You are on page 1of 11

TOPIC: SUCCESSION INTER VIVOS V.

SUCCESSION MORTIS CAUSA

TOPIC: CONTRACTUAL SUCCESSION

1. DEL

ROSARIO
VS.
FERRERGR
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010
2. BONSATO V CA 95 P 4813. REYES V MOSQUEDA 187 SCRA 661

Characteristics of
dispositions
post

Ursula,
sister of the testator Dr. Pascual,

Spouses G executed a "Donation


Mortis
mortem :
alleged
that
Causa" the terms of which are asduring the lifetime of the latter he
(1) Convey no title or ownership
to the
executed
a "Donation Mortis Causa" in her
follows:
transferee
before
the death
the properties which are included in
1. BALUS
V BALUS
JANUARY
favorofcovering
15,
transferor;
or, what amounts tothethe
same
estate
of Dr. Pascual and therefore should
2010
It is our will that this Donation Mortis
excluded
thing, that the transferor shouldberetain
thefrom the inventory.
Causa shall be irrevocable and shall be
ownership
(full
naked)
and
controlIt of
the
The
rightsby
to
asurviving
person's
succession
respected
theor
spouse.xxx
is are
our
SC: Posadas,
The title given
to a deed of donation is not the
property
while
alive
(Vidal
vs.
58
transmitted
of his death.
In
further will from
that the
anymoment
one surviving
spouse
determinative
factor
which makes the donation
Phil., 108;
Guzman
vs. Ibea,
Phil., consists
633);
addition,
the
inheritance
of a 67
person
reserves
the
right, ownership,
possession
and
"inter vivos" or "mortis causa" .
administration
this transmissible
property herein
donated
of
the propertyofand
rights
and
and
and this
Disposition
anddeath,
Donation
(2) accepted
That existing
before
histhe
death,
the
transfer
obligations
at
timeInofthe
his
as is no doubt that the so-called
case, there
shall
be be
operative
and effective
upon
the
death
should
revocable
by the
transferor
at CAUSA is really a donation inter
well
as
those
which
have
accrued
thereto
DONATION MORTIS
of
the ad
DONORS.
since
the
opening but
of the
succession.
In
the
will,
nutum;
revocability
may
be
vivos. The donation was executed by Dr. Pascual in
3. OPULENCIA VS CA JULY 1998
present
case,
Rufo lostby
ownership
ofofsister
thea
provided
forsince
indirectly
means
favor
his
Petitioner entered into the Contract
toof
Sell
in her Ursula Pascual out of love and
subject
property
during
his
lifetime,
it
only
reserved power in the donorantoexecutrix
dispose
of
as well
capacity as an heiress, not as affection
or as a recognition of the personal
follows
that at theconveyed
time of services
his
death,
the
rendered
the
properties
(Bautista
vs.
administratrix of the estate. She represented by the donee to the donor. The
disputed
parcel
of
land
no longer
formed
transfer
ofpart
ownership over the properties
SC:
IT G.
ISlawful
A R.
DONATION
INTER
VIVOS.
Sabiniano,
L-4326,
November
18,
herself
as the
owner and
seller
of
the
donated
to
the
of
his
estate
to
which
his
heirs
may
lay
claim.
1952);
subject parcel of land. She also explained the donee was immediate and
independent
of the death of the donor.
Stated
differently,
petitioner
and
respondents
reason for
the sale to
be difficulties
in her living
never
inherited
the subject
lot
from
VITUG
V
CA
conditions
and
consequent
need
of
cash.These
(3) That
the
transfer
should
be
void
iftheir
the 183 SCRA 755
That
the
document
in 1.
question
in
this
father.
representations
