Succession Cases 1

I. General provisions (Art. 774-780)

a. Definition/ What is transmitted (Arts 774, 776, 781)

b. Succession occurs at the moment of death Art. 777

c. Kinds of Successors - Heirs, Devisees, Legatees- Art 782 

d. Kinds of Succession  Art 778

Estate of K.H. Hemady vs. Luzon Surety

FACTS:

• The Luzon Surety Co. had filed a claim against the Estate based on twenty different indemnity
agreements, or counter bonds, each subscribed by a distinct principal and by the deceased K.
H. Hemady, a surety solidary guarantor.

[in all of them, in consideration of the Luzon Surety Co.’s of having guaranteed, the various principals in
favor of different creditors.]

• The Luzon Surety Co.:

1. Prayed for allowance, as a contingent claim, of the value of the twenty bonds it had executed in
consideration of the counterbonds, and 

2. Asked for judgment for the unpaid premiums and documentary stamps affixed to the bonds, with 12
per cent interest

ISSUE: W/N Luzon Surety can file against the Estate of Hemady a contingent claim for reimbursement?
– YES. Transmissible to the heirs

RULING:

• Under the present Civil Code (Article 1311), as well as under the Civil Code of 1889 (Article 1257), the
rule is that —

“Contracts take effect only as between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in the case where the
rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or
by provision of law.”

• In our successional system, the responsibility of the heirs for the debts of their decedent cannot
exceed the value of the inheritance they receive from him.
Succession Cases 1

- The principle is that these heirs succeed not only to the rights of the deceased but also to his
obligations. 

• Articles 774 and 776 of the New Civil Code expressly so provide, thereby confirming Article 1311:

“ART. 774. — Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations
to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or
others either by his will or by operation of law.”

“ART. 776. — The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not
extinguished by his death.”

• The principle in the New Civil Code of Procedure also provides that:

“The heirs of a deceased person cannot be held to be “third persons” in relation to any contracts
touching the real estate of their decedent which comes in to their hands by right of inheritance; they
take such property subject to all the obligations resting thereon in the hands of him from whom they
derive their rights.”

• The general rule is that a party’s contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors. 

- The rule is a consequence of the progressive “depersonalization” of patrimonial rights and duties.

• The contracts of suretyship entered into by K. H.  Hemady in favor of Luzon Surety Co. not being
rendered intransmissible due to the:

1. Nature of the undertaking,  

2. Nor by the stipulations of the contracts themselves,  

3. Nor by provision of law

• Hemady’s eventual liability necessarily passed upon his death to his heirs.  

• Thus, the contracts give rise to contingent claims provable against his estate [Section 5, Rule 87]

• The most common example of the contigent claim:

- When a person is bound as surety or guarantor for a principal who is insolvent or dead. 
Succession Cases 1

- Ordinary contract of suretyship: Surety has no claim whatever against his principal until he himself pays
something by way of satisfaction upon the obligation which is secured. 

> When he does this, there instantly arises in favor of the surety the right to compel the principal to
exonerate the surety. 

> But until the surety has contributed something to the payment of the debt, or has performed the
secured obligation in whole or in part, he has no right of action against anybody — no claim that could
be reduced to judgment. 

• For Defendant administratrix, it averred that the doctrine refers to a case where the surety files claims
against the estate of the principal debtor

• What the Luzon Surety Co. may claim from the estate of a principal debtor it may equally claim from
the estate of Hemady, since, in view of the existing solidarity, the latter does not even enjoy the benefit
of exhaustion of the assets of the principal debtor.

Conclusion:

• The solidary guarantor’s liability is not extinguished by his death

• Luzon Surety Co., had the right to file against the estate a contingent claim for reimbursement. 

• It becomes unnecessary now to discuss the estate’s liability for premiums and stamp taxes, because
irrespective of the solution to this question, the Luzon Surety’s claim did state a cause of action, and its
dismissal was erroneous.

II. Legitime -(Art. 886-914)

1. Definition-Art. 886
2. Compulsory Heirs and Various Combinations-(Art 887-903)
Baritua Vs. CA

Facts:

In the evening of November 7, 1979, the tricycle then being driven by Bienvenido Nacario along
the national highway at Barangay San Cayetano, in Baao, Camarines Sur, figured in an accident
with JB Bus No. 80 driven by petitioner Edgar Bitancor and owned and operated by petitioner
Jose Baritua. 3 As a result of that accident Bienvenido and his passenger died 4 and the tricycle
was damaged. 
Succession Cases 1

