Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary 4
II. Topic 4
III. Relevant Laws 5
IV. Relevant Jurisprudence 6
V. Analysis 8
A. Revocation of Succession ​5
a. Revocation by Implication of the Law 6
b. Revocation Due to Incapacity to Succeed ​ 8
c. Revocation by the Execution of a Subsequent Document ​ 9
d. Revocation Due to Change in the Nature of the Thing ​ 11
e. Revocation by Physical Destruction ​12
B. Presumption of Revocation ​ 13
VII. Conclusion 14
VIII. Table of Citations 15

2
 I. Executive Summary

Succession, as provided by the Civil Code, is a mode of acquisition by

virtue of which the property, rights, and obligations to the extent of the value of
the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or
others either by his will or by operation of law.1 Succession is a derivative mode
of acquiring ownership whereby only persons with legal capacity may own
properties, acquire rights, and incur obligations. It is contemplated that the
heirs’ rights to the succession are transmitted only from the moment of the
death of the decedent-- a notion which is embodied as well in Article 777 of the
Civil Code. Nonetheless, the decedent has the right to designate an heir by
executing a will in compliance with the formalities required by law. This is called
a testamentary succession.2 Other forms of succession are (1) legal succession
which takes place if a person dies without a will3 and (2) mixed succession is that
effected partly by will and partly by operation of law.4

Even so, a testator may revoke a will at any time before his death and
any waiver or restriction of this right is void.5 In fact, the law even recognizes the
revocation of a will done outside the Philippines so long as it is done according to
the law of the place where the will was made, or according to the law of the
place in which the testator had his domicile at the time.6 This paper aims to
present an extensive understanding of the revocation of succession under the
Civil Code and the Family Code of the Philippines by discussing the modes
available to the decedent, including its subsequent legal effects.

II. Topic

1
Article 774, Civil Code.
2
Article 779, Civil Code.
3
Article 960, Civil Code.
4
Article 780, Civil Code.
5
Article 828, Civil Code.
6
Article 829, Civil Code.
3
 This paper aims to cover the following subtopic headings in order to
highlight all the pertinent laws and jurisprudences related in comprehending in
full concept of revocation of succession under the Civil Code and the Family
Code of the Philippines:

A. Revocation of Succession
a. Revocation by Implication of the Law
b. Revocation Due to Incapacity to Succeed
c. Revocation by the Execution of a Subsequent Document
d. Revocation Due to Change in the Nature of the Thing
e. Revocation by Physical Destruction
B. Presumption of Revocation

III. Relevant Laws

The main law governing over revocation of succession is the provisions of

the Civil Code, in relation to some pertinent provisions of the Family Code.
Particularly, these include Articles 828 - 837 of the Civil Code in relation to
Articles 43, 44, 63 of the Family Code.

IV. Relevant Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court has rendered several decisions in order to present a

coherent understanding of the revocation of succession under the Civil Code and
the Family Code of the Philippines. The following jurisprudences tend to yield
some of the doctrines we now observed:

A. In ​Gago v. Mamuyac,​ 7 where a will which cannot be found is shown to

have been in the possession of the testator, when last seen, the presumption is,
in the absence of other competent evidence, that the same was cancelled or
destroyed. The same presumption arises where it is shown that the testator had
ready access to the will and it cannot be found after his death. It will not be
presumed that such will has been destroyed by any other person without the
knowledge or authority of the testator.

7
Gago v. Mamuyac, G.R. No. L-26317, Jan. 29, 1927, 49 Phil 902.
4
 B. In the case of ​Adriana Maloto v. CA​,8 the Supreme Court pronounced
that ​animus revocandi is only one of the necessary elements for the effective
revocation of a last will and testament. The intention to revoke must be
accompanied by the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or
cancelling the will carried out by the testator or by another person in his
presence and under his express direction.

C. The Supreme Court in ​Molo v. Molo9 held that a subsequent will

containing a clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed for the
reason that it was not executed in conformity with the provisions of section 618
of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the making of wills, cannot produce the
effect of annuling the previous will, inasmuch as said revocatory clause is void.

