SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007

 Based on “Jottings and Jurisprudence on the Law on  However, Philippine procedural law, as influenced
Succession” by Prof. Balane and Cases according to the by the common-law system, lays down a different
2006 Syllabus of Justice Hofileña 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.

CHAPTER 1  Rule 90, Sec1 provides for the When the Order for the
GENERAL PROVISIONS 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
ART. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by court shall assign the RESIDUE of the estate to
virtue of which the property, rights and persons entitled to it.
obligations to the extent of the value of the  The rule also provides that there shall be no
inheritance, of a person are transmitted distribution until the payment of the obligations
through his death to another or others either enumerated above, have been made or provided
by his will or by operation of law. for. However, if the distributees give a bond for the
payment of the said obligations within such time
 The Code has simplified the concept of succession and and of such amount as fixed by the court, the
treats it simply as one of the 7 Modes of Acquiring distribution may be allowed.
Ownership as enumerated in Art712 of the NCC.
 In our system therefore, money debts are, properly
 7 MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP speaking, not transmitted to the heir nor paid by
1. Occupation them. The estate pays them and it is only what is
2. Intellectual Creation left after the debts are paid [residue] that are
3. Law transmitted to the heirs.
4. Donation
5. Estate and Intestate Succession  Justice JBL Reyes observed that Philippine rules of
6. Tradition Succession Mortis Causa proceed from an imperfect
7. Prescription blending of 3 Systems with Contrasting Philosophies –
1. GERMANIC CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL HEIR
 Overlap of Codal Definition with Art776  Heir directly and immediately steps into the
 Article 774 talks of ―property, rights and obligations shoes of the deceased upon the latter‘s death
to the extent of the value of the inheritance.‖  At one single occasion [uno ictu]
 Article 776 talks of the ―inheritance‖ as including  Without need of any formality
―all the property, rights and obligations of a person  En mass
which are not extinguished by his death.‖  Automatic Subjective Novation
 For clarity and better correlation, Prof. Balane 2. FRANCO-SPANISH SYSTEM
opines that Art774 should rather read:  Acquisition of estate by universal title but only
“Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which upon acceptance by the heir at any time, with
the inheritance of a person is transmitted through his death to retroactive effect.
another or others either by his will or by operation of law.”  Acceptance may be made any time except
 And the inheritance which is transmitted through a when the creditors or the court requires it be
person‘s death is defined by Article 776 to include done within a certain time.
―all the property, rights and obligations of a person  This is the system followed by the NCC, by
which are not extinguished by his death.‖ having the following features:
a) Universality of Property Rights and
 What are Transmitted by Succession? Obligations
 Only Transmissible Rights and Obligations. b) Transmitted from the moment of death
 General Rule – if the right or obligation is strictly c) En bloc, as an entire mass
personal [intuitu personae], it is intransmissible; d) Transmitted even before judicial
otherwise it may be transmitted. recognition of heirship.

 Rule Regarding Pecuniary Obligations 3. ANGLO-AMERICAN [COMMON LAW] SYSTEM
 A literal construction of Art774 appears to imply  Estate must first be liquidated, assets
that money obligations of the deceased would pass marshaled and the debts paid or settled
to the heirs, to the extent that they inherit from him. under judicial supervision, by an intervening
 Seemingly, this article mandates that the trustee or personal representative
heirs receive the estate, and then pay off [administrator or executor] before the net
the creditors. residue is taken over by the successor.

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 1ST SEM 2006-2007

 This is the system followed by the Rules of administrator or personal representative until after
Court, in that: settlement of the claims against the estate?
a) Executor or administrator has possession
and management of the estate as long  RESULT of these divergent rules – Creditors must now
as necessary for the payment of debts pursue their claims during the settlement proceedings
and expenses of administration, with and not against the heirs individually.
authority to exercise the right of
disposition. CASE
b) Section 3 Rule 87 – action to recover title Union Bank v. Santibañez
or possession of lands in the hands of
the executor or administrator can be - On May 31, 1980, First Country Credit Corporation (FCCC)
maintained by the heir only upon the and Efraim M. Santibanez entered into a loan agreement in
order of the Court assigning such land to the amount of P128,000 which was intended for the
the heir or devisee. payment of the purchase price of 1 unit of a tractor. In view
c) Section 1 Rule 90 – heirs may recover of this, Efraim and his son, Edmund executed a promissory
their share only upon: note in favor of FCCC.
- On Dec. 13, 1980, FCCC and Efraim entered into another
 Payment of debts, expenses
similar loan agreement which was intended to pay the
and taxes
balance of the purchase price of another unit of a tractor.
 Hearing conducted by the court And again, father and son executed a promissory note for
 Court assigns the residue of the the said amount in favor of FCCC.
estate to the heirs. - However, sometime in Feb 1981, Efraim died, leaving a
holographic will and subsequently testate proceedings were
 As a result of the blending of these 3 systems, JBL commenced before the RTC of Iloilo with Edmund being
Reyes says that we are thus faced with divergent, if not appointed as the special administrator of the estate of the
contradictory principles. decedent.
 Do the successors acquire the WHOLE of the - During the pendency of the testate proceedings, Edmund
transmissible assets and liabilities of the decedent? and his sister, Florence Santibanez Ariola, executed a joint
 Art774 – by virtue of succession the agreement on July 22, 1981 wherein they agreed to divide
property, rights and obligations, to the between themselves and take possession of the 3 tractors; 2
extent of the value of the inheritance of a for Edmund and 1 for Florence, each of them to assume
person, are transmitted by and at the indebtedness of their late father to FCCC.
moment of his death, implying a transfer - On August 20, 1981 a deed of assignment with assumption
of liabilities was executed by and between FCCC and Union
at that instant of the totality or universality
Savings and Mortgage Bank, wherein FCCC as the
of assets and liabilities. assignor, assigned all its assets and liabilities to Union
Savings and Mortgage Bank.
 Do the successors only acquire the RESIDUUM - Not long after, demand letter for the settlement of the
remaining after payment of the debts, as implied by account were sent by Union Bank to Edmund but the latter
the Rules of Court? refused to pay. Thus Union Bank filed a complaint for sum of
 Art1057 – within 30 days after the court money against the Edmund and Florence before the RTC of
has issued an order for the distribution of Makati.
the estate in accordance with the RoC, - However the case was dismissed. The lower court said that
the heirs, devisees and legatees shall the claim should have been filed with the probate court were
signify to the court having jurisdiction, the testate estate of Efraim was pending. Furthermore, the
whether they accept or repudiate the agreement was void considering that the probate court did
inheritance. not approve the agreement and no valid partition until after
 The order of distribution under the RoC is the will has been probated.
issued only after the debts, taxes and - Also, the list of assets and liabilities of Union Bank did not
clearly refer to the decedent‘s account. Also, it was
administration expenses have been paid;
contended that the obligation of the deceased had passed to
hence it is arguable that the acceptance his legitimate children and heirs already, in this case
can no longer refer to assets already Edmund and Efraim. CA affirmed RTC decision.
disposed of by the administrator, but must - Hence this appeal.
be limited to the net residue. WON the partition in the Agreement executed by the heirs is
 But if title vests in the heir as of the death valid.
of the decedent then the acceptance of - No, there can be no valid partition among the heirs until after
the heir becomes entirely superfluous, the will has been probated by the probate court. This is
and the law should limit itself to regulating specially because when the joint agreement executed by
the effects the effects of a repudiation by Edmund and Florence partitioning the tractors among
an heir or legatee, and its retroactive themselves were executed, there was already a pending
effect. proceeding for the probate of their late father‘s holographic
will covering the said tractors. Thus the probate court had
 Or do the successors acquire only the NAKED already acquired jurisdiction over the said tractors which
TITLE at the death of the predecessor, but with they can‘t be divested of. Any extrajudicial agreement needs
possession or enjoyment vested in the court approval.

