You are on page 1of 11


Legal or Intestate Succession Proceeding No. 1736 is not a bar to the present
petition for the probate of the alleged will of Adriana
Testate Estate of the Late Adrian Maloto v. Maloto, Maloto.
GR No. L-32328, September 30, 1977
(re: jurisdiction of the intestate court)
Ortanez-Enderes v. CA
Facts: G.R. No. 128525 December 17, 1999
Adriana Maloto died on October 20, 1963. (re: jurisdiction of the RTC as a probate or
Aldina Maloto Casiano, together with the other intestate court and question of ownership)
nephews and nieces of Adriana, commenced an
intestate proceeding for the estate if Adriana before the Facts:
CFI of Iloilo. During the proceeding, Aldina and her Philippine International Life Insurance Co.,
cousins executed an extrajudicial partition of the Inc. (Philinterlife) is a registered corporate founded by
estate of Adriana whereby they adjudicated unto the late Dr. Juvencio Ortanez. Dr. Ortanez owned at
themselves ¼ share for each. The court approved said least 51% of the capital stock of the company. At the
partition. special proceeding for the settelement of the instesttae
Three years later, a document purporting to estate of Dr. Ortanez, Rafael Ortanez and Jose Ortanez
be the last will and testament of Adriana was given to were appointed as special administrators.
the Clerk of Court of the CFI of Iloilo. It appeared that Ma. Divina Ortanez-Enderes and other
Aldina Casiano, Constancio Maloto Panfilo Maloto and petitioners filed before the SEC annulment of transfer
Felino Maloto are all named heirs but Maloto and of shared of stocks to private respondents, annulment
Constancio have bigger shared. Devisees and/or of subscriptions on increased capital stocks,
legatees were also named in the said will. accounting and inspection of corporate books and
Aldina and Constancio filed a motion for records, and damages. They alleged that after the
reconsideration, annulment of the proceedings and for death of Dr. Ortanez and without authorization from
the allowance of the last will and testament of Adriana the istestate court, ½ of the shares of stock of Dr.
Maloto. Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto opposed the Ortanez were transferred in the names of Jose Lee,
motion of Aldina Maloto Casiano and Constancio Carlo See, Angel Ong, Carmencita Tan, Benjamin Lee,
Maloto. Ma. Paz Lee and Alma Aggabao fraudulently. They also
The CFI of Iloilo denied the motion to reopen alleged that Jose Lee misrepresented himself as
the proceedings on the ground that it was filed out of president of Philinterlife and sold the parcel of land
time. Aldina filed a petition for certiorari and owned by the corporation to Citiriser Development
mandamus with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Corporation.
Court dismissed the petition without passing on the The private respondents said that the subject
issue of whether or not the petitioners appealed on matter is not within the jurisdiction of the SEC but
time. The Court said that the more appropriate remedy with the Regional Trial Court. In their defense, Jose
of petitioners is for them to initiate a separate Lee said that Juliana Ortanez, the surviving spouse of
proceeding for the probate of the alleged will. Dr. Ortanez, executed a Memorandum of Agreement
Aldina then filed a separate proceeding for with her other sons Rafael and Jose Ortonez, dividing
the probate of the last will and testament of Adriana. the estate of Dr. Ortanez composed of ½ of his share in
This was opposed by Felino and Panfilo on the ground the conjugal properties. Later on, Rafael and Juliana
that the alleged will sought to be probated had been assigned their respective shares of stock in Philinterlife
destroyed and revoked by the testratix. It affirmed the to Jose Ortonez. Jose Ortonez later sold his shares of
earlier ruling in the intestate estate proceeding, Special stock to Jose Lee and the other private respondents.
Proceeding No. 1736. Hence, this petition. Lee also contended that the sale of the parcel of land of
Philinterlife to Citiriser Development Corporation was
Issue: approved and authorized by the Board of Philinterlife.
Whether or not the probate court has SEC Hearing Officer denied the petitioners’
jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the probate of application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
the alleged will of Adriana Maloto in Special Proceeding injunction based on the ground that petitioners failed
No. 1736. to make a valid cause to entitle them to the relief.
Petitioners appealed the case to the SEC En Banc
Held: which affirmed the decision of the SEC Hearing Officer.
No, the probate court had no jurisdiction to According to the SEC En Banc the alleged extrajudicial
entertain the petition for the probate of the alleged will partition of the shares of stocks owned by Dr. Ortonez
of Adriana Maloto in Special Proceeding No. 1736. belongs to the jurisdiction of the regular court where
Indeed, the motion to reopen was denied because the the intestate proceedings is currently pending.
same was filed out of time. Moreover, it is not proper to Petitioners then filed a special civil action for
make a finding in an intestate estate proceeding that certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul
the discovered will has been revoked. As a matter of the resolution of the SEC and the issuance of a TRO
fact, the probate court in Special Proceeding No. 1736 and/or writ of preliminary injunction against private
stated in the order of November 16, 1968 that respondents. Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.
