This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
12th week (provisions common to testate and intestate succession; right of accretion; capacity to succeed by will or by intestacy) Study: Civil Code, articles 10151040 Read:
1. Torres v. Lopez, 49 Phil 504 AQUINO Facts: ∙ Tomas Rodriguez executed his last will and testament in which he instituted as the only and universal heirs to all his property, his cousin Vicente F. Lopez and his niece Luz Lopez de Bueno. ∙ Prior to the time of the execution of the will of the testator, Tomas Rodriguez, had been judicially declared incapable of taking care of himself and had been placed under the care of his cousin Vicente F. Lopez, as guardian. Lopez predeceased Rodriguez and had not made his final accounts as guardian of Rodriguez. ∙ Margarita Lopez, claims said half pertaining to Vicente F. Lopez by the intestate succession as next of kin and nearest heir; while Luz Lopez de Bueno, claims the same by accretion and in the character of universal heir under the will of the decedent. ∙ CFI decided the point of controversy in favor of Luz Lopez de Bueno.
ISSUE: 1. Whether the CFI is correct in awarding the whole estate to Luz Lopez de Bueno by right of accretion. HELD: SC affirmed the CFI's decision. ∙ Article 753 of the Civil Code provides that no testamentary provision shall be valid when made by a ward in favor of his guardian before the final accounts of the latter have been approved. Hence, the provision made in the will of Tomas Rodriguez in favor of Vicente F. Lopez must be considered as invalid owing to the incapacity of the latter. However, such incapacity on his part was not a general incapacity, but a special incapacity due to the accidental relation of guardian and ward existing between the parties. ∙ Accretion takes place in a testamentary succession, first when the two or more persons are called to the same inheritance or the same portion thereof without special designation of shares; and secondly, when one of the persons so called dies before the testator or renounces the inheritance or is disqualifying to receive it. ∙ In the case before us we have a will calling Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter, Luz Lopez de Bueno, to the same inheritance without special designation of shares. In addition to this, one of the persons named as heir has predeceased the testator, this person being also disqualified to receive the estate even if he had been alive at the time of the testator's death. ∙ Article 912 provides that legal succession takes place if the heir dies before the testator and also when the heir instituted is disqualified to succeed. But intestate succession to a vacant portion can only occur when accretion is impossible. ∙ Under paragraph 4 of article 912, intestate succession occurs when the heir instituted is disqualified to succeed (incapaz de suceder), while, under the last provision in paragraph 2 of article 982, accretion occurs when one of the persons called to inherit
to the exclusion of the 7 grandchildren. 959. ∙ Art. o It does not apply where the beneficiaries are relatives of another person (relatives of the legatee). a consideration which makes a case for accretion rather than for intestate succession. o There is no logical reason in this case to presume that the testator intended to refer to the rules of intestacy.2 under the will is disqualified to receive the inheritance (incapaz de recibirla). wherein he instituted Filomena Diaz or her legitimate descendants as his legatee to 10% of his estate. BPI. Children and grandchildren inherit per capita. ∙ Onesima now appeals the denial. 109 Phil 1008 BISNAR Belen v. A distinction is then drawn between incapacity to succeed and incapacity to take ∙ The disability to which Vicente F. Issue: Do the words “sus descendientes legitimos” refer conjointly to all living descendants (children and grandchildren) of the legatee as a class; or do they refer to the descendants nearest in degree? Ruling: It refers to all living descendants. ∙ Onesima filed a petition. o a sus descendientes legitimos: xxx § Filomena diaz – diez por ciento (10%) xxx ∙ Benigno died and his will and the codicil was admitted to probate. arguing that “sus descendientes legitimos”: o Should be interpreted to mean descendants neares in degree to the original legatee Filomena; and o Could mean nearest descendants with right of representation. The will provides: o El resto distribuira a las siguentes personas que aun viven. BPI Facts: ∙ Benigno Diaz executed a codicil. since he envisages all of them in a group. who had 7 legitimate children. – Denied. Belen v. is limited in its application to cases where the beneficiaries are relatives of the testator. claiming that the 10% legacy should be distributed equally between her and Milagros. Lopez was subject was not a general disability to succeed but an accidental incapacity to receive the legacy. and only as mere . which provides that “a distribution made in general terms in favor of the testator’s relatives shall be understood as a made in favor of those nearest in degree”. for he precisely made a testament and provided substitutes for each legatee; nor can it be said that his affections would prefer the nearest relatives of the legatee to those more distant. 2. ∙ Filomena died leaving 2 daughters: Onesima and Milagros.