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 1ST SEM 2006-2007

WON the heirs‘ assumption of the indebtedness of the of the undertaking of the guarantor (Hemady), since the
deceased is valid. were not liabilities incurred after the execution of the
- No, the assumption of the indebtedness of the decedent by counterbonds; and (2) that ―whatever losses may occur after
Edmund and Florence is not binding. Such assumption was Hemady‘s death, are not chargeable to his estate, because
conditioned upon the agreement above. Hence, when the upon his death he ceased to be guarantor.‖
agreement of partition between Edmund and Florence was
invalidated, then the assumption of the indebtedness cannot Whether losses are chargeable to Hemady’s Estate.
be given and force and effect. Also, the court should have
filed it money claim against the decedent‘s estate in the - YES. While in our successional system the responsibility of
probate court. Furthermore, it cannot go after Florence for the heirs for the debts of their decedent cannot exceed the
she took no part in the documents related to the tractors, value of the inheritance they receive from him, the principle
specifically the promissory notes and the continuing remains intact that these heirs succeed not only to the rights
guaranty agreement; they should have gone after Edmund of the deceased but also to his obligations.
being a co-signatory to the promissory notes and guaranty. - Under the CC, the heirs, by virtue of the rights of succession
are subrogated to all the rights and obligations of the
WON the Union Bank can hold the heirs liable on the deceased and cannot be regarded as third parties with
obligation of the deceased. respect to a contract to which the deceased was a party,
- No, Union Bank cannot hold the heirs liable on the obligation touching the estate of the deceased.
of the deceased because it had not sufficiently shown that it - By contract, the articles of the Civil Code that regulate
is the successor-in-interest of the Union Savings and guaranty or suretyship contain no provision that the guaranty
Mortgage Bank to which the FCCC assigned its assets and is extinguished upon the death of the guarantor or the
liabilities. Furthermore, the documentary evidence clearly surety.
reflects that the parties in the deed of assignment with - Although Art. 2056 requires that one who is required to
assumption of liabilities were the FCCC, and the Union furnish a guarantor must present a person who possesses
Savings and Mortgage Bank, with the conformity of Bancom integrity, capacity to bind himself, and sufficient property to
Philippine Holdings, Inc. Nowhere can the participation answer for the obligation which he guarantees, it will be
therein of Union Bank as a party can be found. As a result, noted that the law requires these qualities to be present only
Union Bank has no personality to file the complaint and at the time of the perfection of the contract of guaranty
therefore cannot hold the heirs liable for the obligation of the - The contract of suretyship entered into by K.H. Hemady in
deceased. 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
 In a sense, it can be said that even money debts are eventual liability thereunder necessarily passed upon his
transmitted to and paid for by the heirs, but this would death to his heirs. The contracts, therefore, give rise to
be by mere indirection – contingent claims provable against his estate.
 Because whatever payment is thus made from the - The SC reversed the order of the lower court and instead
estate is ultimately a payment by the heirs and ordered the case be remanded to the CFI.
- The general rule is that a party‘s contractual rights and
distributes, since the amount of the paid claim in
obligations are transmissible to the successors.
fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs
- Art. 1311 of NCC: Contracts take effect only as between the
would have been entitled to receive. parties, their assigns and heirs, except in the case where the
rights and obligations arising from the contract are not
 BUT only the payment of MONEY DEBTS has been transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision
affected by the Rules of Court. The transmission of of law.
other obligations not by nature personal follows the rule - Art. 774 of NCC: Succession is a mode of acquisition by
in Art774 and is transmitted by succession. 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
CASE his will or by operation of law.
- Art. 776 of NCC: The inheritance includes all the property,
Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety rights and obligations of a person which are not
extinguished by his death.
- Luzon Surety filed a claim against the Estate based on 20 - The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the
different indemnity agreements or counter bonds, each deceased party is not altered by the provision in the Rules of
subscribed by a distinct principal and by the deceased K.H. Court that money debts of a deceased must be liquidated
Hemady, a surety solidary guarantor in all of them, in and paid from the estate before the residue is distributed
consideration of Luzon Surety‘s of having guaranteed, the among said heirs. The reasons is that whatever payment is
various principals in favor of different creditors. made from the estate is ultimately a payment by the heirs,
- Luzon Surety also prayed for allowance, as a contingent since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or
claim, of the value of the 20 bonds it had executed in reduces the shares that the heirs would have been entitled
consideration of the counterbonds, and further asked for to receive.
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007

assumed to have been filed with the petitioner's estate should be distributed in the manner therein provided,
authorization), the trial court acted correctly in passing upon and it is incumbent upon the state that, if legally tenable,
the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal validity had such desire be given effect independent of the attitude of the
been established. parties affected thereby
- The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on - Testacy is favored. Doubts are resolved in favor of testacy
its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Where practical especially where the will evinces an intention on the part of
considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate.
passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should
meet the issue Bellis v. Bellis

Whether the court erred in converting the testate proceeding - Amos Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the
into an intestate proceeding notwithstanding the fact that in its United States.
order of June '8, 1973 it gave effect to the surviving husband's - By his first wife, he had 5 legitimate children; by his second
conformity to the will and to his renunciation of his hereditary wife, he had 3 legitimate children; and he had 3 illegitimate
rights which presumably included his one-half share of the children.
conjugal estate. - Amos executed a will in the Philippines, in which he
- YES. The rule is that "the invalidity of one of several specified how his estate will be divided and distributed.
dispositions contained in a will does not result in the - Subsequently, Amos died, a resident of Texas.
invalidity of the other dispositions, unless it is to he - His will was admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila.
presumed that the testator would not have made such other - The People‘s Bank, as executor of will, paid all the bequests
dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been included in Amos‘ will.
made" (Art. 792, Civil Code). - Before closing its administration, the executor submitted its
- "Where some of the provisions of a will are valid and others final report and project of partition.
invalid, the valid parts will be upheld if they can be - However, 2 of Amos‘ illegitimate children filed their
separated from the invalid without defeating the intention of oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they
the testator or interfering with the general testamentary were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and
scheme, or doing injustice to the beneficiaries" therefore compulsory heirs of the deceased.
- Void provisions in the will: - The CFI issued an order overruling the oppositions and
1. The statement of the testatrix that she owned the approving the executor‘s final account, report and project
"southern half" of the conjugal lands is contrary to partition. The lower court, relying upon Art. 16 of the NCC,
law because, although she was a co-owner thereof, applied the national law of Amos, which is the Texas law,
her share was inchoate and pro indiviso which did not provide for legitimes.
2. that the properties of the testatrix should not be - The illegitimate children thus filed an Appeal.
divided among her heirs during her husband's lifetime
but should be kept intact and that the legitimes Whether this case falls under Art. 17 of the NCC.
should be paid in cash is contrary to article '080 of - NO.
the Civil Code - Appellants argue that their case falls under the
circumstances mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of Art. 17 in
Whether an heir may validly renounce his share relation to Art. 16 of the NCC. It argues that Art. 17 prevails
- YES. Felix Balanay, Sr. could validly renounce his hereditary as the exception to Art. 16.
rights and his one-half share of the conjugal partnership - The SC rule that appellants argument is incorrect.
(Arts. '79['] and '04', Civil Code) but insofar as said - It ruled that the change in the NCC shows that whatever
renunciation partakes of a donation of his hereditary rights public policy and good customs may be involved in our
and his one-half share in the conjugal estate (Art. '050['] Civil system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend
Code), it should be subject to the limitations prescribed in the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Congress
articles 750 and 752 of the Civil Code. A portion of the has specifically chose to leave the amount of successional
estate should be adjudicated to the widower for his support rights to the decedent‘s national law.
and maintenance. Or at least his legitime should be
respected. Whether Philippine law should govern to Amos‘ Philippine
- Generally, the probate of a will is mandatory and it is the estate.
duty of the court to pass first upon its formal validity except - NO. Appellants argued that Amos executed 2 wills – one to
in extreme cases where the will is on its face intrinsically govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate –
void. arguing that he intended Philippine law to govern his
- A will is not rendered null and void by reason of the Philippine estate.
existence of some illegal or void provisions since the - The SC held that that a provision in a foreigner‘s will to the
invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance
does not result in the invalidity of the other dispositions with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal
unless it is to be presumed that the testator would not have and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to
made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition those matters that Art. 16 of the NCC states said national
had not been made; law should govern.
- Where some provisions are valid and others invalid, the
valid provisions shall be upheld if they can be separated Which law must apply – Texas law or Philippine law?
from the invalid provisions without defeating the intention of - Texas law applies.
the testator or interfering with the general testamentary - The petitioners admit that Amos was a citizen of State of
scheme or doing injustice to the beneficiaries. Texas and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced
- The very existence of a purported testament is in itself prima heirs of legitimes.
facie proof that the supposed testator has willed that his

