PREFERENCE OF TESTACY OVER INTESTACY

KIM
103 RODRIGUEZ V. BORJA

PETITIONERS: Angela, Maria, Abelardo and Antonio Rodriguez

RESPONDENTS: Hon. Juan de Borja (Judge of CFI-Bulacan)
Anatolia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan

DECEDENT: Fr. Celestino Rodriguez (priest in Bulacan)

FACTS:
1. MARCH 4, 1963 Respondents Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan delivered to the Clerk of Court of
Bulacan a purported last will and testament of Fr. Celestino Rodriguez, the Parish priest of the Catholic
Church of Hagonoy, Bulacan.

2. MARCH 12, 1963 (8:00am) Petitioners filed before CFI-Rizal a petition for the settlement of the intestate
estate of the late Fr. Celestino Rodriguez alleging that Fr. Rodriguez died without a will.

3. MARCH 12, 1963 (11:00am) On the other hand, Respondents Apolonia Pangilinan and Adelaida Jacalan
filed before CFI-Bulacan a petition for probate of the will they earlier delivered.

4. Petitioners contend that since the intestate proceedings was filed at 8AM before CFI-Rizal while the
petition for probate was filed at 11AM before CFI-Bulacan, the latter court has no jurisdiction to entertain
the petition for probate.

5. Respondents contend that the CFI-Bulacan acquired jurisdiction over the case upon delivery by them of the
will on March 4, 1963.

ISSUE: Whether CFI-Bulacan has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for probate.

RULING: YES. The jurisdiction of CFI-Bulacan became vested upon the delivery thereto of the will of the late Fr.
Rodriguez, even if no petition for its allowance was filed until later, because upon the will being deposited, the
court could, motu proprio, have taken steps to fix the time and place for proving the will, and issued the
corresponding notices. Since the will was delivered on March 4 while the intestate proceedings were initiated only
on March 12, the precedence and exclusive jurisdiction of CFI-Bulacan is incontestable.

Moreover, intestate succession is only subsidiary or subordinate to the testate, since intestacy only takes
place in the absence of a valid operative will. Only after final decision as to the nullity of testate succession
could an intestate succession be instituted in the form of pre-established action. The institution of
intestacy proceedings in one court may not thus proceed while the probate of the purported will of the
deceased is pending in another court.
RULES OF PROXIMITY AND EQUAL DIVISION (ART. 962)
ALCALA
104 DE LOS SANTOS V. DE LA CRUZ

PETITIONER: Gertrudes de los Santos (grandniece of deceased)

RESPONDENT: Maximo de la Cruz (nephew of deceased)

DECEDENT: Pelagia de la Cruz

FACTS:
1. Pelagia De la Cruz died intestate and without issue. Her heirs were her nieces and nephews, including
Maximo dela Cruz (nephew) and petitioner (grandniece) as daughter of Marciana dela Cruz (niece) who
predeceased Pelagia.

2. Petitioener Gertrudes and several co-heirs, including Maximo De la Cruz, executed an extra judicial
partition agreement over the estate where the parties agreed to adjudicate 3 lots to Maximo in addition to
his corresponding share, on condition that he would undertake the development and subdivision of the
estate with all expenses in connection therewith to be defrayed from the proceeds of the sale of the said 3
lots.

3. Maximo failed to perform his aforesaid obligation although he had already sold the lots. Gertrudes filed a
complaint for specific performance. Maximo raised that Gertrudes had no cause of action against him
because the said agreement was void as to her, for she was not an heir of Pelagia.

4. The lower court ruled that Maximo, being a party to the extra judicial partition agreement, was estopped
from raising in issue the right of Gertrudes to inherit from Pelagia and hence he must abide by its terms.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner Gertrudes De la Cruz is an heir of the decedent.

RULING: NO. Petitioner being a mere grandniece of Pelagia, she could neither inherit from the latter in her own
right nor by right of representation.

ART. 972 provides that the right of representation in the collateral line takes place only in favor of the children
of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full or half blood.

Rule of Proximity applies.

ART. 962 provides that the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of
representation when it properly takes place. In the present case, the relatives "nearest in degree" to
Pelagia are her nephews and nieces, one of whom is defendant. Necessarily, plaintiff, a grandniece, is
excluded by law from the inheritance.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Gertrudes not being such heir, the partition is void with respect to her, pursuant to Article
1105 which states that a partition which includes a person believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only
with respect to that person. Thus, she may not be heard to assert estoppel against defendant.
GOMEZ
105 BAGUNU V. PIEDAD

PETITIONER: Ofelia Bagunu (daughter of 1st cousin of the deceased, collateral relative of the 5th degree)
RESPONDENT: Pastora Piedad (maternal aunt, collateral relative of 3rd degree)

DECEDENT: Augusto H. Piedad

FACTS:
1. Ofelia Bagunu, asserting that she is entitled to a share in the Estate of the late Augusto Piedad, moved to
intervene in the intestate proceedings before the RTC of Pasay City.

2. Petitioner assailed the final order of the court awarding the entire estate to respondent Pastora Piedad
contending that:
a. The proceedings were tainted with procedural infirmities and
b. Irregularity in the disbursements of allowances and withdrawals by the administrator of the estate.

3. RTC denied. Upon appeal with the CA, the pertinent issue was whether petitioner has legal interest in the
intestate proceeding which would justify her intervention.

4. It is important to note that Augusto Piedad is without any direct descendants or ascendants. Petitioner
Ofelia Bagunu is the daughter of the 1 st cousin of Augusto (thus, a relative within 5 th degree). Whereas,
respondent Pastora Pieded is the maternal aunt of Augusto (thus, a relative within 3 rd degree).

ISSUE: Whether petitioner, a collateral relative of the 5 th degree, can inherit alongside respondent, a collateral
relative of the 3rd degree.

RULING: NO. Respondent Pastora Piedad, being a relative within the third civil degree, of the late Augusto H.
Piedad excludes Bagunu, a relative of the fifth degree, from succeeding ab intestato to the estate of the decedent.

The rule on proximity is a concept that favors the relatives nearest in degree to the decedent and excludes the
more distant ones except when and to the extent that the right of representation can apply. Relatives in the same
degree shall inherit in equal shares.

With respect to right of representation –

By right of representation, a more distant blood relative of a decedent is, by operation of law, “raised to the same
place and degree” of relationship as that of a closer blood relative of the same decedent.

In the direct line, right of representation is proper only in the descending, never in the ascending, line.

In the collateral line, the right of representation may only take place in favor of the children of brothers or
sisters of the decedent when such children survive with their uncles or aunts.
ANGELO
106 HEIRS OF URIARTE V. CA

PETITIONERS: Heirs of Pascasio Uriarte (heirs of nephew from 1st cousin, 6th degree)
Heirs of Primitiva Arnaldo (heirs of 1st cousin of decedent, 5th degree)
Heirs of Gregorio Arnaldo (heirs of 1st cousin of decedent, 5th degree)
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals
Benedicto Estrada (nephew, 3rd degree)

DECEDENT: Justa Arnaldo-Sering

FACTS: This case involves the right of the parties to a 2.7-hectare piece of land in Sungkit, Madrid, Surigao del Sur,
which Justa Arnaldo-Sering left upon her death. The land was acquired by Justa 0.5 hectares as inheritance and 2.2
hectares by purchase.

1st marriage 2nd marriage

Pedro Arreza Ursula Tubil Juan Arnaldo

Agatonica Justa Arnaldo brothers

Arreza

Domingo Catalina
Benedicto
Arnaldo Azarcon
Estrada
Nephew from maternal side

Gregorio Primitiva Conrado

Arnaldo Arnaldo Uriarte

Petitioner Heirs Petitioner Heirs

Pascasio
Uriarte
(1 of 6 children)

Grandnephews/nieces from Petitioner Heirs

paternal side

1. Benedicto Estrada filed for partition of the land left by Justa claiming to be the sole surviving heir of
Justa, on the ground that the latter died without issue. He complained that Pascasio worked as Justa’s
tenant and refused to give him his share in the harvest.

2. Pascasio died during the pendency of the case. The heirs denied they were mere tenants. They claimed that
the entire land was originally owned by Ambrocio Arnaldo, their great granduncle. It was allegedly
bequeathed to Domingo and Juan, Ambrocio’s nephews, in a holographic will.

ISSUE: Who is entitled to Justa’s estate.

RULING: BENEDICTO ESTRADA. A nephew is considered a collateral relative who may inherit if no
descendant, ascendant, or spouse survive the decedent. In every inheritance, the relative nearest in degree
excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of representation when it properly takes place. That private
respondent is only a half-blood relative is immaterial. This alone does not disqualify him from being his aunt’s heir.
As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, “The determination of whether the relationship is of the full or half
blood is important only to determine the extent of the share of the survivors.”

Benedicto is the son of Agatonica, the half-sister of Justa. He is thus a third degree relative of Justa. Petitioners
are the sons and daughters of Justa's cousin. They are thus fifth degree relatives of Justa. Applying the principle
that the nearest excludes the farthest, Benedicto is the lawful heir of Justa. The fact that his mother is only
a half-sister of Justa is of no moment.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF REPRESENTATION
ARZHY
107 DE LA PUERTA V. COURT OF APPEALS

PETITIONER: Isabel de la Puerta (daughter and executrix)

RESPONDENTS: Carmelita de la Puerta (granddaughter, daughter of son Vicente with common law wife)

DECEDENT: Dominga Revuelta (92 years old, and has 3 children – Vicente, Isabel and Alfredo)

FACTS:
1. Dominga Revuelta died with a will leaving her properties to her 3 children where Isabel was given the
free portion in addition to her legitime.

2. The petition for probate of the will filed by petitioner Isabel was opposed by her 2 brothers (Alfredo and
Vicente) on the ground that their mother was already senile at the time of the execution of the will.
Subsequently, Alfredo died.

3. Meanwhile, Vicente filed a petition to adopt Carmelita which was granted. Proofs of filiation were birth
certificate and categorical declaration of Vicente before the court that Carmelita is his daughter.

4. Carmelita was Vicente’s daughter with a common law wife (Gloria Jordan). She was born during the
subsistence of her father’s marriage with Genoveva de la Puerta who separated from Vicente 2 years after
their marriage. Their common law relationship was known to the community and Genoveva renounced in
open court any claim to Vicente’s estate.

5. Subsequently, Vicente died. Carmelita intervened in the probate proceedings and filed a motion for the
payment of monthly allowance as the acknowledged natural child of Vicente. Probate court granted the
motion. Petitioner insists that Carmelita was the legitimate child of Gloria Jordan and Juanito Austrial (Not
proven).

ISSUE: Whether Carmelita de la Puerta (acknowledged natural child of deceased’s legitimate son) can claim
support and successional rights from the decedent’s estate.

RULING: NO. The first reason is that Vicente de la Puerta did NOT predecease his mother; and the second is that
Carmelita is a spurious child. In testamentary succession, the right of representation can take place only in the
following cases:
1. When the person represented dies before the testator
2. When the person represented is incapable of succeeding the testator and
3. When the person represented is disinherited by the testator.
In all of these cases, since there is a vacancy in the inheritance, the law calls the children or descendants of the
person represented to succeed by right of representation. Not having predeceased Dominga Revuelta, her son
Vicente had the right to inherit from her directly or in his own right. No right of representation was
involved, nor could it be invoked by Carmelita.

Even assuming that Vicente predeceased Dominga, Carmelita would still not inherit by right of representation
since she is not a lawful heir. As a spurious child, Carmelita is barred from inheriting from Dominga because of
Article 992 (iron curtain) of the Civil Code, which lays down the barrier between the legitimate and illegitimate
families. Even as an adopted child, Carmelita would still be barred from inheriting from Dominga Revuelta for
there would be no natural kindred ties between them and consequently, no legal ties to bind them either.

Carmelita, as the spurious daughter of Vicente de la Puerta, has successional rights to the intestate estate of her
father but not to the estate of Dominga Revuelta. Her claims for support and inheritance should therefore be filed
in the proceedings for the settlement of her own father’s estate and cannot be considered in the probate of
Dominga Revuelta’s will.
COELI
108 SAYSON V. CA

PETITIONERS: Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, Remedios Sayson (children of Eleno and Rafaela Sayson)
Juana Bautista (Isabel’s mother)
REPONDENT: Delia Sayson and Edmundo Sayson (adopted children of Teodoro and Isabel)
Doribel Sayson (legitimate child of Teodoro and Isabel)

DECEDENTS: Eleno Sayson (+) 1952

Rafaela Sayson (+) 1976
Teodoro Sayson (+) 1972 (son of Eleno and Rafaela)
Isabel Sayson (+) 1981 (wife of Teodoro)

FACTS:
1. The properties in question are the intestate estates of (1) Eleno and Rafaela and (2) Teodoro and Isabel.

2. Petitioners filed a complaint for partition and accounting of the intestate estate of Teodoro and
Isabel in RTC Albay, opposed by Respondent children as the decedents' lawful descendants.

3. Respondents filed their own complaint, this time for the accounting and partition of the intestate estate of
Eleno and Rafaela Sayson, against petitioners. They asserted that, as children of Teodoro, they were
entitled to inherit Teodoro's share in his parents' estate by right of representation.

4. RTC ruled in favor of respondents ruling that:

a. With respect to the estate of Eleno and Rafaela, they were entitled to inherit by right of
representation.
b. With respect to the estate of Teodoro and Isabel, petitioners were excluded by respondents.

ISSUE: Whether respondents (as children of Teodoro) have the right of representation in the intestate estate of
Eleno and Rafaela (their grandparents).

RULING: Only Doribel Sayson. As the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and the granddaughter of Eleno and Rafaela,
she is entitled to the share her father would have directly inherited had he survived, which shall be equal to the
shares of her grandparents' other children.

Delia and Edmundo, as adopted children, are total strangers to the grandparents. While it is true that the
adopted child shall be deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same right as the latter, these rights do not
include the right of representation. The relationship created by the adoption is between only the adopting parents
and the adopted child and does not extend to the blood relatives of either party. 

With respect to the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isabel Sayson –

Respondents are the exclusive heirs under the rule of proximity. Legitimate children/descendants succeed the
parents and other ascendants, without distinction as to sex or age, and even if they should come from different
marriages. An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate
child.
NEPHEWS AND NIECES EXCLUDE UNCLES AND AUNTS
MACY
109 ABELLANA-BACAYO VS. FERRARIS-BORROMEO

PETITIONER: Filomena Abellana de Bacayo (aunt; half-sister of decedent’s father)

RESPONDENTS: Gaudencia, Catalina, Conchita and Juanito (nieces and nephew; children of decedent’s
brother)

DECEDENT: Melodia Ferraris

FACTS:
1. Melodia Ferraris was a resident of Cebu City until she transferred to Intramuros, Manila. She was known to
have resided there continuously until 1944. Thereafter, she has not been heard of and her whereabouts are
still unknown. More than 10 years having elapsed, she was declared presumptively dead for the purposes
of opening her succession.

2. Melodia Ferraris left properties in Cebu City, consisting of one-third (1/3) share in the estate of her aunt,
Rosa Ferraris. The deceased Melodia Ferraris left no surviving direct descendant, ascendant, or
spouse, but was survived only by collateral relative –
a. Filomena Abellana de Bacayo (aunt and half-sister of decedent’s father)
b. Her nieces and nephew (children of Melodia’s only full-blood brother, Arturo Ferraris, who pre-
deceased her)

3. Petitioner Filomena contends that she is of the same or equal degree of relationship as the Nephews and
Nieces (i.e. 3rd civil degree).

ISSUE: Whether the decedent’s uncles and aunts may succeed ab intestato even if there are nephews and nieces
surviving and qualified to succeed.

RULING: NO. True, an aunt of the deceased is as far distant as the nephews from the decedent (three degrees)
since in the collateral line to which both kinds of relatives belong, degrees are counted by first ascending to the
common ancestor and then descending to the heir. NEVERTHELESS, in case of intestacy, nephews and nieces of the
de cujus exclude all other collaterals (aunts and uncles, first cousins, etc.).

Under Article 1009, the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition
to the other collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.) being called to the succession.

A decedent’s uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestato so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent
survive and are willing and qualified to succeed. Under our laws of succession, a decedent’s uncles and aunts
may NOT succeed ab intestato so long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and
qualified to succeed.

Other collaterals – refer to the last of the relatives of the decedent other than brothers or sisters or children of
brothers or sisters. They are, however, limited to relatives within the 5th degree.