IN RE HONINGMAN
sig of testatrix
- Frank was married to his wife Florence since 1916
- He had substantial wealth and also a restaurant empire
- He became very suspicious of his wife and made it seem to
his friends that he was cheating on her
- He eventually died in 1954 and he left a will giving 5k to his
grandnieces half of the estate to siblings CUT OFF THE
WIFE
- Wife objected and stated he was crazy AF to prove this he
blames a certain Mr. Kraus and that when he confronted
her she wanted a divorce
W/N he had reason to believe that his wife was a hoe? NO
- The test to apply is that if he believes and conducts himself
based on that belief and under a morbid delusion
- When an objectant come forward with evidence reflecting
the operation of the testators mind it is the duty of the
estate to provide basis for the alleged delusion.
- Actually her evidence should have been excluded but it
was allowed because the proponent or the estate failed to
object to such evidence.
- NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOPEZ VS LIBORO
- Liboro here contests the will of Don Sixto Lopez who died
at the age of 83
- He specified grounds for his opposition
o Lopez did not make it
o Signature was forged
o No mental capacity
o Signature was by fraud or trick
- This will was written in 2 papers and that there was no
letters or Arabic numerals
- He contends that the testator did not know the language
used, no sig only thumbmark contrdictions of testimonies.
W/N will is valid? YES
- The understanding of the language used need not be in
the will itself, this may be proved by proof aliunde.
- First page need not be numbered
TABODA VS JUDGE ROSAL
- This is a pettion to probate a 2 page will of Dorotea Perez.
- 1st page has the dispositions, and is signed at the bottom
by the testatrix alone and at the left margin by witnesses.
- 2nd page has the attestation clause signed in the end by
Testatrix and in the left margin by witnesses
- Timkang said its legit
- RTC DENIED PROBATE
- Judge Rosal (New) Denied it as well
W/N 805 requires that the testatrix and all 3 peeps sign at the end
of the will in all their presence. NO
- Judge Rosal: All 3 must sign at the end KASE to verify will +
- Taboada: Claims that it is bot absolute that all sig sould be
placed at the end, Legis is not that anal to make this
absolute
- The law uses attested and sub, to attest is to witness the
will being done in accordance w law
- Subs is for Identification by signing
- ITC: Fullfilled b/c sig on the instrument on left margin of
1st page already attested legit sig of testator and due
execution.
- Law should be liberally construed to allow testator to have
more freedpm w last wishes BUT w/ enough safegurads to
guard against fraud.
- The witnesses signed on the page which has the
dispositions already and was validated by Timkang. So no
fraud or substitution
- No fatal defect in not stating num of page since its only 2
pages, Law should not be so strict to penalize the testator
in making of his last wishes.
CAGRO VS CAGRO
- This is an appeal of the decision of the CFI samar of the
probate of the will of Vincent
- Object that will is fatally defective
- B/c Attestation is not signed by the attesting witness sig is
not at the bottom but is on the left margin
W/N will is fatally defective? YES
- Attestation is the memorandum of the facts in the
execution of the will and it must bear the sig of the
attesting witnesses
- The unsigned clause is not acot of witness b/c, w/o their
sig negatives their participation.
- This is fatal b/c the signing at the bottom will help prevent
fraud b/c if deemed suff, it will be easy to add a clause
later on in the absence of all the witnesses.
- DISSENT: B/c the will in question is already obviated by the
uncontradicted testimony if said witness that the attestion
was already written in the will when it was signed
ABANGAN VS ABANGAN
- The will of ana is only 2 pages. The 1st has the dispositions
of the testatrix signed at the bottom by Martin (Signed in
Substitution of Ana) + 3 witnesses
- 2nd page has the attestation signed at the bottom by the
instrumental witnesses.
- NONE of the pages were signed on the left margin by the
testatrix and by the instrumental witnesses. Nor was it
numbered in letters
W/N the defects should lead to the denial of the probate? NO
 - To req that each page of the will must be numbered
correlatively on the upper part is to know is sheet has
been removed.
- BUT if all the dispositions are written on one page only the
fear of removal of a page is obviated because if it is
removed this cannot be hidden.
- This is also applicable to the attestation clause SC said that
the one ITC which is signed and the 3 witnesses on the lft
margin and the numbering are not formalities required by
statute. (1919 case ito ah)
- SC also adds that the sig of the testator not necessary on
the attest page b/c he executes and does not attest.
- The SC holds that a will of 2 pages, the 1st contains the
disposition, and is signed at the bottom by wit+testator
and the second is signed by 3 witnesses, no need na for sig
on margins by the testator+WITNESSES OR BE PAGED.
Enriquez vs Abadia
- Father Sancho made a will and is marked as Exhibit A.
Legatees filled petition to probate the will, cousins and
nephews opposed the will.
- The attesting witnesses said: will was witten in Spanish,
signed on the left of front page of each of the 3 folios, it
was numbered (Arabic Numerals) and signed name on the
last page
- This was done in the presence of 3 attesting witnesses who
signed such on the last page after the attestation clause in
the presence of Sancho and of each other
- TC: Said this is a holographic will, it was in his handwriting
and at the time these was prohibited. BUT still admitted
b/c NCC was already in effect + used the liberal view
W/N TC erred I admitting will to probate? YES
- The NCC provides that a hologrpaoc will which must be
written, dated and signed by the testator himself and need
not be witnessed.
- At the time Abadia died holograpc will was not yet
permitted and required that numbering in letters not
Arabic shit
- Thus, not complied with. b/c back pages were not signed
by the testator amd not numbered.
- Failure of testator to sign on the left-hand margin of each
page vitiates the will.
- In art 795: the validity of a will should depend upon the
law at the time the will was made.
- The law is not at the time that the testator died but it is at
the time he made or executed the will.
- Thus if he dies with an invalidated will then he assumed to
have died intestate na.
Icasiano vs Icasiano
- Icasiaono petitoon and allowance o probate the will of
Josefa Villacorte and to appoint him as the executor
thereof.
- Sons and Daughter of the testatrix filed an opposition
- Celso presented his evid on Mr 19, then lter in June said
Villacorte left a will In duplicate that has all the legal
reuirements. He found this on May 26. Again was opposed
but later was admitted into probate.
- Oppositors Natividad and Enrique show evid that the
signatures on the will were not legit, nor that they were
affixed on the same occasion
- There was claim of undue influence that the testatrix was
deceived to make people benefit.
- stand to profit from properties held by them as attorneys-
in-fact of the deceased and not enumerated or mentioned
therein, while oppositors-appellants are enjoined not to
look for other properties not mentioned in the will, and
not to oppose the probate of it, on penalty of forfeiting
their share in the portion of free disposal.
- Supposedly there was also the ORIGINAL WILL lacked the
signature of one of the witnesess.
W/N failure of one witness to affix a signature on one page due to
lifting of 2 pages can amount to denial in probate? NO
- The fact that some heirs are more favored than others is
proof of neither
- Diversity of apportionment is the usual reason for making
a testament; otherwise, the decedent might as well die
intestate.
- The testamentary disposition that the heirs should not
inquire into other property and that they should respect
the distribution made in the will, under penalty of
forfeiture of their shares in the free part, do not suffice to
prove fraud or undue influence.
- fraud and undue influence are mutually repugnant and
exclude each other; their joining as grounds for opposing
probate shows absence of denite evidence against the
validity of the will.
- inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to
one page of a testament, due to the simultaneous lifting of
two pages in the course of signing, is not per se sufficient
to justify denial of probate
- Imbossiblty of substitution is cured by the fact the testatrix
and the 2 other witnesses did sign the defective page
- It also has an imprint of a notary public
- The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted
as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence
of a single witness over whose conduct she had no control,
where the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of
the testament and its component pages is sufficiently
attained, no intentional or deliberate deviation existed,
and the evidence on record attests to the full observance
of the statutory requisites.
- Court has held that a testament, with the only page signed
at its foot by testator and witnesses, but not in the left
margin, could nevertheless be probated and that despite
the requirement for the correlative lettering of the pages
of a will, the failure to mark the first page either by letters
or numbers is not a fatal defect
- The duplicate did not differ from the first one because no
new interests were invlovled.

GABUCAN VS MANTA
CRUZ VS VILLASOR
- CFI cebu allowed probate of the will of Valente Cruz
- The wife opposed the allowance of the will b/c of fraud
and deceit b/c the testator was not made aware of the
contents of the will
- The 3 wittnesses is also at the same time the notary that
also acknowledged the will
- Agrapita argued that the rule of 3 instrumental witnesses
the 3rd witness cant be the notary himself and thus only 2
witnesses that attested and subscribed the will
- But Lugay claims that said there is substantial compliance.
W/N will is valid? NO
- SC held that the notary public who ack the will cannot be
an instrumental witness b/c he cannot ack before himself.
- He cant split his personality into 2 that he signed the will
in front of himself
- The role of a notary public is to guard against illegal or
immoral arrangement, this would be defeated if the notary
himself is one of the witnesses
- To allow the notary public to act as one of the witnesses or
one of the attesting and acknowlding witness will only give
effect of only 2 witnesses which is in contravention of art
805
GARCIA VS GATCHALIAN
- Garcia is appealing the decision of CFI RIZAL when they
denied the allowance of the will of Gatchalian on the
ground that it was not acknowledged before a notary
- Gatchalian died w/o forced heirs, Garcia was made the
sole heir in exh C thw will. Gatchalian et al opposed the
will b/c of supposed fraud. And mental incap and that this
was not the intention to make his wil.
- Also this was not acknowledge before a Notary public.
W/N will is valid?
- An examination of the document shows that the same was
acknowlged by the notary by the testator himself and not
by the instrumental witnesses.
- The SC as held that compliance with article 806 is that it is
acknowledged before the notary by testator + the 3
instrumental parties is INDESPENSIBLE FOR THE VALIDITY
- Gabucan left a will in the CFI of camiguin but the probate
was dismissed because the doc stamp was not affixed to
the notarial ack of the woll and thus it is not admissible in
evid
- Citing the Tax code: The will which is not duly stamped
shall not be recorded or to be used or admitted in court
until the stamps have been affixed thereto and cancelled.
And also provides that no Notary can add their ack or Jurat
unless the proper doc stamps are affixed thereto and
cancelled.
W/N dismissal of the probate is proper? No
- Probate court should’ve just require the pet to fix the
requiste 30 cent doc stamp to the notarial ack of the will
which is the taxable portion of the doc.
- It was also held that the doc stamp may be affixed at the
time the taxable doc is presented in evidence.
- Court should have allowed the plaintiffs tender of a stamp
to supply the deficiency
- GR: Lack of doc stamp does not invalidate the doc
__________________________________________
Echavez V. Dozen Construction
- Echavez owns lots in Ceby then DONTATED mortis causa to
Manuel. This was accepted Manuel.
- Vincent later executed contract to sell in favor of Dozen.
- DIED then the nephew filed a pet for settlement of the
intestate, then manuel filed a pet to approve the donation.
And to annul the contracts of sale to DOZEN
- RTC DENIED: Con to sell is act of revocation of the
donation.
- CA affirmed the RTC by saying that the deed of donation
did not contain an attestation clause and therefore VOID.
- Manuel claimed subs complaiance. CA also ignored the
ACK portion of the deed of donation which contains the
import and purpose of the attestation clause: “ The deed
of donation was executed before the notary public and in
the presence of the 3 witnesses who signed in each other
presence.
W/N Will is valid?
- The purported acknowledgement portion does not
contain the number of pages in which the deed was
written.
- The ack embodies the attestation clause cannot be
merged in one statement.
- Requirement of acknodlgement and attestation are in 2
diff prov of law indicated 2 diff purposes
- ACK: declaring before a competent officer or court that the
deed or act is his own
 - ATT: Act of instru witnesses themswlves the execution of
the instrument was done before them
- In the absence of the required avowal by the witnesses
themselves, no attestation clause can be deemed
embodied in the Acknowledgement of the Deed of
Donation Mortis Causa.
Garcia vs Vasquez (Read silently while blind)
- Gilceria died with no issue and unmarried.
- The niece Consuelo the NIECE admitted to probate the
purported last will that was made in 1960 and also wanted
to be the administrator
- This will was opposed by several heirs and they alleged
that the formalities on art 808 were not complied with
- The 3 witnesses were asked by the husband of the niece to
witness the execution of the will and that Gilceria was of
sound mind. IT WAS SILENTLY READ BY THE TESTATRIX
HERSELF
- Then it was signed by them in each other presence and of
a notary public.
- CFI ADMITTED, Oppositors claim that her eyesight was so
poor that she cant read the will.
W/N the testatrix falls in blind in article 808.
- The testimony of the optamologist FULLY ESTABLISHED
that with the removal of the cataract in the left eye she
can only see very distant objects, with no evid that her
sight improved
- The will apparently crammed so many words into a single
sheet of paper and had no regard for the testatrix vision.
- She is blind for the purpose of 808
- The purpose of 808 is to read to the testarot who is blind
and to make the provisons know to him so he can object
if not in accordance with his wishes.
- That it is truly reflective of his desire.
Avalado vs Gavilola
- Brigido executed a notarial will Huling Habilin which
disinherited an illegitimate son Cesar this will is awaiting
probate in laguna
- Rino said that he was present when the will was executed
w/ the 3 witnesses and the testator did not read the will
himself b/c of glaucoma
- The lawyer who drafted the 8 page will read the same
aloud for the testator infront of the wit and the notary
- Then a cocidil was executed changing some of the
dispositions to generate cash for the eye operation and
was read to him in the same manner previously done
W/N testarot is blind in the sense of 808? YES
- Although there should be strict compliance with the
substantial requirements of the law to insure the
authenticity of the will formal imperfections should be put
aside that it may only defeat the testators wishes
- He was not totally blind
- But he can be considerd blind for the purposes of art 808
- There is subs comlpliance when the purpose of the law has
been satisfied by making the provisons know to him to be
able to object or affirm the will
- Rino read the will and cocidil lous the testator when asked
affirmed the will then after such acknoldgement of the will
was in the accord of the testator only then did he sign the
will
- No evid that that its contents were not suff communicated
to the testator
- W/ 4 peeps known to the testator following the will
verbatim it can be safely concluded that those were the
words that were actually appearing on the documents
SEBASTIAN VS PANGANIBAN
- CFI Bulacan deinied probate of the will of Pedro b/c it is
fatally defective
- Attestation originally in tagalog then trans into filipino
- Signed by the testator at the foot and at all the margind
we also signed at the bottom in the presence of pedro and
Jacob and WE saw he he was in his right mind.
- TC said the attestation failed to state that the testatrix
signed each page in the presence of the witnesses, Neither
does it state that 3 wit signed at the bottom or on all the
pages in the presence of each other
- The witness said that a more liberal translation could’ve
been adopted
W/N will is valid?
- While the precision of the language on drafting an
attestation is desireable but it is suff if from the language
employed it can be reasonably be deduced that attestation
fullfills reqs of the law.
- The words WE have signed the same and ech and every
page thereof, the word we includes that of the testatrix
and of the attesting witness
- The court here exercised the doctrine of reasonableness
and intention
GIL VS MURICIANO
- Will of carlos Gil was presented for probate, the nephew
Robert and the sister pilar opposed the will.
- Toledo was terminated from the case because of no right
to intervene.
- The records were destroyed in 1945 which would need
reconstitution after the liberation
 - During the reconstitution a statement of facts were - While the clause states that testator signed the will amd all
submitted and agreed that the record on appeal in GR its pages in pres of the wit does not expre3ssley state that
L254 is true and correct copy thr wit subscribed their sig in pres of the testarot and of
- CFI admitted the will into probate \, oppositor contend each other what is lacking is the statement that the
that will is invalis b/c ATTESTATION did not state that the witnesses signed the will and every page in each others
testator signed the will and it only declared that it wa presence
signed by the witnesess. - This is a fatal defct and must reslt in the disallowance of
the will
W/N the will is valid? MR SAID YES - In art 809 the defects should must only be with respect to
- The original decision said that it is not valid b/c for not the form. These considerations in 809 cannot be made to
stating that the testator signed the will without it there is apply when the attestation omits the fact that the
no will at all attesting witnesses signed each page in presence of each
- Correction by inference cannot be made. other.
- Rules of stat con are applicable to wills but only body not - ITC there is a total lack of one of the specific elements of
attest clause. art 805 this is not just a defect as to language and form but
- MR ALLOWED THE WILL anintgral part of the will.
o Han sido firmadas por el testador
o or equivalent should be inserted if the
attestation clause is to be complete
o The missing phrase was missing from the copy
b/c the form of the will was not in the
controversy of Toledo’s appeal. Since the form of
the will was not material to the case in can easily
be said that no actual care was put into
transcribing the will
o Absense of the sig of test on the 1st page is proof
of no effort for accuracy.
o Atty is the one who drafted the will and is
assumed to know the law.
o The counsel would not have subscribed to such
doc if there is a missing sen.
o SC saw no legit reason to objecting to the
testator instead of the witnesses certifying that
he signed the will in the presence of each other.

CANEDA VS CA

- Caballero a widower has no kids and made a last will and

testament in front of 3 witnesses, Cipriano gregorio and
flaviano. Testator was duly assisted by his lawyer and a
notary public
- He was gonna leave prop to several devicees and legatee
to people who appear not to be related at all to the
testator.
- Oppositors objected to the allowance if the will that on the
execution of the will the testator was in a poor state of
health and also object the authenticity of the sig.
- Witness said that he executed the will In his presence and
also that of an attorney. And he was of sound mind at the
time. And attested and signed in each others presence.
- Another complaint was that it was that the attestation fails
to state speifially that witness saw testator sign the will.