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 1ST SEM 2006-2007

- Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the the probate of the will; but if the testator, one
will and the amount of successional rights are to be month, or less, before making his will was
determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes
publicly known to be insane, the person who
cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos.
- Art. 16: Real property as well as personal property is subject maintains the validity of the will must prove
ot the law of the country where it is situated. However, that the testator made it during a lucid
intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to interval.
the order of succession and to the amount of successional
rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, ART. 801. Supervening incapacity does not
shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the
invalidate an effective will, nor is the will of an
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein incapable validated by the supervening of
said property may be found. capacity.
- Art. 1039: Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the
nation of the decedent.  Articles 796-801 lay down the rules on testamentary
- Art. 17: Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or capacity.
property, and those which have for their object public order,  Testamentary Capacity – testamenti factio;
public policy and good customs shall not be rendered testamentifacción active, the legal capacity to make
ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by a will.
determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign
 Who has testamentary capacity? All NATURAL
country.
persons, unless disqualified by law. Juridical
- The decedent‘s national law governs the (1) order of
succession, (2) the amount of successional rights, (3) the persons are NOT granted testamentary capacity.
intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and (4) the
 DISQUALIFIED PERSONS
capacity to succeed.
- Testamentary provision that successional right to decedent‘s 1. THOSE UNDER 18 [ART797]
estate would be governed by law other than his national law  Under EO292, the Administrative Code of
if void, being contrary to article 16 of the NCC. 1987, which took effect on November 24,
1989, years are now reckoned according to
the Gregorian Calendar.
Subsection 2 – Testamentary Capacity  Sec31 provides for the legal periods
And Intent a) Year – 12 calendar months
b) Month – 30 days, unless specific
calendar month is referred to, in
ART. 796. All persons who are not expressly which case it shall be computed
prohibited by law may make a will. according to the number of days the
specific calendar month contains
ART. 797. Persons of either sex under eighteen c) Day – 24 hours
years of age cannot make a will. d) Night – Sunset to sunrise
2. THOSE OF UNSOUND MIND [ART798]
ART. 798. In order to make a will it is essential  Unsoundness of Mind [Insanity]
that the testator be of sound mind at the time  Absence of the qualities of soundness of
of its execution. mind
 Defined by the Code only by indirection
ART. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not because only soundness of mind is
necessary that the testator be in full defined under Art799.
possession of all his reasoning faculties, or
 SOUNDNESS OF MIND [SANITY]
that his mind be wholly unbroken,
 NEGATIVELY
unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury 1. Not necessary that testator be in full
or other cause. possession of reasoning faculties
It shall be sufficient if the testator was 2. Not necessary that testator‘s mind be wholly
able at the time of making the will to know the unbroken, unimpaired, unshattered by
nature of the estate to be disposed of, the disease, injury or other cause.
proper objects of his bounty, and the  POSITIVELY – Ability to know 3 things
character of the testamentary act. 1. Nature of estate to be disposed of
 Testator should have a fairly accurate
ART. 800. The law presumes that every person is knowledge of what he owns.
of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the  The more one owns, the less accurate his
contrary. knowledge of his estate expected to be.
The burden of proof that the testator was 2. Proper objects of one‘s bounty; &
not of sound mind at the time of making his  Testator should know, under ordinary
dispositions is on the person who opposes 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 1ST SEM 2006-2007

expectedly decreasing as the degrees  Sexist provision, contains an erroneous and unintended
become more remote. suggestion that a married man does not have the same
privilege.
3. Character of testamentary act.
 It is not required that the testator know the  Article 97 of the Family Code supersedes this in part
legal nature of a will with the erudition of a  Art97. Either spouse may dispose by will of his or
civilest. her interest in the community property.
 All that he need know is that the
document he is executing is one that
disposes of his property upon death.
Cases for Arts. 796-803
 Legal Importance and Implication of Mental Capacity
Bagtas v. Paguio
 Law is interested in the legal consequences of the
testator‘s mental capacity or incapacity, not in the
- This is an appeal from an order of the CFI admitting to
medical aspects of mental disease.
probate a document which was offered as the last will and
 The testator could be mentally aberrant medically testament of Pioquinto Paguio.
but testamentarily capable, or vice versa, mentally - The testator died a year and 5 months following the date of
competent medically but testamentarily the execution of the will.
incompetent. - For some 14 or 15 years prior to his death, the testator
 TEST – as long as the testator, at the time he suffered from paralysis of the left side of his body.
made the will, was capable of perceiving the three - A few years prior to his death, his hearing became impaired
things [nature of estate, objects of bounty, and and he lost the power of speech.
character of testamentary act], he has - Owing to the paralysis of certain muscles, his head fell to
testamentary capacity, whatever else he may be one side and saliva ran from his mouth. However, he
medically. retained the use of his right hand, and was able to write
fairly well. Through the medium of signs he was able to
 PRESUMPTION / GENERAL RULE – rebuttable indicate his wishes to his wife and to other members of his
Presumption of Sanity under Art800. family.
 TWO EXCEPTIONS – when there is a rebuttable - At the time of the execution of the will, there were four
presumption of Insanity – testamentary witnesses.
- It appears that the testator made notes disposition he
1. When testator, one month or less before the
desires to make his property, from which his attorney
execution of the will, was publicly known to be
prepared a formal will which was then read to the testator,
insane who assented to it section by section. After which the whole
2. When the testator executed the will after being will is read in a loud voice and is then signed by the testator
placed under guardianship or ordered and four witnesses in the presence of each other.
committed, in either case, for insanity under
Rules 93 and 101 of the RoC, and before said Whether the will was executed according to the formalities and
order has been lifted. requirements of the law.
- YES. The SC held that the requirements of the Code of Civil
 The time for determining mental capacity Procedure were fully complied with.
 time of execution of the will and no other temporal
criterion is to be applied 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.
ART. 802. A married woman may make a will - Witnesses testified that, at the time of the execution of the
without the consent of her husband, and will, the testator was in his right mind and that although
without the authority of the court. serious ill, he indicated by the movements of his head what
his wishes were.
 Sexist provision, contains an erroneous and unintended - The evidence shows that the writing and the execution of the
suggestion that a married man does not have the same will occupied a period of several hours and that the testator
privilege. was taking an active part in all the proceedings.
- The SC held that that the testimony of the two physicians do
 Suggested rewording – not in any way strengthens the argument that the testator
 ―A married person may make a will without his or
was mentally incapacitated. The SC said that their testimony
only confirms the fact that the testator had been afflicted
her spouse‘s consent.‖
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.
ART. 803. A married woman may dispose by will - The SC held that it cannot conclude from this that he was
of all her separate property as well as her wanting of the necessary mental capacity to dispose of his
share of the conjugal partnership or absolute property by will.
- The SC affirmed the order probating the will.
community property. - In our jurisdiction, the presumption of law is in favor of the
mental capacity of the testator and the burden is upon 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  20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007

Subsection 7 – Republication and
Revival of Wills
RE-CAP OF FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
ART. 835. The testator cannot republish, without OF A WILL
reproducing in a subsequent will, the
dispositions contained in a previous one
which is void as to its form. k. Defects and imperfections in form of attestation and
language used shall not make the will invalid if
there is substantial compliance with requirements
ART. 836. The execution of a codicil referring to a of Art805.
previous will has the effect of republishing l. Law to be followed
the will as modified by the codicil. a. Filipino abroad
b. Alien abroad
c. Alien in the Philippines
 If the testator wishes to republish a will that is void as to m. Prohibition on joint wills, especially by Filipinos
form, the only way to republish it is to execute a even if executed in foreign country allowing joint
subsequent will and reproduce [copy out] the wills.
dispositions of the original will. Mere reference to the n. Witnesses must possess all the qualifications in
prior will in the subsequent will is not enough. Art820 and none of the disqualifications in Art821.

 A will is void as to form if it does not comply with the 2. HOLOGRAPHIC WILL
requirements of Arts804-818; 810-814; 818-819. 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
RE-CAP OF FORMAL REQUIREMENTS a) Knows the handwriting and signature of the
OF A WILL testator
b) Explicitly declares that the will and the
1. ATTESTED/ORDINARY WILL signature are in the handwriting of the testator
a. Must be in writing f. Dispositions below testator‘s signature must also be
dated and signed.
b. Executed in a language or dialect known to testator
g. When several additional dispositions are signed but
c. Subscribed by the testator or his agent in his not dated, the last disposition must be signed and
presence and by his express direction at the end dated to validate the dispositions preceding it.
thereof, in the presence of the witnesses h. Any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration must
d. Attested and subscribed by at least 3 credible be authenticated by the testator‘s full signature,
witnesses in presence of the testator & of one otherwise it shall be deemed as not made.
another i. Prohibition on joint wills, especially by Filipinos even if
executed in a foreign country where joint wills are
e. Testator, or his agent, must sign every page, allowed.
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
 If the testator wishes to Republish a will that is either:
testator and of one another.
1. VOID for a reason other than a formal defect,
g. All pages numbered correlatively in letters on the or
upper part of each page.
2. Previously REVOKED
h. Attestation clause, stating:  The only thing necessary to republish it is for the
a) Number of pages of the will testator to execute a subsequent will or codicil
b) Fact that the testator or his agent under his
referring to the previous will. There is no need to
express direction signed the will and every
page thereof, in the presence of the witnesses reproduce the provisions of the prior will in the
c) Fact that the witnesses witnessed and signed subsequent instrument.
the will and every page thereof in the
presence of the testator and of one another.  Why the difference on the rules between nullity as to
i. Acknowledgement before a notary public by the form and nullity based on other grounds? Prof. Balane
testator and the witnesses. says because Art835 is from Argentine Law whole
j. Handicapped Testator Art836 is from California Law. Go figure.
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.

