Atun v.

97 Phil. 762
In 1950, a complaint was filed for recovery of a parcel of registered land. Plaintiffs aver that they inherited the lot from their,
now deceased aunt, who died without issue. That they had possessed the lot from years 1927 to 1930 before it was delivered to
defendant’s sister for cultivation. Thereafter, or in 1940, the land was turned over to defendant Nuñez, who then refuse to recognize
plaintiff’s ownership and consequently, sold it to co-defendant Belga.
The CFI dismissed the complaint pursuant to the statutes of limitations. Plaintiffs appealed.
Is prescription availing against plaintiffs?
No. Section 40 of Act 496 expressly provides that no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall
be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. And if prescription is unavailing against the registered owner, it must be equally
unavailing against the latter's hereditary successors, because they merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law (new
Civil Code, Art. 777; Art. 657, old), the title or right undergoing no change by its transmission Mortis Causa.
Ledesma v. Mclachlin
66 Phil. 547
Defendants appealed to the decision of the CFI ordering them to pay for the last installment on a promissory note previously
executed by their father Lorenzo M. Quitco. Said maker died before his father, Eusebio Quitco, from whom defendants inherited
property. That is, defendants grandfather. Defendants aver that they are not bound to pay the indebtedness of their father from whom
they did not inherit anything.
Is the defendants bound to pay for the indebtedness contracted by their father?
No. While it is true that under the provisions of articles 924 to 927 of the Civil Code, a child represents his father or mother
who died before him in the properties of his grandfather or grandmother, this right of representation does not make the said child
answerable for the obligations contracted by his deceased father or mother, because, as may be seen from the provisions of the Code
of Civil Procedure referring to partition of inheritances, the inheritance is received with the benefit of inventory, that is to say, the heirs
only answer with the properties received from their predecessor. The herein defendants, as heirs of Eusebio Quitco, in representation
of their father Lorenzo M. Quitco, are not bound to pay the indebtedness of their said father from whom they did not inherit anything.
Uson v. Del Rosario
92 Phil. 530
Plaintiff filed a suit alleging that defendants had deprived her of ownership and possession of five (5) parcels of land which she
inherited from late husband. Defendants, common-law wife and children, argue on the other hand that plaintiff had renounced her right
to inherit by virtue of a public document wherein likewise, plaintiff and husband agreed to separate. The decedent died in 1945 or
before the effectivity of the New Civil Code.
Is plaintiff entitle to the land?
No. When the decedent died in 1945 the five parcels of land he was seized of at the time passed from the moment of his
death to his only heir, his widow Maria Uson (Article 657, old Civil Code). As this Court aptly said, "The property belongs to the heirs
at the moment of the death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to them a deed for the same
before his death." From that moment, therefore, the rights of inheritance of plaintiff over the lands in question became vested.
The public document cannot be entertained for the simple reason that future inheritance cannot be the subject of a contract or
be renounced.
Rodriguez v. Borja
17 SCRA 418
Petitioners moved to dismiss the probate of a purported will, submitted on March 4 with the CFI of Bulacan which was
withdrawn and petitioned only after eight (8) days or on March 12 at 11AM, of the late Fr. Rodriguez alleging that said court do not have
jurisdiction over the special proceeding as it was filed after petitioners had already commenced a petition, March 12 8AM, for
settlement of intestate proceedings with the CFI of Rizal. The decedent was a resident of Rizal and a parish priest of the Catholic
Church in Hagonoy, Bulacan, from the year 1930 up to the time of his death in 1963.

Does the court of Bulacan have jurisdiction?
Yes. Where the petition for probate is made after the deposit of the will, the petition is deemed to relate back to the time when
the will was delivered. As ruled in previous decisions, the power to settle decedents' estates is conferred by law upon all courts of first
instance, and the domicile of the testator only affects the venue but not the jurisdiction of the Court.
In our system of civil law, intestate succession is only subsidiary or subordinate to the testate, since intestacy only
takes place in the absence of a valid operative will Says Article 960 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Moreover, as ruled in
Castro, et al. vs. Martinez, 10 Phil. 307 "only after final decision as to the nullity of testate succession could an intestate succession be
instituted in form of pre-established action". The institution of intestacy proceedings in Rizal may not thus proceed while the probate of
the purported will of Father Rodriguez is pending.
Chavez v. IAC
G.R. No. 68282, November 08, 1990
Manuela Chavez, owner of paraphernal parcel of land, consented to the sale by her three children of their 1/6 shares each to
another child Concepcion. This makes Concepcion the owner of 4/6 of the lot in question and the remaining 1/6 each for Antonio and
Rosario. Despite the transfers, Manuela sold the entire lot in favor of her child Raquel and the entire lot again to Ferrer. Thus, a
complaint was filed by Concepcion, Antonio and Rosario.
The trial court dismissed the complaint which the appellate court reversed and declared that the sale between Manuela and
her children were valid partition. Petitioners oppose on the ground that Manuela executed her last will and testament pending probate
and which invalidates the former acts.
Can Manuela validly sold the lot after consenting to the sale between her children?
No. Article 1080 of the New Civil Code allows a person to make a partition of his estate either by an act inter vivos or by will
and such partition shall be respected insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs. The Deeds of Sale (by and
between Manuela and children) are not contracts entered into with respect to future inheritance but a contract perfected and
consummated during the lifetime of Manuela who signed the same and gave her consent thereto. Such partition inter vivos, executed
by the property owner herself, is valid.