"Movants should have filed a separate action for the
probate of the Will." And this court stated in its Issue:
resolution of May 14, 1969 that "The more appropriate Whether petitioners can already be
remedy of the petitioners in the premises stated in the considered as owners of the shares of stocks of
petition is for petitioners to initiate a separate Philinterlife and thus are entitled to a writ of
proceeding for the probate of the alleged with in injunction.
question." The order of November 16, 1968 in Special

Held: Held:
No, the petitioners cannot be considered as Fidela B. Chanliongco, the widows, is entitled
owners of the shares of stocks of Philinterlife yet to ¼ of the retirement gratuity which is P19,535.025.
because the special proceeding for the intestate estate As her conjugal share in the leave, unpaid salary and
of Dr. Ortonez is still pending. As the petitioners are 10% adjustement, she is entitled to P6,725.72. As a
not considered as owners of the shares of stocks, they legal heir she is entitled to P1,688.18 for the leave,
have not yet established a clear existing rights to unpaid salary and 10% adjustment of Atty.
entitle them to a writ of injunction to enjoining private Chanliongco.
respondents from exercising their rights as Mario Chanliongco II, the legitimate son, is
stockholders on record of Philinterlife. entitled to ½ share of the returement gratuity which is
Before an injunction can be issued, it is P39,070.05. Hs share from money value of terminal
essential that the following requisites be present: (1) leave, unpaid salary and 10% adjustment is
there must be a right in esse or the existence of a right P3,376.36.
to be protected; and (2) the act against which Ma. Angelina Buenaventura, the illegitimate
injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right. daughter, is entitled to 1/8 share of returement
Notwithstanding the proceedings being gratuity which is P9,767.51. She is also entitled to
conducted by the intestate court, the petitioners' rights P844.10 as her share from money value if terminal
or interests over the estate or over the assailed leave, unpaid salary and 10% adjustment of his father.
shareholdings in the name of private respondents are Her brother, Mario Jr. will receive a share equal to
still future and unsettled rights which cannot be hers from the retirement gratuity and share from
protected by the writ of injunction. The rule is well money value of terminal leave, unpaid salary and 10%
settled that the jurisdiction of the regional trial court adjustment.
as a probate or intestate court relates only to matters
having to do with the settlement of the estate and
probate of will of deceased persons but does not Bagunu v. Piedad
extend to the determination of questions of ownership G.R. 140975, December 8, 2000
that arise during the proceedings. The intestate court (right of representation)
may pass upon the title to a certain property for the
purpose of determining whether the same should or Facts:
should not be included in the inventory but such Augusto H. Piedad died intestate. An intestate
determination is not conclusive and is subject to final proceeding was filed before the RTC of Pasay. Ofelia
decision in a separate action regarding ownership Hernando Bagunu, the daughter of the first cousin of
which may be constituted by the parties. The court in Augusto Piedad, moved to intervene in the said
charge of the intestate proceedings cannot adjudicate proceeding. According to her, the proceedings were
or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of tainted with procedural infirmities. There was
the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to incomplete publications of thenotice of hearing, lack of
outside parties. Therefore, the possibility of irreparable personal notice to the heris and creditors and
damage without proof of violation of an actually irregularity in the disbursements of allowances and
existing right of petitioners over the shareholdings withdrawals by the administrator of the estate. She
presently in the possession of private respondents is was also deprived of her share in the estate of Augusto
no ground for an injunction being a mere damnum Piedad when the probate court awarded the entire
absque injuria. estate to Pastora Piedad, the maternal aunt of Augusto
Piedad. The RTC denied the motion thus Ofelia
Bagunu elaveted the case to the Court of Appeals.
Heirs of the Late Mario V. Changlionco Pastora Piedad moved for the dismissal of the appeal
Adm. Matter 190-RET., October 18, 1977 contending that the issued brought up on appeal
(re: retirement benefits, salary adjustments, and involve nothing else but questions of law to be raise
unused vacation and sick leaves) before the Supreme Court by petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.
Facts: The Court of Appeals ruled that the questions
Atty. Mario V. Chanliongco died on July 12, are pure questions of law nevertheless the Court of
1976. He is entitled to retirement benefits having Appeals can take cognizance of the case as a
served more than 38 years in the government. He is resolution may be made without examining the facts
also entitled to money value of terminal leave, life on record. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a petition for
insurance and refund of retirement premium. His heirs review before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
filed the claim for these benefits before the affirmed the decision of the appellate court. However,
Government Service Incentive System. Aside from his the procedural decrepitude was set aside and the
widow, Dra. Fidel Chanliongco and son Mario II, other substantive issue was given more attention.
heirs filed the claim namely Angelina Buenaventura
and Mario, Jr, children both born out of wedlock to Issue:
Angelina Crespo. Whether the rule of proximity and right of
The life insurance proceeds and the refund of representation in intestate succession can be applied
rent were already released to the claimants, what is among collateral relatives.
left is the retirement benefits and money value of leave.
Issue: The right of representation does not apply to
How should the retirement benefits and "others collateral relatives within the fifth civil degree"
money value of leave be distributed among the heirs? (to which group both petitioner and respondent belong)
who are sixth in the order of preference following,

firstly, the legitimate children and descendants, aunt Ambrosia.
secondly, the legitimate parents and ascendants, Beniat filed a complaint for annulment of
thirdly, the illegitimate children and descendants, donation to Juan Jr. and for the reconveyance to them
fourthly, the surviving spouse, and fifthly, the brothers of the Calunuran fishponda before the CFI of Bataan.
and sisters/nephews and nieces, fourth decedent. During the trial, Juan Jr. died and he was substituted
Among collateral relatives, except only in the case of by his widow, Mercedes Pascual and his six children.
nephews and nieces of the decedent concurring with In the intestate proceedings for the settlement
their uncles or aunts, the rule of proximity, expressed of Juan Jr.’s estate, the two fishponds in question
in Article 962 of the Code, is an absolute rule. In were adjudicated to his seven legal heirs in equal
determining the degree of relationship of the collateral shares with the condition that the properties will
relatives to the decedent, Article 966 of the Civil Code remain under administration during the pendency of
gives direction. It provides that "In the collateral line, the action for reconveyance.