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
ART. 837. If after making a will, the testator had limited their objection to the intrinsic validity of the will,
their plan to defeat the will and secure the intestacy of the
makes a second will expressly revoking the
deceased would have been accomplished.
first, the revocation of the second will does - If the said will was denied probate, it is due to oppositor‘s
not derive the first will, which can be revived fault and is unfair to impute bad faith to petitioner simply
only by another will or codicil. because she exerted effort to protect her own interest and
prevent the intestacy of the deceased.
 Illustration
In 1985, X executed will 1 WON, notwithstanding the disallowance of the 1939 will, the
In 1987, X executed will 2 and expressly revoked revocatory clause is valid and still nullifies the 1918 will.
- SC held that the clause is likewise void because:
will 1
- The Court held in Samson v. Naval that it cannot produce
In 1990, X executed will 3, revoking will 2
the effect of annulling the previous will since said revocatory
- When will 3 revoked will 2, it did not revive will 1. clause is void.
- If it was really the intention of the deceased to revoke the
 This article is based on the theory of INSTANT first will, with the assumption that he in fact destroyed the
REVOCATION original copy of the 1918 will since it cannot be found at
nd
 That the revocatory effect of the 2 will is present, he should also destroyed the duplicate copy of the
immediate. said will which he had given to his wife. But he did not do so.
 However, such theory is inconsistent with the Hence, it is possible that because of the long lapse of 21 yrs
principle that wills take effect mortis causa. since the 1st will was executed, the original will had been
 Furthermore, to be effective for the purpose of misplaced or lost and forgetting there was a copy, he
revoking the first will, the second will must be deemed it wise to execute another.
probated. But it has already been revoked by the - Granting that he did destroy the 1st will, the 1918 will can still
third will. A revoked will now has to be submitted to be admitted under the principle of ―dependent relative
probate? revocation,‖ which is predicated on the theory that the
testator did not intend to die intestate.
 Article applies only when the revocation of the first will - The doctrine of dependent relative revocation is established
by the second will is EXPRESS. If the revocation by the where the act of destruction is connected with the making of
second will is implied due to incompatible provisions, another will so as fairly to raise the inference that the
testator meant the revocation of the old to depend upon the
the article will not apply and the effect will be that the
efficacy of the new disposition intended to be substituted,
first will is revived.
the revocation will be conditional and dependent upon the
 However, when will 3 is itself inconsistent with will efficacy of the new disposition; and if, for any reason, the
1, there is still revocation. new will intended to be made as a substitute is inoperative,
 Also keep in mind Article 831 – Implied the revocation fails and the original will remains in full force.
Revocations only annul such dispositions in the
prior wills as are inconsistent with or contrary to
those contained in the latter wills. Gago v. Mamuyac

 EXCEPTION – when the second will is holographic and - On 27 July 1918, Miguel Mamuyac of Agoo, La Union
it is revoked by physical destruction, because then the executed a last will and testament.
possibility of its probate is foreclosed, unless of course - After his death, Francisco Gago asked the court for the
a copy survives. probate of the will but was opposed by Cornelio Mamuyac,
Ambrosio Lariosa, Feliciano Bauzon, and Catalina
Cases for Arts. 828-837 Mamuyac.
- After the probate of the said will was denied, another will
Molo v. Molo 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
- Mariano Molo died and was survived by his herein petitioner
was a mere copy; that the same had been cancelled and
wife and his herein oppositors nieces and nephews. He left
revoked by the testator; and that the same was not the last
two wills one dated 1918 and the other 1939. The 2nd will
will and testament of Mamuyac.
contains a clause which expressly revokes the former will.
- The probate of the second will was likewise turned down for
- Upon death, his wife filed a petition for probate of the 1939
having been cancelled and revoked.
will which was later on admitted. However, oppositors
- According to witnesses, the original of the said will was in
eventually filed a petition which resulted to the denial of
the possession of Mamuyac before his death who revoked
probate of the said will. Petitioner wife then filed a petition
the same.
for probate of the 1918 will, which was likewise denied by
the oppositors in this case.
WON Miguel Mamuyac‘s last will has indeed been cancelled
and revoked and therefore not admissible to probate.
Whether or not petitioner voluntarily and deliberately frustrated
- YES. There is positive proof, not denied, that the will in
the probate of the 1939 will.
question had been cancelled in 1920.
- SC held that she did not because if it was indeed her
- The law does not require any evidence of the revocation or
intention, she could have accomplished her desire by merely
cancellation of a will to prove the same.
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 1ST SEM 2006-2007

- The fact that such cancellation or revocation has taken place
must either remain unproved or be inferred from evidence Subsection 8 – Allowance and
showing that after due search the original will cannot be
found. If it be shown that the will was in the possession of
Disallowance of Wills
the testator when last seen, the presumption is, in the
absence of other competent evidence, that the same was
cancelled or destroyed. ART. 838. No will shall pass either real or
- The same presumption governs when the testator had ready personal property unless it is proved and
access to the will and it cannot be found after his death. allowed in accordance with the Rules of
- No presumption of destruction by any other person without
the knowledge or authority of the testator.
Court.
- The force of presumption is never conclusive but may be The testator himself may, during his
overcome by proof that the will was not destroyed by the lifetime, petition the court having jurisdiction
testator with intent to revoke it. for the allowance of his will. In such case, the
- Copies of wills should be admitted by courts with great pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court for
caution in view of the difficulty of finding witnesses and other the allowance of wills after the testator’s
evidence.
- The duplicate may be admitted to probate if it was in the death shall govern.
same manner executed with all formalities and requirements The Supreme Court shall formulate such
of the law. additional Rules of Court as may be
- The fact that such cancellation or revocation has taken place necessary for the allowance of wills on
must either remain unproved or be inferred from evidence petition of the testator.
showing that after due search the original will cannot be
Subject to the right of appeal, the
found.
- If it be shown that the will was in the possession of the allowance of the will, either during the lifetime
testator when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of the testator or after his death, shall be
of other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled conclusive as to its due execution.
or destroyed.
- The same presumption governs when the testator had ready  Probate of a will is MANDATORY.
access to the will and it cannot be found after his death.
- No presumption of destruction by any other person without  TWO KINDS OF PROBATE
the knowledge or authority of the testator. 1. POST MORTEM – after the testator‘s death
- In a proceeding to probate a will, the burden of proof is upon 2. ANTE MORTEM – during his lifetime, features:
the proponent to establish not only the execution of the will
 Easier for the courts to determine mental
but also its existence.
condition of a testator
Diaz v. De Leon  Fraud, intimidation and undue influence are
minimized
- In this case, Diaz, the petitioner, denies that the will  Easier correction of formal defects in the will
executed by the decedent Jesus de Leon.  Once a will is probated ante mortem, the only
- However, the contestant says otherwise and alleging that questions that may remain for the courts to
the testator revoked his will by destroying it, and by decide after the testator‘s death will refer to
executing another will expressly revoking the former. the intrinsic validity of the testamentary
- Hence, this appeal. dispositions.

