106. BACAYO V.
BORROMEO These two classes of heirs claim to be the nearest intestate
GR No. L-19382
Date ​Aug 31, 1965
Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L., J.
Digest Author: Lim
Topic in the Syllabus:
Intestate Heirs; Brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces
[Exclude uncles/aunts]
Relevant Law:
Art. 1009.​ Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor
children of brothers or sisters, the other collateral relatives
shall succeed to the estate.
The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or
preference among them by reason of relationship by the
whole blood.
Doctrine:
A decedent's uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestato
so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and
are willing and qualified to succeed.
The absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the
decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles,
cousins, etc.) being called to the succession.
Decedent: Melodia Ferraris
[NO Will]
Parties:
● Petitioner-appellant: ​Filomena Bacayo​ (decedent’s ​aunt
and half sister of decedent’s father)
● Oppositor-appellees: ​Gaudencia Ferraris de Borromeo,
Catalina Ferraris de Villegas, Juanito Ferraris, Conchita
Ferraris​ (​nieces and nephews​ of decedent)
FACTS:
● Melodia Ferraris resided in Intramuros, Manila until
1944.
● Up to the filing on December 22, 1960 of the petition for
the summary settlement of her estate, she has not been
heard of and her whereabouts are still unknown.
● More than 10 years having elapsed since the last time
she was known to be alive, she was declared
presumptively dead for purposes of opening her
succession and distributing her estate among her heirs.
● Melodia Ferraris left properties in Cebu City, consisting of
one-third (1/3) share in the estate of her aunt, Rosa
Ferraris, valued at P6,000.00, more or less, and which
was adjudicated to her in Special Proceeding No. 13-V of
the same court.
● Melodia Ferraris left no surviving direct descendant,
ascendant, or spouse, but was survived only by collateral
relatives, namely:
○ Decedent’s aunt
○ Decedent’s nieces and nephew, who were the
children of Melodia's only brother of full blood,
Arturo Ferraris.
V. INTESTATE SUCCESSION
heirs and seek to participate in the estate of said Melodia
Ferraris.
ISSUES:
Whether a decedent’s aunts and uncles may succeed ab
intestato if they succeed along with the decedent’s nephews
and nieces? [NO]
RULING:
Although an aunt of the deceased is as far distant as the
nephews from the decedent (three degrees) since in the
collateral line to which both kinds of relatives belong degrees
are counted by first ascending to the common ancestor and
then descending to the heir (Civil Code, Art. 966), and that
nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by right of
representation (i.e., per stripes) unless concurring with
brothers or sisters of the deceased, as provided expressly by
Article 975:
ART. 975. When children of one or more brothers or sisters of
the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by
representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. But if
they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal portions.
Nevertheless, ​in case of intestacy, nephews and nieces of the
de cujus ​exclude all other collaterals​ (aunts and uncles, first
cousins, etc.) from the succession. This is readily apparent
from articles 1001, 1004, 1005, and 1009 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, that provided as follows:
● ART. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children
survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be
entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers
and sisters or their children to the other half.
● ART. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and
sisters of the full blood, they shall inherit in equal shares.
● ART. 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together
with nephews and nieces, who are the children of the
decedent's brothers and sisters of the full blood, the
former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per stripes.
● ART. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sister
nor children of brothers or sisters, the other collateral
relatives shall succeed to the estate.
The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or
preference among them by reason of relationship by the
whole blood.
Under the last article (1009), ​the absence​ of brothers, sisters,
nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition to the
other collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.) being called to the
succession.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
We, therefore, hold, and so rule, that under our laws of
succession, a decedent's uncles and aunts may not succeed
ab intestato so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent
survive and are willing and qualified to succeed.
The decision appealed from, in so far as it conforms to this
rule, is hereby affirmed. No costs.
Page 1 of 4
107. LEONARDO VS. CA
GR No. 51263
Date ​February 28, 1983
Ponente: De Castro, J.
Digest Author: Lo
Topic in the Syllabus:
Intestate Succession
Relevant Law:
Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ​ab
intestato ​from the legitimate children and relatives of his
father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in
the same manner from the illegitimate child
Doctrine:
An alleged grandchild born outside wedlock cannot, by right
of representation, claim a share of an estate left by an alleged
deceased great grandparent.
Decedent: Francisca Reyes - NO WILL
Parties:
Petitioner - ​CRESENCIANO LEONARDO
Respondents - MARIA CAILLES, JAMES BRACEWELL and
RURAL BANK OF PARAÑAQUE, INC.,
FACTS:
● Francisca Reyes who died intestate on July 12, 1942 was
survived by
○ two (2) daughters, Maria and Silvestra Cailles, and
○ a grandson, Sotero Leonardo, the son of her
daughter, Pascuala Cailles who predeceased her.
● Sotero Leonardo died in 1944,
● while Silvestra Cailles died in 1949 without any issue.