ascent is made to the common ancestor and then The trial court found that there was no
descent is made ancestor and then descent is made to community of property among Juan Sr., Ambrosia and
the person with whom the computation is to be made. Valentin over the two fishponds. The court rationalized
Thus, a person is two degrees removed from his that the omission of Valentin during his lifetime to
brother, three from his uncle, who is the brother of his assail the Torren titles of Juan and Ambrosia signified
father, four from his first cousin and so forth." that he was not a co-owner of the fishponds. It also
Pastora Piedad, being a relative within the held that the donation was validly executed and even if
third civil degree, of the late Augusto H. Piedad it were void, Juan Jr. would nevertheless be the sole
excludes Ofelia Bagunu, a relative of the fifth degree, heir of his aunt Ambrosia. Benita appealed since her
from succeeding an intestato to the estate of the action for reconveyance was dismissed. Mercedes also
decedent. appealed since their counterclaim for damages was
also dismissed. Both appeals were filed before the
Court of Appeals. However, since the amounts involved
Salao, et al. v. Salao exceeded two hundred thousand pesos, the case was
GR No. L-26699, March 16, 1976 elevated to the Supreme Court.
(representation in collateral lines)
Facts: Whether Benita Salao have successional
Spouses Manuel Salao and Valentina Ignacio rights to Ambrosia’s share.
had four children namely Patricio, Alejandra, Juan
and Ambrosia. Manuel Salao died in 1885. Patricio, Held:
the eldest son, died in 1186 and was survived by his No, even if the donation made by Ambrosia in
only son, Valentin. Valentina died in 1914 and her favor of her nephew, Juan Jr., were declared void, the
estate was administered by her daughter Ambrosia. plaintiffs would not have any successional rights to
The estate was partitioned extrajudicially. The deed Ambrosia's share. The sole legal heir of Ambrosia was
was signed by Valentina’s four legal heirs, her children her nephew, Juan, Jr., her nearest relative within the
Alejandra, Juan and Ambrosia and her grandson third degree. Valentin Salao, if living in 1945 when
Valentin, in representation of his deceased father Ambrosia died, would have been also her legal heir,
Patricio. One of the properties is the Calunuran together with his first cousin, Juan, Jr. (Juani). Benita
fishpond. Salao, the daughter of Valentin, could not represent
Evidence show that before the death of him in the succession to the estate of Ambrosia since
Valentina, her children Juan and Ambrosia were in the collateral line, representation takes place only in
engaged in the fishpond business. Using the capital favor of the children of brothers or sisters whether they
from their late father’s estate and their own earnings, be of the full or half blood is (Art 972, Civil Code). The
they were able to buy the Calunuran fishpond and nephew excludes a grandniece like Benita Salao or
were able to secure a Torrens title for the Calunuran great-gandnephews like the plaintiffs Alcuriza.
Juan Salao Sr. died in 1931 and Valentin
died in 1933. The intestate estate of Valentin Salao Saguinsin v. Lindayag, et. al.,
was partitioned extrajudicially between his two GR No. L-17759, December 17,1962
daughters Benita Salao-Marcelo and Victorina Salao- (re: presence of adopted children)
Alcuriza. His estate consisted of the two fishponds he
inherited from his grandmother Valentina. Facts:
About a year before her death, Ambrosia Maria Lindayag died intestate. Her sister
donated her one-half proindiviso share in the two Isabel Saguinsin filed with the CFI of Olongapo a
fishponds in question to her nephew, Juan Salao, Jr. verified petition for the issuance in her favor of letters
Juan Salao, Jr., already owns the other half having of administration over the estate of said deceased.
inherited it from his father Juan Salao Sr. Dionisio V. Lindayag, the surviving spous of Maria,
After Ambrosia’s death, Benita Salao filed an filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground
action for the reconveyance of the Canluran fishpond lack of interest in the estate, she being neither heir nor
which was allegedly held in trust and which had a creditor thereof. The motion alleged that the late
become the sole property of Juan Salao, Jr. Benita Maria V. Lindayag was survived by her husband,
Salao informed Juan Jr. that she owns one-third share Dionisio and their legally adopted minor children
in the two fishponds and Huan Jr. should deliver it to named Jesus, Concepcion, and Catherine, all
her. Juan Jr. refused saying that Benita’s father, surnamed Lindayag the decedent having left no
Valentin, does not have interest over the two ponds as legitimate natural or illegitimate child. A certified true
this was owned only by his father Juan Sr. and his copy of the decision of the Justice of the Peace

decreeing the adoption of said minors to the decedent The defendant spouses died during the
and her husband was attached to the motion. The CFI pendency of the case at the Court of Appeals and were
dismissed the motion of Isabel ruling that she is only a substituted by their legally adopted child Gliceria
sister of the deceased who was survived by her Abrenica and her husband Casiano Amponin. The
husband and adopted children and as such she is not Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower
an heir and has no interest over the estate. court. The Appellants filed at the Supreme Court a
petition for review by certiorari of the decision of the
Issue: Court of Appeals regarding its ruling that Sec. 5, Rule
Whether Isabel Saguinsin is "an interested 100 of the Old Rules of Court does not apply in the
person" in the estate of deceased Maria V. Lindayag. instant case because Maria Mirano was not legally
No, Isabel Saguinsin is not an interested Issue:
person in the estate of deceased Maria Lindayag. Whether or not the donor-spouses are
A petition for letters of administration must entitled to the land in question by virtue of reserva
be filed an "interested person". An interested party is adoptiva
one who would be benefited by the estate, such as an
heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such Held:
as a creditor. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that No. The rule with respect to reserva adoptiva
in civil actions as well as special proceedings, the (reversion adoptive) prescribed in Section 5, Rule 100
interest required in order that a person may be a party of the former Rules of Court, the pertinent portion of
thereto must be material and direct, and not merely which reads: “In case of the death of the child, his
indirect or contingent. parents and relatives by nature, and not by adoption,
In the given case, the deceased was survived shall be his legal heirs, except as to property received
by her husband Dionisio and by their three legally or inherited by the adopted child from either of his
adopted children — thus excluding petitioner as an parents by adoption, which shall become the property
heir. It is manifest that Isabel is not an heir of her of the latter or their legitimate relatives who shall
deceased sister and, therefore, has no material and participate in the order established by the Civil Code
direct interest in her estate. for intestate estate”, applies only to property that had
been received by a judicially adopted child.