WON, the will executed by the Jesus de Leon, now deceased,  Rules on Probate for both post and ante mortem are
was revoked by him. found in Rule 76 of the Rules of Court.
- The court finds that the will executed by the deceased is not
clothed with all the necessary requisites to constitute a  Finality of a Probate Decree
sufficient revocation.  Once a decree of probate becomes final in
- But according to the statute governing the subject in this accordance with the rules of procedure, it is res
jurisdiction, the destruction of a will with animo revocandi judicata.
constitutes, in itself, a sufficient revocation.
- From the evidence presented, the decedent asked that the
 Scope of a Final Decree of Probate
same be returned to him.
- The instrument was returned to the testator who ordered his
 A final decree of probate is conclusive as to the
servant to tear the document. This was done in his presence due execution of the will, i.e. as to the will‘s
and before a nurse who testified to this effect. extrinsic and formal validity only.
- 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

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

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

sex and condition of the person are borne in mind. it is valid. If none of the defects enumerated in this article are present. the following cases: 4. FEAR OR THREATS . CJ Tan.  These are matters involved in formal validity. such as the following shall be considered: (3) If it was executed through force or confidential. serious or irresistible force is . give his consent. depriving the latter of a making a will. She knew that Martin had a  Force or Violence – when in order to wrest pre-existing marriage when they got married.  Undue Influence – when a person takes (2) If the testator was insane. or both parties to enter into the contract. Cecille Natividad.  Mistake – must refer to substance of the thing which is the object of the contract. relations between parties. on 5. UNDUE & IMPROPER PRESSURE AND (1) If the formalities required by law have INFLUENCE not been complied with.Sofia cannot claim good faith. Given exceptional INCAPABLE AT TIME OF EXECUTION circumstances. the court‘s 819 and 829-821 area of inquiry is limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of the will. A simple mistake of enumerated in this article. or improper advantage of his power over the will otherwise mentally incapable of of another.Further. to before it is probated. imminent and grave evil upon his person or . FORMALITIES . concubinage is prohibited by the Civil Code. Threat to enforce a just or legal claim through ART. at the time of its reasonable freedom of choice. MISTAKE OR TESTATOR DID NOT INTENT not intent that the instrument he INSTRUMENT TO BE HIS WILL WHEN HE signed should be his will at the time of AFFIXED HIS SIGNATURE THERETO affixing his signature thereto. Lea Mateo.E: For ―practical considerations. the other is induced to enter into a (5) If the signature of the testator was contract which. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  50 . 818- . descendants or ascendants. consent.‖ the probate court is not property. weakness or ignorant or in financial distress. or to those  An Exclusive Enumeration of the grounds for conditions which have principally moved one disallowance of a will. account gives rise to correction. DURESS. and intent . the will shall be set aside as VOID. have agreed to. A separate proceeding to determine its intrinsic validity 3.The general rule is that in probate proceedings. family.A will no matter how valid it may appear extrinsically may be void.  A will is either valid or void. the will is void. or fact that person unduly influenced was suffering from mental or threats. The will shall be disallowed in any of competent authority does not vitiate consent.  Those referred to in Articles 804-818. 839.Such rule is not inflexible and absolute. (4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence. Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.  There is no such thing as a Voidable Will. Once a Mistake as to identity or qualifications only probate decree is final. TESTATOR INSANE OR MENTALLY . FORCE. if any one of these defects is present. Age. INFLUENCE OF would be superfluous.YES. or upon the person or property of powerless to pass upon certain provisions of the will even his spouse. Julie Domingo. the probate court is usually contracting parties is compelled by a limited to an examination and resolution of the extrinsic reasonable and well-grounded fear of validity of the will.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 WON the probate court validly passed upon the intrinsic  GROUNDS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF A WILL validity of the testamentary provision in favor of Sofia.  Duress or Intimidation – when one of the . spiritual and other under duress. Circumstances execution. SIGNATURE PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD the part of the beneficiary or of some  Fraud – when through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting other person. 2.  If any of these grounds for disallowance are proven. donations between persons living in adultery or employed. the probate court is not powerless to pass  Articles 798 – 801 on testamentary capacity upon certain provisions of the will. he would not procured by fraud. (6) If the testator acted by mistake or did 6. such decree forecloses any vitiates consent when such were the principal subsequent challenge on any of the matters cause of the contract. Mars Rongo. without them. or the influence of fear. parties.GR: In probate proceedings. 1. The issue of formal validity or nullity is precisely what the probate proceedings will determine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it is not  NOTE – though the fideicommissary heir deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete does not receive the property upon the delivery from the maternal womb.  First heir – fiduciary . community. In order to be capacitated to inherit. This makes the position of him during the same period. A testamentary disposition may be made to the State. but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it. degree of relationship with the first heir. the church. (3) A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a  If there is no absolute obligation to ward in his favor before the final accounts of the guardianship preserve and transmit. may be valid as some other disposition descendant. even if the testator should die after the fideicommissary substitution. it favor of the guardian when the latter is his ascendant. 1026. like discretion. the spouse. parents. educational.  BOTH heirs enter into the inheritance. private corporations. or institution to which such priest or minister may DISPONENDI. 1027. the heir. approval thereof. 1024. the property until the fiduciary‘s right  Living – according to Articles 40-41 expires. The following are incapable of succeeding: (1) The priest who heard the confession of the testator during his last  This requisite is the essence of the illness. or spouse. The 2 heir must be 1 degree from the first heir to intestate succession. the fiduciary basically that of a (2) The relatives of such priest or minister of the gospel within the usufructuary. time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. Art. brother. belong. For civil purposes. and that right passes to his 1034.  In PCIB v.SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006-2007 not go beyond one degree from the heir resolutory condition on the part of the originally instituted. 1025. Persons not incapacitated by law may succeed by will or ab fiduciary‘s right expires. the fideicommissary heir. except in case allowed. second heir A child already conceived at the time of the death of the decedent is capable of succeeding provided it be born later under the b) Second heir must be in the first conditions prescribed in article 41. with the right to use and fourth degree. and always subject to the same. A 1 heir who takes the property upon the delivery is in doubt. the institution was held parents. Escolin. but it is not a fideicomisaria. his right thereto VESTS at that time and merely becomes subject  Qualified – according to Articles 1024- to a period. spouse. when it is proper. there is no have been approved. 40. testator‘s death. Dual obligation imposed upon the 1 heir to: All other corporations or entities may succeed under a will. 41. The second heir must either be Art. Julie Domingo. enjoy the property but WITHOUT JUS organization. which is when the testator DEATH. if the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months. from the first heir to the of representation. scientific. own heirs should he die before the Art. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  64 . that husband while subject to a suspensive the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir condition on the part of the brothers.and are living at the time of the death of the sisters-in-law and not a fideicomisaria because no obligation is imposed upon testator. intestato. upon the opening of the should be upon the FIDUCIARY‘S succession. This is based on the presumption dies. (4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a will. chapter. each in his own turn. devisee or legatee a) Only one transmission/transfer is must be living at the moment the succession opens. and provided further. Second heir – fideicommissary  If the testator DID NOT specify a day when the fiduciary will deliver the property  ELEMENTS OF FIDEICOMISARIA st to the fideicomissary. A 2 heir who takes the property subsequently from the fiduciary 5. unless a) Preserve the property. Lea Mateo. nevertheless. or children. and there is a provision to the contrary in their charter or the laws of their b) To transmit it after the lapse of the period to creation. cultural. The provisions relating to incapacity by will are equally applicable nd 3. 4. the husband to preserve the estate or any part thereof for anyone else. or st charitable purposes. one Art. order. or children. in which the substitute inherits only Art. 2. or a child or parent of the first heir associations for religious. organizations. provinces. a Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the if the first heir fails to inherit. CJ Tan. provided it after the other.  Means 2 things Art. or when the time of 1. any provision made by the ward in  The institution is not necessarily void. which means the delivery every other heir. Cecille Natividad. to be a simultaneous institution. sister. distinguishes the fideicomisaria from the vulgar. This be born later with the conditions specified in the following article. Mars Rongo. However. or any one claiming under such witness. Birth determines personality. Both heirs must be living and disqualified to  The fideicommissary heir does not receive succeed at the time of the testator’s death. municipal corporations. it shall be understood testator’s death to have been left to the fiduciary‘s  Fiduciary enters upon the inheritance. that the testator intended the fiduciary to nd enjoy the property during his lifetime. or the minister of the gospel who extended spiritual aid to fideicomisaria. shall be valid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the surviving spouse shall have acknowledged natural child.the sharing is ½ for the ascendants collectively and ¼ for the surviving spouse. then when will the word ―or consist of one-half of the legitime of each of descendants‖ in the second paragraph of this the legitimate children or descendants. article ever be operative? The legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an acknowledged natural.]  ONE LEGITIMATE CHILD / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE – the sharing is ½ for the illegitimate child. provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such illegitimate children exceed that free portion.  For the parents or ascendants. shall be equal in descendants. The legitime of the illegitimate children This fourth shall be taken from the free shall be taken from the portion of the estate at portion of the estate. Cecille Natividad. the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-third of the hereditary estate of  LEGITIMATE CHILDREN / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN the deceased and the illegitimate children to / SURVIVING SPOUSE . 895. the free disposal of the testator. each spurious child will get 4/5 the  Sharing among illegitimate children share of one natural child. the old distinctions must be spurious children. share of one legitimate child.000  This ratio of 5:4 among natural and spurious children should be observed in  REDUCTION OF SHARES all cases under the Civil Code where they  Depending on the number of legitimate and concur. and ½ the the free disposal of the testator. 165 and 176 of the Family Code.2007 3.000 be 4/5 that of a natural child. this article will govern – consequently.the sharing is ½ for the legitimate children collectively. These sharings are based ART. the grandchildren would inherit PER CAPITA or in their own right and therefore equally. 165 and 178 of FC]  Spurious child – 40. each spurious child will get 2/5 observed. If the testator leaves illegitimate on Art. 893. a right to one-fourth of the hereditary estate. therefore will have to be made in accordance with the following rules – Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. share of one legitimate child for each illegitimate child. nor a ART. If the decedent died BEFORE the effectivity of  Should there be no natural children but only the Family Code. Supposing ALL the Children RENOUNCE.  5 legitimate children and total estate is inasmuch as the Family Code has abolished 1M. [Legitimate  This article has been pro tanto amended by Articles parents/ascendants as secondary compulsory heirs – 163. If the testator leaves no legitimate natural child by legal fiction. the possibility exists that the total legitimes will exceed the entire estate. a share equal to that of another third.000 2. must first be fully satisfied. Example - FAMILY CODE – the sharing will be equal. Julie Domingo. CJ Tan.  LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS / SURVIVING SPOUSE and that the legitime of the surviving spouse .892 of NCC and Art176 of FC.  The legitime of the spurious child will only  1 legit child – 100.000 spurious [Arts 163. illegitimate children. The remaining third shall be at one legitimate child for the surviving spouse. ¼ for the surviving spouse. should the natural and spurious children concur in the succession. children. ½ of estate [500. 894.  ILEGITIMATE CHILDREN / SURVIVING SPOUSE –  SHARING PRIOR TO THE FAMILY CODE the sharing is 1/3 for the illegitimate children or  If death occurred before the effectivity of the Family descendants collectively and 1/3 for the surviving Code. Reductions. ST SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006. spouse. Should ART.000 illegitimate children other than natural or  Natural child – 50. but leaves legitimate every case to four-fifths of the legitime of an ascendants. the sharing will be in accordance with Articles 889-890. and each natural child 1. according to  No natural children the ratio established in Art895 par2. Mars Rongo. the legitimate ascending line succeeds only in default of the legitimate descending line. If the decedent died during the effectivity of the gets ½ the share of one legitimate child. and ¼ for each illegitimate child. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  83 . The legitime of each of the the spouse‘s share still be computed on the acknowledged natural children and each of basis of the children‘s share had they the natural children by legal fiction shall accepted? If so.  Spurious child – 40.000] divided by 5 so the old distinction between natural and 1 Legit child – 100. Lea Mateo.

