1. conde vs.

abaya (page 16)

Deceased died. Conde, together with their 2 unacknowledged child, ask for the share in the estate.
Brother of deceased complained.

issue: Whether the unmarried mother of a natural child can bring an action for the acknowledgment of
the natural filiation of such

child in order to appear in behalf to receive the inheritance

ruling: No. Only the child, during his lifetime, can bring an action to claim legitimacy.

2. Junio vs. collector (page 19)

Chinese woman and her minor children. She claims to be the wife of a former resident Chinese
merchant who, prior to the

attempt of the appellant to enter, died in the Philippine Islands owning property

issue: the right of such widow, as a merchant and the successor to her husband, to enter the said

Islands and to bring her children with her

Ruling: No record that the applicant is a merchant. The death of his "husband who is so called
merchant" does not make her nor his children automatically a merchant by the mere fact that she is not
a resident merchant. never resided and held the status

of a resident merchant.

3. Great life pacific life insu. Vs ca (page 14)

Dr. leuterio applied for a a membership in the group insurance plan executed between Grepalife and
DBP. He died later on. The claim was denied by Grepalife alleging that Dr.leuterio did not disclose
correctly his physical condition. Wife of deceased filed a complaint against grepalife.

Issue: whether a life insurance policy is transmissible to the heirs.

Ruling: yes.

4. Robles vs. Batacan (page 18)

Father had a land for 20 years. He died. Petitioner here, filed for ejectment proceeding against the
former’s sons claiming they have no right to remain in his land. One of the son averred that he was
entitled to succeed his father as a the petitioner’s agri tenant.

Issue: Whether tenancy may be transferred or inherit

Ruling: Yes. Under Ra 1199 and RA 344, the sons had the right to take over as agi tenant. Other brother
not cause not interested and was declared default.
5. San Agustin vs. CA (page 18)

GSIS sold to Macaria a residential land. After the issuance of title, Macaria sold the same to Menez but
was not registered immediately due to the 5-year prohibition rule. Menez got the title but subsequently
lost it. He filed before the RTC the issuance of a new duplicate tct. San agustin, nephew of macaraig,
received the copy of decision. He claims to be the present occupant and filed for a motion to reopen
reconstitution proceedings.

Issue: Whether contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors

Ruling: Yes.

6. Rabadilla vs. CA (page 23)

Complaint filed to return to the heirs of the deceased the property since the heirs of Dr. Jorge, devisee,
failed to comply with the conditions in the codicil.

Issue: W/n obligations imposed on Jorge may be transferred to his heirs upon death

Ruling: Yes. It is a general rule under the law on succession that successional rights are transmitted from
the moment of death of the decedent 10 and compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of law.
The legitimate children and descendants, in relation to their legitimate parents, and the widow or
widower, are compulsory heirs. 11 Thus, the petitioner, his mother and sisters, as compulsory heirs of the
instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter by operation of law, without need of further
proceedings, and the successional rights were transmitted to them from the moment of death of the
decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.

Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code, inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a
person, not extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr. Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of
subject Codicil were transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death. And since obligations not
extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the obligations imposed
by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs
upon his death.

7. Alvarez vs. IAC (page 22)

8. Pamplona vs. Moreto (p.24)

9. Ledesma vs. McLachlin (p.25)

Article 777
10. Ining et al. vs vega (p.26)
11. roferio vs. ca (p.34)
12. heirs of tomas (p. 38)
13. felipe vs. heirs of aldon (p. 26)
14. Eastern vs. Lucero (p.31)
15. menace vs. ca (p.33)
16. In the matter of Guardianship of the Lavides’ vs. City Court of Lucena (p. 38)

17. Bonilla vs. Barcena (p. 39)

18. Borromeo-Herrera vs. Borromeo (p.39)

19. Dela Merced vs. Dela Merced (p.39)

20. Gayon vs. Gayon (p.42)

21