Extrajudicial adoption is not within the contemplation
Banawa v. Mirano and spirit of the rule. It is an elementary rule of
GR No. L-24750, May 16, 1980 construction that when the language of the law is clear
(reversion adoptive) and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean
exactly what it says.

Facts: Diaz, et al. v. IAC, et al.
Defendants-appellants spouses Doroteo GR No. L-66574, June 17, 1987
Banawa and Juliana Mendoza took care of Maria (re: iron curtain rule)
Mirano, Juliana’s niece, since Maria is 9 years old and Facts:
treated her the same way as they treated the co- Private respondent filed a Petition dated
appellant Gliceria Abrenica, their legally adopted child. January 23, 1976 with the CFI, "In The Matter of the
On May 5, 1921, the spouses bought a parcel of land Intestate Estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de
situated at Brgy. Iba, Taal, Batangas from Placido Santero," praying that the corresponding letters of
Punzalan and registered the said parcel of land in the Administration be issued in her favor and that she be
name of Maria, because the said spouses wanted appointed as special Administratrix of the properties of
something for Maria after their death. the deceased.
On July 31, 1949, after a lingering illness, Maria It is undisputed: 1) that Felisa Pamuti Jardin
Mirano died. At the time of her death she left only as is a niece of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who
her nearest relatives the herein plaintiffs-appellees, together with Felisa's mother Juliana were the only
namely Primitiva, who is a surviving sister, and legitimate children of the spouses Felipe Pamuti and
Gregoria, Juana and Marciano, all surnamed Mirano, Petronila Asuncion; 2) that Juliana married Simon
who are children of the deceased’s brother. Jardin and out of their union were born Felisa Pamuti
The Miranos filed a case in court against the and another child who died during infancy; 3) that
Banawas with regards to the possession of the Iba Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow of
property as legal heirs of Maria. The court ruled in Pascual Santero and the mother of Pablo Santero; 4)
favor of the Miranos. The Banawas appealed to the that Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his
Court of Appeals stating that they are entitled to the parents Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de
land in question by virtue of Section 5, Rule 100 of the Santero; 5) that Pascual Santero died in 1970; Pablo
Old Rules of Court, the pertinent portion of which Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in 1976; 6) that
reads: Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was survived by
In case of the death of the child, his parents his mother Simona Santero and his six minor natural
and relatives by nature, and not by adoption, shall be children to wit: four minor children with Anselma Diaz
his legal heirs, except as to property received or and two minor children with Felixberta Pacursa.
inherited by the adopted child from either of his The trial court declared Felisa Pamuti Jardin
parents by adoption, which shall become the property as the sole legitimate heir of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
of the latter or their legitimate relatives who shall Santero. Petitioner Diaz and Pacursa filed their
participate in the order established by the Civil Code "Opposition and Motion to Exclude Felisa Pamuti
for intestate estates. Jardin from further taking part or intervening in the

settlement of the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Leonardo v. CA
Vda. de Santero, and in the intestate estate of Pascual G. R. No. 51263, February 28, 1983
Santero and Pablo Santero. On 1980, the judge (re: barrier rule)
granted the motion and declared that Jardin Is not an Facts:
her of the decedent Simona. Jardin’s motion for Francisca Reyes died intestate on July 12,
reconsideration was denied by the trial court. In the 1942. She was survived by two daughters, Maria and
IAC, the trial court’s ruling was reversed. The Silvestra Cailles and a grandson, Sotero Leonardo, the
petitioners or the oppositors-appellees questioned the son of her daughter, Pascuala Cailles who predeceased
reversal in the IAC, but the motion for reconsideration her. Sotero Leonardo died in 1944 while Silvestra
was denied. Hence, this petition. Cailles died in 1949 without any issue.
On October 29, 1964, Cresenciano Leonardo,
Issue: claiming to be the son of the late Sotero Leonardo, filed
Can Diaz as illegitimate children of Pablo a complaint for ownership of properties, sum of money
Santero inherit from Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, and accounting in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
by right of representation of their father Pablo Santero seeking judgment (1) to be declared one of the lawful
who is a legitimate child of Simona Pamuti Vda, de heirs of the deceased Francisca Reyes, entitled to one-
Santero. half share in the estate of the deceased jointly with
private respondent, Maria Cailles, (2) to have the
Held: properties left by Francisca Reyes partitioned between
No, petitioner’s contentions holds no water. him and Maria Cailles, and (3) to have an accounting
The applicable law here is Art. 992 of the Civil Code. of all the income derived from said properties from the
This article provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it time defendants took possession thereof until said
prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between accounting shall have been made, delivering to him his
the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and share therein with legal interest.
relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate On the other hand, private respondent Maria
child. They may have a natural tie of blood, but this is Cailles asserted exclusive ownership over the subject
not recognized by law for the purposes of Art. 992, properties and alleged that petitioner was an
Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate illegitimate child who could not succeed by right of
family there is presumed to be an intervening representation. The other defendant, private
antagonism and incompatibility. The illegitimate child respondent James Bracewell, claimed that said
is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate properties were now his by virtue of a valid and legal
family; the family is in turn, hated by the illegitimate deed of sale which Maria had executed in her favor.