clearly
evince
that
she
was
not
transferor
survive the
transferee.
caseshould
was captioned
"Donation
Mortis
2. AGGABAO
V
FEBRUARY
23, probate
2004
acting
on
behalf
of the
estate under
Dolores
Vitug, deceased, during her lifetime
Causa"
is RTC
not
controlling.
when
entered
into
the
Contract
Sell. Rafael
Juliana
Ortaez,
her
three
sons,
Jose,
together
with her husband Romarico Vitug,
Noneshe
of
theseand
characteristics
isto
discernible
and
Antonio,
all
surnamed
Ortaez,
invalidly
executed
a survivorship agreement with the
in the case. Most significant is the absence
entered
into
a Valid
memorandum ofbank.
agreement
Contract
to
Sell
It
provides
that after the death of either
of stipulation
that the v.
donor
could
revoke
In Austria-Magat
Court
of Appeals,
extrajudicially
partitioning
the
intestate
estate
of
them,
the
fund
shall
belong exclusively to the
The
Supreme
Court
emphasized
that
the donations;
thethat
contrary,
the deeds
the Courton
held
"irrevocability"
is
among
themselves,
despite
their
knowledge
that
survivor.
hereditary
rights
are
vested
in
the
heir
or
expressly
declare
them
"irrevocable".
a quality
incompatible
with
there
were
otherabsolutely
heirs to
or be
claimants
the
SC:decedent's
Theto
conveyance
in question is not, first of
heirs
from
the
moment
of
the
the illegitimate
idea of conveyances
mortis
causa,
estate(five
children ofall,
the one
decedent
of mortis causa, which should be
death.
Petitioner,
became
the
by Ligaya
Novicio)
andtherefore,
before final
settlement
of
where
"revocability"
is embodied
precisely
inthe
a will. A will has been defined as
owner
of
her
hereditary
share
the
moment
the estate
by the of
intestate
Since
the
essence
the court.
act.
Hence,
"a personal,
solemn, revocable and free act by
her
father
died.
lack
ofbyjudicial
appropriation
of theThus,
estate
properties
which
aJuliana
capacitated person disposes of his
irrevocability
is the
the
"distinctive
approval
does
not
invalidate
the
Contract
torights and declares or Neither is
Ortaez and
her
children
(Jose,
Rafael
and
Antonio
property
and
standard that identifies the document
Ortaez)
was
invalid,
the
subsequent
sale
thereof
Sell, because
the inter
petitioner
the
the has
survivorship
agreement a donation inter
as a donation
vivos."
by
Juliana and
Jose
to athe
third
party
(FLAG),
substantive
right
to sell
whole
orfor
a obvious
part
vivos,
reasons, because it was to
without
court in
approval,
was likewise
void.
effect after the death of one party.
of her share
the estate
of hertake
late
father.
Secondly, it is not a donation between the
GENERAL RULE: Our jurisprudence
is clearbecause
that
spouses
it involved no conveyance of
(1) any disposition of estate property
by
an properties to the other.complies
a spouse's own
administrator or prospective heirwith
pending
dutiesfinal
to take effect after his death.
adjudication requires court approval and (2) any
unauthorized disposition of estateIt property
can
is an aleatory
contract where, one of the
be annulled by the probate court, parties
there being
no reciprocally bind themselves to
or both
need for a separate action to
the
giveannul
or do something
as an equivalent for that
unauthorized disposition.
which the other party is to give or do in case of
COMPAREDTO THE CASE OF OPULENCIA
the occurrence of an event which is uncertain

