114. TOMAS Corpus vs.

RAFAEL Corpus 85 SCRA 567

FACTS: -FAMILY BACKGROUND: RAMONA ARGUELLES and TOMAS CORPUS were married, blessed with 5
children: PABLO CORPUS, JOSE CORPUS and 3 others. When TOMAS CORPUS DIED, RAMONA wed LUIS RAFAEL
YANGCO and had 4 recognized acknowledged natural children, one of them was the decedent TEORORO YANGCO
(some of the texts were in Spanish so I’m not sure if They were natural children because they were born before LUIS
RAFAEL and RAMONA were married).
-TEODORO Yangco died on April 20, 1939. His will was dated August 29, 1934 and was probated 1941. At the time of his
death, he had no forced heirs. He only had his half brother (LUIS YANGCO), half sister (PAZ YANGCO), wife of Miguel
Ossorio (AMALIA CORPUS), the children of his half brother Pablo Corpus (JOSE and RAMON) and the daughter of his
half brother Jose Corpus (JUANA/JUANITA CORPUS). Juanita died in 1944.
-Pursuant to the order of the probate court, a project of partition dated November 26, 1945 was submitted by the
administrator and the legatees named in the will. The said project was contested by the following, on the following
grounds (oppositors):
> Estate of LUIS YANGCO: intestacy should be declared because the will does not contain an institution of heir
> JUANITA Corpus, PEDRO MARTINEZ and JULIANA DE CASTO, through ATTY. CRUZ: the proposed partition
was not in conformity with the will as the testator intended that the estate should be CONSERVED and not physically
parititoned.
-Nevertheless, the project of partition was approved by the Probate court, in essence holding that the testator did not
really intend to a perpetual prohibition against alienation when he stated that some of his estate be conserved <Language
in Spanish. Sorry>
-oppositors appealed to SC but appeal dismissed after the legatees and the appellants entered into compromise
agreements wherein the legatees agreed to pay P35k to PEDRO MARTINEZ, the heirs of PIO CORPUS, the heirs of
ISABEL CORPUS, and the heir of JUANITA CORPUS – her son TOMAS CORPUS (same name as that of their lola sa
tuhod’s ex-husband). For the estate of Luis Yangco, a similar compromise agreement was entered. The dismissal of the
appeal became final and executory
-Pursuant to the compromise agreement, Tomas Corpus signed a receipt acknowledging that he received from the
Yangco estate P2k as “settlement in full of my share of the compromise agreement as per understanding with Judge
Roman Cruz, our attorney in this case”. The legatees executed an agreement for the settlement and physical partition of
the Yangco estate which was approved by the probate court in 1949. 1945 project of partition was pro tanto modifiedl.
-TOMAS CORPUS still filed action to recover JUANITA’s supposed share in Yangco’s intestate estate, alleging that the
dispositions in Yangco’s will sing perpetual prohibitions upon alienation which rendered it void under A785, OCC and that
1949 partition is invalid. The decedent’s estate should have been distributed according to the rules on intestacy.
-TC: DISMISS: Res Judicata and laches.
-directly appealed to SC
-Petitioner’s contention: trial court erred in holding (1) Teodoro Yangco was a natural child; (2) Teodoro Yangco’s will had
been duly legalized; (3) Plaintiff’s action is barred by res judicata and laches.

ISSUE:(the court deemed it unnecessary to determine if the will has been duly legalized and whether his action has
already been barred by laches)
WON JUANITA CORPUS, TOMAS CORPUS’ mom, was a legal heir of TEODORO YANGCO so that his mom would
have a cause of action to recover a supposed intestate share in the estate