they are PRIMARY and from the disposable portion. Mars Rongo. estate which the testator can freely dispose of. 897. and the testator may freely dispose 889-890. except when they have been living as children by legal fiction. the sharing will be half of the hereditary estate of the deceased in accordance with the rules laid down in Articles spouse. sharing shall depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity of the Family Code. the sharing shall depend on whether death occurred If the marriage between the surviving before or during the effectivity of the Family Code. or natural children by legal fiction. Julie Domingo. The legitimes of the illegitimate children will be reduced pro rata and without preference  LEGITIMATE PARENTS / ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN among them. the at the free disposal of the testator. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  84 . If the widow or widower survives with  Exception – 1/3 of the estate. 899.  The 2 articles are merely reiterations of the rules already laid down in Articles 892 and 895 and need not  NOTE – the last requisite is not explicit in the article but be explained. and the illegitimate children shall be entitled to one- Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. and sole heir shall be one-third of the hereditary acknowledged natural children. ART. she or he shall be entitled to one-  For the parents or ascendants. Lea Mateo. If the only survivor is the widow or widower. CJ Tan. or natural estate. 3. 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 legitime of the surviving the legitime of each of the legitimate children spouse shall be that specified in the which must be taken from that part of the preceding paragraph. The legitime of the surviving spouse should the estate. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants and with illegitimate children. 900.  ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN / LEGITIMATE PARENTS the sharing is ½ for the legitimate parents collectively and ¼ for the illegitimate children collectively. When the widow or widower survives the legitime of the surviving spouse as the with legitimate children or descendants. and with circumstances are present – illegitimate children other than acknowledged a) The marriage was in articulo mortis natural. never be reduced. ST SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006. and the testator died within three months from the time of the marriage. 898. In spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the latter case. the sharing will be deceased shall be entitled to one-fourth of the in accordance with the rules laid down in Articles 889-890. of the other half.  For the illegitimate children or descendants. ART. The testator may PREFERRED compulsory heirs freely dispose of the remaining one-eighth of 2. hereditary estate to be taken from the portion  For the illegitimate children or descendants. b) The testator died within 3 months from the the share of the surviving spouse shall be the time of the marriage same as that provided in the preceding c) The parties did not cohabit for more than 5 article. Illegitimate children who may survive with legitimate parents or ascendants of the  For the parents or ascendants. The law does not regard such marriages with eager approval. ART. ART.  SURVIVING SPOUSE AS SOLE COMPULSORY HEIR –  General rule – ½ of the estate ART. such surviving husband and wife for more than five years. 896. ¼ for the illegitimate children collectively and 1/8 for the surviving spouse. years.2007 1. can be derived from the sense and intent of the provision. The legitimes of the legitimate children should fourth of the estate which shall be taken also never be reduced. / SURVIVING SPOUSE – the sharing is ½ for the legitimate parents collectively. spouse and the testator was solemnized in articulo mortis. if the following legitimate children or descendants. Cecille Natividad. and d) The spouse who died was the party in articulo mortis at the time of the marriage. this article prohibits this.