● On October 29, 1964, petitioner ​Cresenciano Leonardo,
claiming to be the son of the late Sotero Leonardo, ​filed
a complaint for ownership of properties, sum of money
and accounting.
● He seeks that the judgment
(1) to be declared one of the lawful heirs of the
deceased Francisca Reyes, entitled to one-half share
in the estate of said deceased jointly with defendant,
private respondent herein, Maria Cailles,
(2) to have the properties left by said Francisca Reyes,
described in the complaint, partitioned between him
and defendant Maria Cailles, and
(3) to have an accounting of all the income derived from
said properties from the time defendants took
possession thereof until said accounting shall have
been made, delivering to him his share therein with
legal interest.
● Private respondent Maria Cailles -
○ asserted exclusive ownership over the subject
properties and
○ alleged that petitioner is an illegitimate child who
cannot succeed by right of representation.
● Private respondent James Bracewell, claimed that said
properties are now his by virtue of a valid and legal deed
V. INTESTATE SUCCESSION
of sale which Maria Cailles had subsequently executed in
his favor.
● These properties were allegedly mortgaged to
respondent Rural Bank of Parañaque, Inc. sometime in
September 1963.
ISSUES: WON petitioner have a legal right to inherit? -- NO.
RULING:
The filiation of a person may be looked into for the purpose
of determining his qualification to inherit from a deceased
person. Petitioner failed to prove filiation.
Failure to prove filiation:
The petitioner used birth certificate as evidence, however,
o name of the child described in the birth certificate is not
that of the plaintiff but a certain ‘Alfredo Leonardo’ who was
born on September 13, 1938 to Sotero Leonardo and Socorro
Timbol.
o Other than his bare allegation, plaintiff did not submit any
durable evidence showing that the ‘Alfredo Leonardo’
mentioned in the birth certificate is no other than he himself.
EVEN if proven, he cannot still inherit,
Even if it is true that petitioner is the child of Sotero
Leonardo, still he cannot, by right of representation, claim a
share of the estate left by the deceased Francisca Reyes
considering that, as found again by the Court of Appeals, he
was born outside wedlock
● as shown by the fact that when he was born on
September 13, 1938, his alleged putative father and
mother were not yet married, and
● what is more, his alleged father’s first marriage was
still subsisting.
At most, petitioner would be an illegitimate child who has no
right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father, like the deceased Francisca Reyes.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to
be reviewed in this petition is hereby affirmed, with costs
against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Page 2 of 4
110. PARISH PRIEST v.
RIGOR
GR No. L-22036
Date​ 30 APRIL 1979
Ponente: AQUINO, J.
Digest Author: Vener
Margallo
Topic in the Syllabus:
Intestate Succession
Relevant Law:
Article 956
"The bequest for any reason should be inoperative, it shall be
merged into the estate, except in cases of substitution and
those in which the right of accretion exists"
Article 960(2)
“Legal succession takes place when the will "does not dispose
of all that belongs to the testator."
Doctrine:
The Civil Code recognizes that a person may die partly testate
and partly intestate, or that there may be mixed succession.
The old rule as to the indivisibility of the testator's will is no
longer valid. Thus, if a conditional legacy does not take effect,
there will be intestate succession as to the property covered
by the said legacy (Macrohon Ong Ham vs. Saavedra, 51 Phil.
267)
Decedent: ​Father Pascual Rigor
Attested Will
1. that he bequeathed the ricelands to anyone of his nearest
male relatives who would pursue an ecclesiastical career until
his ordination as a priest.
2. That the devisee could not sell the ricelands.
3. That the devisee at the inception of his studies in sacred
theology could enjoy and administer the ricelands, and once
ordained as a priest, he could continue enjoying and
administering the same up to the time of his death but the
devisee would cease to enjoy and administer the ricelands if
he discontinued his studies for the priesthood.
4. That if the devisee became a priest, he would be obligated
to celebrate every year twenty masses with prayers for the
repose of the souls of Father Rigor and his parents.
5. That if the devisee is excommunicated, he would be
divested of the legacy and the administration of the ricelands
would pass to the incumbent parish priest of Victoria and his
successors.
6. That during the interval of time that there is no qualified
devisee, as contemplated above, the administration of the
ricelands would be under the responsibility of the incumbent
parish priest of Victoria and his successors. x x x
Parties:
V. INTESTATE SUCCESSION
Petitioner​: Parish Priest
Respondents​: Sisters of Deceased (As Legal Intestate Heirs)
FACTS:
● Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan,
○ died on August 9, 1935,
○ leaving a will executed on October 29, 1933 which
was probated by the Court of First Instance.
● Named as devisees in the will were the testator's
nearest relatives, namely, his three sisters: Florencia
Rigor-Escobar, Belina Rigor-Manaloto and Nestora
Rigor-Quiambao.