W/N attestation clause in the will is fatally defective or can be

cured under art 809?

- Attestation is a separate memorandum of the facts

surrounding the will and once signed it give affirmation to
the fact that there is compliance eith the essential reqs of
law

AZAOLA VS SINGSON.
- Fortunata died and then Francisco tried to have the
holographic will of fortunate admitted to probate
- This will states that Maria was the sole heir as against the
nephew of fortunata Cesario
- Francisco testified that he saw the will about one month or
less b4 the death of fortunate
- He recognizes all the signatures contained in the will he
also recognizes all the handwriting in the will as the one of
the testatrix
- He presented several documents to show this
- Opposed b/c it allegedly violated the 3 witness rule in art
811
W/N PROPONENT MUST PRESENT 3 WIT? NO
- Since the authenticyt of the will was not being contested
he was not req to presnt more than 1 witness, but the
court held that the interpretation of the law cannot be
interpreted to require the 3 wit rule
- This rule should not be so stringent that it can lead to the
denial of the probate b/c there may be a situation that
there would be not witnesses available to the court.
- It becomes obvious that the exsistence of witness
possessing the qualifications is a matter beyond the
control of the proponent
CODOY VS CAGULAY
- Proponents devisees and the legatees of thw will of
Ramonal filed for a petition for probate of the deceased
who died in 1990
- Codoy and Ramonal contested thw will stating that it was
a forgery and also illegible, The oppenents argue that the
repeated dates appearing on the dispostions are not
ordinary and that if the testator was not forced to do so
the dates would appear at the bottom of the sig
- Propents of the will presented 6 wit and doc evid then
opponents filed demurrer
- RTC denied probate
- CA admitted will in probate
W/N 3 wit rule is mandatory for probate of contested will?
- The word “shall” connotes a mandatory order. We have
ruled that “shall” in a statute commonly denotes an
imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of
discretion and that the presumption is that the word
“shall,” when used in a statute is mandatory
- From the testimonies of the witnesses, the Court of
Appeals allowed the will to probate and disregarded the
requirement of three witnesses in case of contested
holographic will, citing the decision in Azaola v. Singson,
ruling that the requirement is merely directory and not
mandatory
- We cannot eliminate the possibility of a false document
being adjudged as the will of the testator, which is why if
the holographic will is contested, that law requires three
witnesses to declare that the will was in the handwriting of
the deceased
- Will was not found in the personal belonings of the
testator but was found with Binanay and was w/ her 5 yrs
b4 death
- There was no opportunity for an expert to compare the
signature and the handwriting of the deceased with other
documents signed and executed by her during her lifetime.
- Even the former lawyer of the deceased expressed doubts
as to the authenticity of the signature in the holographic
will
- A visual examination of the holographic will convince us
that the strokes are different when compared with other
documents written by the testator. The signature of the
testator in some of the disposition is not readable.
- strokes are different. In the letters, there are continuous fl
ows of the strokes, evidencing that there is no hesitation in
writing unlike that of the holographic will. We, therefore,
cannot be certain that the holographic will was in the
handwriting by the deceased
KALAW VS RELOVA
- Gregorio kalaw is claiming to be the sole hir of his sister
and filed a petition in the CFI for the probate of
holographic will
- The will first written lists another sibling as the sole heir
hence that sibling opposed the probate claims that there
were alterations corrections and insertions w/o proper
authentication and that the first eill originally written must
be the one admitted to probate
- Judge deined the probateNBI said it has the same the
handwriting was authentic but this was denied becase that
the alterations were not to be authenticated by the full
signature of the testatrix
- Gregorio MR
W/N will is invalid fully because of the defective provison
which was altred but not authenticated? Yes
- As a GR when a number of corrections or number of
erasures and corretions made by the testator in a will is
not invalidated as a whole but only as to respects the
particular words affected
- BUT when the will has only one substantial provisoon
which was altered by substituting the original heir with
another but did not have full authentication IT IS ENTRIELY
VOIDED because there are no other provisoons which
could remain valid
IN RE estate of Johnson
- Johnson is a Swedish native and a naturalized citizen of the
US
- He left a will in 1915 when he died in the Philippines and
which he wanted to dispose of the estate of 231k this is a
holographic will which was written by him
- But this document amd is signed by 2 wit which is violative
of sec 618 of civil procedure
- CFI held that it can be probated because this is in accord
with the laws of Illinois because he is a citizen there hence
the law of that state should apply
W/N ph laws apply NO
 - On the date in which the will was executed by emil he was
already a citizen of the US, the proof shown for this is the
cert of naturalization in the cook county in Illinois
- The will in question was properly executed with the
conformaties founs in Illinois state law
- Intrinsic validity of the provs of a will shall be governed by
the laws of illiois.
- The civil code states that succ with regard to the order of
succ and to the intrinsic validity of their proviions shall be
regulated by the laws of the nation of the prson whose
succ is in question
DE La Cerna vs Potot
- Del la cerna and Rebecca executed a joint will which would
dispose of 2 parecels of land in cebu
- This is to be given to Manuela whom they nurtured since
she was a child
- Delacerna died and the will was admitted to probate and
was granted in 1939
- Rebaca died in 1952 and hence the same will was
submitted to probate but this 2nd one was denied and
decalred null and void. On the gorund that it is contrary to
joint wills in the civil code
- CA reversed holding that decision in the probate of 1939 is
conlusive on the due execution of the testament
W/N joint will is valid? YES
- The ill is valid as to the first person who died but void as
to the 2nd person who died and thus the 2nd person must
be distributed intestate.
- The probate decree in 1939 an only affect the share of the
husband and could not affect the share of the wife whose
interest in the conjugal properties in which the probate
court aquired no jurisdiction
- Validity of the joint will mustbe examined again upon the
death of the wife since the joint will Is a separate will of
the testator
- ITC undivided interest of gervasia should pass intestate
unless some other valid will is presented.
In re PALAGANAS
- Ruperta who is a filipino who became a naturalized US
citizen designated in her will that her brother Sergio as the
executor of the will, she has prop in US and PH
- Another brother named Ernesto filed with the RTC probate
of reupertas will and for him to be admin
- Nephews opposed this claiming that wills executed by
foreign peeps must be first probated and allowed in the
country of its execution b/c this would ensure prior
compliance with the legal formalities of its country of
execution.
- RTC probated the will and that Ernesto be appointed the
administrator
W/N will executed by a foreigner abriad must be probated in
the PH although not yet probated abroad? YES
- Our lws do not prohibit the probate of wills exec abroad
although the same have not yet been probated and
allowed in the countries of their execution
- Art 816 says that wills made abroad by alin produces effect
in the PH if it was made with the formaties by the law of
the place where he resides
- ROC provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant of
foreign country RTC of province where there is estate may
take cognizance of the case and also any executor legacee
or devisee named in the will to have the will allowed
- Our laws only require
o Jurisdictional facts, names age residence of heirs,
probative value, the name of person who has
custody of the will
- Jurisdictianl facts refer to the fact of deatg his residence at
time of his death in the prov where the probate court is
sitting or if foriein that he left esate in such province.
- Rules don’t req proof that foreign will was allowed to
probate aborad
Gonzales vs CA
- Gabriel died as a widow in navotas Dantiago and Gonzales
are the nieces of the testator and santi lived w testator at
the time of the death
- Will was written I tagalog exec 2 mos b4 death of Gabriel 5
pages testator sig on left marigin on all pages and at the
end of page 4
- Under PANGALAN is the names of the 3 wit and also listed
their residences
- Wil provides that she wanted catholic rights to be followed
and also pay her debts and specific legacies to be given to
her fam
- Santiago yung pnakamahal na parang tunay na anak is
bequeathed everything after payment of debts and after
distribution of all the legacies
- OPPOSED: on Multiple grounds
- RTC said evid shows that this is not the will for probate
- CA allowed
- Gonz claims that this is not proper b/c to be a credible
witness they must show certification that they are good
standing members of the community and that the term
credible should have the same meaning in the
naturalization laws
W/N to be considered competent in 821 and 820 must be
proven you are credible in light of 805? NO
- Under the law there is no such requirement that the
witness testify first as to their good standing in the
community
- The credibliy and trustworthiness shoulf be in light of
article 820 of the CC. and has none of the DQ in art 821 of
the cc
- The instrumental wit is not character wit that is found in
the naturalization laws
- They merely attest that the formal reqs of the will has
been complied with
- Jurisprudence has also held that the term credible means
that they are competent at the time of attesting the will
are legally competent to testify in a court of justice
- This is to attest to the facts by subscribing the will

IN RE estate of Watts
- Following the death of decedent carl, virginia and frank pet
for the probate
- Devised items of the will personalty and money to named
bene one of whom was virginia and devised the resifuary
estate to carl Manhart. Virginia and frank were named
contingent bene in the resifduary estate
- WILL was signed by decedent and attested by carl virg,
frank notarized by virg.
- ADMITTED TO PROBATE and found Melvin and Arnold to
be decedent heirs at law
- Melvin and Arnold opposed
W/N will is invalidated b/c it is attestd by the interested wit?
- ONLY TO THE BEQUESTS TO INT WIT
- If the will attested by 2 credible wit disinterested wit then
the witness who have an interest may take.
- ITC the wil was attested by interested witnesses and as a
result the interest of virg and carl are void and the
contigent beneficiaries interest is also void
- The sprcific bequest to virginia and the bequest to the
residuary having been declared void this shall pass by
intestasy to the heirs at law.
CLARK V GREENHALE
- Nesmith executed a will and named her cousin Fredric ss
the executor and is also the principal beneficiary of the
estate to receive all of the personal property except those
designated for others
- There was a large oil painting which was worth 1m and
was lwft to clark who is the friend of the testaror
- And that this was recorded in a notebook that it would be
given to clark for the purpose of memorializing her wishes
with respect to the disposition of her possessions
- Notebook was given to Greenhalge but he refused to give
the painting.
- Notebook was ruled as a memorandum, but greengalge
said that this was not a memorandum and was not
incorporated into the will
retained right to restructure the distribution of her
tangible personal property upon her death.
- pparent purpose is consistent with that of a memorandum
under Article Fifth: It is a written instrument which is
intended to guide Greenhalge in distributing such of Helen
Nesmith’s tangible personal property to and among…
persons who are living at the time of her demise
GAGO V MAMUYAC
- Mian purpose of this action is to obtain probation of the
will of Mamuyac who died in January 1962
- It appears that in 1918 he made a holographic will
- In 1922 Gago wanted to have the will probated but this
was opposed by Cornelio
- Probation of the will was denied by Villareal on the ground
that the deceased made a new will on April 16 1919.
- This new will was in the possession of the deceased
W/M will was revoked?
- The laws doesn’t require that any evidence of the
revocation or cancellation of a will be preserved.
- The fact that such revocation has taken place must either
remain unproved or be inferred from the evidence
showing that after due search the original will cannot be
found
- There is a presumption that when a will that cant be found
and was last seen w the testator then that will has been
cancelled
- ITC: The orig will of 1919 oculd not be found after the
death of the testator is proof that the will has been
canceled
- It is the duty of the proponent to prove its exec and that it
exsists
- If proven that it is exec then the contestatnt must prove
that it has been canceled or revoked.

w/n DOCUMENT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE WILL

- A properly executed will may incorporate by reference into

its provisions any “document or paper not so executed and
witnessed, whether the paper referred to be in the form
of… a mere list or memorandum
- if it was in existence at the time of the execution of the
will, and is identifi ed by clear and satisfactory proof as the
paper referred to therein
- Helen Nesmith intended by the language used in Article
Fifth of her will to retain the right to alter and amend the
bequests of tangible personal property in her will, without
having to amend formally the will
- mechanism by which Helen Nesmith could accomplish the
result she desired; i.e., by expressing her wishes ‘in a
memorandum’. The statements in the notebook
unquestionably refl ect Helen Nesmith’s exercise of her
HARRISON VS BIRD

- Speer executed a will in November 1989 and which she
named Katherine Harrison as the main bene of her estate
- Original of the will was with the atty of speer, she then
wanted the will to be revoked and told her atty
- In the presence of the secretary and of each other Atty
tore the will in 4 pieces and informed speer of the action
- Speer died Harrison filed for the probate of the will and
wanted to be the executrix Bird filed an answer contesting
the will b/c speer had revoked the same
- Lower court said that the will was not revoked because the
destruction of the will was not done in her presence
W/N the will was revoked? YES
- SC of alabama held that in the facts of this case there is a
presumption that speer destroyed her will and thus
revoked it,
- The burden is on Harrison to present evid to rebut such
presumption
- Evidence presented by Harrison was not sufficient to rebut
the presumotion because the will was with speer when it
was torn apart and that at her death the will can no longer
be found is a presumption that speer truly destroyed the
will.
ESTATE OF MATOLO VS CA
- Matolo died leaving the pet and the respondents as his
heirs, it was initially believed that he died w/o a will then
they initiated intestate proceedings
- Eventually they settle extrajudicial
- 3 years later an associate found thr KATAPUSAN dated on
January 1940 which purports to be the last will and
testament of Adriana
- This was submitted to the CFI Panfilo and Felino are still
heirs BUT Aldina and Constancio were bequeathed much
larger part of the estate there were also other legatees
also in the will
- Which was contended that it was burnd by the katulong of
Adriana.
Gilbert v Gilbert
- Gilbert died in June 5 1979 there was an 8 page
typewritten instrument mae by an atty and a holographic
instrument dated in 1978
- The codicil was written on the back of a card and on the
back of a pay stubin a sealed envelope
- The business card said that he has 50k in a safe and to see
bizz if anything happens to Kim and Margaret
- On the pay stub says that to give Jim and Marg 20k and the
rest to be divided equally
- Appellants brought a will contest the action in Jefferson
circuit court seeking to have the 2nd will as a second and
superseding will
W/N 2nd instrument is a codicil? YES
- It is true that both holographic writtings are signed and
dated the fact that they were folded together and are
coherent is sufficient to consider the 2 writtings as one
- Frank begins by identifying the money in the sfe and how
to distribute it
- The second allged will serves merely as a codicil because it
does not have a revocation clause and only distributes part
of the residuary estate.
- ITC the court found it is unlikely that frank wanted the 2
ocuents to super4sede the elaborate distribution plan in
the first document and to revoke the will there must be
clear intent to do so
- The interpretation is that the 2nd will or the codicil was just
only to distribute what is in the safe

W/N the will was revoked?