HELD:NO. JUANITA CORPUS, the petitioner’s mother, was NOT A LEGAL HEIR of Yangco because there is NO
RECIPROCAL SUCCESSION between legitimate and illegitimate relatives.
Ratio. A992, NCC: An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestate from the legitimate children and relatives of his
father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the legitimate child. A992 is based
on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate family is, in
turn, hated by the legitimate cild (WAHAHAHA! TELENOVELA???). Law doesnot recognize blood tie and seeks to avoid
further grounds of resentment.
Reasoning. TEODORO YANGCO, and 3 other children, was ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL CHILD and NOT A
LEGITIMATE CHILD, of LUIS RAFAEL YANGCO and RAMONA ARGUELLES. JOSE CORPUS (LOLO OF TOMAS
CORPUS, FATHER OF JUANITA CORPUS) was the presumed legitimate child of TOMAS CORPUS and RAMONA
ARGUELLES. Therefore, TOMAS CORPUS (Petitioner) had no cause of action for the recovery of the supposed
hereditary share of his mother, JUANITA CORPUS, as legal heir in YANGCO’s estate.
-Legitimate relatives of the mother cannot succeed her illegitimate child.
-The natural child cannot represent his natural father in the succession to the estate of the legitimate grandparent.
-The natural daughter cannot succeed to the estate of her deceased uncle, a legitimate brother of her natural mother.
WHEREFORE the lower court's judgment is affirmed. No costs. SO ORDERED.

115.Manuel vs. Ferrer

DOCTRINE: When the law speaks of "brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces"  as legal heirs of an illegitimate child, it
refers to illegitimate brothers and sisters as well as to the children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of such brothers and
sisters. 

FACTS: Spouses Antonio Manuel and Beatriz Guiling are the parents of the petitioners. During their marriage, Antonio
had an illicit relationship with Ursula Bautista where he had an illegitimate child, Juan Manuel. Juan Manuel, married
Esperanza Gamba. In consideration of the marriage, a donation  propter nuptias over a parcel of land was executed by
Laurenciana Manuel (wala sa case kung sino ito). Two other parcels of land were later bought by Juan and registered in
his name. Their desire to have one impelled the spouses to take private respondent Modesta Manuel-Baltazar into their
fold and so raised her as their own "daughter".
In 1990, Juan Manuel died and two years thereafter, Esperanza died. An affidavit of self-adjudication was executed by
Modesta and the properties of Juan were transferred under the name of Modesta. Subsequently, Modesta executed in
favor of her co-respondent Estanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Renunciation and Quitclaim over the unredeemed one-half (1/2)
portion of the land that was sold to the latter by Juan Manuel under the 1980 Deed of Sale  Con Pacto de Retro.
Thereafter, petitioners sought the declaration of nullity of the aforesaid instruments.
RTC: dismissed the complaint holding that petitioners, not being heirs ab intestato of their illegitimate brother Juan
Manuel, were not the real parties-in-interest to institute the suit.

Petitioners argue that they are the legal heirs over one-half of Juan's intestate estate (while the other half would pertain to
Juan's surviving spouse) under the provision of the last paragraph of Article 994 of the Civil Code, providing thusly:

Art. 994. In default of the father or mother, an illegitimate child shall be succeeded by his or her surviving spouse,
who shall be entitled to the entire estate.

If the widow or widower should survive with brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, she or he shall inherit one-
half of the estate, and the latter the other half. (Emphasis supplied)

Respondents, in turn, submit that Article 994 should be read in conjunction with Article 992 of the Civil Code, which reads:

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 relative inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.
(Emphasis supplied)

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to one-half of the estate of Juan pursuant to Article 994?

RULING: No. The respondent correctly argued that Article 994 should be read in conjunction with Article 992.

Article 992, a basic postulate, enunciates what is so commonly referred to in the rules on succession as the "principle of
absolute separation between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family." The doctrine rejects succession  ab
intestato in the collateral line between legitimate relatives, on the one hand, and illegitimate relatives, on other hand,
although it does not totally disavow such succession in the direct line. Since the rule is predicated on the presumed will of
the decedent, it has no application, however, on testamentary dispositions.

It must be noted that under Art. 992 of the Code, there is a barrier dividing members of the illegitimate family from
members of the legitimate family. It is clear that by virtue of this barrier, the legitimate brothers and sisters as well as the
children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of such brothers and sisters, cannot inherit from the illegitimate
child. Consequently, when the law speaks of"brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces" as legal heirs of an illegitimate
child, it refers to illegitimate brothers and sisters as well as to the children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of such
brothers and sisters. 

