You are on page 1of 2

No. 77 Heirs of the Late Mario V.

Adm. Matter 190-RET., October 18, 1977
(re: retirement benefits, salary adjustments, and unused vacation and sick leaves)

Atty. Mario V. Chanliongco died on July 12, 1976. He is entitled to retirement benefits having served more
than 38 years in the government. He is also entitled to money value of terminal leave, life insurance and refund of
retirement premium. His heirs filed the claim for these benefits before the Government Service Incentive System. Aside
from his widow, Dra. Fidel Chanliongco and son Mario II, other heirs filed the claim namely Angelina Buenaventura
and Mario, Jr, children both born out of wedlock to Angelina Crespo.
The life insurance proceeds and the refund of rent were already released to the claimants, what is left is the
retirement benefits and money value of leave.

How should the retirement benefits and money value of leave be distributed among the heirs?

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 10% adjustement, she is entitled to P6,725.72. As a legal heir she is
entitled to P1,688.18 for the leave, unpaid salary and 10% adjustment of Atty. Chanliongco.
Mario Chanliongco II, the legitimate son, is entitled to ½ share of the returement gratuity which is
P39,070.05. Hs share from money value of terminal leave, unpaid salary and 10% adjustment is P3,376.36.
Ma. Angelina Buenaventura, the illegitimate daughter, is entitled to 1/8 share of returement gratuity which is
P9,767.51. She is also entitled to P844.10 as her share from money value if terminal leave, unpaid salary and 10%
adjustment of his father. Her brother, Mario Jr. will receive a share equal to hers from the retirement gratuity and
share from money value of terminal leave, unpaid salary and 10% adjustment.

No. 79 Salao, et al. v. Salao
GR No.L-26699, March 16, 1976
(representation in collateral lines)

Spouses Manuel Salao and Valentina Ignacio had four children namely Patricio, Alejandra, Juan and
Ambrosia. Manuel Salao died in 1885. Patricio, the eldest son, died in 1186 and was survived by his only son,
Valentin. Valentina died in 1914 and her estate was administered by her daughter Ambrosia. The estate was
partitioned extrajudicially. The deed was signed by Valentina’s four legal heirs, her children Alejandra, Juan and
Ambrosia and her grandson Valentin, in representation of his deceased father Patricio. One of the properties is the
Calunuran fishpond.
Evidence show that before the death of Valentina, her children Juan and Ambrosia were engaged in the
fishpond business. Using the capital from their late father’s estate and their own earnings, they were able to buy the
Calunuran fishpond and were able to secure a Torrens title for the Calunuran fishpond.
Juan Salao Sr. died in 1931 and Valentin died in 1933. The intestate estate of Valentin Salao was partitioned
extrajudicially between his two daughters Benita Salao-Marcelo and VictorinaSalao-Alcuriza. His estate consisted of
the two fishponds he inherited from his grandmother Valentina.
About a year before her death, Ambrosia donated her one-half proindiviso share in the two fishponds in
question to her nephew, Juan Salao, Jr. Juan Salao, Jr., already owns the other half having inherited it from his father
Juan Salao Sr.
After Ambrosia’s death, Benita Salao filed an action for the reconveyance of the Canluran fishpond which was
allegedly held in trust and which had become the sole property of Juan Salao, Jr. Benita Salao informed Juan Jr. that
she owns one-third share in the two fishponds and Huan Jr. should deliver it to her. Juan Jr. refused saying that
Benita’s father, Valentin, does not have interest over the two ponds as this was owned only by his father Juan Sr. and
his aunt Ambrosia.
Beniat filed a complaint for annulment of donation to Juan Jr. and for the reconveyance to them of the
Calunuranfishponda before the CFI of Bataan. During the trial, Juan Jr. died and he was substituted by his widow,
Mercedes Pascual and his six children.
In the intestate proceedings for the settlement of Juan Jr.’s estate, the two fishponds in question were
adjudicated to his seven legal heirs in equal shares with the condition that the properties will remain under
administration during the pendency of the action for reconveyance.
The trial court found that there was no community of property among Juan Sr., Ambrosia and Valentin over
the two fishponds. The court rationalized that the omission of Valentin during his lifetime to assail the Torren titles of
Juan and Ambrosia signified that he was not a co-owner of the fishponds. It also held that the donation was validly
executed and even if it were void, Juan Jr. would nevertheless be the sole heir of his aunt Ambrosia. Benita appealed
since her action for reconveyance was dismissed. Mercedes also appealed since their counterclaim for damages was
also dismissed. Both appeals were filed before the Court of Appeals. However, since the amounts involved exceeded two
hundred thousand pesos, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court.

Whether Benita Salao have successional rights to Ambrosia’s share.

No, even if the donation made by Ambrosia in favor of her nephew, Juan Jr., were declared void, the plaintiffs
would not have any successional rights to Ambrosia's share. The sole legal heir of Ambrosia was her nephew, Juan,
Jr., her nearest relative within the third degree. Valentin Salao, if living in 1945 when Ambrosia died, would have been
also her legal heir, together with his first cousin, Juan, Jr. (Juani). Benita Salao, the daughter of Valentin, could not
represent him in the succession to the estate of Ambrosia since in the collateral line, representation takes place only in
favor of the children of brothers or sisters whether they be of the full or half blood is (Art 972, Civil Code). The nephew
excludes a grandniece like Benita Salao or great-gandnephews like the plaintiffs Alcuriza.