or will happen at an indeterminate time.Thus,


the survivor who takes all the funds , is his
property , it forms no more part of the estate of
the deceased.

TOPIC:
TRANSMISSION
THRU DEATH

TOPIC:
OBJECT
OF
EXISTING PROPERTY

1. SPOUSES
MANONGSONG
ESTIMO 404 S 683

SUCCESSION-

The contract of sale does not deprive the


compulsory heirs of their legitimes. A valid
sale for valuable consideration does not
diminish the estate of the seller. When
the
disposition
is
for
a
valuable
consideration, there is no diminution of
the estate but merely a substitution of
values, that is, the property sold is replaced
by the equivalent monetary consideration.
2. SPOUSES JOAQUIN V 1.
CA LIMJOCO
416
V FRAGRANTE 80 P
SCRA
776
The right of the heirs are merely
inchoate
and
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the estate of
vests only upon their parents
death.
While
Fragante may be extended an artificial
still living, the parents (from
whom
they
judicial
personality.
are to inherit) are free to dispose of their
properties. In their over HELD:
zealousness to
safeguard their future legitime, the heirs
forget that theoretically, the sale
of the oflots
The estate
Fragante could be extended an
to their siblings does not affect
the judicial
value personality because under
artificial
of their parents estate. While
of estate of a dead person
the the
Civilsale
Code,
the lots reduced the estate,
the
cash
of
could be considered
as artificial juridical
equivalent value replaced the person
lots taken
for from
the purpose of the settlement
the estate.
and distribution of his properties. It should
be noted that the exercise of juridical
administration includes those rights and
fulfillment of obligation of Fragante which
survived after his death. One of those
surviving rights involved the pending
application for public convenience before
the Public Service Commission.

1. ALVAREZ V IAC 185 S 8

Under our law, the general rule is that a


party's contractual rights and obligations
are transmissible to the successors.
The binding effect of contracts upon the
heirs of the deceased party is not altered
by the provision of our Rules of Court that
money debts of a deceased must be
liquidated and paid from his estate before
the residue is distributed among said
heirs (Rule 89).

TOPIC
TRANSMISSIBLE
OBLIGATION

FORCED SUCCESSION
ART 886. LEGITIME

TOPIC: NO COMPROMISE OR WAIVER


ON THE LEGITIME
1.JLT AGRO V BALANSANG MARCH
11,2005
Well-entrenched is the rule that all things,
even future ones, which are not outside the
commerce of man may be the object of a
contract. The exception is that no contract
may be entered into with respect to future
inheritance, and the exception to the
exception is the partition inter vivos referred
to in Article 1080.
2. FERRER V SPS DIAZ APRIL 23, 2010
A waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another
executed by a future heir while the parents are
still living IS NOT valid. An adverse claim
annotated on the title of a property on the basis of
such waiver likewise IS NOT valid and NOT
effective because future inheritance cannot be
the source of any right nor the creator of any
obligation between the parties.

A contract may be classified as a contract


upon future inheritance, prohibited under
the second paragraph of Article 1347,
where the following requisites concur:
(1)
That the succession has not yet
been opened.
(2) That the object of the contract forms
part of the inheritance; and,
(3) That the promissor has, with respect to
the object, an expectancy of a right which
is purely hereditary in nature
BLAS V SANTOS; Future inheritance is
any property or right not in existence
or capable of determination at the
time of the contract, that a person
may
in
the
future
acquire
by
succession.

TOPIC: NO
LEGITIME

IMPAIRMENT

ON

THE

1. IMPERIAL V CA OTOBER 8, 1999


The repudiation of an inheritance shall be
made in a public or authentic instrument, or
by petition presented to the court having
jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate
proceedings.
If the heir should die without having
accepted or repudiated the inheritance, his
right shall be transmitted to his heirs.
2. FRANCISCO V FRANCISCO 354 S 112
May a legitimate daughter be deprived of her
share in the estate of her deceased father by a
simulated contract transferring the property of
her father to his illegitimate children?