child; the latter considers the privileged condition of These properties were allegedly mortgaged to
the former, and the resources of which it is thereby respondent Rural Bank of Parañaque.
deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate The trial court rendered judgment in favor of
child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence the petitioner having found the evidence of the private
of a blemish broken in life; the law does no more than respondent insufficient to prove ownership of the
recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds of properties in suit. From said judgment, private
resentment. respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals which
It is therefore clear from Article 992 of the reversed the decision of the trial court. Motion for
New Civil Code that the phrase "legitimate children reconsideration was likewise denied, hence, this
and relatives of his father or mother" includes Simona petition for review by Leonardo.
Pamuti Vda. de Santero as the word "relative" includes
all the kindred of the person spoken of. The record Issues:
shows that from the commencement of this case the Whether or not properties in question were
only parties who claimed to be the legitimate heirs of the exclusive properties of private respondents
the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero are Felisa Whether or not petitioner has established his
Pamuti Jardin and the six minor natural or illegitimate filiation
children of Pablo Santero. Since petitioners herein are Whether or not petitioner, as the great
barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent grandson of Francisca Reyes, had legal right to inherit
Intermediate Appellate Court did not commit any error by right of representation
in holding Felisa Pamuti-Jardin to be the sole
legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the late Held:
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero. YES. Two properties were involved in this
Thus, petitioners herein cannot represent case. One of which was bought in 1908 by Maria
their father Pablo Santero in the succession of the Cailles under a deed of sale. Maria paid the realty
letter to the intestate estate of his legitimate mother taxes from 1918 to 1948. When he and her son left for
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, because of the barrier Nueva Ecija, the deceased Francisca Reyes managed
provided for under Art. 992 of the New Civil Code. her property and paid the realty tax of the land. For
unexplained reasons, Francisca declared the land in
her own name. As to the second parcel of land which
was bought by Francisca in 1917, Maria left the
administration of the property to Francisca. Similarly,
the latter declared the property in her own name. Such
finding of facts could not be disturbed now on appeal
NO. The name of the child described in the
birth certificate submitted in evidence is not that of the
plaintiff but a certain ‘Alfredo Leonardo’ who was born
on September 13, 1938 to Sotero Leonardo and

Socorro Timbol. Other than his bare allegation, Issue:
plaintiff did not submit any durable evidence showing Whether or not Juanita, the mother of
that the ‘Alfredo Leonardo’ mentioned in the birth Tomas, was legal heir of Teodoro Yangco.
certificate was no other than he himself. Plaintiff,
therefore, failed to prove his filiation in this action in Held:
which he was claiming to be an heir in the inheritance No, Juanita was not a legal heir of Yangco
in question. because there is no reciprocal succession between
NO. Even if it were true that petitioner was legitimate, and illegitimate relatives. An illegitimate
the child of Sotero Leonardo, he still could not, by child has no right to inherit ab intestate from the
right of representation, claim a share of the estate left legitimate children and relaties of his father or mother,
by the deceased Francisca Reyes. As found by the nor shall such children of relatives inherit in the same
Court of Appeals, Cresenciano was born out of wedlock manner from the legitimate child. Article 992 of the
as shown by the fact that when he was born on Civil Code is based on the theory that the lillegitmate
September13, 1938, his alleged putative father and child is disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate
mother were not yet married and his alleged father’s family. The law does not recognized blood ties and
first marriage was still subsisting. At most, petitioner seeks to avoid further grounds for resentment. Teodoro
would be an illegitimate child who had no right to Yangco and 3 other children was acknowledged
inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and natural child and not a legitimate child of Luis Yangco
relatives of his father, like the deceased. and Ramona, Jose Corpus, was presumed the
legitimate child of Tomas Corpus and Ramona. Tomas
Corpus had no cause of action for the recovery of the
Corpus v. Administrator supposed hereditary share of his mother, Juanita, as
GR No. L-22469, October 23, 1978 legal heir since legitimate relative of the mother cannot
(re: barrier rule) succeed her legitimate child, the natural child cannot
represent his natural father in the succession to the
Facts: estate of the legitimate grandparent. The natural
Ramona Arguelles and Tomas Corpus were daughter cannot succed to the estate of her deceased
married and was blessed with 5 children, when Tomas uncle, a legitimate brother of her natural brother.
died, Romona wed Luis Rafael Yangco and had 4 Judgment Affirmed
recognized acknowledged natural children and one of
them was the decedent Teororo Yangco. Manuel v. Ferrer
Teodoro Yangco died on April 30, 1939 and his will G.R. No. 117246 August 21, 1995
was probated in 1941, at the time of his death, he had (principle of absolute separation between the
no forced heirs, he only had his half brother, Luis legitimate family and the illegitimate family)
Yangco, half sister, Paz Yangco, Amalia Corpus, the
children of his half brother Jose Corpus ,Juana and Facts:
Juanita. Juanita died in 1944. Petitioners are the legitimate children of
Pursuant to the order of the probate court, a spouses Antonio Manuel and Beatriz Guiling, who
project of partition was submitted by the administrator initiated this suit. During Antonio’s marriage with
and the legatees named in the will. The said partition Beatriz, he had an extra-marital affair with Ursula
was contested on the grounds that intestacy should be Bautista. From this relationship, Juan Manuel was
declared because the will does not contain and born.