- Physical act of destruction of a will like burning does not

per se effect revocation unless this is coupled with animus
revocandi
- It may be done by another person but must be under the
express direction and in the presence of the testator.
- ITC the document or papers that were burned by the maid
was not established to have even been a will in the first
place and the burning was not done in her presence.
- No where in the evid does it show that the witnesses both
illiterates were positive that the thing that was burned is
indeed the will of Adriana.
Heirs of Guido and yaptinchay vs DEL ROSARIO
- Heirs of guido and yaptinchay executed an extra judicial
settlement of the estate
- During this process they discovered that some of the
properties were under the name of Golden Bay realty and
of the private respondents
- The heirs filed to annul the TCT of those properties
- RTC denied this due to the fact that the supposed heirs
have not shown any proof of the fact that they were heirs
exept for the fact that they declared themselves to be so.
- Private respondents filed MTD on the ground that they
had not yet established their status as heirs
W/N the court can determine status as heird in a civil action
considering that they are legal heirs of Guido and Yaptinchay? NO
- The rtc cannot make a declaration as to their heirness in
the civil action for the reason this must be done a special
proceeding
- Because civil actions are when a prty sues another for
redress or protection of a right while a spec pro is for
where a party seeks to establish status.
- It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship
can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the
petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status
or right
- Now,the determination of who are the legal heirs of the
deceased couple must be made in the proper special
proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit
for reconveyance of property. This must take
precedence over the action for reconveyance.
- Thus, the trial court was right in dismissing the complaint
which stated no cause of action
MALOLES V PHILIPPS
- Arturo de santos is a resident of forbed park Makati city
and filed for the probate of his will in the RTC
- He alleged that he has no compolsury heirs and that hed
named as the sole legatee and devisee the Arturo de
santos foundation
- He disposed of around 2m worth of property and copies of
the will were in the custody of the executrix Ting Philipps
- Maloles filed for a motion for intervention claiming as the
only child of Alicia the sister of Arturo he is the sole full
heir of Arturo
- He argues that he is also the sole creditor of the testator
and prayed for reconsideration and issuance of letters of
administration to be in his name.
W/N as being a creditor has a right to intervene the pet for
issuance of testamentary filed by ting? NO
- Even if petitioner is the nearest next of kin of Dr. De
Santos, he cannot be considered an “heir” of the testator
- that one who has no compulsory or forced heirs may
dispose of his entire estate by will.
- Petitioner, as nephew of the testator, is not a compulsory
heir who may have been preterited in the testator’s will.
Nor does he have any right to intervene in the
settlement proceedings based on his allegation that he is a
creditor of the deceased.
- Since the testator instituted or named an executor in his
will, it is incumbent upon the Court to respect the desires
of the testator. Only if the appointed executor is
incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to give bond may
the court appoint other persons to administer the estate.
None of these circumstances is present in this case.
- Rule 79, Section 1 provides that “any person interested in
a will may state in writing the grounds why letters
testamentary should not issue to the persons named
therein as executors, or any of them, and the court, after
hearing upon notice, shall pass upon the efficiency of such
grounds
- ‘interested person’ is one who would be benefi ted by the
estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the
estate, such as a creditor, and whose interest is material
and direct not merely incidental or contingent
Gallanosa v Arcangel
- Hitotis was a childless widower who executed a will in the
bicol dialect and was survived buy his brother Leon
- Pet for probate was filed in in 1939, he bequthed his one
half share in the conjugal estate to his 2nd wife Dollentas
- This on the condition that if she died first it will go the son
of his 2nd wife Pedro gallanosa
- He also gave land to Adolfo his protégé
- Surviving siblings and nephews opposed this but failed to
show evid
- In 1943 pedro and adolfo submitted a project of partition
covering 61 land cattle and personal property
- But later on Leon and the ordinary heirs instituted action
for recovery of 61 parcels of land b/c they have been in
contious possession of the said land DISMISSED b/c
probate is res judicata on the case
- Then 28 yrs later the ordinary heirs filed for a case for
annulment of the will which was originally denied but
then granted by Judge Arcangel
Do Leon and the ordinary heirs have a cause of action for the
“annulment” of the will of Florentino and for the recovery of
the 61 parcels of land? NO
- The lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in
reconsidering its order of dismissal and in ignoring the
1939 testamentary case and the 1952 Civil Case, which is
identical to the 1967 case under consideration.
- What they wanted was the annulment of the 1939 decion
for probate which was already granted by the 1939 lower
court
- The allegations of the complaint of pedro motion to
dismiss show that the 1967 action is barred by res judicata
and by presvription
- Procedural law does not sanction an action for the
"annulment" of a will. In order that a will may take effect,
it has to be probated, legalized or allowed in the proper
testamentary proceeding.
- The testamentary proceeding is a special proceeding for
the settlement of the testator's estate. A special
proceeding is distinct and different from an ordinary
action.
- The 1939 decree of probate is conclusive as to the due
execution or formal validity of the will.
- Accordingly, these facts cannot again be questioned in a
subsequent proceeding, not even in a criminal action for
the forgery of the will. After the finality of the allowance of
a will, the issue as to the voluntariness of its execution
cannot be raised anymore
Pastor v CA
- Sps pastor were survived by 2 legit children Alvaro and
sofia and an illegitimate child Quemda
- Quemada filed for a petition for the probate and
allowance of an alleged holographic will of pastor which
only contained 1 disposition a legacy in favor of Quemada
which is 30% share of pastors 42% share in ATLAS.
- Quemada was made special admin of the entire estate
even if not covered by the will
- Quemada instituted against Pastor Jr., and his wife an
action for reconveyance of alleged properties of estate
which included the properties subject to the legacy which
were in the names of spouses Pastor
- Will was admitted in probate AFFIRMED CA then the SC
dismissed and remanded the same
- 2 years after the remanding the pleadings were not acted
upon, prob court set hearing on the intrinsic validity of the
will but opposed by Pastor
- Order deemed the legacy to quemada as valid and ordered
atlas to remit royalties due the estate
W/N probate court resolved with finalty questions of ownership
and intrinsic validity?
- In a special proceeding for the probate of a will the issue
by and large is restricted to the extrinsic validity of a will
- Questions of ownership is not a matter that a probate
court cannot resolve probate court may pass title but such
determination is provisional and not conclusive
- There is nothing in the disposotive portion of those cases
that show that there is a final order as to the final
determination of ownership
- For it confined itself to the question of extrinsic validity of
the will, and the need for and propriety of appointing a
special administrator
- It declared that the intestate estate administration aspect
must proceed subject to the outcome of the suit for
reconveyance of ownership and possession of real and
personal properties.
- error for the assailed implementing Orders to conclude
that the Probate Order adjudged with finality the question
of ownership of the mining properties and royalties, and
that, premised on this conclusion, the dispositive portion
of the said Probate Order directed special administrator to
pay the legacy in dispute.
JIMENEZ VS CA LIM V CA

- Lino in his first marriage had 5 children and then - Lim is the surviving spouse of of pastor lim his estate is the
nd subject of the proceedings the private respondents are
7 children in his 2 marriage
corporations of the PH and owned prop covered by TCT
- His chld with the 2nd wife virginia filed to be administrator
- Lim died, the properties of these corporations were
of his estate.
cincluded in the estate of Lim and filed a mmotion ofr
- She incuded the children from the firs marriage but she
lifting of lis pendens and the exclusion of the prop from
also included the 5 parcels of land that Lino bought prior
the estate
to the second marriage
- RTC ruled to have them excluded
- Leonardo jr wanted to exlude this land from the probate
- Lim filed an amended pet stating that lim owned the 5
proceedings because they already received this lanf thru
corp and that the stockholders were only dummies
inheritance
- RTC new order to include the prop to the inventory
- Probate court ordered the exclusion b/c the 2nd wife
- CA REVERSED
already admitted tha they have been previously
adjudicated already nad virginia was barred by W/N can a corporation be included in the inventory
prescription
- The court ruled in jurisprudence that the holder of a
W/N settlement proceedings had juris to settle questions of torrens title is presumptive conclusiveness of such titile
ownership? NO and must be given due weight holder should be considered
the owner
- Probate courts only have the jurisdiction to pass upon titile
- ITC Since the real properties were in the name of the corp
provisionally
which has a personality distinct from its stockholders the
- Probate courts have limited jurisdiction and that questions
presumption of conclusiveness of that title in favor of the
of ownership which result in exclusion and inclusion
private respondents should stand undisturbed.
should be done in a separate action.
- PD 1529 prohibits a collateral attak on the torrens title
- Res judicata also does not exists because of the difference
- The probate court acted in utter disregard of the
in the causes of actions b/c the first is for probate the 2nd is
presumption of conclusiveness
for recovery of poss
- There was not enough evid to even assuming arguendo to
- Since the alleged complaint was that Leonardo forcibly
pierce the corporate veil of the corporations
entered the prop in 1978 the action for reconveyance in
1984 it is not barred by laches or prescription

AGAPAY V PALANG

- Miguel married carlina in 1949 as his 1st marriage and had

only one child, he left for Hawaii and tried to get a divorce
from carlina
- When he would go back to ph he would never go home
and when he decided to return for good he refused to stay
with his family Miguel married again to Erlinda, Miguel and
erlina bought land
- Then a new house and lot was bought by Erlinda
- Then on October 30 Migeul and Cornelia executed a deed
of donation as a compromise and agreed to dontate
conjugal property 6 land to their only child
- But he had another child with Erlinda named Kristoff they
were convicted of concubinage then Miguel died
- Cornelia and daughter sought to recover Riceland and a
house and lot purchased by Miguel LOWER COURT
DISMISSED, CA RVERSED
- CA: Did no declare kirstofer as the illegitimate son