TOPIC PRIMARY FORCED HEIRS

SC: Since
there was
cause oraugust
consideration
SPS
TUMBOKON
V no
LEGASPI
12,
for the sale, the same was a simulation and
2010
hence, null and void. Even if the kasulatan was
A decedents compulsory heirs in whose
not simulated, it still violated the Civil Code
favor the law reserves a part of the decedents
provisions insofar as the transaction affected
estate are exclusively the persons enumerated
legitime.
inrespondents
Article 887, Civil
Code, viz:
Art
888. 887.
The legitime
of legitimate
Article
The
following
are children
and
descendants
compulsory
heirs: consists of one-half of the
hereditary estate of the father and of the
mother.
(1) Legitimate
children
and
descendants, with respect to their
Iflegitimate
indeed the
parcels
ofascendants;
land involved were the
parents
and
(2) Inproperty
defaultleft of
the father,
foregoing,
only
by their
the sale in
legitimate
parents respondent
and ascendants,
fact
would deprive
of her share in
withfathers
respectestate.
to theirBy
legitimate
children
her
law, she
is entitled to
and of
descendants;
half
the estate of her father as his only
(3) The widow
or widower;
legitimate
child.
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and
natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred
to in article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3,
4, and 5 V
are
not excluded
by27,
those
in
1.RIVERA
RAMIREZ
JUNE
2012
Nos.
1
and
2;
neither
do
they
exclude
SC CONCUR WITH
CA: The CA
held that based
1.AGUILAR
V SIASAT
JANUARY
28 ,
one
on
the another.
article Women Physicians of the World
2015
In all
cases of ofillegitimate
children,
found
in the
the case
it, the
As a rule,
The record
due recognition
of an before
illegitimate
childlate
in a
their
filiation
must
be
duly
proved.
Rosita,
a
physician,
had
adopted
as
record of birth, a will, a statement before a Raymond
court of record,
or in child.
any authentic
writing is, in
itself, a
consummated
her
An adopted
child,
said
the CA, act
is
of acknowledgment
of
the child,
no further
The father
mother
of and
illegitimate
deemed
a orlegitimate
child
of court
the
action
is required.
In the
fact, anythree
writing is treated
children
adopter.
This of being
theauthentic
case,classes
Raymonds
notmentioned,
just a ground for
compulsory
recognition;
it isin
in itself a
shall
inherit
from
them
presence
barred
Eleuterio
and
Rositas
voluntary recognition that does not require a separateother
action
to the intestate
extent from
collateral
relatives and
from inheriting
for the
judicial manner
approval.
by this Code. is
(807a)
her.established
A further consequence
that they also did
This
Court,
no
solid
evidence
attesting
to the fact and
that
not have the right to seek the production
plaintiff herein
istwo
either
a biological
son
or a legally
adopted
Only
forced
heirs
survived
Alejandra
examination
of the Neither
documents
allegedly
in
one
washer
everdeath,
presented.
was a certificate
of live
upon
namely: respondent
Apolonia,
Roberts
possession.
birth of plaintiff
ever introduced confirming his biological
her daughter, and Crisanto Miralles, her
relationship as a son to the deceased spouses Alfredo and
grandson.
latter succeeded Alejandra by
Candelaria
S. The
Aguilar.
right of representation because his mother,
Moreoever,
of the following documents
are
Ciriaca, the presentation
had
predeceased
Alejandra.
not
sufficient to establish
filiation;
Representation
is ahis
right
created by fiction of
law, by virtue of which the representative is
raised
to the place
and
the
degree
ofindicated
the person
1. Individual
Income
Tax
Return
which
that
Candelaria
Siasat-Aguilar
his mother;
represented,
and
acquires isthe
rights which the
latter would have if she were living or if she
could
Herein,
the representative
2. have
Alfredoinherited.
Aguilars Social
Security
System (SSS) ,
(Crisanto
Miralles)
calledand
to thumb
the succession
which
bears hiswas
signature
marks and
by lawindicates
and that
not petitioner,
by the who
person
represented
was born
on March 5,
1945,he
is his
son and
dependent. Alejandra, not
(Ciriaca);
thus
succeeded
Ciriaca.
chanroble slaw

TOPIC:
EFFECT
RELATIONS

OF

ADOPTIVE

TOPIC. PROOF OF FILIATION IN REL TO ART


888

2.GERONIMO V SANTOS GR 197099 SEPT


28, 2015
Plaintiff Karen Santos, claiming to be the only child of
deceased Rufino and Caridad Geronimo filed a complaint for
annulment of document and recovery of possession against
the defendants Eugenio and Emiliano Geronimo who are the
brothers of her father. She discovered that defendants
1.SPS
BOLANOS
V
executed a document entitled Pagmamana sa Labas ng
NOVEMBER
17,2010
Hukuman declaring themselves as the only heirs of spouses.
Defendants disclosed that the deceased Rufino and Caridad
Geronimo were childless Considering
and took in as
their
ward the
that
Roman
died on
plaintiff who was in truth, the child of Caridad's sister.