institution of heir, and that the proposed partition was Juan Manuel, illegitimate son of Antonio,
not in conformity with the will as the testator intended married Esperanza Gamba. The couple was not
that the estate should be conserved and not physically blessed with a child of their own. They were impelled
partitioned. Partition was approved by the Probate to take private respondent Modesta Manuel- Baltazar
Court. into their fold and so raised her as their own
Oppositors appealed to the SC but the appeal “daughter.”
dismissed after the legatees and the appellants entered Juan Manuel died intestate and after two
into compromise agreement wherein the legatees years, his wife, Esperanza also passed away. A month
agreed to pay 35k to Pedro Martinez, the heirs of Isabel after Esperanza died, Modesta executed an Affidavit of
Corpus, and the heir of Juanita Corpus, - her son Self- Adjudication claiming for herself the three parcels
Tomas corpus. For the estate of Luis Yangco, a similar of land, all still in the name of Juan Manuel. The Office
compromise agreement was entered. The dismissal of of the Register of Deeds cancelled the all the Certificate
the appeal became final and executory. of Titles under the name of Juan Manuel and new
Pursuant to the compromise agreement, titles were issued under the name of Modesta.
Tomas Corpus signed a receipt acknowledging that he Petitioners sought the declaration of nullity in
received from the Yangco estate 2k, the legatees, the Regional Trail Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan.
executed an agreement for the settlement and physical RTC rendered a decision dismissing the
partition of the Yangco estate which was approved by complaint holding that petitioners, NOT BEING HEIRS
the probate court, and such partition was modified. AB INTESTATO of their illegitimate brother Juan
Tomas Corpus still filed an action to recover Juanita’s Manuel, were not the real parties-in-interest to
supposed share in Yangco’s estate, alleging that the institute the suit. Petitioners were also ordered to
dispositions in Yangco’s will show perpertual jointly and severally pay respondent Modesta Manuel-
prohibitions upon alienation which rendered it void Baltazar and Estansilaoa Manuel damages and atty.
and the partition is invalid. The trial court dismissed Fees and litigation expenses.
the case based on res judicata and laches, and Corpus
directly appealed to the SC.

Whether or not the illegitimate brothers and Heirs of the Late Mario V. Changlionco
sisters are entitled to the estate of their illegitimate Adm. Matter 190-RET., October 18, 1977
brother Juan Manuel? (re: distribution of estate where the estate is left to
a surviving spouse, legitimate son, and two
Held: recognized illegitimate children)
No, they are not entitled to the estate of their
illegitimate brother Juan Manuel. In Art. 992 of the Facts:
New Civil Code, it states that “an illegitimate child has Atty. Mario V. Chanliongco died on July 12,
no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate 1976. He is entitled to retirement benefits having
children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall served more than 38 years in the government. He is
such children or relative inherit in the same manner also entitled to money value of terminal leave, life
from the illegitimate child.” It is also a principle of insurance and refund of retirement premium. His heirs
absolute separation between the legitimate family and filed the claim for these benefits before the
the illegitimate family. The doctrine rejects succession Government Service Incentive System. Aside from his
ab intestato in the collateral line between legitimate widow, Dra. Fidel Chanliongco and son Mario II, other
relatives, on the one hand, and illegitimate relatives, heirs filed the claim namely Angelina Buenaventura
on the other hand, although it does not totally disavow and Mario, Jr, children both born out of wedlock to
such succession in the direct line. Since the rule is Angelina Crespo.
predicated on the presumed will of the decedent, it has The life insurance proceeds and the refund of
no application, however, on testamentary dispositions. rent were already released to the claimants, what is
As to the case of Modesta, she admitted that left is the retirement benefits and money value of leave.
she is not an intestate heir of Juan Manuel. She is
right. A ward (ampon), without the benefit of formal Issue:
(judicial) adoption, is neither compulsory nor a legal How should the retirement benefits and
heir. money value of leave be distributed among the heirs?
The RTC’s decision is correct in dismissing
the case of declaration of nullity for the petitioners are Held:
in real parties-in-interest. Fidela B. Chanliongco, the widows, is entitled
to ¼ of the retirement gratuity which is P19,535.025.
As her conjugal share in the leave, unpaid salary and
Tolentino v. Paras 10% adjustement, she is entitled to P6,725.72. As a
GR 43905, May 3, 1983 ( legal heir she is entitled to P1,688.18 for the leave,
surviving legitimate wife and bigamous wife) unpaid salary and 10% adjustment of Atty.
Facts: Mario Chanliongco II, the legitimate son, is
Amado Tolentino was married to Serafia G. entitled to ½ share of the returement gratuity which is
Tolentino on July 31, 1943. While marriage was still P39,070.05. Hs share from money value of terminal
subsisting, he contracted another marriage with Ma. leave, unpaid salary and 10% adjustment is
Clemente at Paombong, Bulacan on Nov. 1, 1948. He P3,376.36.
was convicted with bigamy. After serving his sentence, Ma. Angelina Buenaventura, the illegitimate
he continued living with Clemente until he died on daughter, is entitled to 1/8 share of returement
July 25, 1974. Ma. Clemente was the surviving spouse gratuity which is P9,767.51. She is also entitled to
indicated in his death certificate. Tolentino claims that P844.10 as her share from money value if terminal
she is the rightful surviving spouse and petitions for leave, unpaid salary and 10% adjustment of his father.