W/N ordinary courts can declare a person an heir?? NO

- Questions who are heirs of the decedent, proof of

filiation of illegitimate children and the dtermination of
the estate of the later must be ventilated thru proper
probate court and special proceedings for that purpose
not in an ordinary civil action.
CHING VS HON RODRIGUEZ
- Respondents filed a complaint against pet and strogold
insurance, Elena, Asia resource and all persons claiming
rights or titles from Ramon Ching
- Respondents allege that they are the heirs of Antonio
Ching and that Ramon misrepresented that he was the son
but in fact he was adopted and birth cert was simulated
- Ramon is the prime suspect In the killing of Antonio and
illegally transferred to his name prop of Antonio and time
deposits and also shares of stock in companies
- Ramon executed to him self entire estate of Antonio to the
prejudice of the 6 respondents, Ramon sold 2 lands to asia
resource and also to Elena pilar
- Reponsents prayed for TRO FROM SELLING PROP, RAMON
BE DECARED DQ FROM INHERITING AND DECLARING NULL
THE TRANSFERS
W/N RTC shoudlve granted MTD q regard to issues which could
only be resolved in spec pro? No
- An action for reconveyance and aunnlment of title with
damages is civ action while matters pertaining to
settlement of the estate is a special proceeding
- Disinheritance can only be done thru a will and the
respondents who sought the disinheritance ever showed a
will or mentioned any instrument hnce sepite the prayer
case is not a spec pro proceeding and does not call for the
probate jurisdiction of the court
- Respondents even without being decalred heirs still have
standing to seek nullification of the instruments in light of
undue influence and fraud
- Court agrees with the CA that the nullification of the
documents subject of the civil case could be achieved in an
ordinary civil action, which in this specific case was
instituted to protect the respondents from the supposedly
fraudulent acts of Ramon
- The civil case was not instituted to conclusively resolve the
issues relating to the administration, liquidation and
distribution of Antonio's estate, hence, not the proper
subject of a special proceeding
- Respondent resort to civ action is not sound b/c at the end
of the day a spec pro would still follow if the intent is to
recover prop illegally transferred prop in his name.
Romero V CA
- Petitioners allege that upon the death of their mom
Aurora was appointed Guardian who held real property in
trust for the children
- She cont to be the admin and over the prop and
investments of her late husband
- In 2005 Leo and Amando discovered that there were
several deeds of sale over the parcels of land that belong
to the conjugal prop of their parents,
- Vittorio thru fraud duress misrep succeeded in regis those
properties in his name
- They wante to annul the sale and conveyance of title
- Aurora and Vittorio argue that this was paraphernal prop
which was mortgaged by aurora and redeemed by Vittorio
- RTC dimissed b/c special proceeding was still pending and
cannot act on this until the shares of the heirs in the
intestate court is determined
W/N the dismissal was proper? YES
- The probate court may provisonallly pass upon in an
intestate or testate proceeding the question of inclusion or
exclusion without final determination in a separate action
- If the interested parties are all the heirs or the question is
one of collation or advancement or the parties consent to
the assumption of juris of the probate court then prob
court may decide on ownership
- The court held that this case may be treated as an
exemption to the genrule that questions of title should be
ventilated in a separate action
- While it is true that a probate court’s determination of
ownership over properties which may form part of the
estate is not final or ultimate in nature, this rule is
applicable only as between the representatives of the
estate and strangers thereto.
- The validity of the sales made by Aurora, allegedly
orchestrated by Vittorio, can only be determined by the
probate court which is empowered to identify the nature
of the property, and that has jurisdiction over Aurora’s
actions and disposition as administrator.
OPULENCIA VS CA
- On feb 3 1989 Simundac, opulecia and oliven entered into
a contract to sell over the Sta. Rosa estate 23k sqm lot
- The price is 150p/sqm so amounting to 300k
downpayment was made but all the parties have
knowledge that the land is subject to probate proceedings
- As of the time of the downpayment the court has still
made no decision.
- Private respondents pray for opulencia to fulfill contractual
obligations and pay for damages
- Her defense is that they knew it was subject to probate
proceedings and that the contract to sell was not approved
by the court
W/N contract to sell is valid? YES
- This contract to sell does need judicial approval because it
was not entered into in her capacity as executrix or admin
but her personal capacity as an heir
- She mentions that she is strapped for cash so she is in
need og money and this is evinces that she was not acting
on behalf of the estate
- Hereditary rights vest from the moment of the death of
the decedent thus she became owner of the hereditary
estate upon the death of her father
- ITC the contract to sell is not invalid becase she has the
right to sell the whole or her share in the hereditary estate
of the father
- The contract to sell is more of an offer and is contingent on
the settlement in the probate court and the full payment
of the purchase price hence it does not prejudice the
estate of the deceased.
Uy Kiao Eng v Nixon Lee
- Alleging that her father passed away in manila and left a
holographic will and is in the custody of Uy, Nixon Lee filed
a petition for mandamus to compel the Uy to produce the
will for probate
- Nixon Lee allegedly asked his mom to settle the estate and
liquidate but she refused to do so
- The mom denies she has the will photocopies daw were
given to the children and what exhibited in a civil case
- RTC denied the demurrer but granted in MR then Nixon
filed in CA then granted in an MR
- Pet says that mandamus is not the proper remedy
W/N Mandamus is the proper remedy? NO
- Mandamus is used as a command to any inferior court,
tribunal or board or to a corp or person requiring the
performance of a specific duty a ministerial act
- This clearly has some kind of public character it and
exludes a duty that has no public interest.
- Mandamus will not lie when these grounds are not met
o The person, court board tribunal unlawfully
neglected to perform which the law enjoins as a
ditu stemming from the office trust or station
o Unlawfully deprived petitioner from enjoyment
of that right
- Mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obli or
genrally will not lie to enforce purely private contract
rights and not against An indiv unless public or quasi-public
duty is imposed
- There must be no other plain or speedy remedy to get the
result
- ITC it cannot be used because there are other remedies
that Nixon could’ve used it is also noted that he has a
photocopy of the will and seeks production of the origbut
rules of court allow him to start probate proceedings
even if he doesn’t have the will.
TESTATE OF PILAPIL
- Pilapil was a priest in cebu and died leaving a supposedly
no will.
- Brother filed for the intestate proceedings where he was
appointed administrator of the estate
- Nephew Mendoza then filed for the legalization of a
document purporting to be his will
- The will sattes that Adriano his cousin should be
administrator and that the will should not be aired in
court. 3 page will 16 proviosns signature of testator and
witnesses appear on left of 2 pages The end and
attestation signed by them as well
W/N the court is bound by the proviosns that the will, should
not be aired in court? NO
- This provisoon cannot deporive the courts of its authority
to determine whether the will is legalizable or not
- It is not the parties who can convey or remove jurisdiction
from the courts.
- The law mandates that the wills of a testator be handed to
the court for the purpose of determing if it can be
legalized or not and if not then the decednt dies intestate
thus the court is not bound by that provision.
- The formal requistes were all met The pages say go to
page 3 , go to page 2 and contious whatever was written
on that page and states that there are 16 provs and 2 arts
which it does indeed
- The phrase at the request of the testator we signed each
and every one of us here justifies the inference that
testator was present when the witnesses placed their
respective signatures.
Ortega v Valmonte
- Placido Executed a will notarial writtenin egnlish made up
of 2 pages dated June 15 and acknowlged on Aug 9
- This will bequeathed placidos wife properties and named
her executrix,
- Josfina filed the will for probate. Allowance of the will was
opposed by valmonte on several grounds including formal
infirmities and the execution of thw will was done in
duress undue influence and fraud
- RTC did not admit BUT CA admitted
W/N ca erred in admitting the will to probate
- NO
- The party challenging the will has the burden of provin the
exsistence of fraud at the time of its exec.
- Other than the self serving testimonies of the plaintiff no
evidence of fraud were properly presented
- It is already settled that the omission of some of the
relatives does not affect the validity of the will Further the
testimony of the notary and the wit are only credible
evidence of its due execution
- They were claiming that a young girl would not marry
aman were it not for his oney
- Fraud is trickey or secret device to the effect that the
testator has been infact fooled and ITC the fact that his
wife is the only bene doesn’t mean that he was ttricked
itno doing son because he left out people from his will
REVILLA VS CA
- Don Revilla owns 2 parcels of land w buldings in cm recto
and 6 parcels in Bulacan worth 30m
- He gave all the prop to his nieces and nephews 1/10
portion, including pet Herancio
- Don Revilla himself had the will dmitted to probate which
it was alloed
- BUT records were destroyed thus there was a petition for
reconstitution of the will which was granted
- BUT herecio filed for the probate of another will made by
Revilla where herecio is the sole heir
- Private respondents opposed this and said that it is Null
and Void
- CA DISSALLOWED THE WILL
W/N CA ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE WILL
- Don Cyetano testified on November 1982 that he was
unaware of this will and identified that his true will was
the first one that he made
- HE DENIED MAKING THE SECOND WILL
- Petitioner contends that the negative testimony has no
probative value
- The assertion that he did not make a will the seond one is
not negative declaration but it is in fact positive
- The next argument that the testimony is not admissasble
b/c his atty did not cross examine doesn’t hold water due
to the fact the atty failed in making any attempts to do so
- If Don in fact made a new will then the reconstitution
proceedings will actually be useless
- The will allegedly done in secrecy was in fact also done
with undue influence b/c he disinherited his other fam he
was equally fond of
MICINO VS BRIMO
- Judicial Admin of the estate of Joseph filed for a scheme
for partition which his brother Andre opposed
- The first ground for opposition is that the will was not in
accordance with the laws of turkey in which he is a citizen
and should be decalred void for being in violation of article
10 of the civil code
- The next ground for dissallwaonce is that andre was
exluded as a legatee b/c there is a clause that states that
he wants he prop to be distributed with accoradance with
the law of the PH and anyone who challenges this will be
annulled their favorable disposition
w/n the will is valid? YES
- Oppositor did not prove that the dispositions therein is not
in accordance with the Turkish laws did not present any
Turkish law, if not presented with evid then it is presumed
that they are the same as those in the Philippines
- The second c;ause is void becase he wanted to the will to
be done with the laws of the Philippines and those who do
not respect the wishes of the testator shall be prevented
from receiving his legacy
- This is void according to article 10 of the civil code
- This such condition is hence void and deemed unwritten
and the legacy here is deemed to be valid and effective
even as to the herein petitioner
DOROTHEA VS CA
- Private respondents are the legit children of Drotheo and
Aniceta, dorotheo died
- Lourdes claims to have taken care of him before he died
and filed for the probate of his will this was admitted
- Respondents moved to declare the will intrinsically void
and that the estate should be distributed intestate
- FILED MR DENIED CA DISMISSED AND BECAME FINAL AND
EXECUTORY
 - Judge Angas issed an order setting aside the final and exec
order and the order directing t5he issuance of the writ of
execution
w/n a last will admitted to probate but decalred intrinsically void
still be given effect? YES
- It should be noted that probate proceddings generally deal
with extrinsic validity of a will
o That it is the real will
o Compliance w formalities
o Testementary Capacity
o Due execution (sound mind no fraud or duress)
- Intrinsic validity is another matter and may still be
rqiased even after the will was authenticated
- If the will provides for dispositions that impairs lawful
heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance cannot be
given effect
- No intestate distribution of the estate can be done unless
its extrenasic and intrinsic valid
- Alejandro will was ex valid but ins invalid thus intesasy
will apply
OZAETA VS CUARTERO
- Carlos married Cesaria and had 3 kids
- The had 8 kids with Rosa but also had relations with
In re Dillios
MARIA whom he had 6 kids
- BUT he married Rosa and then made his will and at the
time he was living with Ozaeta and named President roxas
as executor kung wala then Ozaeta
- Will was given to ozaeta and filed for a pet for probate
MARIA contested b/c of fraud undue influence
- RTC ALLOWED Children of first marriage challenged also
stating that there is no need for direct evid but
circumstancial evid based on established facts
w/n will should be disallowed on the gorund of UI?
- Though assert that he was blind but they never presented
any evid that he was blind during the making of the will
- They could not assure that he was infact blind
- he was still writing checks and could read papers himself
and his doc testified and said he poor eyesight is only w
regard to his distance vision
- He also appeared to be in full possession of his menatal
faculties
- This claim of undue influence is merely conjecture
engendered with suspicion
- It Is not enough that there as an opportunity to exer
undue influence or possibility that it it might have been
W/N there was undue influence? YES
exer there must be substantial evid that it was in fact
exerted.
Coso v Fernandez-Deza
- Appeal from the order of the CFI setting aside a will on the
ground of undue influence over the testator by Rosario
Lopez
- The will gives to an illegitlamte son and payment of 1900
duros as reimbursement taking care of the testator in
Barcelona
- Evid shows that the testator married a man and resident of
the PH had illicit relations w rosario in spain there is no
doubt she has influence over him
W/N will is valid? YES
- Undue influence must be of a kind that overpowers and
subjugates the mind of the testator as to destroy his free
agency and make him express the will of another
- This influence must have been done at the time of exec of
the will or so near it to be still oprative procuring a will
that the testator would not otherwise have made
- Burden of proof is on the parties challenging this will to
show this UInflu that this exsited at the tie of its exec
- The evidence shows that it is true she had influence over
the testator but did not subjugate his mind he was an
intelligent man and a lawyer
- He made these dispostions to take care of son and to
repay the gratitude from rosario
- At the time of this will only fraud deceit and duress are the
outside factors invalidating the will UNDUE INFLUENCE
comes from a system that has very unlimited disposing
power thus greater safe gurads should be used to protect
it
- Dilios died on June 27 1958 in the purported will he
named casco bank and trudt and Israel as joint executors
- Greek, and became naturalized americn, he had a resto
business in Portland and during his life time he made many
wills 3 and a codicil 2 sons 1 daughter
- His 2 sons arrived in the US from Albania which he always
wanted but his wife and daughter couldn’t come so only
his son JAMES AND WILLIAM escaped from Albania
- Berta wanted to probate the will but this wasn denied b/c
of undue influence
- FIRST WILL: WHOLE of the estate was given to the trustees
for the benefit of the 3 kids and the wife
- SECOND WILL: Gave BERTHA 1k dollars and that if she
worked in the resto w salary less than 40, CUT OFF JAMES
only gave him 100bucks and to William the rest of the
estate if he would provide for education to the other BENE
- THIRD WILL: Devised to Bertha a camp property and debts
owed to her for satisfaction and the sons will only receive
100 each nothing more
- It was evident that Dilios wanted to bequeath the estate to
his fam until the 2 sons started to resent their relationship
- The true test is the effect on the testators volition it must
be sufficient to overcome free agenecy so that what is
done is not truly his wish
- Undue Influence need not be proven by direct and positive
evid but it may be infereed from the facts
- Testimony of the sons say that it was always the lifelong
dream of the father to bring his fam to USA and that they
 really loved and respected him but they were upset about
his relations w Bertha
- An illicit relation w the person who allegedly excerted
undue influence is not enough per se to raise the
presumption but must be taken w other facts
- ITC: while it was not clear in evid that she knew he was
making new wills it is difficult to believe that when their
close relationchip was clearly shown that she did not know
that he was making new wills, presiding justice need not
believe her testimony
- While that a person whois allegedly to have UI doesn’t
nececesarily need to be the bene the justice made an
inference that she had motive to disinherit the boys. But
she had a long expectation of employment but this would
not be so if the boys took over the resto
- ITC: Dilios was in a condition enfeebled by a serious illness
when he executed the will and he died shortly thereafter.
- Christos Dilios, because of his weakened physical
condition and other factors, was a person whose mind
could be influenced; and facts proven from which a
logical conclusion could be reached that he submitted to
the overmastering effect of unlawful influence, such as to
invalidate the instrument now purporting to be his last
will and testament
Nepumoceno vs CA
- Martin left a last will signed by him at the end of the will
on P3 then signed on the left margin on p1 2 and 4 w/ 3
wit
- Martin named sofia as his sole heir BUT it was clear tat
martin was really married to Rufina with whom he has 2
legit kids but became estranged
- Martin and sofia were eventually wed, martin devised his
forced heris and his kids entire estate and the entire free
portion to sofia
- Sofia filed for probate RUFINA opjected b/c of fraud and
undue influence CFI DENIED,CA ALLOWED EXCEPT THE
DEVISE IN FAVOR OF SOFIA
- Sofia claims that the validity of the tstementary dispstions
cannot be passed upon the probate court but in some
other proceeding
W/N the donation to sofia I valid? NOONONONONON
- GR: probate proceedings the courts area of inquery is
limited to an examination and the resolution of the
extrinsic validity of a will
- BUT: not inflexible and absolute the probate court is not
powerless to dowhat the situation constrains it to do and
pass upon certain provisions of the will
- The court finds no useful purpose to remand the issue of
the nullified provision
- There isno question from the records of the case that prior
exsisting marriage whe martin executed his will, there is
also no dispiute that sofia and Martin lived together in an
ostensible marriage
- The donation is void because of violation of art 739. Void
donations among those living in adultery or concubinage.
- When the will is intrinsically void on its face the court is
not precluded from ruling on this issue
IN RE WILL OF MOSSES
- Fannie Moses was married 3 times each of her husbands
died during the 2nd marriage she became friends with
Holland who is 15 yrs younger than her
- She eventually became the Lover of Holland and when she
died bequeathed avaerything to Holland the will contained
a revocation clause to previous wills where the sister was
the main Beneficiary
- The will was made by another atty who had no
connections to Holand and did not tell him about this new
will, the sister attacked the will on the ground of undue
influence
- Chancellor deined the probate stating that there was a
presumption of undue influence and this can only be
overcome by evid that in the making of her will she acted
independently w/ her own counsel
- There is strong evid that the Moses loved to drink wa
completely enamored by the amarous attentions of
Holland, a much sexier younger man
W/N presumption of undue influence was overturned? NO
- Undue influence will be presumed if the beneficiary has
been actively concerned in some way with the
preparation or execution of the will or hwere the
relationship is coupled with suspicious circumstances
such as mntal infimity of the testator
- ITC Moses was already in poor health an alcoholic and was
infatuated with a young lover who was also her lawyer, the
circumstance is the fact that antecedent and subsequent
to the making of the will tend to accord with that
conclusion.
- Nowhere in the convo with the decedent that was it at all
discussed the proposed testamentary disposition
whwereby preference was given to a non-blood relative
- It is clear that the draftsman did no more than to just
write down according to the forms of law what she told
him there was no meaningful advice touching that area in
question
- The brief absence of Holland from the visit of the office of
Holand does not negate the presumption of undue
Influence.
HAYNES VS STATE BANK OF NJ
- Dutrow is the widow of Charles who died having about 8m
in stock of a corporation and distrinbutrd to 2 daughters
and in trust
- Betty Haynes came to live with the mom and was one of
her fave daughters with the 2 sons but the 2 boys left b/c
of disputes w dutrow
- Betty died and thus moved in with other daughter
costworth
- Many wills were created and were prepared by the family
atty Stevens
- The current will distributes the prop equally w both
branches of the family and new wills were creates while
living w the costworths giving more money to the
costworth family and little to the Haynes branch
- Stevens testified that Dutorw told him of the preassure od
the costworths to change her will was enormous
- Butterworth lawyer of the costworth fam consulted w
dutrow and exppanied her current will gives more to
Haynes.
- The latest will gives practically everything to costworth and
none to the Haynes children thus the Haynes family
opposed the will and the trial court said there is
Presumption of undue influence
W/N will is invalid b/c of undue influence?
- When the contention of undue influence is made the
burden of proof is with the contestants to the will UNLESS
there is a CONFI RELATIONSIP AND OTHER SUSPITIOUS
CIRCUMSTANCE then there is a presumption of undue
influence
- Confidential Relationship is when trust is reposed due to
the testators weakness in which reliance is naturally
inspired
o ITC: dutrow was old na and was dependent on
her child for care and support which had trust
and confidence
- Other suspicious circumstance is when in combination
with confi relationsip the circumstance needed need be no
more than slight
o ITC: The attorney here that drafted thw will is
the atty of both the costworth and dutrow there
is a conflict of interest coupled with the drastic
change in her dispositions make it suspicious
o The court has awalys said that the atty needs to
have undivided loyalty to its client and this
conflict needs a high quantum to dispel this
o The ATTY conflict and conduct here + the
likelihood of undue influence creates the
presumption and thus requires clear and
convincing evid to overcome the presumption
LATHAM VS FATHER DIVINE
- Plaitiffs are the firs cousins of Mary Sheldon who died in
1946, they are not the distributes she left a will
- She gave most of her estate to father divine a leader of
religious cult and 2 corporate defendants and Patience
Budd
- The will was probated after a contest instituted by
distributees by a compromise agreement in which the
defendants receive a large sum from the estate but the
plaintiffs were not part to this agreement
- After the making of such will the decedent made several
indications to change the will to the effect that she wanted
execute a new will to give the plaintiffs a large sum of
money
- Shortly prior to her death she executed a new will where
she made legatees the plaintiffs for around 350k
- The plaintiff allged by the plaintiffs that they used undue
influence to prevent the testator to excecuting a new will
- The defendant s as well allegedly conspired to kill the
deceased by means of surgical operation w/o the consent
of the deceased
w/n the defendants posed undue influence kept the testatrix from
making a will in favor of the defendants? YES
- In previous jurisprudence when an heir or devisee in a
will prevents the testator from providing to a person that
he would have provided for were it not for the
interpherance of such devisee r heir, such heir or devisee
by operation of law will be deemed as trustee received
from the estate of the testator to eh extent of what that
heir would have received
- This rule applies also when an heir prevents the making
of a will or deed in favor of another, and thereby inherits
the property that would otherwise have been given such
other person
- ITC the palitiffs could have a constructive trust claim
against the defendants for taking under the decedenta will
by keeping the decendant from benefitting the plaintiffs
- When a decisee or legatee under a will already executed
prevents the testator by fraud, duress or undue influence
from revoking or making a new will they hold this in trust.
- The theory is that the will has full effect by passing an
absolute legacy to the legatee, and that then equity, in
order to defeat fraud, raises a trust in favor of those
intended to be benefited by the testator, and compels
the legatee, as a trustee ex maleficio, to turn over the gift
to them.
AUSTRIA VS REYES
- Basilia filed with CFI of rizal probate of her will ante-
mortem which was opposed by the nieces and nephews
- PROBATE ALLOWED
- Bulk of the will allegedly will go to the legally adopted
children Surnamed Cruz
- Then after the death of basilia they filed a motion for
intervention sayin that they are the next of Kin and the
fact Cruz were never legally adopted and thus are really
strangers
- RTC issued an order that delimiting the the intervention to
the prop that were not disposed of in the will
- They claim that it should pass down by intestacy by reason
of the intrinsic nullity of the will and false cause
- But the language used in the will makes it seem that basilia
was deceived to thinking that legally bound to give half of
her estate to her CRUZ as legitime as the PET claims
W/N institution of heirs is invalid? NO
- The decedents will provides the answer “mga sapilatang
tagapagmana” describes the class of heirs to be instituted.
- They offer no absolute indication that the decedent would
have willed her estate other than the was she did of she
had known that they were not legally bound to receive
legitimes
- The disposition of the free estate largely in favor of
perfecto cruz and Benita cruz shows an inclination to really
favor the respondents more than what the law actually
gives
- IF the pettion were iven due course then the bulk of the
will would have passed on by intestacy which is not
favored and would frustrate the testators wishes.
AZNAR VS DUNCAN
- Christensen is a citizen of California and has his domicile in
the Philippines he died leaving a will which was admitted
to probate in the same proceeding they decalred Helen
Garcia was a natural child of Edward
- The will declares that he has 1 child named Lucy and
devised to helen 3600 pesos and the income for the rest of
the property
- Project of partition divided equally between Lucy and
helen who had been judicially decalred as a natural child of
Edward
- This judgement is based on the proposition that helen was
pretireted and thus the institution of LUCY was annukled
and distributed the prop intestate
- LUCY appealed contending that Helen is only entitiled to
her legitime and not to the share of the estate equal to
Lucy
W/N the estate should be divided equally or Lucys share should
just be r3duced to meet the legitime of helen? ART 906 APPLIES
THERE IS NO PRETIRITION
- Preterition is the omission of one heir in the will by not
naming or not institutuing such heir withour an express
disinheritance
- ITC: Edward refused to recognize Helen as a natural
daughter and limited her devise to 3600 pesos there isalso
no reason to assume that if she were judicially decalred to
be an heir during his lifetime that he would have amended
the will and divide it equally among Lucy and Helen
- The decision of Neri v Akutin does not apply b/c the will
did not entirely omit helen but left her a devise
- The estate contained shares of 399 in a company and cash,
but ¼ already decended to helen as her legitime since this
is given at the moment of death she is entieled to the
portion that is due to her and that has accrued to her
NUGUID VS NUGUID
- This case involves the estate of Rosario who died in 1962
december and she was survived by her parents Felix and
Paz and also siblings, one of the siblings Remedios
presented a hologrpaic will
- This will gives all of the property to her sister remedios and
this was opposed by the parents on the ground of absolute
preterition that the institution of remedios as the universal
heir is an illegal pretitirtion as they are compulsory heirs
W/N the entire will is null? YES
- Rosario had several forced heirs in the direct ascending
line and the will results in their omission
- Preterition is omitting an heir in the will and that such heir
isnot expressly disinherited and that no part of the estate
is assigned to him and relsuts in the tacit deprivation of his
right to legitimacy
- MUST BE REFERRING TO AN HEIR AND MUST BE
COMPLETE
- The consequence of preterition results in the opening of
the intestate estate either total or partial, it will be total if
the testator disposed of the whole estate by universal title
in favor of the instituted heirs whose institutuion is
annulled
- ITC: Rosario left no decedents but she has forced heirs in
the ascending line and thus is a clear case of preterition
ACAIN V IAC
- Acain filed in the RTC petition of probate of the will of the
late Nemesio on the premise that he left a will where the
siblings were instituted as heirs
- The will provides that the shares of his properties he
earned with his wife shall be given to Segundo his brother
and in case he dies will be given to the children which is
constantino
- The legally adopted l=daughter and the widow filed a MTD
on the basis that they were preterited from the will
- IAC granted this and Acain filed this petition to the court
for review.
W/N the respondents were preterited?
- Preterition is the omission in the will of the forced heirs
b/c they were not mentioned though mentioned were not
instituted as heirs
- Insofar as the widower is concerned art 854 of the cicil
code does not apply b/c although she is a compulsory heir
she is not in the direct line.
- As for Virginia, as the lgally adopted daughter she would
be considered as a legitimate child and the fact that her
name does not appear on the will, she was deprived of her
legitme and hence was clearly preterited
- Preterition annuls the institutions of heirs and thus opens
the whole estate for intestacy
- ITC: the siblings were instituted as the universal heirs, thus
this results in abrogating the will b/c the nullification of the
universal heirs w/o any other testamentary disposition in
the will amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was
written
GOFF VS GOFF
- Charles Goff was a farm worker in his parents farm in
Missouri, Dvid white were neighbors, Charles Goff and
Cassie white fot married and had a son named Joe
- Cassie filed for a divorce and got custody of the child and
remained to live with David she then married Mcann and
the son joe grew up with this person
- Charles remained on his land and fought with George his
brother over a tenant and thus Charles told his sister Silas
and her daughter that George should not get anything
- DIED. Left a will. Told silas to sell all ofhis property and to
distribute 5 bucks for George, 1000 to Silas and the
reminder of the estate to his nephews
- The second clause said that he was not married and had
no kids, 5th clause stated that he gives 1 dollar to who ever
will oppose this in lieu of that they could have gotten
- The trial court found that Charles did not know that he had
grandkids under Joe, and said that thr 5th clause and ex
evid shows the intention to leave something for the
Grandchildren
- Silas testified that the marriage was a sham and that he
would always deny that he is the father of Joe. And further
testified that he wanted to leave nothing to George and
Joe and his children he was aware of them
W/N THE PLAINTIFS WERE PROVIDED FOR IN THE WILL? NO
- The court ruled that Charles had no knowledge of his
grandchildren and thus they were not instituted in the will
which is a requirement of law
- The will never mentioned child or grandchild thus were
collectively excluded form the will
- Joe was never named or specifically provided for in the
will, and also ruled that the 5th clause as not an
exclusionary clause
- Massachsets type statute provides that when a testator
omits to provide ofr his children shall take through
intestate UNLESS it appears that this was intentional
- Missouri typestates that when a person make his will and
dies leaving the child not named then the testator will
have been deemed as died intestate
- Thus for having not been named or provided for they can
thus be inherit intestate
HEIRS OF URETA SR VS HEIRS OF URETA
- Alfonso Ureta is a well off person and owned many
properties he has 14 kids, for tax pueposes he sold 4
parcels for no consideration to 4 of his kids including
Policornio
- DIED, liberato wass appointed as an admin and there was a
family renting from Policornio but the tenants never
turned over the proceeds and the fruits from the land to
poli but to alfonso
- Policornio died his heirs except for 1 land never took in
there possession lands, so heirs of alfonso made a
settlement of the estate of alfonso including those lands
conveyed for tax purposes
- Conrado son of Policornio signed and extra jud partition on
behalf of his co-heirs
- But the other heirs contend that it is void b/c he had no
authrorty from them
- CA said that the DOS WERE VOID b/c they were absoutly
simulated and remanded the case to the lower court to
properly handle the partition
- Heirs of alfonso contend that no need na but to treat it as
a case of preterition and be simply divided among them
W/N preterition raised for the first time on appeal be
enterntained? NO
- Court held that the extra judicial partition was valid for
there were pieces of evid that heirs of plicornio were
aware if the transaction and even if this is unenforceable
or voidable no need for written memorandum or SPA b/c it
is not strict dominion and there are no creditors involved
- Preterition is not applicable.
- Preterition is defined as a total omission of a compulsory
heir from their inheritance. This consists in the silence of
the of the testator with regard to a compulsory heir
- Either by not mentioning or by not iving anything from the
estate w/o expressly disinheriting him
- Thus in this case being that there was no wil at all the
concept of preterition does no apply
VIADO NON V CA
- Sps. JULIAN and virginia owned several pieces of property
among this is a house and lot in QC
- Virginia died first and julian followed 3 yrs after they were
survived by their children leah, Nilo and Rebecca
- Nilo and Leah also died, Nilo left as heirs wife aicia and kids
+ Cherri and fides
- Rebecca and Alicia shared a common residence in the
Isarog prop Eventually ALICIA was claiming absolute
ownership on the property
- Rebecca in response filed a case for partition of the land,
ALICIA objected stating she has Deed of donation giving ½
share in conjugal prop to Nilo and a deed of extrajud part
thru an SPA in favor of Nila that Julian, leah and Rebecca
waived their rights to the prop in favor of Nilo
- REBECCA contends this by saying there is UI on the part of
Nilo also fraud, AND THAT the exclusion of the retardate
sister in the Extra Jud settlement is preteriton and thus
should be annulled
- RTC RULED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS
- CA AFFIRM AND REMANDED
w/n there was a trust? YES
Who are the real owners of the property? ALICIA and kids
- When virginia died intestate her part of the conjugal prop
was transferred to her heirs, and the inheritance thus was
deemed co-owned by them until it was partitioned
- The courts and the SC found that the testimonies were all
self-serving and thus should not be given any weight and
that the petitioners failed to adduce any evid of the UI or
fraud in Nilo procuring the SIG for the EJP and Donation
- The defense thar Rebecca did not know what she was
signing the EJP is untenable due to the fact she was a
teacher and couldn’t have misunderstood the instrument
- Late registration is not a badge or indicia of fraud
- The exclusion in the EJP of delia has the effect of
preteritoon
- BUT the absence of FRAUD AND BF does not permit the
collateral attack on the TCT
- Thus pursuant to art 1104 to the effect of the reteriton
was not attended by bad faith the partition shall not be
rescinded but the preterited heir shall be paid the value of
the property pertaining to her thus CA correct in ramnding
to acertain the amount
PAZ VDA DE MAPA VS CA
- Paz Garcia instituted a civil action to recover from the
estate of Ludovico that was sunject to a spec pro in the
same court the prop left by the late Concepcion De
hidrosollo
- They clamied that Ludvico was instituted a universal heir
to the residue of the estate with the obligation as trustee
to hold the same in trust for the petitioners
- Ludvico died w/o doing this and thus the estate of
concepcion ended up in the estate of Ludovico and thur
prayed for DECLARING A TRUST, OR DECLARING LUDOVICO
AS UNIV HEIR WITH A PROVISION OF FIDEICOMMISSARY
SUBSTITUTION in their favor as null and void and have the
residue estate as intestate and for Luis and trodoro to
delver it to them
- RESPONDENTS endy the trust and as the widow of
consepcion and the prop became part of his estate
- RTC: THERE IS A TRUST
- CA reversed
- Pet contends that it was atrust and not a fiedeicommisary
- Although the will never mentioned that there was a trust
the provisions show that was what she intended to do
o Ludovico was made heir to prop not covered by
legacies
o Ludovico was chardged en cargo to deliver to the
nieces and nephews mapa, hidrosollo and
Salazar who as bene wer directed to deliver
palay to Genova
o The beneficiaries are also required to allow
Genova to maintain a house on the parcel of
land and that all the prop shall remain in co-
ownership
- In designating husband as the heir with the obligation to
deliver prop to the beneficiaries she intended that legal
title would vest on him and referring to the repondents
and petitoners as the beneficiaries
- The trust howvwer should only be limited to the free
portion of her estate not covered by the legitime
- There is no fideicommissary substitution b/c the spouse
did not impose the absolute obligation to deliver said
propertied if this is what she wanted she would have said
this in a n express manner
CRISOLOGO VS SINGSON