● In addition, the will contained the following
controversial bequest (See conditions above)
● Judge Roman A. Cruz in his order of August 15, 1940,
○ approving the project of partition,
○ directed that after payment of the obligations of the
estate.
● It may be noted that the administratrix and Judge Cruz
did not bother to analyze the meaning and implications
of Father Rigor's bequest to his nearest male relative
who would study for the priesthood.
● About thirteen years after the approval of the project of
partition, or on February 19, 1954, the parish priest of
Victoria filed in the pending testate proceeding a
petition -
○ praying for the appointment of a new administrator
(succeeding the deceased administratrix, Florencia
Rigor), who should deliver to the church the said
ricelands, and
○ further praying that the possessors thereof be
ordered to render an accounting of the fruits.
● The intestate heirs of Father Rigor countered with a
petition dated March 25, 1957 praying that the bequest
be declared inoperative and that they be adjudged as
the persons entitled to the said ricelands since, as
admitted by the parish priest of Victoria, "no nearest
male relative of" the testator "has ever studied for the
priesthood".
● The parish priest filed two motions for reconsideration.
● Judge De Aquino granted the second motion for
reconsideration in his order of December 10, 1957 on
the ground that the testator had a grandnephew named
Edgardo G. Cunanan (the grandson of his first cousin)
who was a seminarian in the San Jose Seminary of the
Jesuit Fathers in Quezon City.
● The legal heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals.
○ It reversed that order.
○ It held that Father Rigor had created a testamentary
trust for his nearest male relative who would take
the holy orders,
Page 3 of 4
 ■ but that such trust could exist only for twenty
years because to enforce it beyond that period
would violate "the rule against perpetuities".
○ It ruled that since no legatee claimed the ricelands
within twenty years after the testator's death, the
same should pass to his legal heirs, citing articles
888 and 912(2) of the old Civil Code and article 870
of the new Civil Code.
ISSUES:
Whether at the time Father Rigor died in 1935 he had a
nephew who was studying for the priesthood or who had
manifested his desire to follow the ecclesiastical career? NO.
RULING:
The testator intended to devise the ricelands to his nearest
male relative who would become a priest, who was forbidden
to sell the ricelands, who would lose the devise if he
discontinued his studies for the priesthood, or having been
ordained a priest, he was excommunicated, and who would
be obligated to say annually twenty masses with prayers for
the repose of the souls of the testator and his parents.
We hold that the said bequest refers to the testator's nearest
male relative living at the time of his death and not to any
indefinite time thereafter.
"In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or
legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens,
except in case of representation, when it is proper" (Art.
1025, Civil Code).
The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or
reasonably construed.
To construe them as referring to the testator's nearest male
relative at anytime after his death would render the
provisions difficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the
disposition of his estate. That could not have been his
intention.
In 1935, when the testator died, his nearest legal heirs were
his three sisters or second degree relatives, Mrs. Escobar,
Mrs. Manaloto and Mrs. Quiambao.
Obviously, when the testator specified his nearest male
relative, he must have had in mind his nephew or a son of his
sister, who would be his third-degree relative, or possibly a
grandnephew.
But since he could not prognosticate the exact date of his
death or state with certitude what category of nearest male
relative would be living at the time of his death, he could not
specify that his nearest male relative would be his nephew or
grandnephews (the sons of his nephew or niece) and so he
had to use the term "nearest male relative".
That query is categorically answered in paragraph 4 of
appellant priest's petitions of February 19, 1954 and January
V. INTESTATE SUCCESSION
31, 1957. He unequivocally alleged therein that "no nearest
male relative of the late (Father) Pascual Rigor has ever
studied for the priesthood" (pp. 25 and 35, Record on
Appeal).
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that this case is covered
by article 888 of the old Civil Code, now article 956, which
provides that if "the bequest for any reason should be
inoperative, it shall be merged into the estate, except in cases
of substitution and those in which the right of accretion
exists.”
This case is also covered by article 912(2) of the old Civil
Code, now article 960(2), which provides that legal succession
takes place when the will "does not dispose of all that
belongs to the testator."
There being no substitution nor accretion as to the said
ricelands, the same should be distributed among the
testator's legal heirs.
The effect is as if the testator had made no disposition as to
the said ricelands.
The Civil Code recognizes that a person may die partly testate
and partly intestate, or that there may be mixed succession.
The old rule as to the indivisibility of the testator's will is no
longer valid. Thus, if a conditional legacy does not take effect,
there will be intestate succession as to the property covered
by the said legacy (Macrohon Ong Ham vs. Saavedra, 51 Phil.
267).
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
It should be understood that the parish priest of Victoria
could become a trustee only when the testator's nephew
living at the time of his death, who desired to become a
priest, had not yet entered the seminary or, having been
ordained a priest, he was excommunicated. Those two
contingencies did not arise, and could not have arisen, in this
case because no nephew of the testator manifested any
intention to enter the seminary or ever became a priest. SO
ORDERED.
Page 4 of 4