BERNARTE

August 9, 1976,
the provisions of the Civil Code on succession,
then
law
in force,
should apply, particularly
SC: The mere registration
of athe
child
in his
or her birth
Articles
979 and
980, viz.
certificate as the child of
the supposed
parents
is not
a valid adoption, does not confer upon the child the
status of an adopted child and the
rights
of such children and
Art.legal
979.
Legitimate
child, and even amounts to simulation of the child's birth or
their descendants succeed the
falsification of his or her birth certificate, which is a public
parents and other ascendants,
document.

without distinction as to sex or

It is well-settled that a record of age,


birth is
merely
and
evena ifprima
they should come
facie evidence of the facts contained
It marriages.
is not
fromtherein.
different
x x x.
conclusive evidence of the truthfulness of the statements
made there by the interested parties. Thus, the complaint of
Art. 980. The children of the
annulment is hereby dismissed.

deceased shall always inherit from


him in their own right, dividing the
inheritance in equal shares.

Thus, the RTC correctly ruled that Lot No. 1-P


rightfully belongs to the 11 children of Roman,
seven (7) from his first marriage with Flavia and
four (4) from his second marriage with Ceferina,
in equal shares. As there was no partition among
Romans children, the lot was owned by them in
common. And inasmuch as Flavia did not
successfully repudiate her sale of her aliquot
share to Cresencia, the transfer stands as valid
and effective. Consequently, what Cresencia
sold to petitioner spouses was her own share
and Flavias share in the property that she
acquired by virtue of the notarized deed of sale,
which is only 2/11 of Lot No. 1-P.Therefore, the
restitution of the property in excess of that
portion by petitioner spouses is clearly
warranted.

TOPIC. ART 888

1. BARTOLOMEV SSS NOV 12,2014


John was adopted. He died without any
issue. Adopters as well already died. His
biological mother filed a claim for death
benefits under PD 626 with the Social
Security System (SSS).

SC: Our mind, in the absence or, as in


this case, death of the adopter, no one
else could reasonably be expected to
perform the role of a parent other than
the adoptees biological one.

TOPIC:
ADOPTED
CHILD
RE:
BIOLOGICAL PARENT- WHEN CAN SHE
INHERIT

The biological parents, in some


instances, are able to inherit from the
adopted, as can be gleaned from Art. 190
of the Family Code:
Art. 190. Legal or intestate succession
to the estate of the adopted shall be
governed by the following rules.

TOPIC : SURVIVING
VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE

SPOUSE

1.ENRICO
HEIRS
534
S 418 SEPT
2007 or
(2) WhenVthe
parents,
legitimate
or illegitimate,
the legitimate ascendants of the adopted

While A.M.
02-11-10-SC
declares
thatthe
a
concurNo.
withthe
adopter, they
shall divide
estate, one-half
tobe inherited
byvoid
the
petitionentire
for declaration
of absolute
nullity of
parents
half, by
marriage
may or
beascendants
filed solelyand
by the
theother
husband
or
theitadopters
the wife,
does not mean that the compulsory
or intestate heirs are already without any
TOPIC: ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
(6) When
only the
collateral
bloodcan
relatives
of the
recourse
under
law. They
still protect
adopted survive,
then
of
their successional
right,
for,theasordinary
stated rules
in the
legal
or
intestate
succession
shall
apply.
1.
ESTATE
OF
Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable JUAN DIZON V CA 366 S 499
2001 Nullity of
Marriages and Declaration of Absolute
issue, i.e., whether petitioners are indeed
Void Marriages, Legal Separation This
and Provisional
the
acknowledged
illegitimate offsprings of
Orders, compulsory or intestate heirs can still
the
decedent,
cannot
be aptly adjudicated
Similarly,
at
the
time
of
Cornelio
Colcols
question the validity of the marriage of the
an action
having been first been
death,
which
was prior for
towithout
the effectivity
spouses,
not in
a proceeding
declaration
of
Code,
thespouse
governing
nullity, of
butthe
uponFamily
the death
of instituted
a
intoa impugn their legitimacy as
being
the children
of Danilo B. de Jesus and
provision
is settlement
Art. 984 ofof
the
Civil
proceeding
for the
the New
estate
of
Carolinacourts.
Aves de Jesus born in lawful
Code, which
provides:
the deceased
spouse
filed in the regular
wedlock. Jurisprudence is strongly settled that
Art. 984. In case of the deaththe
of paramount
an adopted declaration of legitimacy by law
cannot be attacked
collaterally, one that can
child, leaving no children or descendants,
his
only
be
repudiated
or
contested in a direct suit
parents and relatives by consanguinity and not
specifically
brought
for
that purpose. Indeed, a
by adoption, shall be his legal heirs.
child so born in such wedlock shall be
considered
although the mother may
From the foregoing, it is apparent
that legitimate
the
have
declared
against
its legitimacy or may
biological parents retain their rights of
have
been
sentenced
as having been an
succession to the estate of their child who was
adulteress.
the subject of adoption.