No. L21809 January 31.3 ∙ ∙ substitutes for a preferred beneficiary. 1022. In order that the right of accretion may take place in a testamentary succession. 1016. the testator was free to ordain that the more distant descendants should enjoy the right of representation as in intestate succession. 1966 POLICARPIO vs. But without any other supporting circumstances. SALAMAT . In testamentary succession. and intended to replace such accretion with representation; o ART. 3. the right of accretion among coheirs and colegatees." the testator Benigno Diaz did intend to circumvent all the legal provisions heretofore quoted. 1019. the vacant portion of the instituted heirs. dxxx xxx xxx o ART. But to arrive at such conclusion. It was incumbent upon appellant to prove such intention on the part of the testator; yet she has not done so. The heirs to whom the petition goes by the right of accretion take it in the same proportion that they inherit. or intended to reject. ultimately inherited by the testator's own heirs intestate: o ART.R. pro indiviso; and (2) That one of the persons thus called die before the testator or renounce the inheritance. as established for testamentary successions by Articles 10016 (old Art. or be incapacitated to receive it. 982) and 1019. if he had so desired. or to the same portion thereof. shall pass to the legal heirs of the testator. 986). Policarpio v. when the right of accretion does not take place. it shall be necessary: (1) That two or more persons be called to the same inheritance. we must declare that the testator had:. b) Refused. we deem expression "o a sus desecendientes legitimos. that vacancies in the free part should be filed according to the rules of accretion or substitution (not representation); and in default of these two. There is no doubt that. Salamat. likewise. the rule of Article 846 providing that: o “Heirs instituted without designation of shares shall inherit in equal parts. 16 SCRA 154 CLETO G. In addition. the testator's intention being the cardinal rule of succession in the absence of compulsory (forced) heirs.” which would not obtain if the right of representation were to apply; c) Rejected finally the rule of Article 1022 (old Art. if no substitute has been designated. who shall receive it with the same charges and obligations. a) Rejected. he could have rendered inoperative all the articles mentioned.
naked ownership of a fishpond in Hagonoy. Bulacan was given to her sister Teodorica de la Cruz. which provides "A usufruct constituted in favor of several persons living at the time of its constitution shall not be extinguished until the death of the last survivor.4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● In a duly probated will of one Damasa Crisostomo. adhere to the theory that since the usufructuaries were instituted simultaneously by the late Damasa Crisostomo. and that Jose V. Patricia Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo. bequeathed in her will all her rights to the fishpond to Jose V. both the naked owner and the remaining usufructuaries claimed the shares corresponding to the deceased usufructuaries in the amount of P10. 1962." Salamat contends that the most a usufruct can endure only if constituted in favor of a natural person in the lifetime of the usufructuary. the naked owner. Defendant Jose V. On November 15. their usufructuary rights . the surviving usufructuaries leased the fishpond to one Batas Riego de Dios who then came to know of the existing conflicting claims. Policarpio. the death of the three usufructuaries did not extinguish the usufruct. On the other hand. 1962. Salamat avers as special defense that he is the successorininterest of Teodorica de la Cruz and as such he is entitled to the shares corresponding to the three deceased usufructuaries. said lessee was also constrained to withhold the corresponding part of the usufruct. ordering that such amount as would be equivalent to the shares of the three deceased usufructuaries be delivered to him. the usufruct to continue until the death of the last usufructuary. Teodorica de la Cruz.714. when the three usufructuaries died. the two lessees commenced the present action for interpleader against both the naked owner and surviving usufructuaries to compel them to interplead and litigate their conflicting claims. The children of Antonio Perez. Salamat. on the other hand. Patricia Vicente and Canuto Lorenzo turned out to be fourteen in number. Salamat was also entitled to share with the eleven usufructuaries in the proceeds of the lease contract executed by them with plaintiff Batas Riego de Dios. The surviving usufructuaries. During the term of the lease. inasmuch as the usufruct in their favor was automatically extinguished by death and became merged with the naked owner. three of the usufructuaries died. and that the surviving usufructuaries are entitled to receive the shares corresponding to the deceased usufructuaries. because a usufruct is extinguished by the death of the usufructuary unless a contrary intention clearly appears. Not knowing to whom of the claimants the shares of the deceased usufructuaries should be paid.26. on May 31. Therefore. 1963. the lessee withheld said amount. The surviving usufructuaries took the present appeal. The fourteen usufructuaries leased the fishpond first to Gil P. Because of these conflicting claims. The surviving usufructuaries argue that it is they who are entitled to receive the shares of the deceased by virtue of Article 611 of the Civil Code. Salamat was entitled to the shares of the three deceased usufructuaries in the lease rental due from plaintiff Gil Policarpio. who used to give them proportionately the usufruct corresponding to them. Upon their death. the trial court declared that Jose V. Subsequently. while its usufruct to the children of her cousins Antonio Perez. On March 29.