D. In ​Kalaw v. Relova,10 the High Court ruled that where a holographic will
has designated only one heir to the entire estate and the designation was
cancelled and another sole heir designated, without the cancellation being
authenticated by full signature of the testator, the entire will is void.

​ reterition requires that the omission

E. As held in ​Morales v. Olondriz,11 p
is total, meaning the heir did not also receive any legacies, devises, or advances
on his legitime. In other words, preterition is the complete and total omission of
a compulsory heir from the testator’s inheritance without the heir’s express
disinheritance.

F. In ​Diaz v. De Leon​,12 it has been ruled that the destruction animo

revocandi of a will constitutes, in itself, a sufficient revocation. The original will
herein presented for probate having been destroyed animo revocandi, cannot be
declared the will and last testament of the testator.

V. Analysis

A. Revocation of Succession

8
Adriana Maloto v. CA, G.R. No. L-76464, Feb. 29, 1988 158 SCRA 451.
9
Molo v. Molo, G.R. No. L- 2538, Sept. 21, 1951, 90 Phil 37.
10
Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, Sept. 28, 1984, 132 SCRA 237.
11
Morales v. Olondriz, G.R. No. 198994, Feb. 3, 2016, 783 SCRA 151.
12
Diaz v. De Leon, G.R. No. L- 17714, May. 31, 1922, 43 Phil 413.
5
 Revocation is an act of the mind, terminating the potential capacity of
the will to operate at the death of the testator, manifested by some outward or
visible act or sign, symbolic thereof. In a nutshell, it is an act to annul a will in
whole or in part;13 In itself, wills are considered to be inoperative, ineffective and
ambulatory until the death of the testator. A will is considered as a unilateral
disposition of property, acquiring binding force only at the death of the testator.
This follows the logic that no present rights are conferred at the time of its
execution, and no title vests in the beneficiary during the life of the testator.14
Furthermore, the dispositions in a will are acts of liberality since there is no
consideration given. Therefore, there is no contractual obligation on the part of
the testator to be bound by his original testament.15

Revocation of succession contemplated under the Civil Code and the

Family Code are in five general modes. These are through a. revocation by
implication of the law b. revocation due to incapacity to succeed c. revocation by
the execution of a subsequent document d. revocation due to change in the
nature of the thing e. revocation by physical destruction

a. Revocation by Implication of the Law

A will may only be revoked by implication of law. No provision of law

actually revokes an entire will. In revocation by implication of law,16 the Civil
Code contemplates that a will may be revoked through the occurrence of certain
circumstances not explicitly provided for by the statutes which prescribe the
methods of revocation. The doctrine is that the revocation of a will is to be
implied from certain changes in the family or domestic relations of the testator,
or in his property, or involving the beneficiaries of his will, from which the law
infers or presumes that he intended a change, either total or partial, in the
disposition of his property. The doctrine is premised on the theory that such
change prompted a new set of moral duties and obligations to the testator
subsequent to the date of the will. A revocation may happen by intentment of
law contrary to the actual intent of the testator.17 Under the law, the following
are the instances when a testamentary disposition may be revoked by
implication of law:

13
Gardner on Wills, p. 224.
14
4 Thompson on Wills, Sec. 13, pp. 26-28.
15
Mison, SB. (2010). Wills and Succession. Manila. Rex Book Store.
16
Article 830, Civil Code.
17
Jurado, DP. (2009). Comments and Jurisprudence on Succession. Manila. Rex Book Store.
6
 (1) When there is a decree of legal separation, the provisions made in the will in
favor of the offending spouse of the innocent spouse shall be revoked by
operation of law.18

(2) Where there is a preterition of omission of one, some, or all of the

compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of
the will or born after the death of the testator. In this case, the preterition shall
annul an institution of heir.19 As held in ​Morales v. Olondriz,20 p ​ reterition
requires that the omission is total, meaning the heir did not also receive any
legacies, devises, or advances on his legitime. In other words, preterition is the
complete and total omission of a compulsory heir from the testator’s inheritance
without the heir’s express disinheritance.