- The plaiftiff is Cirsologo the testatrix grand niece and the

respondent is the Tetatrix Borther named Manuel Singson
- Leonna Singson died single and was an owner of a 193 sqm
lot in Ilocos sur her last will was duly probated and the
project of partition was approved by the CFI
- The will provided for a substitution: She leaves half to her
niece Crisologo BUT if niece dies firs then property shallbe
shared between her brothers including Manuel
- Crisologo demanded for a partition but this was refused by
singson b/c he claims that crisologo was just a mere
usufructuary and not an owner of the undivided half of the
property

W/N the clause was a susticion vulagar or fideocimmisaria?

VULGAR

- The old cicvl code as still in effect and states that Fiduciary
substitution not made expressly either by giving them thid
name or imposing the fiduciary the absolute obligation of
delivering the property to a second heir
- SC: It is clear that the particular clause provides for a
substitution of the heir named in a manner that if
Crisologo dies before the testatrix the shares will be
divided among the 3 brothers
- This is a vulgar substitution that results would be that
upon the death of testator, crisologo becomes the owner
undivided half, if it was fideicommissary then she would
only get a usufruct and not have the right of partition
- FIDEI can have no effect except when it is given such a
name or by imposing upon the first heir the absolute
obligation to deliver the inhertaince to a substitute or
second heir
- ITC: Clause 9 shows that the substitution is not expressly
made fideicommissary kind nor does it conatain a clear
effect that crisologo during her lifetime shall only enjoy
usufructuary rights over the prop
Rabadilla vs CA
- Attached to the last will of Belleza where Jorge Rbadilla
was instituted as the devisee of a land states that:
- ‘ To the one that she gives this land to in the event that
person sells, mortgage or lease should deliver 100 PICULS
of sugar to Maria Coscolluela” and In the event they
should do the acts enumenrated above they should deal
w/ near decendants or the sister
- Dr. Jorge died and thus land was transferred to thr wife
and kids including Johnny
- Maria filed a complaint against the heirs of Jorge b/c They
mortgaged the land to DBP, THEY did not deliver the sugar
from 1985-89, Banks also did not deliver the sugar
- During the pre-Trial the parties arrived at an amicable
settlement to delver the sugar but only 50 were given.
W/N the institution of Jorjge is Modal that needs app of art 882?
YES
- There is a modal institution when:
o Testaror states the object
o Purpose or the application of the property left by
W/N the testamentary restraint on the marriage is valid? YES
the testator
o Charge imposed on the heir
- Mode imposes an obligation upon the heir or the legatee
but it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the succ
- On the other hand a conditional institutuion, the condition
must haooen to entitle the heir to succeed the testator
- Mode obligates but does not suspend it is like a resulatory
condition
- ITC: The lots inherited by Jorge imposed an obligation to
deliver the sugar to maria during her lifetime, but did not
make the effectivity of his institution dependent on the
performance of such obligation AND if not complied with
the property will be turned over to the testators nearest
decendants
- In cases of doubt Modal is preferred rather than
conditional
US BANK OF PORTLAND VS SNODGRASS
- In May 31 1929 CA Reinhart made a will and at the time of
the execution of this will his daughter merle was 10 yrs old
- The will provides that He bequeaths to The bank 15k ½ of
his estate if sum is more than 30k in trust
o This is to pay merle from the net income derived
from the sum of 50 per day til 18
o 75 per month 18-25
o Whole net income from 25-32
o TIl she reaches the age of 32 bank is directed to
give the 15k trust fund or ½ if over 30k
o If merle dies b4 him or dies b4 32 or becomes
ineligible then it should be divided to his mom
and sisters, brother and their children and his
sister in law Bertie provided she does not marry
all of Spartanburg.
o The will also provide that upon age of 32 she
never became catholic nor married a catholic
- DIED, in 1951 Merle is now 32 but in 1944 she married a
catholic man
- Although the term Bigot may be socially distasteful or
religious intolerance is also diataseful there is nothing in
the law that declares it mala in se.
- The offensive language can also come within the ambit of
free speech thus the court does not want to disturb the
will of the testator
- The right of the testator to attach to a gift any lawful term
he may fit ni matter how whimsical or capricious is
universally recognized
- The power to give gifts also includes the power to withhold
them as long as it does not violate the law
- While it is true that orgeon consti prohibits legis action
which would impair the free enjoyment clause, the clause
the court believes does not extend to testamentary
distortions
- GR: Conditions and limitations in partial restraint of
marriage will be upheld if it does not unreasonably restrain
the freedom of choice of the beneficiary
- ITC: This restriction is only partial and temporary, merle is
not restrained from ever marrying a catholic man the
inhibition only lasts or 11 yrs and after the age of 32 she
may marry whomever she wants.
- This is also not an in terrorem condition It applies to gifts
or legacies given on condition subsequent b/c it is said that
the possibility of losing a gift tends to inspire fear.
- ITC: The court finds it super labo that a beneficiary will be
terrified into accepting conditions of the gift in fear of
losing it. Thus the court declines to accep it as a medium
for testing validty of the disposition. She married a
catholic it negates that her supposed fear as the fear of
her full judgement is concerned
Natividad vs Gabino

- Appeal filed by the admin of the estate pf the decedent

Reyes from an order dated oct 15, 1915 of the CFI in the
interpretation of the Judge stating clause 6 that ownership
of the property should be given to Basilia subject to the
reservation OF Lorenzo Salvador and Emilio Natividad
- Reyes was married and had a daughter named Higinia who
married Clemente Natividad (Father of Emilio)
- Higinia Died leaving 2 kids Purifcation and Emilio, Thus
Reyes instituted as his sole heirs Grandkids
- In the 6th clause the testator gave to Basilia Gambino a
house and Lot and if she would die Lorenzo Salvador would
be obliged to upon payment of 4k by Emilio then to hand
over the property
- Emilio proposed a project of partition of the prop stating
that Basilia was merely a usufruct and a general Legacy to
Lorenzo but ownership is with Emilio
- Basilia contends that she has ownership and Dominion
over thr prop and that shes not merely a usufruct.