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

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

One View – NO. the Prepositus is deemed the persons not of the line of origin. RESERVISTA [RESERVOR] to be qualified as a reservatario. No inquiry is to be made beyond the Origin/ Reservista belong to Different Lines? Mediate Source. because another  4 PARTIES TO THE RESERVA TRONCAL ascendant is one belonging to a line other than that of the reservista.Sanchez Roman says YES.As long. of the Origin who receives the property from the .it refers to the Origin/ Mediate rd within the 3 degree. it is a brother or sister of of the property. This is determined not make one. without regard c) Partitioning in such a way as to assign to subdivisions. while the property is owned by full blood siblings.e. the Mediate Source is o He is either the descendant or a brother/ sister either of the paternal or maternal line. 2.If however. reserve? . Cecille Natividad. the relatives o The law is clear . It does not matter who the . the reserva troncal. the paternal and the [subject to constraints of the legitime] maternal of the descendant. we should the property came. acquired by the Origin. and not in favor of Source as another ascendant. favor of a GROUP or CLASS. PREPOSITUS . The be legitimate.Another View – YES. This means that if the o The reserva is in favor of a class.NO.To those who hold the opinion that a only upon the second transfer. there is no referred to as the Reservatarios [reservees]. parties are the same person. is it necessary o He is an ascendant of the Prepositus. as the reservatario is reserva troncal. Since 2) He must belong to the line from which the law makes no distinction.‖ in order to prevent a reserva from arising. The reserva arises . the property to parties other than the . Manresa‘s comment the Prepositus. by the Origin/Mediate Source. The Reservista must be an prepositus dies? ascendant other than the Origin/ Mediate . it would not be possible o While the property is still with the Prepositus.If an ascendant. i. reserve because then it would not be possible to identify the line of origin. because [1] the law o He is either the ascendant or a brother or sister makes no distinction.Example: A receives by donation a parcel owner of the property was before it was of land from his paternal grandfather X. Mars Rongo. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  87 . The provisions of Art891 only property never left the line. which is to prevent the property from passing to o In this sense. collectively relationship is Full Blood. the full blood. preventive. All the relationships among the parties must intestacy to his father Y [X‘s son].If a half-brother or half-sister. and [2] the purpose of of the Prepositus. of that one must already be LIVING when the whatever degree. because the reserva is established in Source [if the latter is also an ascendant]. Arbiter of the Reserva Troncal. Thus. Julie Domingo. either case. to prevent the property from o Brother/Sister – 2 Schools of Thought leaving the line. he has all the rights of should be the norm: ―that the question ownership over it and may exercise such rights of line would be indifferent.2007  2 BASIC RULES o Should the Origin/Mediate Source and the I. he is the FIRST transferee . ORIGIN OR THE MEDIATE SOURCE . He can do this by – o Question – must the Reservatario also be a) Substituting or alienating the property related to the Mediate Source? b) Bequeathing or devising it either to the . otherwise potential reservista [again subject to the results would arise completely contrary to constraints of the legitime]. o Reserva in favor of reservatarios as a CLASS - 3. the parcel passes by II. In consanguinity from the Prepositus. the reserve is not only curative but also o Ascendant from any degree of ascent. Lea Mateo. to distinguish the lines. a) Relationship must be of HALF BLOOD – because otherwise the property would 4. ST SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006. If these two specific individuals. in the scheme of is true. he qualifies as such. the article speaks rd potential reservista or to 3 persons solely of 2 lines. therefore. alive at the time of the reservarista‘s death. even if he was Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. the purpose of this reserva. is Y obliged to apply to legitimate relatives. o REQUIREMENTS TO BE A RESERVATARIO: rd b) It does not matter whether the fraternal 1) He must be within the 3 degree of relationship is of the full or half-blood. a reserve may arise.Manresa says NO. there would be no . RESERVATARIOS [RESERVEES] not change lines. CJ Tan. Upon A‘s death. reserva would not exist in such case of o Consequently. there is yet NO RESERVA. 1. the same Origin by gratuitous title.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Before the predecessor‘s death. whatever they may have received by virtue of the renunciation or compromise. so much as may be necessary ―The Family Home shall continue despite the must be taken proportionally from the shares of the other death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried compulsory heirs.‖  Art855 – if the title by which the testator transmitted property is intestate succession Art. but they must bring to collation substitution of any kind whatsoever. related articles testator to prohibit division applies to the legitime. the testator cannot predecessor and the prospective compulsory heir. Lea Mateo. it is not gratuitously received from his predecessor by virtue within the testator‘s power to deprive the compulsory of the renunciation or compromise will be considered heirs of their legitime. in the interest of his or her expressly provided by law. 2. 904. allows the testator to deprive the compulsory heirs of their legitimes is DISINHERITANCE under Arts915- 923. if any. ST SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006. except in regards a future legitime between the person cases expressly specified by law. Consequently. case the period of indivision shall not exceed 20 years as provided in article 494. condition. Cecille Natividad. 905. an advance on his legitime and must be duly  EXCEPTION – the only instance in which the law credited.‖ B. which determines the  Any property which the compulsory heir may have transmission of the legitimes. impair the legitime. 855. Any compulsory heir to whom the ordering that the legitime of the other children to testator has left by any title less than the whom the property is not assigned.  Scope of Prohibition  Testator Devoid of Power to Impose Burdens on  This article applies only to transactions of Legitime compromise or renunciation between the  As also reiterated in Art872.  As already laid down in Art886. may avail himself of the right granted him in this article. 906.2007 Art. head of the family for a period of 10 years or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary. and the  In relation to Arts909 and 910 heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor. This power of the  Cross-References. The Reserva Troncal Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Mars Rongo.‖ the same be fully satisfied. industrial. CJ Tan. not the testator. the heir‘s right is simply inchoate. as a consequence of the principle that the legitime passes by strict operation  QUESTION – Is a transaction between the prospective of law. or between a prospective compulsory heir and a  EXCEPTIONS – When the Law grants the Testator stranger. in which title. owing it and his compulsory heirs is void. The testator cannot deprive his Art. the legitime is not within the testator‘s control. desires to keep any agricultural. and Neither can he impose upon the same any the latter may claim the same upon the death burden. if that is not sufficient. The share of a child or descendant omitted in a will  Restrictions on Legitime Imposed by Law must first be taken from the part of the estate not disposed of by the A. the grounds being set forth under Arts919-921. It passes to the compulsory heirs  Reason for the Rule by strict operation of law. Article 1080 par2 – entered into upon future inheritance except in cases ―A parent who. or of the former. This rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns the property or constituted the family home.‖ family. Every renunciation or compromise as compulsory heirs of their legitime. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  97 . Article 1083 par1 – ―Every co-heir has a right to demand the  RIGHT OF COMPLETION OF LEGITIME division of the estate unless the testator should  This rule applies only to transmissions by gratuitous have expressly forbidden its partition. compulsory heir and another prospective compulsory heir. Article 159. or manufacturing enterprise intact. interdicted? Some Power over the Legitime  YES under Article 1347 par2: ―No contract may be 1. by Art. encumbrance. Julie Domingo.  Testator Devoid of Power to Deprive Compulsory Heirs of Legitime  Duty to Collate  It is the law. be paid in legitime belonging to him may demand that cash. Family Code will.

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

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

First. The testator may devise and bequeath conveniently divided. Mars Rongo. the compulsory accordingly divided between the parties heirs may elect between: concerned. De Tupas v. Inc. the devisee. . there should be pecuniary reimbursement (3) Tupas Foundation. being a stranger and not a to the party who did not get his physical portion of the compulsory heir. Art. 1) The devise has to be reduced.Hence.The petition is brought by Paternza Lucerna. Any other heir or devisee. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  100 . 3 and the devisee] elects to exercise his right under  The following principles shall be borne in mind: Art912. If the devise subject to reduction should consist of real property. he donated  This rule covers cases where: some three parcels of land in favor of Tupas Foundation. devisee if the reduction does not absorb one- half of its value. 914. If the extent of reduction is ½ OR MORE of the by plaintiff is not applicable because the properties which value of the thing – it should be given to the were disposed of by way of donation were no longer part of compulsory heir. If. Lea Mateo. except that. other encumbrance on the part that passes as B. . his hereditary estate at the time of his death b) the donated properties were Epifanio's capital or separate estate. because the legitime cannot be may acquire the thing and pay the parties [the impaired. Julie Domingo. but the former and the latter shall reimburse each other in cash for CASES what respectively belongs to them. the acquisition by one of the co-owners or life annuity or pension. and Inc. who elects to do so. If the heirs or devisees do not choose to . Art.It was found that a year before Epifanio‘s death. RTC value does not exceed that of the disposable portion and of the share pertaining to him as . The testator can impose no usufruct or any respective shares in money. the donation inter vivos made in its favor thing devised.The wife is contending that the donationw as inofficious as 2) The thing given as a devise is indivisible it left her destitute of any inheritance. Ceding to the devisee/legatee the free portion[or the proportional part thereof  Note – this rule of constructive partition is similar to that corresponding to the said legacy/devise. CA The devisee who is entitled to a legitime may retain the entire property. . CJ Tan. the same is subject to certain limitations. compulsory heirs. upon being capitalized according to actuarial standards. If the extent of reduction is LESS THAN ½ of reducible by such proportion as might be deemed justified the value of the thing – it should be given to and the resulting deduction delivered to her. wife of legitime.If he does. as the sole heir to the estate of the latter. i. . 912. the value of the grant exceeds the  How the Thing Devised Should be Disposed Of: free portion [i. provided its Vda.SC held in the negative. be reduced. Complying with the terms of the usufruct or latter cases. Whether or not the lower court decided correctly. although the court recognized the right of individuals avail themselves of the right granted by the to donate. it has to A. and in a contrary case. 913. Cecille Natividad. it shall be legitime. 106 1. so much of what is donated as exceeds what he be sold at public auction at the instance of can give by will is deemed inofficious and the donation is reducible to the extent of such excess. ST SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006.2007  DEVISES/LEGACIES OF USUFRUCT/ LIFE  This article applies if neither party [the compulsory heir/s ANNUITIES/ PENSIONS UNDER PAR. was not subject to collation under Art. it impairs the legitime]. sold at public auction and the net proceeds C. or decedent‘s estate [Art1086]. in these two ii. any heir or devisee who did which is that he cannot give by donation more than he can not have such right may exercise it. therefore 1. and  In either case. Epifanio Tupas. it shall go to the the free portion as he may deem fit. Vizconde v. to the  Simply a re-statement of Art842. A. co-heirs can be done only if all the co-owners or co-heirs agree to such acquisition. in in co-ownership [Art498] and in partition of the case there are other dispositions]. If no heir or devisee elects to acquire it. Subject to the 2 rules stated. should give by will the latter not make use of it. though without any one of the interested parties.e.The lower court contended that a) Article 900 relied upon 2. the property shall . one of preceding article. which cannot be Art. . she prayed to have the donation declared  RULES inofficious insofar as it prejudiced her legitime. compulsory heir and the devisee in question] their B. prejudice to its taking effect in the donor's lifetime or the donee's appropriating the fruits of the thing donated Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga.