(3) When in the testator’s will there is a legacy of a credit against a third person
or of the remission of a debt of the legatee, and subsequently, after the
execution of the will, the testator brings an action against the debtor for the
payment of his debt. Here, the legacy is revoked.21

(4) When the testator transforms the thing bequeathed in such a manner that it
does not retain either the form or denomination it had, or when he alienates by
any title or for any cause the thing bequeathed or any part thereof, or when the
thing bequeathed is totally lost during the testator’s lifetime or after his death
without the heir’s fault. In such cases, the legacy is revoked.22

(5) When the heir, devisee or legatee commits any of the acts of unworthiness
which by express provision of law will incapacitate a person to succeed. In this
instant, any testamentary disposition in favor of such heir, devisee or legatee is
revoked.23

(6) Where the termination of the subsequent marriage shall disqualify the
spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith to inherit from the
innocent spouse by testamentary and intestate succession.24

(7) In cases where both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith,
all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one
in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law.25

18
Article 106, Civil Code.
19
Article 854, Civil Code.
20
Morales, ​supra ​note 11 at 5.
21
Articles 935, 936, Civil Code
22
Article 957, Civil Code.
23
Article 1032, Civil Code.
24
Article 43 (5), Family Code.
25
Article 44, Family Code.
7
 (8) Where a decree of legal separation shall disqualify the offending spouse from
inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate or even by testamentary
succession.26

(9) In Article 50 of the Family Code where it was reiterated that the
disqualification to inherit in cases of marriages which are declared void ab initio
or annulled by final judgment under Art 40 and 45.

b. Revocation Due to Incapacity to Succeed

The Civil Code has a disputable presumption that every person, whether
natural or juridical, can succeed either ex testamento or ab intestato.27
Accordingly, in order to show that a person does not have the necessary capacity
to succeed, it must be proved that he/she falls under an incapacity expressly
provided for in the Code. Incapacity to succeed may be categorized on either
absolute or relative. Absolute incapacity is the incapacity of a person, whether
natural or juridical, to succeed any person in any form with regard to any
property. On the other hand, relative incapacity is the incapacity of a person,
whether natural or juridical, to succeed by reason of a special relation which he
has to the decedent, or to other persons, or to the property disposed of. The
Civil Code provided that the following are absolutely incapacitated to succeed:

(1) those who are not living or in existence at the time of the death of the
decedent, subject to the exceptions provided for in Articles 1026, 1029 and 1030
of the Code;

(2) those who cannot be identified, such as uncertain persons under Article 845;

(3) individuals, associations and corporations not permitted by law to inherit as

provided in Article 1027 (6) of the Civil Code.

On the other hand, the following are classified as relative incapacity:

(1) incapacity based on the possibility of undue influence or on interest, such as

those specified in Nos. 1 to 5 of Article 1027;

26
Article 63 (4), Family Code.
27
Article 1024, Civil Code.
8
 (2) incapacity based on morality or public policy, such as those referred to in
Article 1028, Civil Code;

(3) incapacity based on acts of unworthiness, such as those specified in Article

1032 of the Civil Code; and

(4) incapacity by operation of law, such as the incapacity of the guilty spouse to
inherit from the innocent spouse if there is a decree of legal separation,28 or the
incapacity of the adopter to inherit from his adopted child,29 or the incapacity of
illegitimate children and legitimate relatives of the decedent to inherit from each
other.30

c. Revocation by the Execution of a Subsequent Document

In order that a former will may be revoked by a subsequent will, it is

necessary that the will should be valid and executed with the formalities
required for the making of a will. In order for a will to become valid and have
legal effects, the formalities provided for in Section 1 (3), Chapter 2 of the Civil
Code must be observed accordingly. The main purpose for the observance of the
formal requirements of wills is to regulate the making of the will which involves
the transfer of real rights effective upon the death of the transferor. In the
Philippines, only the notarial and the holographic will are recognized in our
jurisdiction; both forms of wills are needed to be written but only the
holographic will is required to be written in its entirety by the hand of the
testator himself. In revoking a will, it is important to note that the applicable law
governing the revocation is the law at the time of its revocation.

Revocation of succession by the execution of a subsequent document as

contemplated in Article 830 of the Civil Code may be categorized in two modes:
(1) ​express revocation and (2) ​implied revocation.​ Here, a will may be revoked
by some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills.