claiming that they are entitled to receive the legacy of P2. Salamat? YES. Felisa Francisco Javier made a will instituting her husband Sulpicio Resurreccion as her universal heir and. because Article 603 already provides that the death of the usufructuary extinguishes the usufruct unless the contrary appears. contrary to the provisions of Article 611 which expressly provides that the usufruct shall not be extinguished until the death of the last survivor. finding that Gil Francisco Javier died in August. and her will was probated on March 8th of said year. Javier. even before the testatrix made her will. On October 12. from which it can be implied that. 1933.000 in favor of her brother Gil Francisco Javier. 4. ● Article 611 implicitly provides that the share of a usufructuary who dies in the meantime inures to the benefit of the surviving usufructuaries. Resurreccion v. among other things. left a legacy of P2.5 were extinguished and whatever rights they had to the fruits reverted to the naked owner. The only exception is if the usufruct is constituted in a last will and testament and the testator makes a contrary provision. 1930. should any of them die. ordered that the legacy of P2. ● There is accretion among usufructuaries who are constituted at the same time when one of them dies before the end of the usufruct. Gil Francisco Javier's children and heirs. the eleven surviving usufructuaries are entitled to the shares of the three deceased usufructuaries. the share of the latter shall accrue to the surviving ones. ● Thus. 1933. the court. Issue: WON a legacy made in favor of a person who was already dead not only before .000 in favor of their father. ● Furthermore.000 in his favor revert to the fund of the estate. Held: ● If the theory of appellee in the sense that the death of the three usufructuaries has the effect of consolidating their rights with that of the naked owner were correct. 1932. the testatrix constituted the usufruct in favor of the children of her three cousins with the particular injunction that they are the only ones to enjoy the same as long as they live. 63 Phil 599 FERNANDEZ Facts: On October 18. The testatrix died on January 22. Article 611 of the Civil Code would be superfluous. Issue: W/N the eleven surviving usufructuaries are the ones entitled to the fruits that would have corresponded to the three deceased usufructuaries or the naked owner Jose V. ● Here. appeal from the court's resolution ordering the reversion of this amount to the funds of the estate. said theory would cause a partial extinction of the usufruct.