correction of the death certificate. Lower court ( Judge Her brother, Mario Jr. will receive a share equal to
Edgardo Paras) dismissed petition for lack of hers from the retirement gratuity and share from
publication or “lack of proper requisites under law”. money value of terminal leave, unpaid salary and 10%
WON Petitoner is the rightful surviving
spouse of Tolentino? Del Rosario v. Conanan
GR No.L-37903, March 30, 1977
Held: (re: distribution of estate where the deceased
Yes. Petition granted. leaves a surviving spouse, legitimate mother, and
Considering that Amado, upon his own plea, an adopted daughter)
was convicted of bigamy, that sentence furnishes the
necessary proof of the marital status of the petitioner Facts:
and the deceased. The second marriage he contracted Felix L. del Rosario died in a plane crash. He
was void from the beginning and thus has no force and was survived by his spouse, Dorotea O. del Rosario
effect. No judicial decree is necessary to establish and their legally adopted child Marilou del Rosario. His
invalidity of avoid marriage. While documents, such as mother, Gertrudues del Rosario, filed a petition before
death and birth certificates, are public and entries the CFI of Rizal for settlement and partition of estate of
therein are presumed to be correct, such presumption Felix. Dorotea and Marilou oppose said petition
is merely disputable and will have to yield to more arguing that Gertrudes cannot be considered as an
positive evidence establishing their inaccuracy. intestate heir and thus she cannot be considered as a
Therefore, it should be the petitioner’s name on the party in interest who has a right to file an action for
death certificate and not the respondent. partition and settlement of estate.
The CFI of Rizal ruled in favor of Dorotea and

dismissed Gertrudes’ petition. Gertrudes then filed a Cedeno.
petition for review of the decision of the CFI before the
Supreme Court. Held:
No, he can not. In inheritance, the nearer
Issue: relatives excludes the more remote, excepting the right
How should the estate of Felix del Rosario be of representation in proper cases. In which line he is
divided among his heirs? the remote one.
Manuel Sarita who joins as the representative
Held: of his grandfather in a complaint with others, who are
Under Article 343, an adopted child surviving brothers and nephews of the predecessors in interest,
with legitimate parents of the deceased adopter, has lacks such representation, for it belongs in the
the same successional rights as an acknowledged collateral line only to the nephews and not to the
natural child, which is comprehended in the term grandnephews. Hence, a sister and nephews of the
"illegitimate children". Consequently , the respective deceased having appeared to claim the inheritance,
shares of the surviving spouse, ascendant and adopted they, as the nearest of kin, exclude such remoter
child should be determined by Article 1000 of the New relative as the grandnephew.
Civil Code, which reads:
Art. 1000. If legitimate ascendants, the
surviving spouse and illegitimate children are left, the Fuentes v. Cruz
ascendants shall be entitled to onehalf of the 36 O.G. No. 103, p. 1813
inheritance, and the other half shall be divided (re: collateral heirs and institution of the widow as
between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate sole heir)
children so that such widow or widower shall have
one-fourth of the estate, the illegitimate children the
other fourth.

Sarita v. Candia
Gr. No. 7768, November 14, 1912
(re: right of representation in the collateral line)

Spouses Apolinario Cedeno and Roberta
Montesa acquired during their marriage a piece of
land. Apolinario died in 1895 and Roberta in 1909.
Allegedly, during the lifetime of the Cedeno spouses,
Andres Candia, nephew of Roberta Montesa, cultivated Filomena Abellana de Bacayo v. Gaudencio Ferraris
the said land under a lease agreement. When Roberta de Borromeo, et al.,
died, Andres Candia refused to pay the rent for the GR No. L- 19382, August 31, 1965
cultivation of the land and claimed that he is the (re: aunt vs. nephews and nieces)
owner thereof. Andres also took several animals and
the house erected on the land. Facts:
Apolinario had three brothers and a sister Melodia Ferraris filed a petition for the
namely Macario, Domingo, Leon and Cristeta. The summary settlement of her estate in 1960. More than
three brothers were already dead and Cristeta was the 10 years have elapsed since she was known to be alive,
only one alive. Macario had five children, one of whom thus she was declared presumptively dead for
is Tomas Cedeno. Domingo also had five children, one purposes of opening her succession and distributing
of whom is Sofia who died leaving her son Manuel her estate among her heirs. Melodia left properties in
Sarita. Leon had four children, one of whom is Cebu including 1/3 share in the estate of her aunt,
Gregorio Cedeno. Tomas Cedeno, Manuel Sarita Rosa Ferraris. Melodia left no surviving descendant,
together with other herein petitioners filed a case ascendant, or spouse, butbut was survived only by
against Andres Candia for the recovery of the land in collateral relatives, namely, Filomena Abellana de
question. Bacayo, an aunt and half-sister of decedent's father,
According to Andres, Apolonio previously sold Anacleto Ferraris; and by Gaudencia, Catalina,
the land to Juan Basa Villarosa in order to pay certain Conchita, and Juanito, her nieces and nephew, who
shortages of the cabeceria under his charge. When were the children of Melodia's only brother of full
Villarosa died the property was inherited by his sons, blood, Arturo Ferraris, who pre-deceased her (the
Sinfroso and Vicente. Andres later on bought the decedent). These two classes of heirs claim to be the
property from Sinfroso and Vicente. Andres also nearest intestate heirs and seek to participate in the
argued that he never cultimated the land under a lease estate of said Melodia Ferraris.
agreement with the Cedeno Spouses. Andres also According to the trail court, Gaudencia,
denied having in possession the said animals. Conchita, Catalina and Juanito, as children of the only
The CFI of Cebu ruled in favor of Andres predeceased brother of the Melodia, exclude the aunt
Candia. Petitioners appealed the case through a bill Filomena Abellana de Bacayo since the former are
exceptions. nearer in degree (two degrees) than the latter since
nieces and nephews succeed by right of representation
Issue: while Filomena is three degrees distant from the
Whether or not Manuel Sarita can represent decedent, and that other collateral relatives are
his grandfather Domingo, the brother of Apolinario excluded by brothers or sisters or children of brothers

or sisters of the decedent in accordance with article and surviving usufructuaries and litigate their
1009 of the New Civil Code. respective claims.