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

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

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

children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life. 3. Article 59 of PD603 him to be subjected to acts of and all conduct constituting repeated lasciviousness [Art231 FC] or total refusal or failure to care for the child. unless there has been a her presence. specified in this Code. the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more. violence. if the accusation has been 4.2007 Art. (5) When the parent or ascendant by fraud. Convicted of attempt against life of testator. Violence. her care and reconciliation between them. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  104 . 8. ST SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006. intimidation. the testator. convicted of an attempt against the life of his or her spouse. By Fraud. 7. the opportunity to show maternal affection. Subjecting the child or allowing 277 of the RPC. and totally denied her  Paragraphs 2. The Loss of Parental Authority for causes causes the testator to make a will or to specified in this Code change one already made. 3. then it can be legally inferred that there is abandonment. whether Legitimate or a child [Art229(3) FC] Illegitimate. attainment of the age of majority is not a (7) The refusal to support the children or ground. Julie Domingo. Attempt by one of the parents against the life when the mother completely withheld of the other. According to the case of Chua v. o This paragraph encompasses 3 grounds: counsel or example. Refusal to support the Children or Cabangbang. descendants. [Exclusive enumeration] c) Judicial Deprivation of Parental 1. 5 and 7 are the same grounds for support and maintenance. o Not all causes for loss of parental authority (6) The loss of parental authority for causes are grounds for disinheritance. if the accused the testator of a crime for which accusation has been found to be False. Mars Rongo. her love. CJ Tan. his or her spouse. Has been Convicted of adultery or found to be false. Giving the child corrupting orders. or ascendants. whether legitimate or illegitimate: Family Code as a ground for (1) When the parents have abandoned their suspension or deprivation of parental authority. her silence disinheritance of a descendant or child. conviction is required here. Cecille Natividad. (2) When the parent or ascendant has been 2. When the parents have abandoned their Authority on the grounds of: children or induced their daughters to live a i. a) Abandonment – also includes those iii. provide grounds for disinheritance. (4) When the parent or ascendant has been 5. Intimidation or Undue convicted of adultery or concubinage with Influence causes testator to Make a Will or the spouse of the testator. Excessively harsh or cruel corrupt or immoral life or attempted against treatment of the child their virtue ii. The following shall be sufficient causes b) Inducement to live a corrupt and for the disinheritance of parents or immoral life – under Art231[2] of the ascendants. or undue influence 6. abuse [Arts232 FC] b) Loss of parental authority as a result of  There are also 8 Causes for the Disinheritance of Judicial declaration of abandonment of Parents or Ascendants. concubinage with the spouse of the testator. Has Accused testator of a Crime punishable by (3) When the parent or ascendant has Imprisonment for 6 years or more. Lea Mateo. unless there has been authority based on ground of sexual a reconciliation between them. mere acquiescence Descendants without justifiable cause without more is not sufficient to constitute abandonment. or penalized by law under articles 276. (8) An attempt by one of the parents against a) Judicial deprivation of parental the life of the other. Question – will consent to adoption of a child constitute abandonment? Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. or attempted c) Attempt against Virtue – no against their virtue. Change one already made. descendant or ascendants. 920. However. For instance. 4. Compelling the child to beg. Only those causes which involve culpability on the part of the parents will descendants without justifiable cause. and inaction having been prolonged for such a time. iv.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and shall be death of the testator. From the moment of the testator's death. 950. and unpaid before the latter's death. without prejudice to the responsibility of the  The obligation to deliver the accessions and accessories executor or administrator. In obligations to do and not to do. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  111 .e. the debtor shall appropriate the fruits and preferred legacies/devises will be reduced pro rata. in the condition in which it may be upon the bear its loss or deterioration. (6) All others pro rata. their payment shall be made in the following order: (1) Remuneratory legacies or devises. 952. Art. Legacies for support 4. have any. interests received. or more valuable than that which is due. unless from the nature and circumstances of the and the preferred legacies/devises are reduced last. as well as any growing fruits. If the bequest should not be of a specific provides: and determinate thing. obligation it should be inferred that the intention of the person constituting It is a rule different from that set forth in Art950. (5) Legacies or devises of a specific. who shall. Legacies or devises declared by the testator to be  This article conforms to the rule of identity in the preferential performance of obligations [under Art1244]: 3. ownership thereof upon the death of the i. Lea Mateo. Mars Rongo. benefited by its increase or improvement. 948. or the executor or administrator of the testator to be preferential. must deliver the very thing (3) Legacies for support. The thing bequeathed shall be delivered the thing bequeathed shall be at the risk of with all its accessories and accessories and the legatee or devisee. CJ Tan. 951.2007 the obligation is unilateral. Legacies for education Art. The debtor of a thing cannot compel the creditor to receive a 5. therefore. The expenses necessary for the delivery of the thing bequeathed shall be for the  Order of Preference among Legacies and Devises in account of the heir or the estate. i. determinate different one. but is generic or of Art. the same was different. estate. article can be given its own area of applicability. in each  Possible reconciliation between the 2 articles – each case. the legatee or devisee acquires the reduction is not the impairment of legitimes. but without case the Estate is Not Sufficient for All of them prejudice to the legitime. All others. If the estate should not be sufficient to it is at that time. o Article 911 will apply if reductions have to be made because the LEGITIMES have been impaired.e. the courts shall determine. 1244. That is why the thing must be delivered in the condition in which Art. because that is expressly so ordered. bequeathed if he is able to do so and cannot (4) Legacies for education. charged with a legacy or (2) Legacies or devises declared by the devise. 949. the retroactive effect of the condition that has been complied with. 1166. an act or forbearance cannot be substituted by another act or forbearance against the obligee's will. thing which forms a part of the estate 6. Julie Domingo. when successional rights vest [under Art777]. pro rata In obligations to do or not to do. discharge this obligation by paying its value. although the latter may be of the same value as. ST SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1ST SEM 2006. even though they may not have been mentioned of the death of the testator shall pertain to the legatee or devisee if the testator has  The crucial time is the testator’s death. If the legacy or device is of a specific exceeded the disposable portion and determinate thing pertaining to the o Article 950 will apply if the reason for the testator. if the legacies/devises have Art. but not the income which was due vivos. This is the same rule laid down in Art1166. Art.  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- Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Legacies of money must be paid in cash. The obligation to give a determinate thing includes that quantity. Remuneratory legacies or devises 2. determinate thing which forms a part of even though the heir or the estate may not the estate. The heir. its fruits and interests from the time of delivering all its accessions and accessories. Cecille Natividad. which Art. 1. there are no legitimes because there are testator. Legacies or devises of a specific. or no compulsory heirs or the legitimes have unborn offspring of animals. cover all the legacies or devises. exists even if the testator does not explicitly provide for it. or uncollected already been satisfied through donations inter income.

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

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

Article 983 in relation to Article 895 saving the right of representation when it as amended by Art176 of the Family properly takes place. there being no  BASIC RULES OF INTESTACY substitution and no right of accretion takes 1. 978-1010. e) Representation  Exclusion and Concurrence in Intestacy  Intestacy operates on the same principles as succession to the legitime. and in the State. a) The descending depending on the extent of the disposition b) The ascending. in a) The rule of preference of lines the surviving spouse. except in cases provided in this among these lines. Love. the law first calls the descendants. 961. When the heir instituted is incapable of  The law lays down an order of preference succeeding. in accordance with the inherit in equal shares [Art962 par2] rules hereinafter set forth. Art. which would may be either direct or collateral. intestacy may be total sideways. In default of testamentary heirs. 1006 and 1008. sometimes SUBSECTION 1. 963. CJ Tan. generation forms a degree. the law the nearer exclude the more remote. paragraph Brothers and Sisters.Relationship singly – EXCLUSION and CONCURRENCE.  Basis of Intestate Succession Art. and finally spreads Jen Laygo 3D Digests c/o 3C ’06-’07: Alvin Saga. Each in intestacy are outlined under Arts. The Rule of Equality Among Relatives of the Same Degree  This rule is corollary of the previous one: If Art. Thus. or partial. 962. always preferring those closer in degree than those 3. . distribute the estate in accordance with the love and A direct line is that constituted by the affection he has for his family and close relatives. c) The Rule of Division by line in the Relatives in the same degree shall inherit Ascending Line under Art987 par2 in equal shares. subject to the provisions of d) The Distinction between Full-Blood article 1006 with respect to relatives of the full and Half-Blood relationship among and half blood. A collateral line is that constituted by the  Manresa says that the law of intestacy is founded on series of degrees among persons who are not the presumed will of the deceased. logically those of equal degree should vests the inheritance. the relative nearest under present law is 2:1] under in degree excludes the more distant ones. Nina Rances & Ryan Quan  114 . institution of an heir does not happen or is not fulfilled.