Blas v Santos, 1 SCRA 899 (1961)

A document signed by the testator's wife, promising that she would respect and obey all the dispositions
in the latter's will, and that she would hold one-half of her share in the conjugal assets in trust for the heirs
and legatees of her husband in his will, with the obligation of conveying the same to such of his heirs or
legatees as she might choose in her last will and testament, is a compromise and at the same time a
contract with sufficient cause or consideration.

We do not think that Exhibit "A" is a contract on future inheritance. It is an obligation or promise made by
the maker to transmit one-half of her share in the conjugal properties acquired with her husband, which
properties are stated or declared to be conjugal properties in the will of the husband. The conjugal
properties were in existence at the time of the execution of Exhibit "A".

Tanedo v CA, 252 SCRA 80 (1996)

In context, the assailed Decision conceded “it may be legally correct that a contract of sale of anticipated
future inheritance is null and void.” But to remove all doubts, we hereby categorically rule that, pursuant to
Article 1347 of the Civil Code, “(n)o contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in
cases expressly authorized by law.” Consequently, said contract made in 1962 is not valid and cannot be
the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation between the parties.

(v) Cause, NCC 1350 – 1355

Liguez v CA, 102 Phil 577 (1957)

Under Article 1274, of the Civil Code of 1889, liberality of the donor is deemed causa only in those
contracts that are of "pure" beneficence; that is to say, contracts designed solely and exclusively to
procure the welfare of the beneficiary, without any intent of producing any satisfaction for the donor;
contracts, in other words, in which the idea of self-interest is totally absent on the part of the transferor.
For this very reason, the same Article 1274 provides that in remuneratory contracts, the consideration is
the service or benefit for which the remuneration is given; causa is not liberality in these cases because
the contract or conveyance is not made out of