W/N BASILIA IS A MERE USUFRUCT? NO

- A person may freely make his will in such a manner that

may best please him provided that it is according to law
and may impose conditions on the insti of heirs or the
designation of legatees and when the conditions falls in
the NCC then the rules of conditional obli applies
- The condition imposed by the testator in the double
Legacy depends on the happening if the event constituting
the condition which is the death of Basilia
- ITC: The moment Basilia dies the other legatee Lorenzo is
obliged to deliver to Emilio and in turn the latter should
pay 4k to Lorenzo. The first legacy is the voluntary
reservation to Basilia of ownership of the house and lot
then the conditional legacy of 4k to Lorenzo
- ITC: the house and Lot should be delivered as a legacy,
provided that if the legatee should die, the legacy shall
revert to the testators grandson provided he pay 4k to
Lorenzo, THIS CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE A
USUFRUCT
- The legates right of dominon should end at her death and
only then would the property pas to Lorenzo.
- This provision is not contrary to law b/c insamuch as the
testator thereby intended that the property should revert
to its lawful heir and the latter obliged to give
compensation to Basilias Heir.
NOBLE VS NOBLE
- Don Vicente Noble passed away and the will was to be
intetuted by Juan Noble
- This probate was opposed by maria noble a supposed
illegitimate child of Vicente Noble she used the ground
that the will was not executed properly and on ground of
undue influenc fraud…etc
- She wanted claimed that as the only surviving illegitimate
child she wants ½ of the entire hereditary estate
- She also filed a motion to ask permission to present evid of
her filiation
- This was opposed by Juan b/c the claim/motion was in
effect a compulsory recognition and already prescribed b/c
the parent died na.
- CFI ADMITTED
w/n in order for 887 to apply the bare fact of filiation or filiation
acknwoldged? ACK ANG NEEDED
- There are many reasons why both legal and moral that an
fillliation mst be with an ack
- For mere fact of filiation is all that need be proved then a
lot of unscrupulous indiv can take advantage of the law
and and the presumed parent will no longer be in a
position to oppose or deny the allegation
- THE PROOF OF FIL in 887 must be coupled with the investi
in art 289
- The oppositor claims that she is in cont posss of statuts of
a chils and she has evid that that noble is her father.
- The first sentence doesn’t show any recognition that the
father ack that she was the child
- The cont poss is merely an allegation that my be ground
for compelling recognition
- In other cases decided by the SC they said that recognition
and ack is the basis for her right to inherit
- With no allegation of such ack then this may only be a
ground for compelling recognition which has already
prescribed b/c daddy dead
Van Dorn v Romillo
- Pet is a citizen of the ph while the private respondent is a
citizen of the US
- Married in HK in 1972, thereafter established residence in
the PH, 2 kids and the Got Divorced, then the pet re-
married to theodore Van Dorn
- Private respondent filed a case statig that the Pet business
in Manila Galleon shop is conjugal prop and asked to
render accounting and that the private respondent be the
one to mamange the conju prop
- Pet claims barred by prior Judgement that Nevada court
where private respondent ack that they had no more
community prop
w/n the divorce decree is binding?
- The US court had juris over the petioner who appeared in
the court and also over the private respondent who gave
an address living in bush st in SF
- There can be no question that the validity of the divroce
decree is binding on the private respondent b/c he is an
American citizen
- Aliens may obtain divorce abroad and may be recognized
in the PH
- ITC: The divorece decree relased the provate respondent
from his marriage
- The effect of divorce is to free the parties from the bond of
husband and wife
- Pursuant to his national law private respondent is no
longer the husband of the pet. Thud NO LEGA; STANDING
to sue as the husband to manage afaairs of the conju prop
as he is bound bu the decision of his own counrtys court
decision.
ROSALES VS ROSALES
- Petra rosales died intestate but was survived by fortunato
and their 2 children Magna and Antonio
- Another child Caterio died b4 Rosales leaving a child
Mackequerox and the widow Irenea the petitioner
- 30K value of the estate Magna instituted the proceedings
for the settlement of the estate
- RTC issued an order declaring the individual as the legal
heirs
o Husband ¼
o Magna ¼
o Macikequerox ¼
o Antonio ¼
- Irenea insisted on in getting a share of the setate on the
ground that she is the wife of Caterio
W/N the surviving spouse of an intestate heir of her mother in
law? NO AF
- A surviving spouse is not an intestate of the hrit of his or
her Parent in law
- Legal heirs are in 2 gorups, By his own right and through
the right of representation
- There is no proviiosn in the NCCC that states that the
widow of a surviving spouse is one of the intestate heirs of
the in law.
- No provision for her to inherit in her own right or through
the right of representation
- If the legis wanted to make the widow of a child an heir to
the in law then they would have put in the code
- When article 887 says that a surviving spouse is an heir the
article does not refer to estate of an inlaw and also the
surviving spouse in this case is considered a stranger to the
proceedings
- And when Macikerougx inherits not thru the father but
from the right of representation from the grandmother.
Mateo vs Lagua
- Cipriano and Lagua donated 2 out of the 3 lots to the son
Alejandro in consideration of th marriage to Bonifacia
Mateo
- Alejandro died, the wife decided to go into farming of the
donated lots while living with Cipriano, Cipriano then
executed a deed of sale to their other son Gervasio
- Bonifacia contended this and sought the annulment of the
sale and filed a case in which she eventually won
- Gervasia then later sued for the reimbursement of the
expenses incurred
- Cipriano and Gervasio then also sued seeking the
annulment of the donation insofar as a ½ portion and this
was dismissed CA then decalred in the suit that the
donation was inoffciuous and esceeded what Cipriano
could have given by will.
- CA said that the donation of 11k sqm is over and above
what alejandro could have received by will by around
494sqm and ordered to reconvey the 494 sqm piece of
property
w/n the CA erred in their decision? YES
- The annulment of the donation is not for the full donation
but just for the part that exceeded and impaired the
legitime of Gervasio
- But the court noted that thr CA also acted on unsupported
assumptions
o That the 3 lots were the only assets in the
hereditary estate and that his 2 kids were his
only legal heirs and in the coputation of the
legitime the CA only considred the size and no
the value
- The net estate must be ascertained by deductiong
payables and the charges from the value the property
owned by the deceased
- The all the doations that are subject to collation would be
added to it only then can it be determined that there was
an impairment of the legitime
- No evidence yet presented to warrant the reduction for
the donations for being inofficious
Arellano vs Pascual
- Pascual died intestate and left his siblings as the heirs, The
petitioner Amelia represented by her daughters Agnes and
Nona, then his brother the private respondents Fransico
and Miguel
- The repondents allege that the land donated in Makati is
considered as an advance on her legitime
- The RTC said that the probate court founs the donation to
be valid based on the fact of presumption of regularity of
notarized documents and that it is subject to collation in
article 1061 of the civil code
- CA AFFIRM: THEY hold that the property subject of the
donation is subject to collation though not techinially an
advance must be deducted from her share in the
hereditary estate.
w/n prop is subject to collation?
- Collation is a mathematical operation by the addition of
the value of the donations to the value of the hereditary
estate then second it is the return to the estate of
property disposed of by lucrative title by the testator
during his life time
- The purpose of collation is to insure equality among the
compulsory heirs
- The record does not show that there were any primary or
secondary heirs and in fact just left collateral heirs and not
entitled to any legitime and collation needs compulsory
heirs
- 3 types of compolsary heirs:
o PRIMARY
 Children and Decendants these
exclude other compulsory heirs and
take precedence
o SECONDARY
 Parents and ascendants in absence of
primary compulsory heirs
o CONCURRING
 Those who survive with primary or
secondary heirs, spuse and illigitmate
children
- There being no complusary heirs in this case there is no
need for collation and may have freely donated anything
he wanted to
VDA DE TUPAS
- Tupas died childless and left a widow Partenza as his only
surviving compulsory heir and also left a will whivh was
admitted to ptobate
- There were among the others 3 lots 837,838,839 of the
sagay cadestre admitely his private capital
- But upon his death this was donated to the tupas
foundation and were no longer owned by him
- TUpas claims that the donation in effect left her as a
destitute of any of the inheritance and brought a suit to
the foundation to have the donation be ruled as inofficous
insofar as it impairs her legitime
- RTC DISMISSED stating that the donation were made 1
year b4 death thus lo longer part of the hereditary estate
AND this was his separate estate and the foundation being
a stranger and not a complusary heaur is not subject to
collation
W/N the donations should be reduced ? YES
- A person cannot donate an amount he cannot donate by
will other wise this is called inofficous and is redicuble by
the amount of the excess
- This donation is also subject to collation its value is
imputable into the hereditary estate of the donor at the
time of death for the purpose of determining the legitme
of compulasry heirs
- Collatable gifts under art 818 should also include gifts
made in favor of not only com but also strangers
- Collation contemplates and applies to donation inter vivos
- The defense of the separate capital is of no moment b/c
inofficiousness does not assert he gave something that is
not his but the fact he gave more thatn what was in his
power to give
- The steps to determine:
o Dtermine the value of the property which
remains at time of death
o Determination of the debts and obligations due
o Determine the difference of the assts and the
liabalites
o Th addition of the value at the time they were
made of the donations subject to collation
o Dtermine the amount of the legitimes
- Then at the end deduct the legitmes from the value of the
hereditary estate leaves the disposable portion if donation
does not exeed the difference then valid
- REMQANDED BACK TO LOWER COURT
Nieva vs Alcala
- Nieva married Deocampo and had a son named alfeo,
Nieva died and the son inherited 2 parcels of land
- Alfeo died so the dad Deocampo inherited by intestate
succ
- Francisco married Alcala and had a son named jose then
Francisco died so Jose inherited the land and was a minor
at the time
- Then Swgunda and alleged natural daughter of Nieva
wants to recover land from Alcala b/c of reserve truncal
W/N segunda can claim the prop? NO
- Reserva truncal only applies to legitimate relatives in the
3rd degree although the article itself does not distinguish
but Manresa argues that the obligation to reserve is on the
legitimate ascendant only
- The place where art 811 is placed is proof that it refers
only to legitimate ascendants as the articles around it talk
anout the legitimes of legitimate ascendants
- Art 938 states that 811 applies only to intestate succ which
is just established in favor of legitime in the direct
ascending line
- The article really speaks of blood relations b/c if affinity
were to be counted like between spouses then a property
can end up with the spouse family and that transmits
property from one fam to another NOT ALLOWED
- Onli talks about legitimate relationsips
o The person obliged to reserve must be legit
ascen who inherits from the descedent
preceeding from same legit fam
- ITC: Segunda being the natural sister of alfeo although in
the 3rd deg not being along the line of the lgit fam she is
not entitled to alfeo prop
LACERNA V CORCINO
- Lacerna et al instituted an action for the recovery of 3
parcels of land on the ground that it belonged to Juan their
cousin
- Agatona alleged that she held the disputed lands under a
power of attorney executed by Juan and is entitled to
inherit just like Lacerna et al
- Jacoba filed an answer alleging that she is Juans Half sister
and that she is entitled to the prop
- Jacoba is the child of juans father valentin from another
marriage
- Lacerna Et al. that pursuant to reserve truncal and since
the property was inherited from Bonifacia the mom the
prop should go to the nearest relative on the maternal
line.
W/N reserve truncal applies? NO
- 891 is not applicable where a descendant inherioted from
the asencdant
- It applies when an ascendant inherits from a decedent
- The article will only app;ly to properties that are inherited
under the conditions set forth In the article
- A sister even if only a half sister I the absence of other
bros and sis excludes all other collateral relatives.
Chua vs CFI
- In the first marriage of chua he had 3 kids Ignacio, Lorenzo
and Manuel
- 2nd marriage with with dela torre with whom he had a child
Juanito
- Chua Died and left prop to all his kids and the widow
o ½ to de la torre
o ½ to Juanito
o 3k to Lorenzo
o 1.5 to Ignacio
- Juanito died intestate and thus de la torre adjudicated the
lots in her favor
- Ignacio dominador and remedios filed a complaint and
that the portion that dela torre received by operation of
law be reserved for them.
w/n reserve truncal applies? YES
W/N they were Innocent pruchasers for value? NO
- The requistes are all presnt
o Property was acquired by the ascendant or from
bro and sis by gratouitus titile
 Prop was acquired by Juanito from his
father chua
o Descendant died without issue
o Property is inherited by another ascendant by
operation of law
o There are relatives w/in the 3rd degree that
belong to the line from whjich said property
came
- CFI held that the prop was not gratuitous because the
legatees were required to pay fees
- SC said it is still gratoituous, this is when the recipient does
not give anything in return it doesn’t mater whether the
property is subject to prior charges
- It essential that the person who tranmits it does so
gratoitusly without requiring any prestation the paymemnt
of the 3k to standard oil does not change the the gratuitus
nature of the donation
SUMAYA VS IAC
- Raukk Balantakbo inherited from 2 sdiff ascendants 1/3
share of land in liliw from FATHER JOSE
- 1/7 share in a land from his maternal Grandmother Juisa
- Raul died so his mom inherited from him
- The mom the proceeded to sell the properties and sold the
first property to Sumaya who then sold it to Villa
honororirio then transferred the property to Agro
industrial coconut so 2/3 of the share is woth the coop and
1/3 is with sancho balatakbo
- Then sold more prop to villa then transferred to the coop
the certificates of titile do not have the annotation of its
reservable character
- Rauls brothers filed 2 cases to recover prop because they
were reservable
- Pet contend that they are innocent purchasers for value
- Although it was not annotated from in the titile but the
affidavit of self adjusdication shows the source of the
property and thereby showing its reservable character and
was registered in ROD
o Entry in the day book is constructive notice
binding on the whole world
- BUT there was further proof that the petitioners has
actiual notice of the reservable character of the properties
as the matter appeared in the deed of sale in the first case
- The affidavit of self adjudication is notice enough to bind
them and that the parties were long time friends and all
the corps were just the family biz of the sumayas
- The resorvor is under obligation to annotate the properties
to protect the reserves against innocent 3rd persons
- This is b/c the reservavble charcter can be lost to innocent
ourchasers for value there is a duty to annotate
- Court also said that unless registration of the limitation is
made is made no 3rd persons shall be prejudiced thereby

EDROSO V SABLAN
- Edroso was married to Sablan the origin and the son
inherited the property then the son died thus the mom
inherited
- Marcelina now applied for the registration and issuance of
the title over the said 2 parcels of land
- This was opposed by 2 bothers of the dad. They wanted
either to deny the application or have the properties
annotated with their right of the registration
w/n prop is reservable?
- the applicant is entitled to have the prop regis in her own
name howver the right should be reserved and annotated
on the CTC
- When Marcelina inherited the property from pedro which
is by operation of law she has the right to reserve this
property intact for the uncles of Pedro who belong to the
same line and within 3rd degree
- Property which an ascendant inherit by law from dec who
inherited from asc must be reserved by the asc heir im
favor of uncles of the desc from whom the inheritance
proceeded
- Legal titile and dominon resides with her abelit with a
conditoion, she can do anything she wants with the propn
- The heir of the real property who has beyond any doubt
the rights of using and wnjoying is not prevented to regis
the prop
FLORENTINO VS FLORENTINO
- Florentino had 9 kids in first marriage, and in his next
marriage w/ de leon 2 kids Mercedes and apolonio
- At the time of his death all 11 kids were given inheritance
and one of the children Apolonio 3 died and thus was
succeded by his mom de leon.
- De leon died and the will named Mercedes as the heir and
took all the prop.
- The plaintifs Encanasion Florentino et al want the share in
the fruits and rents from the alleged reservable property
- But the defedents claim is that the reservable property
may not impair the legitime of an Heir like Mercedes
W/N the properties are reservable? YES
- According to the law the ascendants do not inherit the
reservanle property but its enjoyment, use or trust b/c the
law imposes the obligation to resereve and preserve
- The duty to reserve and preserve are for certain persons
and upon the death of the reservist the desginated class of
people shall auire the ownership of the property
- The property reverts to the said line as long as the persons
acquire in fact the right of resevatarios are relatives and in
the 3rd degree
- Right of rep canot be allaged when one caiming the same
as a reservatario is not among relatives w/in the 3rd degree
- Relatives of 4 or succ degrees can never be reservatarios
- IT’S THE frist four plaintifs arenhis relatives 3rd degree in
their own right and the other 12 are by the right of
representation of their parents and are reservataripos
Gonzales vs CFI
- Benito is thr son of Benito 1 died and was surved by his
widow Filomena and also the 7 kids
- The prop left by Benito 1 were divided in 3 including his
son Benito 2
- One of the daughter of Benito 2 Filomena died inteststae
and without issue and thus her mom Mrs. Legarda
inherited from her and made an aff to adjudicate all the
prop inherited to herself
- She then wrote a letter where she disposed of the prop to
her 16 grand children
- Legarda died and will was admitted to probate one of her
daughters filed a motion to exclude the properties that she
inherited from her daughter Filomena b/c it is reservable
in nature and should go to the 3 sisters and 3 nrothers
W/N the properties in question were reservable? YES
- There are 3 transmissions involved in reserve truncal
o INHERITANCE OR DONATION to deced=ndant
o Transmission by op of law to the ascendant
o Transmission from reservoir to reserves w/in 3rd
degree from the line prop came from
- There are 2 resolutory conditions
o DEATH OF ASCENDANT
o SURVIVAL AT TIME OF DEATH OF RELATIVES IN
3RD DEGREE
- Reservor is a usufructury of the reservable property and
holds titile subject to the condition
- ITC: the prop were clearly reservable Mrs Legarda was
the resorvor of the prepositus Filomena
- Mrs Legarda could not convery the prop to her
grandchildren even if they were in the 3rd degree to the
exclusion of those in the 2nd degree
- Threservavble property did not form part of her estate
reserves inherit the property from the pre[psitus and not
from the resrovor the resorvor does not have the power to
select who the reserves are
- It is also contended that the reason of truncal has already
been satisfied b/c it already goes to relatives of the 3 rd
degree in the paternal line which are the grand children
- The court has held that no reserves should not be deinied
their right by giving all the property to only one of the
reserves.
- Reservees do not inherit from the resorvor but from the
prepositus and this the dispostions should be not by the
will of the reservoir but from what the law provides in
891.
PADURA VS BALDOVINO
- Agustin in his first marriage to Gervacia had a child named
Manuel In his 2nd marriage he had a child named Fortnato
and Candelaria
- Agustin died and left In his will properties to all 3 kids and
his widow Galang
- Fortunato died and left a will giving his prop to his mom
Galang she applied to have torrens titile in her name with
annotation to reservable character
- Candelaria died leaving Baldovino Et al as her heirs Then
Manuel died leaving his heirs Padura Et al
- Baldovino filed a pet to have ½ for them then the othr half
to Padura et al
- Padura contends that the land should be divided by them
by 11 as the 11 reswrvees and they inherit in their own
right
- Heirs of Candelaria as based on theNCC since they are
nieces and nephews by full blood they are entitled to a
share twice the amount
W/N heirs of full blood are wntieled to twice a much? YES
- The purpose of reserve truncal is accomplished once a
property has devolved to specified realtives of the line of
origin
- In the relations between one reservatario and aonther of
the dame degree there is no call for applying 891
whefrefore the repsiective rules will be decided using
normal rules of intestacy
- The court has decided in the past that ther reservable
property should not pass to all reservatarios as a class BUT
those in nearest degree to the prepositus
- In determining the proximity of degree and right of
representation are made to apply thus the double share
for immidietae collaterals are made to apply
- Reserva truncal determines the class of people to inhriot
but the indivudal rights should be decided by the rules on
intestacy
- Even during the lifetime of reservista the reserveees have
the right ro have the property annotated in their favor to
protect their rights
- Had the nephews of half blood succeeded the prepositus
directly those of full blood whould receive a double share
compared to those of half blood according to the rules of
intestacy.
DE PAPA VS CAMACHO
- Romina is the sister of balbino, donated 4 parcels of land
to her niece Toribio Tioco The legitimate sister of the
plaintiffs
- Toribia died and was survived by husband Eustacio and 2
legit kids Faustino and Trinidad the land became
inheritance of the 2 kids
- Balbino dided intestate survived by Plaintifdfs and the 2
grandkids Faustino and Trinifdad
- Faustino died intestate jis ½ share of the 7 parcels of land
was given to the father Eustacio subject to reserve truncal
- Trinidad likewise died and her share of the land was
inherited by her child
- Eustacio also died and survived by the child of Trinidad…
Dalisay
- Plaintiffs agree that she owns ½ of the 7 parcels as
inheritance fom the mom, BUT is not claiming for the
other half as truncal from Faustino
- Plaintiffs oppesed this
W/N Dalisay is entiled to all the 7 parcels? YES
- The purpose of reserve is accomplished when the property
has devolved to the specified relatives in the line of origin
- Following the order presicrbed by law when there are
relatives I the 3rd degree the right of the nearer relatives
to the ex;udes ones that are more remote
- The realtives of 4th and beyond degrees can never be
considered as the reservatarios
- It is likewise clear that the reservatarios do not inherit
from the reservista but actualy from the prepositus
- Proximity of degree and the right of representation of
nephews and the rule of double share if immidetate
collatarals of full blood applies
- Thus in this cae the unlces and aunts of Faustino are
exluded from this by his niece and under our laws when
there are uncle and aunts may not succeed when there
are nephews and niecaes
Mendoza vs delos Santos.
Pecson Vs Mediavillo
- Florencio Pecson here is the grandfather of Rosario their
lawyer Tomas intervened in the probate of the will
- The will provded for that Rosario was disinherited by her
grandfather b/c of she rasing a hand against him and being
a little bitch
- Florencio had 8 kids Including the mother of rosario,
Teresa. Teresa also died only leaving her kids Joaquin and
Rosario then Joaquin also died
- Lower court found that rosario became fuckin crazy af she
would show disobedience to her lolo and due to this she
was disinherited note that she was 14 yrs of age
W/N the courts may look into the cause for the disinheritance? YES
- Disinheritance can only happen with the valid causes that
are provided by law and can only be done thru testament
in which the legal causes or grounds shall be mentioned
- The right of the courts inquire as to the causes are
supported by the provisons by the civil code
- The law provides that the burden of proof to show reason
for DI shall be proved by the heirs asserting it when the
heir na DI denied the cause or the gorund thereof
- the right of the court to inquire is also evident n the next
article which says that a DI w/o a atement of a cause or
reason he truth of which if contradicted shloud not be
priven shall designation of heirship in so far as it prejudices
the person disinherited
- ITC: it appears that rosario at 14 was being noticed by
W/N the will is valid and if there was preterition
some gentlemean and it appears that florencio
disapproved of this and talked to rosario
o It was in this talk that the disobedience came
which is the cause of the DI
- So the court taking into consideration in her age and that
fact na topak siya soon after she was NOT reposible for
the acts acuused off
- REMANDED
Seaganio vs Reyes
- Private respondents filed for the petition of intestate
proceedings of the late SEGUNDO
- The pet. Virginia, Barbra and Dy all seganio mentions that
there is actually a holographic will wherein it states that
Alfredo Seganio was disinherited by Segundo
- Hence a pet for probate of a will was filed and they claim
probate for a will should take precedent over the intestate
proc
- Respondents move to dismiss on the gorunds that
o The doc wasn’t a will b/c only DI is alleged in the
will
o There is preterition b/c none of the complusary
heirs were mentioned
o Allege that they can look at the intrinsic validity
of the will
- Pet contends that courts are only to the Ex val AND THAT
DI is a valid will and that it constitutes a disposituion of a
peoperty
- They additionally argue that there is no Preterition b/c
none of the heris in the direct line of Segundo were
preterited in the holographic will since there were no
institutions of heirs
- And that the contiueation of the probate proceedings will
do an injustice to the will of Segundo
- RTC DISMISSED probate and said there is pretitirtion b/c
Alfredo and Virginia were mentioned
- The court held that the kasulatan pag alis ng mana is
definitely a disinheritance
- Which showed the intention of Segundo to disinherit his
son alfredo for the reasons cited becaue nagsasalita ng
masama sa harap ko
- For DI to be valid it must be made in a will wherein the
legal cause therefor shall be specified the court believes to
take the wituation as a whole can be considered as a form
of maltreatment to Segundo
- The document of Segundo may come of as a mere
disinheritance document but it conforms to the formalities
that are set by law
- Its written dated and signed by Segundo himself
- While it does not appear to have any affirmative
disposition of the property the DI is an act of disposition
in of itself b/c it results in the disp of prop in favor of
those who would succ in absece os alfredo
- It is the last testamentary act and the SC believes thaty
the DI cannot be given effect if it is not first probated
- No pretierition because Segundo did not institute any new
heirs to the exclusion ofother heirs
IN RE TARLO