as the legatee died before the testatrix. 5. They cannot even claim under the principle of representation because this takes place only in intestate inheritance. may dispose by will of all her property or any part thereof in favor of any person qualified to acquire it (art. by operation of law ○ vested upon death of decedent ○ subject only to lien of creditors 6. Court of Appeals Facts: . having no forced heirs. 766. Vicente Claridad. the Quions ● Claridads contended that the intestate proceeding could no longer be opened as the proceedings were concluded for more than 2 years ISSUE: Whether or not the intestate proceeding may still be opened? HELD: The Quions are coowners of the Claridads to the extent of ½ of the estate ● The proceeding may be reopened as it is an Action for Relief on the ground of fraud ○ prescribes in 4 years ○ less than 4 years so action not prescribed yet ● Not an action to reopen the intestate proceedings ● Heirs of the 2nd marriage entitled to the inheritance automatically. he could transmit nothing to his heirs (art. 763. Civil Code) Upon being instituted as legatee by the testatrix. Consequently. CA. therefore. Civil Code). Facts: ● The Claridads concealed that fact that the decedent had a second wife and 2 children. and.6 the death of the testatrix but even before the will was made is valid? Held: No The testatrix. lacked capacity to inherit by will on the ground that he could not be the subject of a right (art. You might want to read the whole case. which is extinguished by death. Gil Francisco Javier lacked civil personality. his institution as a legatee had absolutely no legal effect and his heirs are not now entitled to claim the amount of legacy. 139 SCRA 206 ITARALDE Nepomuceno v. Valeriana Quion v. Civil Code). Nepomuceno v. Furthermore. No facts stated in the case. 32. et al 74 Phil 100 (1943) FORTES Note: This case only has a syllabus.
Camacho. The giver cannot give even assuming that the recipient may receive. 2. HELD: The devisee is invalid by virtue of Art. Martin Hugo (testator) died on 1974 and he left a will wherein he instituted Sofia Nepomuceno (petitioner) as the sole and only executor. NICOLAS TIOCO and JANUARIO PAPA. vs. 7. defendantsappellants. Oscar and Carmelita. The testator was legally married to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children. the prohibition in Article 739 of the Civil Code is against the making of a donation between persons who are living in adultery or concubinage. 3. DALISAY TONGKO CAMACHO. The lower court denied the probate on the ground of the testator's admission of cohabitation. 1028 it is also prohibited. Petitioner filed for the probate of the will but the legal wife and her children opposed alleging that the will was procured through improper and undue influence and that there was an admission of concubinage with the petitioner. . MANUEL TIOCO.7 1. hence making the will invalid on its face. the testator Martin Jugo and the petitioner were married in Victoria. ISSUE: WON concubine may inherit/ be a donee of deceased man. It is the donation which becomes void. 1952.Moreover. 144 SCRA 281 KUNG FRANCISCA TIOCO DE PAPA. Tarlac before the Justice of the Peace. PRIMO TONGKO and GODOFREDO CAMACHO. In fact. 739 and 1028. Under Art. FACTS: This case involves the application of Article 891 of the Civil Code on reserva troncal. The very 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. but since 1952. he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. plaintiffsappellees. 739 which voids a donation made between persons guilty of adultery/concubinage at the time of the donations. De Papa v. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the will is valid except the devise in favor of the petitioner which is null and void in violation of Art. on December 5.
Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon (mother of defendant Dalisay D. are legitimate relatives. three (3) parcels of land were adjudicated as the inheritance of the late Toribia Tioco. Eustacio Dizon. In 1928. Plaintiffs and defendant Dalisay D. 4. single and without issue. Romana Tioco during her lifetime gratuitously donated four (4) parcels of land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of plaintiffs). 3. Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco. survived by his legitimate children by his wife Marciana Felix (among them plaintiffs) and legitimate grandchildren Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon. and their two legitimate children. Defendant Dalisay D. 6. subject to the usufructuary right of her surviving husband. Faustino Dizon died intestate. upon legal advice. TongkoCamacho now owns onehalf (1/2) of all the seven (7) parcels of land abovementioned as her inheritance from her mother. Defendant Dalisay D. Balbino Tioco died intestate. Toribia Tioco died intestate in l9l5. Eustacio Dizon died intestate. which interest was inherited by Eustacio Dizon from Faustino Dizon. father of plaintiffs and great grandfather of defendant. Trinidad DizonTongko.8 1. 8. Eustacio Dizon. On June 14. leaving his onehalf (1/2) proindiviso share in the seven (7) parcels of land abovementioned to his father. as his sole intestate heir. defendant Primo Tongko. In 1937. survived by her husband. and her rights and interests in the parcels of land abovementioned were inherited by her only legitimate child. Balbino Tioco. TongkoCamacho. the said three (3) parcels of land devolved upon her two legitimate children Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon in equal proindiviso shares. 1965. 2. plaintiffs being said defendant's grandaunt and granduncles. defendant Dalisay D. In the partition of his estate. 9. TongkoCamacho) and leaving the aforementioned four (4) parcels of land as the inheritance of her said two children in equal proindiviso shares. Francisco Tioco de Papa. also upon legal advice. who received the said property subject to a reserva troncal. TongkoCamacho. oppose her said claim because they claim threefourths (3/4) of the onehalf proindiviso interest in said parcel of land. 10. TongkoCamacho also claims. In 1939 Trinidad DizonTongko died intestate. 5. or . TongkoCamacho and the plaintiffs. TongoCamacho have as a common ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a sister by the name of Romana Tioco). defendant Dalisay D. the other half of the said seven (7) parcels of land abovementioned by virtue of the reserva troncal imposed thereon upon the death of Faustino Dizon and under the laws on intestate succession; but the plaintiffs. survived his only legitimate descendant. 7. The parties agree that defendant Dalisay D. but as she had predeceased her father.