Petitioners, not being the real "parties-in-interest"  14 in the case, had neither the standing nor the cause of action to initiate
the complaint.

Additional Notes:

- Modesta candidly admitted that she herself is not an intestate heir of Juan Manuel. She is right. A ward ( ampon),
without the benefit of formal (judicial) adoption, is neither a compulsory nor a legal heir.
- No sufficient reason to sustain the award of amounts for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and
litigation expenses. 
116. Leonardo vs. CA

FACTS: Francisca Reyes died intestate on July 12, 1942 and was survived by two 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 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal seeking 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. Answering the complaint, 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. For his part, the other defendant, private respondent James Bracewell, claimed that said properties are
now his by virtue of a valid and legal deed of sale which Maria Cailles had subsequently executed in his favor. These
properties were allegedly mortgaged to respondent Rural Bank of Paranaque, Inc. sometime in September 1963.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, as the great grandson of Francisca Reyes, has legal right to inherit by representation.
RULING:No. 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. (Article 992, Civil Code of the Philippines.)

117. Diaz vs IAC 150 scra 645(1987 case)

DOCTRINE:This case illustrates the harsh effects of Article 992. As will be noted, the legitimate collateral relative of the
intestate was preferred over the illegitimate descendants. There was noshowing that between the grandmother and her
illegitimate grandchildren, there was animosity. It must likewise be noted that the deceased grandmother did not have any
other descendants other than the illegitimate children who were excluded from her inheritance.

FACTS:The case is a review of the decision declaring Felisa Pamuti-Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir to the intestate
estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero. The present controversy is confined solely to the intestate estate of
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.

1.Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who together with Felisa's mother Juliana were the
only legitimate children of the spouses Felipe Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion.
 
2. Juliana married Simon Jardin and out of their union were born Felisa Pamuti and another child who died during infancy
 
3.Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow of Pascual Santero and the mother of Pablo Santero
 
4.Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his parents Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero
 
5.Pascual Santero died in 1970; Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in 1976
 
6.Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona Santero and his six minor natural children to
wit: four minor children with Anselma Diaz and two minor children with Felixberta Pacursa.
 
ISSUE:Whether petitioners as illegitimate children of Pablo Santero could inherit from Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, by
right of representation of their father Pablo Santero who is a legitimate child of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.

HELD: No The right of representation is not available to illegitimate descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of
a legitimate grandparent. Articles 902, 989, and 990 clearly speak of successional rights of  illegitimate children, which
rights are transmitted to their descendants upon their death. The descendants (of these illegitimate children) who may
inherit by virtue of the right of representation may be legitimate or illegitimate. In whatever manner, one should not
overlook the fact that the persons to be represented are themselves illegitimate. The rules laid down in Article 982 that
'grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of representation and in Article 902 that the rights of illegitimate
children ... are transmitted upon their death to their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate are subject to the
limitation prescribed by Article 992 to the end that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestate from the
legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother."

"Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestate
between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said illegitimate child.
They may have a natural tie of  blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purpose of Article 992. Between the
legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The
illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; and the family is in turn, hated by the
illegitimate child; the latter considers the privileged condition of the former, and the resources of which it is thereby
deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a  blemish
broken in life; the law does no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further ground of resentment."

While the New Civil Code may have granted successional rights to illegitimate children, those articles, however, in
conjunction with Article 992, prohibit the right of representation from being exercised where the person to be represented
is a legitimate child. Needless to say, the determining factor is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the person to be
represented. If the person to be represented is an illegitimate child, then his descendants, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, may represent him; however, if the person to be represented is legitimate, his illegitimate descendants cannot
represent him because the law provides that only his legitimate descendants may exercise the right of representation by
reason of the barrier imposed Article 992.it is therefore clear from Article 992 of the New Civil Code that the phrase
"legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother" includes Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero as the word "relative" is
broad enough to comprehend all the kindred of the person spoken of. In the case at bar, the only parties who claimed to
be the legitimate heirs of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. De Santero are Felisa Pamuti Jardin and the six minor natural or
illegitimate children of Pablo Santero. Since petitioners herein are barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent
Intermediate Appellate Court did not commit any error in holding Felisa Pamuti Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir to the
intestate estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
The Court view that the word "relatives" should be construed in its general acceptation.
According to Prof. Balane, to interpret the term relatives in Article 992 in a more restrictive sense than it is used and
intended is not warranted by any rule of interpretation. Besides, he further states that when the law intends to use the
term in a more restrictive sense, it qualifies the term with the word collateral, as in Articles 1003 and 1009 of the New Civil
Code. Thus, the word "relatives" is a general term and when used in a statute it embraces not only collateral relatives but
also all the kindred of the person spoken of, unless the context indicates that it was used in a more restrictive or limited
sense.