- Albert tarlo shot the brain of his wife who was asleep
andthen shot his daughter and then committed suicide
- Wife and daughter died but he survived for a few hours
- And the question now is whether the estate shall be
distributed to the estate of the dad or to the maternal
grandfather Louis Koch who is her next of kin
- The court awarded the prop to the admin of the fathers
estate

Where should the estate go? FATHER

- Section 23 of the intestate act states that no person who

shall be finally adjudged guilty either as principal or as an
accessory of murder shall be entiled to inherit of the
person killed
- The court is of the opinon that the language used in the
section means that the word adjudged means that a
court of competend jurisdiction to pass on the Q of guilt
in murder MEANS convicted and sentenced
- Not only concivtion but also of a sentence and that
sentence is not appealed and if appealed, that judgement
should be affirmed
- The section was to adresss to meet the case of Carpenter
where the SC at the time even when sentenced, said that
they have not yet forfeited their rights in intestate and the
commsion at the time was of the opinon that party
charded with the crime should be adjudged in the proper
forum !!!
- It is impossible to conclude that the law amkers would give
a wider meaning than what it means as adjudged guilty
ROBERTS VS LEONIDAS
- Grimm is an American and live manila Died survuded by
2nd wife Maxine and have 2 kids Pete and Linda
- He was perviosly married and has 2 kids also Junata and
Ethel
- Grimm made 2 wills, a will for his Philippine prob and also
a 2nd will for his foreign prop
- Maxine made probate proceeding in UTAH and she also
admits that she received notice of the Intestate petition
filed in manila by Ethel in January
- Ethel and Maxine enred into a ckmrpomise agreement
regarding the estate
- Maxine filed an MTD and opposition for the intestate proc
in manila and submitted the will of Grimm but pursuant to
her agreement with ethel Max withdrew
- Maxine then filed a pet for probate of the 2 wills probated
in Utah and the previous partition of the intestate court be
set aside
- Maxine allged that they were defrauded due to the
fraudulent machinations of ethel, and that the partition in
the intestate proc is void for it violates the will Ethel filed
an MTD which was later dismissed
W/N testate proceedins whould be allowed? YES
- No grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Judge in
denying the motion of esther
- The testate proc is proper b/c decedent died w a will
- Probate of the will is mandatory the intestate case should
be consolidated with the testate proceeingd and the
judge assigned the testate proceeding should continue
hearing bothof the cases
REPUBLIC VS GUZMAN
- SIMEON DIED in 1968 leaving his wife helen and son David
several parcels of land in Bulacan
- Helen and David exec a EXTRA JUD settlement of the
estate dividing and adjudicationg to themselves the land
- Helen executed a quitclaimmgiving to David her portion of
the land
- David executed an SPA directing the lawyer Abela to sell
the land
- Another attorney wrote a letter to the solgen saying that
the ownership of the lands were defective the ½ protion
he has is defective so the GOVT filed a case to have the
land forfeited in its favor
- Govt argues that David being an American could not validly
aquire the ½ portion of helen
- David argues that he got this land by accretion and not by
donation thru the quitclaim
Who is entitled to the land? Helen
- the quit claim of the land does not give rise to a donation
but a repudiation but it is an invalid repudiation of
inheritance
- the quitclaim contemplated that helen would waive her
rights and title and interest over th land
- this is also not a donation b.c helen was aware that she
cannot bmake a donation b/c Philippine law does not
allow this agreement
- her real intention was to keep the property within the
blood line of simon
- There was no repudiation of the esate b/c she already
accepted the inheritance when she executed the
settlement
- Helen is the rightful owner although being an American
she can receive property thru hereditary succ
DE LOS SANTOS VS DE LA CRUZ

- De los santos filed a complaint for specific performance

against De La cruz.
- They executed an extra Jud partion of the estate, the heirs
also gave 3 additional lots to Maximo o the condition that
he would develop the land and the expenses are to be
shouldred by the sale of the 3 parcles given to him
- De los santos is the grand niece of Pelagia de la cruz and
where the estate came from and Maximo is the nephew f
pelagia
- Maximo contends that the settlement was void in respect
of the plaintiff b/c she is not an heir and that she was only
included by mistake
- In a counter claim he says that the plaintiff sold her share
and that now he is entitled to 1/4 the proceeds by way of
reversion

W/N settlement is void as to the plaintiff? YES

- Pelagia died intestate died in 1962. Marciana died in 1935

thus predecsed her aunt and the point of the extra jud part
is to adjudicate the land to the heirs of pelagia
- NCC provides that right of rep happens in the direct
descending line … in the collatreral line for kids of bros or
sis
- In previous Jurisprudence the Niece would exclude and
grand niece and also in the right of rep is only limited to
the kids of bros and sis
- ITC: the nephew would exclude the grand niece which is
De Los Santos.
o Thus the plaintiff does not have the right to
institutue this action b/c the settlelment was
meant for the heirs of pelagia and shewas
included b/c a sopposed right of rep
o The partition os void as to her b/c the parties
were working under an erounious belief that she
was one of the lgal heirs of Pelagia
o She cannot raise estopel b/c estopel cannot be
used with void contracts
- According to the law when an unrelated person receives a
share under a void partition must restore to the legitimate
heir the inheritiance
Uriarte vs CA
- Benedicto is the son of Agatonica, whose parents are
pedro and Ursula, pedro died so Ursula married Juan and
had a child Justa the Aunt of Benedicto.
- Heirs of urirate are the prtitioners, they are the widow and
daughters of Pacasio uriarte, which makes them the
realtives within the 5th degree to Justa by her cousin
Primitiva
- The other pet are the children primitive and are also
related within the 5th degree from Justa
- Benedicto sought the partition of a 2.7 hectare land that
she inherited and bought as he is the sole surviging heir
b/c she had no kid s
- Pacasio then refused to hand over the harvest of the land
but benedicto claimed he was merely a tenant
- The heirs of Pacasio claim to be the real owners b/c the
land came from their great grand uncle Ambrocio and was
bequeathed to the father of Justa and that benedicto
cannot inherit b/c he is not an heir of Ambrocio
- RTC RULED FOR URIARTE
- CA REVERSED
Who is enetirled to the land? Benedicto
- Justa left a 2.7 h3ctare land 0.5 hec were the conju prop
and the rest were aquired by the death of her parents and
thus
o The first ½ hectare should be divided in 2 parts
b/w the petitioners and the next part to the
private respondent
o Then the next portion which was already
consolidated will accrue to Benedicto as he is 3
degrees away from Justa unlike the petitioners
who are 5 degrees away
- The CA correctly held that the relative nearest in degree
will exclude the mor distant ones saving for the right of rep
when it properly takes place
- In this case benedicto being the son of Agatonica the half
sis of justa and thus is a 3rd degree relative and on the
other hand the pet are the sons and daughter os justas
cousin.
- Applying the principle that nearest excludes farthest the
plaintiff is the lawful heoir
- The pet misappricate the relationship b/c they claim that
since he is not an Arnaldo thus he cannot inherit is wrong
- It is when you look at the nearness of the degrees to Justa
is what is controlling he is the nephew and thus absent any
other heirs and thus is a near collateral relative, and also
the determination of being half and full blood Is only
important only to determine the extetnt of the share of
the survivors
Rodriguez vs Borja
- Celestino died on feb 12 1963 in the city of manila and
Anatolia Pangilinan and Adeleida the purported last will
and testament
- Rodriguezes filed a pet for leave of court so they can
examine the will before the court could act on it it was
withdrawn
- They then proceeded to file a case for the intestate estate
settlememnt in the CFI of rizal, it was mentioned that he
was a resident of rizal and died w/o leaving a will
- and that he was a parish priest in Bulacan from 30-63 until
his death
- Movants contend that his intestate proceedings was filed
at 8am and the pet for probate was filed at 11am the latter
court no longer had juris.
w/n Bulacan court has juris? YES
- The estate proceedings have already been initiated In the
Bulacan court ahead of any other that court is entiled to
assume jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts
even if it is the wrong venue
- There was evident bad faith on the side of the petitioners
b/c they wwere aware that the will was already submitted
in the bulcan curts which was patently done to be able to
divest the court of its jurisdiction
- The next reason is that in our civil law intestate succ is only
subordinate in nature to the tesatate succ proceedings
- Intestate only happens when it is in article 960
o Dies w no or void will
o Will does not institute an heir to or dispose to all
of his prop thus intestate to the rest
o Suspensive condition does not happen or not
fulllfilled or if heir dies b4 test, or repudiates the
inheritance
o Incapable to succ
- Thus only ater final decision as to the nullity of testate succ
could an intestate succ be instituted in the form of pre
established action
- Thus the proceeding in rizal cannot proceed while the
probate is pending

BAGUNU VS PIEDAD
- Ofelia Bagunu daughter of the 1st cousin of Piedad (who
died w/o issue ,oved to intervene in the specpro of In re
estate of Piedad
- She insists that she is also entitled to a share and assails
the decision of the trial court awarding the entire estate to
Pastora who is the Maternal aunt of Piedad on the ground
of procedural infirmities
- RTC DEINIED, CA DISMISSED
- Bagunu is a 5th degree collateral relative
- There was publication in a newspaper and a lack of niotice
to the other heirs
w/n rule of proximity apples in intestate succ among collateral
relatives? NO
- The rule of proximity in intestate succ does not apply
among collateral relatives
- the rule on proximity is a concept that favors the relatigves
of the nearest degree to the decedent and exclud3s the
more distant ones exeptr with right of rep
- by the right of rep a more distant representative is raised
to the same degree and place of relationship of that of a
closer blood relative he steps into the shoes of the person
he represents
- in the collateral line the right of rep is proper w/regard to
the borhters ans sister and ctheir children
- but here in this case the aunt is closer in degree and
excludes those who are of the farther degrees being an
aunt she is given prority over bagunu
ABELLANA VS FERRARIS
- It has been more than 10 years since the last time Melodia
Ferraris was known to be alive
- She was declared presumptively dead for the purpose of
her opening of succ and to distribute her eststae
- She left no direct descedants, ascendants or a apouse but
was survived by collateral relatives
- Filomena who is her aunt, then Ferraris et al as her neiaces
and nephews of her full blood brother who died before her
- RTC ruled in favor if nieces and nepews that ther are 2
degree relatives as they inherit from right of rep and that
the aunt is a 3rd degree relative
- Filomena claims that they are all of equal footing as 3 rd
degree relatives
Who among the relatives should inherit? Ferraris et al.
- While the SC agrees with Filomena that they are all 3rd
degree relatives of melodia and there is no right of
representation when the nieace or nephews do not
survives with other bros and sis of the descedent
- But nonetheless Ferraris et al are nieces and nephews
which exclude all other collaterals from succ in the case of
intestate succ
- Under the civil code abcesne of bros and sis, neph and
nieces is a precondition for other collateral from inheriting
- The pet cites Tolentino commentary stating that art 1009
does not establish an order of preference but they omitted
the fact that he also said that while it does not state an
order of preference th article should still be understood to
be connection to the genral rule that near excludes far
IN RE WENDEL
- This is a proceeding for the probate of a will, and Wendel
left no desecendants
- There are 1600 claimants saying that they are within the
class of legal distributees they seek to obtain a verified
statement of the degree of relationship
- This proceeding is EO whein it comes to the number of
claimats who have appeared.
Who are the legal heirs?
- In impt change in the inheritance laws of real estate have
changed that right of representation is now permitted only
as far as borhters and sisters only those in the nearest
degree are allowed to inherit
- If there is a group of 1st cousins then they are the sole class
that are supposed to inherist, in such case if there are
children or grand children of the cousins they wont be
entitled to inherit
- Same rules apply to the ascertainlement to those of next
of kin ir heirs where 2nd and 3rd cousins or more distant
relatives
- Thus Rosa is alleged in the pet is that she is the sole next of
kin of Ella wendel she is the 5th degree relative
- There are certain claimants that are claiming to be the first
cousins of wendel then thoe who are claiming to be the 5 th
degree relatives and those of every pther more remote
degree are no the proper parties
- If the next of kin of the 5th degree establish their status all
persons beyond that degree must be eliminated
- The order of procedure
o Jurisdiction of the court should be established
o Next will be a trial on the relationships of the
claimants, and those claiming to be of nearer
degree would be tried first
o Every person outside of the established nearest
degree would now be excluded
o If there are any perosons to be found to tbe the
next of kin and heirs at law of miss wendel and
legally entiled to contest the will shall be brought
on
BOLANOS VS BERNARTE
- Maria and emma Bolanos bought land from Cresencia in
albay and registered this under their name
- Zuniga et al wanted to annul the sale and its t4ransfer with
a prayer for WPI
- The complaint allged that they are all Lgit half siblings of
each other and are all children of Roman Zuniga from 2
marriages and that he never settled or partinied his estate
- And that flavia executed w/o knowledge of the other co-
owners the sale to cresencia then in turn also sold the lots
w/o their knowledge
- Flavia denies the sale to cresencia and that her subsequent
sale is only valid as to her part of the land
- Cresecia allged she was in good faith and that flavia is the
sole owner of the property since this was orally paritnid by
roman
- Bolanos allge that the land was only flavias and owned in
common by her full siblings only they aso argue that the
bro and sis mentioned in the Tax Dec were only the full
siblings when prop was bequeathed
Who is entitled to the land? ALL HIS KIDS
- Romans first wife died in 1944 and he married his 2 nd wife
in 1954 and the lot was declared for tax in 1948 in the
name of flavia sis and bros
- Thus when he acquired the ots in 1948 he was still a
widower and thus was part of his capital property and
when he died this lot formed part of the state
- There being no evid that he executed a will then its stands
that all his children inherit in equal shares
- Until it has been partiond there can be no one child that
can declare a certain portion as their own
- The sale of flavia to cresencia is only valid up to her ideal
share and it was really her signature that appears on the
document
- So sps Bolanos only effectibvly acquired the ideal shares of
Cresencia and FlAVIA
- The court rules that based on the provisions of the civil
code all the children of roman inherit the lot in equal
shares to all 11 kids and thus owned by them in common
- Restituion of the excess of the land sold
CACHO VS UDAN
- Silvina udan single, died leaving a will naming her son
Francisco and a certain cacho as her sole heirs
- Cacho filed a pet for probate of the will of Silvina but this
was opposed by the legit bro Rustico
- After the notary who notarized the will and also testified in
court, the son fransico died and thus the 2 legit brothers
filed their opposition to the will
- They claim that he will was orivued thru fraud, UI, and the
testatrix does not have the testamentary capacity to
execute the will and was formally invalid
- CFI dismissed their pe fro lack of interest
Who is preffered to inherit? Illigitimate child Francisco
- The bros have no standing to intervene in the probate. To
be able to intervene one must have a pecuniary interest in
the settlement b/c he or she is a bene by will or law
- At the time of the death of Udan her son Francisco is the
heir to intestate to the exclusion of her brothers and
sisters
- The law stats that collateral relatives can only inherit when
there are no legit, dec or ascendants or illigitmate children
- If the will is probated john and rustic would still be
excluded by intestate b/c they are still to be xcluded from
the estate by virtue of her son fran
- The rights that are aquired by Francisco are only
transmitted by his own death to hisheairs at law not to the
siblings of the moother
- And there is also no showing of repudiation by francsisco
SANTILLON VS MIRANDA
- Santillon died w/o Testament, leaving only one son claro
and his wife Perfecta miranda, during his marriage he
bought several lands located in the province
- After 4 yrs after death claro filed a pet for letters of admin
and this was opposed by widow perfecta miranda, Benito
Miranda and Rosario Corrales
o They were conjugal prop except for 3 which
were exlcusive to Miranda
o Perfecta conveyred ¾ of the land to benito and
rosario
o Admin is not nec b/c there was a aprtion
proceeding pending
o If ever if needed perfecta is the correct party to
Who has better right to the estate left by anastacio? Jesus
the proceeding
- Claro invokes art 892 and sinsited that after dedeucting
the ½ share in conju prop and gave himself ¾ of the
hereditary estate and perfecta claimed she has ½ of the
estate
How shall the estate be divided?
- Art 892 cannot be used by claro b/c 892 only applies to
testamentary succ and not to intestate succ, 892 merely
fixes the legitime of the surviving spouse in testate succ
- Art 996 is what applies to the case at bar the law states
what when there is a legit child and is left with a widower
the child and widower would get ½ each
- It is the maxim that the plural include the singular b/c
allegedly art 996 only speaks of the children hence the
plural but this would be absurd and intead 888 and 892
shuld be applied where in the wife only gets ¼
- So the court hilds that the word children should include
and can be read as child, b/c of we hold otherwise there
would be a number of articles that would not apply to a
child
Del Pardo vs Santos
- Anastacio died intestate and single but he had a brother
name Eugenio Del Prade. A certain Aurea Santos was
married to Demetrio but seprated and then she co-habited
with Anastacio then Jesus Del Prado was born
- Anastacio has admitted that ths was his son
- And a certain land in Rizal was adjudicated to Jesus and a
new TCTA WAS ISSUED TO JESUS
- Eugenio wants to annul the deed executed by Aurea the
parcel left to the minor child Jesus, b/c he claims he was
depreived of his right ful share in the estate of his brother
- She claims that that her son is an acknowledged natural
child of anastacio and is entitled to inherit from his father
- Eugenio contends that even if s said minor is the
illiegtimate child he claims that anastacio never regonized
him as such no showing has been made that it was with
the consent that the minor was entered asnhis son in te
civil regis
- The facts stipulated by him makes his argument untenable
the facts stipulated by him show that Aurea cohabited
with his bro and thus a child was born and admitted to be
his son
- Since he died during the effectivity of the new civil code
Illegitimate children other than the natural children are
entailed to succ rights
- ITC: the deceased died intestate w/o any legit desecendats
or ascendants then his illegitimate shild shall succ to his
entire estate to the exclusion od Eugenio who is a
collateral relative.
 - The sale was valid b/c there was consideration from OFW
money in Saudi
- But part of the sale was not valid b/c romeo et al own ¼ of
that that building.