Filomena appealed arguing that she is of the The lower court ruled in favor of the naked
same or equal degree of relationship as Gaudencia et owner, Jose Salamat. Hence, the appeal.
al, three degrees removed from the decedent; and that Issue:
under article 975 of the New Civil Code no right of Who have the right over the fruits that would
representation could take place when the nieces and have corresponded to the 3-deceased usufructuaries,
nephew of the decedent do not concur with an uncle or the surviving 11 usufructuaries or the naked owner?
aunt, as in the case at bar, but rather the former
succeed in their own right. Held:
It is the surviving usufructuaries who have
Issue: the legal right over the fruits in the contract of lease.
Whether or not Filomena can inherit from In the will, the testratix constituted the usufruct in
Melodia Ferraris. favor of the children of her here cousins with the
particular injunction that they are the only ones to
Held: enjoy the same as long as the share of the latter shall
No, Filomena can not inherit. accrue to the surviving ones. The will was clear to this.
Article 1009 does not state any order of Hence, Gil Policarpio and Batas Riego de Dios
preference. However, this article should be understood are hereby ordered to pay to the surviving
in connection with the general rule that the nearest usufructuaries the money withheld by them
relatives exclude the farther. Collaterals of the same respectively representing the shares of the deceased
degree inherit in equal parts, there being no right of usufructuaries.
representation. They succeed without distinction of
lines or preference among them on account of the
whole blood relationship. Torres v. Lopez,
Under our laws of succession, a decedent's uncles and 49 Phil. 504
aunts may not succeed ab intestato so long as (co-heir gets the share by accretion)
nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are
willing and qualified to succeed. Nepomuceno v. CA,
GR No. 62952, October 9, 1985
Bicomong v. Almanza (concubinage)
GR No. L-37365, Nov. 29, 1977
(re: nephews and nieces inherit in their own right) Facts:
Martin Jugo died, leaving a duly executed
and notarized last Will and Testament instituting his
wife, Rufina Gomez and legitimate children as forced
heirs and Sofia Nepomuceno as heir to the free
portion. Petitioner Nepomuceno was named as sole
executor. It appeared in the will that Jugo admitted
Accretion being estranged to his wife Gomez and that he has
been living as husband and wife with Nepomuceno. In
Policarpio v. Salamat fact, Martin Jugo and petitioner were married in Tarlac
GR No. L-21809, January 31, 1966 despite subsisting marriage. On August 21, 1974, the
(accretion) petitioner filed a petition for probate. On May 13,
Facts: 1975, Rufina Gomez and her children filed an
Damasa Crisostomo died testate, giving the opposition alleging undue and improper influence on
naked ownership of a fishpond owned by her to her the part of the petitioner, that at the time of the
sister, Teodorica dela Cruz, while its usufruct to the execution of the will, the testator was already very sick
children of her cousins, Antonio Perez, Patricia Vicente and that petitioner having admitted her living in
and Canuto Lorenzo. concubinage with the testator.
The children of Antonio, Patricia and Canuto The lower court denied the probate of the will on the
turned out to be fourteen. Teodorica dela Cruz, the ground that the testator admitted in his will cohabiting
naked owner, bequeathed in her will all her rights to with petitioner. Petitioner appealed to CA. Ca set aside
the fishpond to Jose Salamat. the decision of CFI of Rizal denying the probate of the
The 14 usufructuaries leased the fishpond to will. The respondent court declared the will to be valid
one Gil Policarpio, the plaintiff herein, who used to except that the devise in favor of the petitioner is null
give them proportionately the usufruct corresponding and void.
to them. During the term of the lease, three of the
usufructuaries died, and upon their death, both he Issue:
naked owner and the remaining 11- usufructuaries Whether or not the disposition in favor of
claimed the shares corresponding to the deceased petitioner is valid.
In 1962, the surviving usufructuaries leased Held:
the fishpond to one Batas Riego de Dios, who after NO. It is invalid under Article 739. The
executing the contract of lease, came to know the following donations shall be void: 1) those made
existing conflicting claims and not knowing to whom between persons who were guilty of adultery or
the money should be paid, the lessees commenced an concubinage at the time of donation; and Article 1028
action for interpleader against both the naked owner of the Civil Code provides: The prohibitions mentioned
in Article 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall

apply to testamentary provisions. The records do not
sustain a finding of innocence or good faith. As argued
by the private respondents: First. The last will and
testament itself expressly admits indubitably on its
face the meretricious relationship between the testator
and petitioner, the devisee. Second. Petitioner herself
initiated the presentation of evidence on her alleged
ignorance of the true civil status of the testator, which
led private respondents to present contrary evidence.
In short, the parties themselves dueled on the intrinsic
validity of the legacy given in the will to petitioner by
the deceased testator at the start of the proceedings.
Whether or not petitioner knew that testator Martin
Jugo, the man he had lived with as man and wife, as
already married, was an important and specific issue
brought by the parties before the trial court, and
passed upon by the Court of Appeals. Instead of
limiting herself to proving the extrinsic validity of the
will, it was petitioner who opted to present evidence on
her alleged good faith in marrying the testator.
There is no question from the records about the fact of
prior existing marriage when Martin Jugo executed his
will. The very wordings of the will invalidate the legacy
because the testator admitted he was disposing the
properties to a person with whom he had been living in