9 threeeights (3/8) of the said parcels of land. as third degree relatives of Faustino Dizon are reservatarios (together with said defendant) of the onehalf proindiviso share therein which was inherited by Eustacio Dizon from his son Faustino Dizon. to threeeights (3/8) of the rentals collected and to be collected by defendant Dalisay P. and. The reservatario is not the reservista's successor mortis causa nor is the reservable property part of the reservista's estate; the reservatario receives the property as a conditional heir of the descendant (prepositus). or inherit. in equal proportions. the matter must be deemed to have enjoyed no more than a life interest in the reservable property. 13. that . As to the first issue: The contention that an intestacy proceeding is still necessary rests upon the assumption that the reservatario win succeed in. the reservatario nearest to the prepositus (the appellee in this case) becomes. to onehalf of the seven parcels of land in dispute. Not satisfied. 11. This is not true. The lower Court declared the plaintiffs Francisco Tioco. 2) In a case of reserva troncal. said property merely reverting to the line of origin from which it had temporarily and accidentally strayed during the reservista's lifetime. or whether the plaintiffs. TongkoCamacho is entitled to the whole of the seven (7) parcels of land in question. The parties raised the legal issue of whether defendant Dalisay D. automatically and by operation of law. minus the expenses and/or real estate taxes corresponding to plaintiffs' share in the rentals. ISSUE: Whether or not: 1) all relatives of the praepositus within the third degree in the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the reservable property upon the death of the reservista. Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco. and entitled to threefourths (3/4) of said onehalf proindiviso share. and avoid its being dissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant (reservista). as reservatarios. the defendant appealed to this Court. the reservable property from the reservista. the nephews of whole blood should have double the share against newphews of half blood. Tongko Camacho from the tenants of said parcels of land. 12. It is a consequence of these principles that upon the death of the reservista. As already stated. by virtue of their being also third degree relatives of Faustino Dizon. the owner of the reservable property. therefore. or three eights (3/8) of said seven (7) parcels of land. RULING: The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the reservable property to the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came. entitled. The authorities are all agreed that there being reservatarios that survive the reservista. as well as the defendant Dalisay TongkoCamacho.
As to the 2nd issue: Uncles and aunts shall not share in the reserveable property. of Faustino Dizon (the praepositus). . the defendantappellant. the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession. (The relatives in the direct ascending shall exclude relatives in the collateral line. In other words. 891 does not specify otherwise. the rule of double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should be likewise operative. and does not even answer for the debts of the latter. although they are related to him within the same degree as the latter. If in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se. respectively. since Art. Reversion of the reservable property being governed by the rules on intestate succession. since. proximity of degree and the right of representation of nephews are made to apply.. its application should be limited to what is strictly needed to accomplish the purpose of the law. as aunt and uncles.) Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary intestate succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half blood.10 property is no part of the estate of the reservista. under the law of intestate succession a descendant’s uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestate so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to inherit. . the plaintiffsappellees must be held without any right thereto because. they are excluded from the succession by his niece.. the reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives reservatarios to whom the property should be returned; but within that group. The rule on proximity applies. . This conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that the reserva being an exceptional case.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.