FERNANDEZ VS FERNANDEZ

- Sps Francisco were the registered owners of a land in

Dagupan consisting in 194 sqm and there is a 2 storey
building, without a child they bought a child for 20 from
Miliang named Rodolfo
- Francsico died leaving his wife and his child
- Then on the same day they executed a partition and EJ
settlement of the properties, and then sold the land
portions to Eddie Fernandez the son of Rodlfo
- This was contested by Romeo Fernandez et al who are the
nephews and the nieces of Fernandezthe allege that the
move was motivated by greed amd to deprive Romeo et al
of their succ rights taking advantage of the mental incap of
generosa
- Causing fake simulated contracts which was made on the
same date of the settlement and the partition to secure
new titles in their favor
- RTC RULED IN FAVOR OF ROMEO CA AFFIRM

W/N Rodolfo is a legal heir of sps Fernandez? NO

- Romeo et al is not impugning legitimacy but merely

attacking the settlement and the absoluted deeds of sale
while ordinarily to impugn ones legitimacy must be in a
proceeding for that ourpose
- The court finds it necessary to rule on the filiation as it
determines the lagal rights of Rodlfo to the estate of the
father
- SC agress that Rodolfo failed to prove his repationship w/
Fernandez the reocrds management and archives office is
bereft of any record of the birth of rodlfo
- The contents of the app for recog of back pay rights are
not proof that is needed for the public instrument in the
family code
- In the said application it merely states proof that Jose
fernanez filed the application but it does not prove the
veracity of the declarations
- Rodolfo claims that he has held the status of legit child
openly but this is not an ack but it is merely a ground for a
child to claim recognition
- Baptismal cert is a pub doc but it is a doc to prove the
administration of the sacraments on those dates
- Considering the findings ROdlofo is thus not a legal heir
of Fernandez so the EJ settlement is thus void indsofar as
rodlfo is concerned
- The deeds of sale to eddie howver were valid
- The civil code provdes that bros and sis ir their children
suvive w the spouse then they all share ½
- Generosa is entitled to ½ so in effect she gets ¾ pro indivso
share as the surviving spouse b/c of the conju prop and the
inheritance she is to receive
- And thus this would not give romeo et al exclusive
ownership of the prop so in effect she could validly sell
what is hers to eddie
Arado vs ALCORAN
- Raymundo was married to Joaquina and they had a son
Named Nicolas
- Nicolas married Florencia and had no kids, so Nicolas had
an affair w, francisca and they had a son named Anacleto
who married Elenette. Raymundo died n 1939; Nicolas
died in 1954 Florencia in 1960, and Joaquina in 1981
- The isblings of Joaquina filed in the RTC a complaint for
recov of prop and amages agansit Anacleto and Elenette
- There are 10 props subject to this proceeding 8 of those
were stipulated by the parties as belonging to Raymundo
and the other 2 as paraphernal prop of Joaquina
- Plaintiffs argue that when raymunso died his prop was
inherited by Nicolas since in the old civil code a spouse
does not inherit but only a share in a usufruct
- When Nicolas died without issue ½ was inherited by his
wife Florencia and the other half by his mom Joaquina
w/n Anceleto can inherit from Nicolas?
- Nicolas had duly ack Ancelto as his IC. And his birth cert
shows that he himself (Nicolas) was the one who caused
the registration of the same
- When Nicolas died in 1954 CC was already in effect and
under art 1000 heirs that were entieled to inherit were
SS, THE MOTHER AND IC
- Anacleto has already established the right to inherit from
Nicolas whose estate includes the 8 parcels of land that
had belonged to Raymundo
- Anacleto became a pro-indiviso owner of the said
properties
- When Joaquina died her share included the 2 remaining
props and her share w/ Nicolas, and when she died having
no descendants legit so collaterals may inherit
- BUT ANACLETO COULD NOT INHEIORT FROM JOAQUINA
this is because of art 992 which not allow an IC to inherit
from the legitimate relatives of the father or morhter,
thus he cannot inherit from the legitmate grandmother
- ROR is not available to Anacleto w/ respect for Joaquina
- BUT since the parties did not establish that the estates of
Raymundo Nicolas and Joaquina was yet settled w/ finalty
in the proper proceeding they cannot adjudicate to
themselves specific prop
DE LA MERCED VS DE LA MERCED
- EVARISTA died intestate and w/o issue leaving 5 parcels of
land in pasig she has 3 sets of heirs
o Francisco Legit bro
o Teresita niece
o 9 legit children of another sister
- Francisco died and left hi wife and 3 legit kids they
executed a settlement giving each other 1/3 of the
property to all of the 3 sets of heirs
- Joselito who is an IC of francsico, intervened and filed for
the annulment of the settlement saying that he was
unlawfully depreived of his succ rights
- RTC issied a TRO but later dismissed the pet b/c he is an IC
and thus cannot rep his dad to the estate of evarista
- CA REVERSED
W/N Joselito can inherit from his dad? YES
- 992 is not applaicable in this case this is due to the fact the
situation here is that Francisco did not inherit from the
sister of the father but is inheriting from his dad
- The applicable prov is 777 which isthat rights of succ are
transmitted from the moment of death and by the time
evarista died the father already inherited the portion
pertaing to him in the estate
- And thus the IC is inheriting directly from the father and
not from the sister
- Joselito is not using the right of rep but is inheriting In his
own right
- The case relied on is not applicable since joselitio is the
rightful heir
CORPUS VS CORPUS
- Todoro yangco died and left no comp heors amd his will
was probated in manila
- His nearest relatives were:
o Half bro Luis
o Half sis Paz
o Children of his half bro pablo
o Daughter of his half bro Jose: Juanita
- Teodro is the son of Luis and ramona but she had 5 other
kids w/tomas including pablo and jose
- The probate was eventually approved and the legatees
executed an arrangtement for the settlement
- Tomas the SON of Juanita and alleges that the perpetual
ban to aliante is void and thus Intestacy must be done
- RTC DISMISSED
W/N Juanita is a legal heir of Teodoro? NO
- The RTC found that Teodoro was a ack natural child and
was not a legit child of luis
- But the children of tomas and ramona are the legit ones
o Pablo
o Jose
- Juanita being a legit child of jose who is also a legit vhild,
gives Tomas no COA for recovery for the supposed
hereditary prop of Juanita since she is not a legal heir of
Teodoro
- There is no reciprocal succ between legit and illegit lines
- Art 992 applies the legit relatives of the mother cannot
succ her illegit child and in this case Juanita is from the
legit line of Ramona and Teodoro is from the illegit line
- This is based on the theory that the legit fam is ashamed of
the illegit child and the illegit child hates the legit fam
THUS TOMAS CANNOT INHERIT
DIAZ VS IAC
- Felisa Pamuti is the niece of Simona Pamuti Vda de
Santero. Felisa file a pet that she be appointed as the spec
adminstatrix of the prop of Simona Pamuti
- Felisa is the child of Juliana who is the sister of Simona
who are the LC of Felipe and Petronilia
- Felisa is the LC of Juliana and Simon Jardin
- Simona is the widow of Pacual and the mother of Pablo
Santero
- Pablo DIED b4 his mom Simon…… leaving 4 natural kids
represented by Diaz and Pascura who are the kids mother
( 2 diff moms dis guy a fuccboi)
- Judge RAVAL declared Felisa as the sole legit heir of
simona
- There were 4 other cases filed and Felisa filed a motion to
intervene in each of them this was questioned by Diaz and
Pascura
w/n the children of pablo the grandkids can inherit from simona?
NO
- The illegitimate children of pablo cannot inherit from
Simona since Pablo is an LC
- Thus they are barred by article 992, 992 provides an iron
curtain that prohinits a succ ab intesto b/w the IC AND THE
LC and relatives of the mom or dad of said LC
- They may have a natural ties of blood but this is not
recognized there is presumed animosity and antagonism
b/w the lines
- And sees the IC just as a product of sin, palpable evidence
of a blemish of a broken life
- ITC: Pablo is an LC, BUT his own kids are IC and thus, they
cannot rep their dad in the testate of the grandmother
and thus relative also includes simona so wala sila mana
yung mga bastardo
LEONARDO VS CA
- Francisca has 3 children, Maria, Silvestra and Pascuala,
Pascuala died and has a son called Sotero
- Francisca died and thus leaving Maria, and silvestra and
also Sotero then eventually Silvestra and Sotero died
- Cresecnsio claimed to be the son of Sotero thus Great
grand of francisca and he filed for complant for ownership
and a sum of money and accounting seeking judgement be
declared as a lawful heir
- He claims he is entitled to ½ w/ his aunt maria BUT Maria
claims that he is an IC, and thus cannot get the property
and she already sold this to James who then mortgaged it
W/N cresencio has the right to inherit by representation? NO
- Cresencio claims that he is the son of Sotero, and to
support this he showed his birth cert showing that his
father is Sotero married to soccoro
- But the evidence presented to prove filiation does not
satisfy the court for the reason being that, the child in the
cert is Alfredo Leonardo
- Cresencio did not submit any durable evid that he and
alfredo are one and the same person.
- Assuming arguendo that he is a kid of sotero, he still
cannot inherit b/c he is an IC as proven by the birth cert
he was born out of wedlock and his father 1st marriage
was still subsisting
- And thus artivle 992 applies and he being IC cannot
inherit from the Legit relatives of his father
VDA DE CRISOLOGO VS CA
- Julia capiao had an affair with Victoriano and this resulted
in one child named Lutgarda, who then married Raymundo
- She sold lands to Malilin 17 parcels and also a residential
lot and house
- They both died without issue and also left nowill so the
Plaintiffs the legit relatives of Juila were instituted as the
legal heirs they filed an action aginst malili for ownership
and for annulment of the sale and delivery of possession of
various properties
- They are assaling this b/c by virtue of intestate are legally
entitled to inherit all the prop which were hers
- Malilin filed an MTD and sought fot the recovery for
summary judgment on the ground that Lutgarda WAS AN
IC and thus plaintiffs are strangers to her
w/n Legit relatives of Julia can inherit from Lutgarda? NO
- Article 992 applies being relatives that are on the
legitimate line of Julia they are barred from inheriting from
the illigitmate daughter
- As explaned by Manresa they cannot be considered
relatives b/c even if there is a blood tie the law does not
recognize such blood tie
- The realtiy of the facts would be based on the presumptive
will of the person
- The IC is looked down upon by the legit fam and the IC I
turn despises the Legit fam as the latter considers the
privildge odf the legit line
IN RE JOSEFA DEALGADO
- RUSTIA AND DELGADO died without a will and the
claimants are divided into 2 groups
o Heirs of Delgado made up of full and half blood
siblings nephews nieaces
o Heirs of Rustia his sisters nephews nieaces an IC
and the de facto adopted child
- Josefa Delgado was the daughter os Felisa by Lucio campo,
and also had 5 other children born to the couple all
surnamed Delgado
- Rustia and Delgado never had any children, but took home
some children but they were not ever legally adopted and
theyr were ampun ampunan (Guillermina)
- Rustia on the other hand had an IC named Guillerma with
Amparo who is also a respondent in this case
Who are the legal heirs of Delgado?
- Petitoners are the nephews nieaces also the grand neph
grand niece, thus ROR only takes place in favor of the
children of bros and sis
- There fore the only collateral relatives of Josefa who are
entieled are the bros and sis or their children who were
alive at the time of her death which is on Sept 8, 1972
- And thus it is up to the trial court to figure out who will
inherit pursuant to 1001 of the NCC
Who are the heirs of Rustia?
- The IC Guillerma may be one of his heirs only showing
upon proof of the filiation
- Guilermina also cannot inherit
- But she failed to give any suff proof that she is infact
filliated with rustia thus cannot inherit
- Intestate estate of RUstia will inherit the ½ estate of Josefa
- The remaining half shall pertain to the full and half siblings
of Josefa who survived her and the children of her siblings
who also survived her
SUNTAY VS COJUANCO SUNTAY
- Cristina Aguinaldo suntay died intestate on June 4 1990,
and was survived by Federico Suntay her husband and 5
grandchildren Inluding the respondent Isabel and 2 IGC
including the petitioner Emilio the 3rd
- Emilio and Nenita the IGC were rised by Federico and
cristina. Sps Suntay have an only child named Emilio
Suntay 1st and was married to Isabel Cojuangco an had 3
kids
o Emilio 2
o Isabel
o Margarita
- More than 3 years after death of Cristina Federico adopted
his IGC
- 2 yrs after the adoption RTC filed a pet for the issuance of
the administration over Cristinas Estate, which was
opposed by Federico and as surviing spouse and owner of
½ of the conjugal estate
- He filed an MTD saing that Isabel has no succ rights b/c the
marriage b/w her parents was void
- Federico died so Emilio 3 was appointed CA reversed and
appointed Isabel as administatrix
- Isabel opposed this b/c Emilio 3 is an IGC and thus have no
rights to the estate
W/N 992 must be followed in order to resolve the issue as to who
is appointed admin of the estate? NO
- In the rules of court there is an order of preference for the
admin of the estate, the SS, next of kin or creditiors the
paramount consideration is the interest of the admin in
the estate
- They must demonstrate not only an interest in the estate
but that his interest is greater then the rest although there
is an excemption to the rule that states that letter of
admin can be issued to the SS anf next of Kin
- Isabel is the rightful admin because in the previous case
the SC glossed over some facts, and now rule that mere
demonstrable interest does not grant a person right to be
admin
- Isabel points out that since Emilio took over he has not
taken after the welfare of the estate and has actually
damaged the same
- Article 992 is not applicable on who is better qualified to
administer the estate
- The court is restrained to rule on who are the valid heirs
using 992 as the question of admin is what is yet to be
settled
- The estate not having been judicially opened and has not
yet reached distribution which must come after the
inheritance is liquidated
Grey vs Fabie

- Jose, Ramon, Miguel and Vicente are bros Jose has a

dguhter Nmaed Rosario Fabie Gray she is the testatrix
- Ramon have 2 natural children who are the oppisitors
named Jose and Safin
- Rosario died testate and her 2 cousins Jose and safin
opposed the testate of her will but this was deined for
want of legal personality
- Oppositors claim that they have the ROR of their father as
the cousins of rosario that the will was not done according
to law

w/n the cousins can inherit from their cousin?? NO

- UNDER 943 OF THE occ they cannot inherit from their

cousin rosario nor do they have any right of rep from their
father ramon
- Because natural or legitimated children have no right to
succ legit relaitves of the mom or dad
- They cannot be called to inherit,even if there is a blood tie
th law does not recognize such b/c of the natural
animosity between the 2 lines
- They also cannot be ROR because the father in this case
ramon is an uncle of Rosario and not one of her siblings
thus the right of representation is also not proper
- Thus they have no interest in th estate and do not have
the legal personality to oppose thw will