(2nd case) Diaz vs IAc (1990 case)

Diaz vs IAC (1990)

Facts:
Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who together with Felisa's mother Juliana were the
only legitimate children of the spouses Felipe Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion; that Juliana married Simon Jardin and out
of their union were born Felisa Pamuti and another child who died during infancy; that Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is
the widow of Pascual Santero and the mother of Pablo Santero; that Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his
parents Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero; that Pascual Santero died in 1970; Pablo Santero in 1973
and Simona Santero in 1976; that Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona Santero and
his six minor natural children to wit: four minor children with Anselma Diaz and two minor children with Felixberta Pacursa.
Issue: who are the legal heirs of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero — her niece Felisa Pamuti-Jardin or her grandchildren
(the natural children of Pablo Santero)?
Ruling:
Petitioners claim that the amendment of Articles 941 and 943 of the old Civil Code (Civil Code of Spain) by Articles 990
and 992 of the new Civil Code (Civil Code of the Philippines) constitute a substantial and not merely a formal change,
which grants illegitimate children certain successional rights. A careful evaluation of the New Civil Code provisions,
especially Articles 902, 982, 989, and 990, claimed by petitioners to have conferred illegitimate children the right to
represent their parents in the inheritance of their legitimate grandparents, would in point of fact reveal that such right to
this time does not exist.
Article 982 is inapplicable to instant case because Article 992 prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the
illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother. It may not be amiss to state that Article
982 is the general rule and Article 992 the exception. Articles 902, 989, and 990 clearly speak of successional rights
of illegitimate children, which rights are transmitted to their descendants upon their death. The descendants (of these
illegitimate children) who may inherit by virtue of the right of representation may be legitimate or illegitimate. In whatever
manner, one should not overlook the fact that the persons to be represented are themselves  illegitimate.
Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession  ab
intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said illegitimate
child. They may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the purpose of Article 992. Between the
legitimate family and the illegitimate family there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The
illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; and the family is in turn, hated by the
illegitimate child; the latter considers the privileged condition of the former, and the resources of which it is thereby
deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish
broken in life; the law does no more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further ground of resentment.
It is therefore clear from Article 992 of the New Civil Code that the phrase "legitimate children and relatives of his father or
mother" includes Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero as the word "relative" is broad enough to comprehend all the kindred of
the person spoken of. (Comment, p. 139 Rollo citing p. 2862 Bouvier's Law Dictionary vol. 11, Third Revision, Eight
Edition) The record reveals that from the commencement of this case the only parties who claimed to be the legitimate
heirs of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero are Felisa Pamuti Jardin and the six minor natural or illegitimate children
of Pablo Santero. Since petitioners herein are barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent Intermediate
Appellate Court did not commit any error in holding Felisa Pamuti Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir to the intestate
estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
The word "relatives" is a general term and when used in a statute it embraces not only collateral relatives but also all the
kindred of the person spoken of, unless the context indicates that it was used in a more restrictive or limited sense —
which as already discussed earlier, is not so in the case at bar.
In the light of the foregoing, We conclude that until Article 992 is suppressed or at least amended to clarify the term
"relatives" there is no other alternative but to apply the law literally. Thus, We hereby reiterate the decision of June 17,
1987 and declare Felisa Pamuti-Jardin to be the sole heir to the intestate estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero, to the exclusion of petitioners.