RE:

TOPIC: RESERVA TRONCAL

1.MENDOZA V DELOS SANTOS MARCH 20,2013

Placido and Dominga had four children:


Antonio, Exequiel, married to Leonor, Apolonio and Valentin.
Petitioners alleged that the properties were part of Placido and Domingas
properties that were subject of an oral partition and subsequently adjudicated to
Exequiel. After Exequiels death, it passed on to his spouse Leonor and only
daughter, Gregoria. After Leonors death, her share went to Gregoria. In 1992,
Gregoria died intestate and without issue. They claimed that after Gregorias
death, respondent, who is Leonors sister, adjudicated unto herself all these
properties as the sole surviving heir of Leonor and Gregoria.
SC: Exequiel owned the properties and he is the ascendant from whom the
properties in dispute originally came. Gregoria, on the other hand, is the
descendant who received the properties from Exequiel by gratuitous title.
In the case of Julias collateral relationship with Gregoria, ascent is to be made
from Gregoria to her mother Leonor (one line/degree), then to the common
ancestor, that is, Julia and Leonors parents (second line/degree), and then descent
to Julia, her aunt (third line/degree). Thus, Julia is Gregorias collateral
relative within the third degree and not her ascendant.
Moreover, petitioners cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios as they are not
relatives within the third degree of Gregoria from whom the properties came. The
person
from
whom
the
degree
should
be
reckoned
is
the
descendant/prepositusthe one at the end of the line from which the property
came and upon whom the property last revolved by descent. It is Gregoria in this
case. Petitioners are Gregorias fourth degree relatives,being her first cousins.
First cousins of the prepositus are fourth degree relatives and are not
reservees or reservatarios.
They cannot even claim representation of their predecessors Antonio and Valentin
as Article 891 grants a personal right of reservation only to the relatives up to the
third degree from whom the reservable properties came. The only recognized
exemption is in the case of nephews and nieces of the prepositus, who
have the right to represent their ascendants (fathers and mothers) who
are the brothers/sisters of the prepositus and relatives within the third
degree.
The conclusion, therefore, is that while it may appear that the properties are
reservable in character, petitioners cannot benefit from reserva troncal.

VEVENCIA ECHIN PABALAN, ET.


AL. v. THE HEIRS OF SIMEON A.B.
MAAMO, SR., G.R. No. 174844,
March 20, 2013
2.

Reserva troncal is a special rule designed


primarily to assure the return of a reservable
property
to the third degree relatives
belonging to the line from which the property
originally came, and avoid its being dissipated
into and by the relatives of the inheriting
ascendant. The reservor has the legal title and
dominion to the reservable property but
subject to the resolutory condition that such
title
is
extinguished
if
the
reservor
predeceased the reservee. The reservor is a
usufructuary of the reservable property. He
may alienate it subject to the reservation. The
transferee gets the revocable and conditional
ownership of the reservor. The transferees
rights are revoked upon the survival of the
reservees at the time of the death of the
reservor but become indefeasible when the
reservees predecease the reservor.