Subsequently, on March 27, 1980, as a consequence of the extra-judicial settlement of the

matter negotiated by the petitioners and the bus insurer — Philippine First Insurance Company,
Incorporated (PFICI for brevity) — Bienvenido Nacario's widow, Alicia Baracena Vda. de Nacario,
received P18,500.00. In consideration of the amount she received, Alicia executed on March 27,
1980 a "Release of Claim" in favor of the petitioners and PFICI, releasing and forever discharging
them from all actions, claims, and demands arising from the accident which resulted in her
husband's death and the damage to the tricycle which the deceased was then driving. Alicia
likewise executed an affidavit of desistance in which she formally manifested her lack of interest
in instituting any case, either civil or criminal, against the petitioners. 7

On September 2, 1981, or about one year and ten months from the date of the accident on
November 7, 1979, the private respondents, who are the parents of Bienvenido Nacario, filed a
complaint for damages against the petitioners with the then Court of First Instance
Issue: WoN are the parents of the deceased are entitled to the legitime despite the widow and
child of the deceased being still alive?

Held: No, they can only get the legitime if the widow and child of the deceased is dead.

Art 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been
constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.
Certainly there can be no question that Alicia and her son with the deceased are the successors
in interest referred to in law as the persons authorized to receive payment. The Civil Code
states:
Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants with respect to their legitimate
children and decendants;
3. The widow or widower;
4. Acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction;
5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2.
Neither do they exclude one another. (Emphasis ours.) 
Article 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased, his parents and
ascendants shall inherit from him, to the exclusion of collateral relatives.
(Emphasis ours.)
It is patently clear that the parents of the deceased succeed only when the latter dies without a
legitimate descendant. On the other hand, the surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs.
As it has been established that Bienvenido was married to Alicia and that they begot a child, the
private respondents are not successors-in-interest of Bienvenido; they are not compulsory heirs.
The petitioners therefore acted correctly in settling their obligation with Alicia as the widow of
Succession Cases 1

Bienvenido and as the natural guardian of their lone child. This is so even if Alicia had been
estranged from Bienvenido. Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the disqualification of a
surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse.

Inteste Estate of Pedro Santillon: Santillon vs. Miranda

Facts:

Pedro Santillon died intestate and the principal parties of his estate are his only son Claro
Santillon and his wife Perfecta Miranda.

Four years after his death Claro petitioned for letters of administration but was opposed by the
widow Perfecta on the grounds that the properties were conjugal, that she conveyed ¾ of her
undivided share to spouses Benito and Rosario, that the administration of the estate was not
necessary due to a pending case for partition of the property and she be the one better qualified
as administrator.

Claro motioned to declare the share of heirs where he invokes that Art. 892 of
the New Civil Code where after deducting ½ from the conjugal property for Perfecta’s share, the
remaining ½ must be ¼ for her (widow) and ¾ for him (only child). Perfecta, on the other hand,
claimed that under Art. 996 she is entitled to ½ of the estate after her conjugal property.
Issue:
Whether or not a surviving spouse concurring with a legitimate child is entitled to ½ of the
intestate estate?
Held:
Yes. Art 892 falls under the chapter on Testamentary Succession while Art 996 comes under
the chapter on Legal or Intestate Succession. It is obvious that Claro cannot rely on Art 892
because it merely fixes the legitime of the surviving spouse and Art 888 the legitime of children
in testate succession, it does not fix the amount of the shares that such child and spouse are
entitled to when intestacy occurs.

Testate Estate of Amos Bellis: Bellis, et al. vs. Edward A. Bellis

FACTS:

Amos Bellis was a citizen of the state of Texas of the United States. In his first wife whom he
divorced, he had five legitimate children; by his second wife, who survived him, he had three
legitimate children. Before he died, he made two wills, one disposing of his Texas properties and
the other disposing his Philippine Properties. In both wills, his illegitimate children were not
given anything. The illegitimate children opposed the will on the ground that they have been
deprived of their legitimes to which they should be entitled if Philippine law were to apply.
Succession Cases 1

ISSUE:

Whether or not the national law of the deceased should determine the sucessional rights of the
illegitimate children.

HELD:
Yes, texas law applies.

The Supreme Court held that the said children are not entitled to their legitimes. Under the
Texas Law, being the national law of the deceased, there are no legitimes. Further, even if the
deceased had given them share, such would be invalid because the law governing the deceased
does not allow such.

III. Testamentary Succession

1. In General
a. Definition and Characteristics- (Art 783-787)
(1) Personal Act; Non-delegability of will-making Art 784-785, 787 exception-786
(2) Rules of Construction and Interpretation/ Law
(3) Governing Formal Validity-(Art. 788-795)

2. Testamentary Capacity and Intent- Art 796- 803

a. Age Requirement-Art.797
b. Soundness of Mind; Presumptions-Arts. 798-801