A revocation is an express one when the revoking document or will or

codicil has an express provision or the revocatory clause which revokes the

28
Article 106 (4), Civil Code.
29
Articles 342, 984, Civil Code; Article 39 (4), P.D. No. 603.
30
Article 746, Spanish Civil Code (in modified form).
9
 previous one. Express revocation may be made conditional upon a future event.
The Civil Code likewise provides that if a subsequent will which provides a
revocatory clause should become inoperative either by reason of their
renunciation or repudiation or by reason of the incapacity of the heirs, devisees
or legatees designated therein, the revocation shall still take effect.31 This
provision only highlights that although the capacity or the desire of the heirs,
devisees or legatees to succeed is beyond the control of the testator, he
apparently exercises absolute control over the act of revocation. Thus, it is only
logical that the revocatory clause must be entirely separated from the other
testamentary dispositions which are affected by the incapacity or the
renunciation of the heirs, devisees or legatees.32 However, if a subsequent will
that contains an express revocation of a previous will is disallowed by the
probate court on the premise that it has not been executed in accordance with
the formalities prescribed by law, the revocatory clause will not produce any
effect whatsoever because the effect of the disallowance is to nullify the will
altogether, hence, including the revocatory clause itself.

According to the case of Molo v. Molo,33 a subsequent will containing a

clause revoking a previous will, having been disallowed for the reason that it was
not executed in conformity with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil
Procedure as to the making of wills, cannot produce the effect of annuling the
previous will, inasmuch as said revocatory clause is void. Hence, in order that a
former will may be revoked, the subsequent will must either contain a clause
expressly revoking the previous one or some dispositions or provisions which are
irreconcilably inconsistent with the previous will such that the dispositions
cannot be effective if taken together.

On the other hand, there is an implied revocation when the will or

revoking document provides dispositions or provisions which are partially or
absolutely inconsistent with those of a previous will such that the later provision
is the one given effect. The changes in the later document indicate a change of
mind of the testator which must be given effect. However, the general rule
provides that two or more instruments, each purporting to be a will, may be
allowed to be admitted by the probate court if they are not inconsistent with
each other.34 Thus, in the absence of any legal provision to the contrary, this
general rule shall govern. As to implied revocation by a codicil, a codicil should
not be construed as a complete revocation of a will if any other conclusion can
be reached consistent with the terms of the two instruments, since, if the

31
Article 832, Civil Code.
32
Jurado, ​supra ​note 17 at 6.
33
Molo, ​supra ​note 9 at 5.
34
Merza vs. Forras, G.R. No. No. L-4888, May 25, 1953, 93 Phil., 142.
10
 testator intended to make an entire disposition of his property in substitution of
that made by a prior will he probably would have proceeded to make a new will
rather than a codicil. Lastly, an absolute inconsistency must be present between
the provision of the will and the codicil in order to have an implied revocation.35

In ​Kalaw v. Relova,36 the Supreme Court pronounced that where a

holographic will has designated only one heir to the entire estate and the
designation was cancelled and another sole heir designated, without the
cancellation being authenticated by full signature of the testator, the entire will
is void. Here, it was emphasized the importance of complying with the
requirements provided for in Article 814 of the Civil Code which primarily
provides that in case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a
holographic will, the testator must authenticate the same by his full signature.
The High Court pronounced that the cancellation was an act of revocation. Thus,
the will is entirely voided as doing otherwise would be tantamount to
disregarding the change of mind of the testator.

However, the author believes that the Supreme Court, in deciding the
Kalaw case, may have overlooked the fact that failure to comply with Article 814
of the Civil Code does not automatically result in the invalidity of the entire will.
As may be gleaned from it, the provision only invalidates the insertion and
cancellation made in the will, which are amendments in nature. Hence, what
should have been declared void in this case was the insertion and cancellation
made by the testator.

d. Revocation Due to Change in the Nature of the Thing

Revocation of succession may also be done through the change in the

nature of the thing. A classic example of this is a unilateral disposition of
property in a will in favor of an heir. This particular property subsequently
became a subject of a contract of sale. This act of the testator is considered as a
revocation of succession because the nature of the thing named in a will has
already been changed due to the subsequent sale to another person.

35
357 Am. Jur., Sec. 484, pp. 337-339.
36
Kalaw, ​supra ​note 10 at 5.
11
 e. Revocation by Physical Destruction

Revocation may also be done through physical destruction of the will.

Article 830 (3) of the Civil Code is on point when it states that a will may also be
revoked by burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating with the intention of
revoking it. To constitute an effective revocation, the physical act of destruction
of a will must be coupled with ​animus revocandi on the part of the testator.
Furthermore, it is not imperative that the physical destruction be done by the
testator himself. It may be performed by another person but under the express
direction and in the presence of the testator. Hence, it goes without saying that
the document destroyed must be the will itself.37

In one relevant case, where the act of physical destruction was done by a
servant of the testator, the High Court ruled that the intent to revoke a will is
manifest from the established fact that the testator was anxious to withdraw or
change the provisions he had made in his first will. This fact is disclosed by the
testator’s own statement to the witnesses Canto and the Mother Superior of the
Hospital where he was confined. Thus, the original will that was presented for
probate, having been destroyed with ​animo revocandi,​ cannot be probated, as
the will and last testament of the testator Jesus de Leon.38

In another case, a will was believed to have already been revoked by the
testatrix, based on the testimony of the testatrix’ house help that the latter
burned said will on the instructions of the testatrix. Here, the Supreme Court
held that while ​animus revocandi,​ or the intention to revoke, may be conceded,
for that is a state of mind, yet that requisite alone would not suffice. ​Animus
revocandi is only one of the necessary elements for the effective revocation of a
last will and testament. The intention to revoke must be accompanied by the
overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling the will carried
out by the testator or by another person in his presence and under his express
direction.39

37
Article 830, Civil Code.
38
​ ote 12 at 5.
Diaz, ​supra n
39
Maloto, ​supra​ note 8 at 5.
12
 Thus, to validly revoke a will through physical destruction, it is important
that the concurrence of the following requisites must be present:

(1) The testator must have testamentary capacity at the time of performing the
act of destruction;

(2) The act of destruction must have been performed with the intention of
revoking the will;

(3) Such intention must have been accompanied by an actual physical act of
destruction manifested by burning, or tearing, or cancelling, or obliterating of
the will or a part thereof; and

(4) Such act of destruction must have been performed by the testator himself, or
by some other person in his presence, and by his express direction.

B. Presumption of Revocation

The law does not require any evidence of the revocation or cancellation
of the will to be preserved. It therefore becomes difficult at times to prove the
cancellation or revocation of wills. The fact that such cancellation or revocation
has taken place must either remain unproved or be inferred from evidence
showing that after due search the original will cannot be found. Where a will
which cannot be found is shown to have been in the possession of the testator,
when last seen, the presumption is, in the absence of other competent evidence,
that the same was cancelled or destroyed. The same presumption arises where it
is shown that the testator had ready access to the will and it cannot be found
after his death. It will not be presumed that such will has been destroyed by any
other person without the knowledge or authority of the testator.40 The following
are some of the presumptions we have adopted in our jurisdiction:

(1) Where the will cannot be found following the death of the testator and it is
shown that it was in the testator’s possession when last seen, the presumption
is, in the absence of other evidence, that he must have destroyed it ​animo
revocandi.41

40
Gago, ​supra​ note 7 at 4.
41
57 Am. Jur., Sec. 549, pp. 377-378.
13
 (2) Where the will cannot be found following the death of the testator and it is
shown that the testator had ready access to it, the presumption is, in the
absence of other evidence, that he must have destroyed it ​animo revocandi.42

(3) Where it is shown that the will was in the custody of the testator after its
execution, and subsequently, it was found among the testator’s effects after his
death in such a state of mutilation, cancellation or obliteration as represents a
sufficient act of revocation within the meaning of the applicable statute, it will
be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that such act was
performed by the testator with the intention of revoking the will.43

Another presumption related with revocation of wills is the doctrine of

dependent relative revocation​. This presumption provides that if a testator
revokes a will with a present intention of making a new one immediately and as
a substitute, and the new will is not made, or, if made, fails of effect for any
reason, it will be presumed that the testator preferred the old will to intestacy,
and the old one will be admitted to probate in the absence of evidence
overcoming the presumption, provided its contents can be ascertained; the
doctrine of dependent relative revocation is a rule of presumed intention rather
than a substantive rule of law. Hence, it cannot be carried so far as to defeat the
real intention of the testator in a case where the facts in evidence do not
support the presumption.44

Conclusion

Revocation is an act of the mind, terminating the potential capacity of

the will to operate at the death of the testator, manifested by some outward or
visible act or sign, symbolic thereof. In the Philippines, the testator may revoke a
will at any time before his death; any waiver or restriction of this right is void.45
Revocation of succession contemplated under the Civil Code and the Family
Code may be through:

a. revocation by implication of the law;

b. revocation due to incapacity to succeed;
c. revocation by the execution of a subsequent document;
d. revocation due to change in the nature of the thing; and
e. revocation by physical destruction

42
​Ibid..​
43
257 Am. Jur., Sec. 550, pp. 378-379.
44
Jurado, ​supra ​note 17 at 6.
45
Article 828, Civil Code.
14
 In revocation by implication of law, the Civil Code contemplates that a
will may be revoked through the occurrence of certain circumstances not
explicitly provided for by the statutes which prescribe the methods of
revocation. Incapacity to succeed may also be a mode of revocation of
succession whereby a person does not have the necessary capacity under the
law to succeed. Revocation of succession by the execution of a subsequent
document as contemplated in Article 830 of the Civil Code may be in two modes:
(1) express revocation and (2) implied revocation. Here, a will may be revoked by
some will, codicil, or other writing executed as provided in case of wills. Likewise,
revocation of succession may also be done through the change in the nature of
the thing as when the object designated for a person may no longer be the
subject of the will due to a subsequent disposition or alienation made by the
testator, rendering the will effectively revoked. Lastly, Article 830 (3) of the Civil
Code provides that revocation may also be done through physical destruction of
the will. To constitute an effective revocation, the physical act of destruction of a
will must be coupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator.

Table of Citations

Citations Page No.

Article 774, Civil Code. 3

Article 779, Civil Code. 3

Article 960, Civil Code. 3

Article 780, Civil Code. 3

Article 828, Civil Code. 3

Article 829, Civil Code. 3

Gago v. Mamuyac, G.R. No. L-26317, Jan. 29, 1927, 49 7, 13

Phil 902.

Adriana Maloto v. CA, G.R. No. L-76464, Feb. 29, 1988 5, 12

158 SCRA 451.

Molo v. Molo, G.R. No. L- 2538, Sept. 21, 1951, 90 Phil 37. 5, 10

Kalaw v. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, Sept. 28, 1984, 132 5, 11

SCRA 237.

Morales v. Olondriz, G.R. No. 198994, Feb. 3, 2016, 783 5, 7

SCRA 151.

15
Diaz v. De Leon, G.R. No. L- 17714, May. 31, 1922, 43 Phil 5, 12
413.

Gardner on Wills, p. 224. 6

4 Thompson on Wills, Sec. 13, pp. 26-28. 6

Mison, SB. (2010). Wills and Succession. Manila. Rex Book 6

Store.

Article 830, Civil Code. 6, 12

Jurado, DP. (2009). Comments and Jurisprudence on 6, 10, 14

Succession. Manila. Rex Book Store.

Article 106, Civil Code. 7

Article 854, Civil Code. 7

Articles 935, 936, Civil Code. 7

Article 957, Civil Code. 7

Article 1032, Civil Code. 7

Article 43 (5), Family Code. 7

Article 44, Family Code. 7

Article 63 (4), Family Code. 8

Article 1024, Civil Code. 8

Article 106 (4), Civil Code. 9

Articles 342, 984, Civil Code. 9

Article 39 (4), P.D. No. 603. 9

Article 746, Spanish Civil Code (in modified form). 9

Article 832, Civil Code. 10

Merza vs. Forras, G.R. No. No. L-4888, May 25, 1953, 93 10
Phil., 142.

357 Am. Jur., Sec. 484, pp. 337-339. 11

57 Am. Jur., Sec. 549, pp. 377-378. 14, 15

257 Am. Jur., Sec. 550, pp. 378-379. 14

Article 828, Civil Code. 14

16