and that a day after. CA . In view of certain unusual provisions of the will. the right of redemption is to be exercised within 30 days from written notice by the prospective vendor. she immediately sought for the redemption of the property for P23. . the trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had been established. Mars Rongo. According to Art 1623 of the Civil Code. .Macaria Atega was the owner of a parcel of land. the prohibition to partition the estate is only valid for twenty years. is MANDATORY.000. . commercial or manufacturing enterprise is granted to one or more children.The written notice of sale. the lot’s current value being 80.2007 ST Whether the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. The article is not applicable when such property is devised to all the children. including David Rosales. Socorro filed a claim for legal redemption against Zosima Verdad. It must be remembered that Socorro is not filing for the legal redemption as an intestate heir of the mother-in-law. .The heirs of Ramon Burdeos sold to Zosima Verdad their interest on the lot inherited from Macaria. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  156 . the court should meet the issue Whether or not the testator validly prohibited the partition of her properties until after the lifetime of her husband and consequently ordered that the legitimes be paid in cash.  END OF FINALS REVIEWER Alejandro v. Socorro derived the right from her husband. CA Garcia v. which are of dubious legality. This offer was refused by Zosima for being inadequate. . as well as its efficacy and status. and hence when David died. At the time of her death. Lea Mateo.NO. even before it is probated. First. she was survived by her son from the first marriage.Second. . Whether or Not Socorro has the legal standing to redeem said property .

Art. Lea Mateo. In order to be capacitated to inherit. 1055. Art. his portion shall accrue to the others of the same degree. or to the same portion thereof. The provisions relating to incapacity by will are equally applicable to intestate succession. CJ Tan. it shall be necessary: (1) That two or more persons be called to the same inheritance. 1041. 1022. 1024. is added or incorporated to that of his coheirs. and one or some of them are unwilling or incapacitated to succeed. Mars Rongo. A child already conceived at the time of the death of the decedent is capable of succeeding provided it be born later under the conditions prescribed in article 41. In legal succession the share of the person who repudiates the inheritance shall always accrue to his co-heirs. except in case of representation. The heirs to whom the portion goes by the right of accretion take it in the same proportion that they inherit. or colegatees. 1016. In testamentary succession. repudiates the inheritance in his capacity as a testamentary heir. the vacant portion of the instituted heirs. 1018. 968. 1021.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. when it is proper. The acceptance or repudiation of the inheritance is an act which is purely voluntary and free. and of his right to the inheritance. 1025. who is called to the same inheritance as an heir by will and ab intestato. and not by the right of accretion. the heir. In order to be capacitated to inherit. 1025. Art. if no substitute has been designated. If a person. A child already conceived at the time of the death of the decedent is capable of succeeding provided it be born later under the conditions prescribed in article 41. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  157 . No person may accept or repudiate an inheritance unless he is certain of the death of the person from whom he is to inherit. devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens. or be incapacitated to receive it. Should the part repudiated be the legitime. Art. Art. ACCEPTANCE OR REPUDIATION OF INHERITANCE Art. devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens. co-devisees. INTESTATE Art.2007 ST COMPARISON OF RULES ON TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION RULE RIGHT OF ACCRETION TESTATE Art. pro indiviso. Art. who shall receive it with the same charges and obligations. when the right of accretion does not take place. Cecille Natividad. The effects of the acceptance or repudiation shall always retroact to the moment of the death of the decedent. Art. or who died before the testator. the other coheirs shall succeed to it in their own right. when it is proper. 1055. repudiates the inheritance in his capacity as a testamentary heir. 1042. If a person. 1019. Persons not incapacitated by law may succeed by will or ab intestato. save the right of representation when it should take place. he is understood to have repudiated it in both capacities. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. NOTES Art. the part assigned to the one who renounces or cannot receive his share. CAPACITY TO SUCCEED Art. devise or legacy. If there are several relatives of the same degree. Art. 1015. In order that the right of accretion may take place in a testamentary succession. except in case of representation. Accretion is a right by virtue of which. without knowledge of his being a testamentary heir. 1043. he may still accept it in the latter capacity. Should he repudiate it as an intestate heir. Art. when two or more persons are called to the same inheritance. without knowledge of his being a testamentary heir. the heir. or renounce the inheritance. he is understood to have repudiated it in both capacities. Julie Domingo. Art. Should he repudiate it as an intestate heir. shall pass to the legal heirs of the testator. who is called to the same inheritance as an heir by will and ab intestato. and (2) That one of the persons thus called die before the testator. Among the compulsory heirs the right of accretion shall take place only when the free portion is left to two or more of them. or to any one of them and to a stranger. he may still accept it in the latter capacity.

it takes place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters. and one who renounces the inheritance. If the inheritance should be repudiated by the nearest relative. CJ Tan. Cecille Natividad. but never in the ascending. Mars Rongo. Lea Mateo. Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood. 969. shall transmit no right to his own heirs except in cases expressly provided for in this Code. if they survive with their uncles or aunts. Art. should there be one only. if he were living or could inherit. the inheritance shall be distributed equally unless a different intention appears. the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter. should there be several. they shall inherit from the latter by representation. Art. In order that representation may take place.2007 ST HALF BLOOD AND FULL BLOOD BROTHERS AND SISTERS REPRESENTA TION Art. they shall inherit in equal portions. 856. a person incapacitated to succeed. the division of the estate shall be made per stirpes. those of the following degree shall inherit in their own right and cannot represent the person or persons repudiating the inheritance. A voluntary heir who dies before the testator transmits nothing to his heirs. Art. 972. Art. But if they alone survive. Julie Domingo. 973. Art. Art. 974. When children of one or more brothers or sisters of the deceased survive.  Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. If the testator should institute his brothers and sisters. A compulsory heir who dies before the testator. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  158 . and he has some of full blood and others of half blood.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 ST SEM 2006. it is necessary that the representative himself be capable of succeeding the decedent. whether they be of the full or half blood. in such manner that the representative or representatives shall not inherit more than what the person they represent would inherit. In the collateral line. The right of representation takes place in the direct descending line. or by all the nearest relatives called by law to succeed. 848. Whenever there is succession by representation. 975. 1006. Art.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful