Teotico vs.

Del Val

Facts:

Maria Mortera y Balsalobre Vda. de Aguirre died leaving her properties . She left a will
written in Spanish . Among the legacies made in the will was the P20,000 for Rene Teotico
who was married to the testatrix’s niece, Josefina Mortera.

The usufruct of Maria’s interest in the Calvo Building were left to the said spouses and the
ownership thereof was left in equal parts to her grandchildren, the legitimate children of
said spouses. Josefina was likewise instituted, as sole and universal heir to all the remainder
of her properties not otherwise disposed by will.

Vicente Teotico filed a petition for the probate of the will but was opposed by Ana del Val
Chan, claiming that she was an adopted child of Francisca (deceased sister of Maria) and an
acknowledged natural child of Jose that said will was not executed as required by law and
that Maria as physically and mentally incapable to execute the will at the time of its
execution.

Issue:
1. WON Ana has any interest in the will.

2. WON she can acquire any right to the estate in the event that the will is denied
probate.

Ruling:

1.
No. Ana has no right to intervene because she has no interest in the estate either as heir,
executor, or administrator, nor does she have any claim to any property affected by the will,
because it nowhere appears therein any provision designating her as heir, legatee or
devisee of any portion of the estate. She has also no interest in the will either as
administratrix or executrix.
2.

No.. It is true that oppositor claims to be an acknowledged natural child a deceased brother
of the deceased, and also an adopted daughter a deceased sister of the testatrix, but such
claim cannot give her any comfort for, even if it be true, the law does not give her any right
to succeed to the estate of the deceased sister of both Jose Mortera and Francisca Mortera.
And this is so because being an illegitimate child she is prohibited by law from succeeding
to the legitimate relatives of her natural father.

It thus appears that the oppositor has no right to intervene either as testamentary or as legal
heir in the probate proceeding.
 Landayan v. Bacani

FACTS:

Teodoro Abenojar died intestate, leaving several properties. Andrada, the surviving
spouse of Teodoro Abenojar, and Severino Abenojar, executed a
public document, entitled “Extra-Judicial Agreement of Partition” whereby they
adjudicated between themselves the properties left by Teodoro Abenojar.

Severino Abenojar represented himself in said document as “the only forced heir and
descendant” of the late Teodoro Abenojar. 

Petitioners filed a complaint  seeking a judicial declaration that they are legal heirs of

the deceased Teodoro Abenojar, they alleged that they are the legitimate children of
Guillerma Abenojar, then already deceased, who was the only child of
Teodoro Abenojar with his first wife named Florencia Bautista. They aver that
private respondent Severino Abenojar is an illegitimate son of Guillerma Abenojar.
ISSUE:

 WON Severino Abenojar is not a legal heir of Teodoro Abenojar.

RULING:

The right of Severino Abenojar to be considered a legal heir of Teodoro Abenojar depends on the
truth of his allegations that he is not an illegitimate child of Guillerma Abenojar, but an
acknowledged natural child of Teodoro Abenojar. On this assumption, his right to inherit from
Teodoro Abenojar is recognized by law

Should the petitioners be able to substantiate their contention that

Severino Abenojar is an illegitimate son of Guillerma Abenojar, he is not a legal heir
of Teodoro Abenojar. The right of representation is denied by law to an illegitimate
child who is disqualified to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and
relatives of Ms father. On this supposition, the subject deed of extra- judicial
partition is one that included a person who is not an heir of the descendant whose
estate is being partitioned.

VDA DE CRISOLOGO VS. CA

FACTS:

Julia Capiao had an extra-marital affair with Victoriano Taccad, with one child and/or forced
heir, named Lutgarda Capiao, who then married Raymundo Zipagan. Raymundo and
Lutgarda were childless. Raymundo and Lutgarda died, the latter leaving no will. The
plaintiffs herein (relatives within the fifth degree) were consequently instituted as Lutgarda’s
legal heirs to inherit all the properties which were hers by virtue of the extra-judicial
partition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the relatives of Julia may inherit from her illegitimate child Lutgarda.

RULING:

Relatives on the legitimate line, has to right to inherit from an illegitimate daughter.It is clear
from the records that the petitioners cannot inherit the properties in question because
of Article 992 of the Civil Code. Being relatives on the legitimate line of Julia Capiao, they
cannot inherit from her illegitimate daughter. Their relative Julia Capiao predeceased the
daughter, Lutgarda.

Bicomong v. Almanza

FACTS:

Simeon Bagsic and Sisenanda Barcenas were married and have three children.
Sisenanda Barcenas died ahead of her husband Simeon Bagsic. Simeon Bagsic
remarried Silvestra Glorioso. Of this second marriage were born two children.

Simeon Bagsic and Silvestra Glorioso died. Ignacio Bagsic died leaving the plaintiff
Francisca Bagsic as his only heir. Igmedia Bagsic also died survived by the plaintiffs.
Perpetua Bagsic died and was survived by her heirs, the plaintiffs.

Felipa Bagsic, the other daughter of the second Geronimo Almanza and her daughter
Cristeta Almanza. But before the p, Almanza died leaving behind her husband, the
defendant herein Engracio Manese and her father Geronimo Almanza. The subject
matter concerns the one-half undivided share of Maura Bagsic, in the Court of First
Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City against the defendants Geronimo Almanza
and Engracio Menese for the recovery of their lawful shares in the properties left by
Maura Bagsic.

ISSUE:

 WON the nephews and nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right.

RULING:

Yes. In the absence of defendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving

spouse, Article 1003 of the New Civil Code provides that
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. It appearing that
Maura Bagsic died intestate without an issue, and her husband and all her
ascendants had died ahead of her, she is succeeded by the surviving
collateral relatives, namely the daughter of her sister of full blood and the ten (10)
children of her brother and two (2) sisters of half blood in accordance with
the provision of Art. 975 of the New Civil Code. By virtue of said provision, the
aforementioned nephews and nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right.

Under the same provision, Art. 975, which makes no qualification as to whether the

nephews or nieces are on the maternal or paternal line and without preference as to
whether their relationship to the deceased is by whole or half blood, the sole niece of
whole blood of the deceased does not exclude the ten nephews and n of half blood.
The only difference in their right of succession is provided in Art. 1008, NCC
in relation to Article 1006 of the New Civil Code (supra), which provisions, in effect,
entitle the sole niece of full blood to a share double that of the nephews and nieces of
half blood.

Salao v. Salao

FACTS:

The spouses Manuel and Valentina begot four children. Manuel Salao died. His
eldest son, Patricio, died and survived by his only child. . After her death, her estate
was administered by her daughter Ambrosia. It was partitioned extrajudicially in a
notarized deed.

The deed was signed by her four legal heirs, in representation of his deceased father.
Prior to the death of Valentina Ignacio her two children secured a Torrens title in
their names for a Calunuran fishpond.

The intestate estate of Valentin Salao was partitioned extrajudicially between his two
daughters, Benita Salao-Marcelo and Victorina Salao-Alcuriza. His estate consisted
of the two fishponds which he had inherited from his grandmother, Valentina
Ignacio. Ambrosia Salao donated to her grandniece, plaintiff
Benita Salao, three lots. It was only after Ambrosia Salao’s death that she thought of
filing an action for the reconveyance of the Calunuran fishpond which was
allegedly held in trust and which had become the sole property of Juan Salao y
Santiago.

Before Ambrosia Salao’s death, she donated her one-half proindiviso share in the two
fishponds in question to her nephew, Juan S. Salao, Jr. At that time she was living
with Juani’s family. He was already the owner of the the other half of the said
fishponds, having inherited it from his father, Juan Y. Salao, Sr. The deed of
denotion included other pieces of real property owned by Ambrosia.

ISSUE:

 WON plaintiffs have successional rights to Ambrosia’s share.

RULING:
No. The plaintiffs would not have any successional rights to Ambrosia’s share. The
sole legal heir of Ambrosia was her nephew, Juan, Jr., her nearest relative within the
third degree. Valentin Salao, if living in 1945 when Ambrosia died, would have
been also her legal heir, together with his first cousin, Juan, Jr. (Juani). Benita Salao,
the daughter of Valentin, could not represent him in the succession to the estate
of Ambrosia since in the collateral line, representation takes place only in favor of
the children of brothers or sisters whether they be of the full or half blood is (Art 972,
Civil Code). The nephew excludes a grandniece like Benita Salao or great-
gandnephews like the plaintiffs Alcuriza.

Abellana de Bacayo v. Ferraris de Borromeo

FACTS:

Melodia Ferraris was declared presumptively dead for purposes of opening

her succession and distributing her estate among her heirs. She left properties
consisting of one-third share in the estate of her aunt.

The deceased Melodia Ferraris left no surviving direct descendant, ascendant, or

spouse, but was survived only by collateral relatives, namely, Filomena Abellana de
Bacayo, an aunt and half-sister of decedent’s father, Anacleto Ferraris; and by
Gaudencia, Catalina, Conchita, and Juanito, all surnamed Ferraris, her nieces
and nephew, who were the children of Melodia’s only brother of full blood,
Arturo Ferraris, who pre-deceased her. These two classes of heirs claim to be the
nearest intestate heirs and seek to participate in the estate of said Melodia Ferraris.

ISSUE:

WON a decedent’s uncles and aunts may succeed ab intestato while nephews and
nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to succeed.

RULING:

No. In case of intestacy, nephews and nieces of the de cujus exclude all

other collaterals from the succession.. Under Art. 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.

The last of the relatives of the decedent to succeed in intestate succession are the
collaterals other than brothers or sisters or children of brothers or sisters. They are,
however, limited to relatives within the fifth degree. Beyond this, we can safely say
there is hardly any affection to merit the succession of collaterals.

Under the law, therefore, relatives beyond the fifth degree are no longer considered
as relatives, for successional purposes. Article 1009 does not state any order of
preference. However, this article should be understood in connection with the
general rule that the nearest relatives exclude the farther. Collaterals of the same
degree inherit in equal parts, there being no right of representation. They succeed
without distinction of lines or preference among them on account of the whole blood
relationship.