Jampac 2014-03685

Tercero 2015-1-003346
Vallarit 2019-1-003007

GROUP WORK – WEEK NO. 13

1.
Legitimate Decedent Illegitimate Decedent
Primary Legitimate children/descendants, with Legitimate children and
- Preferred respect to their legitimate descendant
over and parents/ascendants CC 903 - 994
exclude the CC 983 - 992
secondary - Adopted children, legitimated Illegitimate children and
children descendant
CC 990, 992
GR:
- The nearer exclude the more
remote

EXC:
- Rule on representation, when
proper
Secondary Legitimate parents/ascendants, with Illegitimate
- Receive respect to their legitimate parents/ascendants
legitime only children/descendants - Excluded by both
in default of - Illegitimate parents legitimate and
the primary illegitimate children
GR:
- Legitimate ascendants, only in
default of parents
- The nearer exclude the
more remote
- You can go up to
whatever degree
- Illegitimate ascending line
includes only parents
- Does not go beyond the parents
Concurring Widow/er Same
- Not excluded Illegitimate children/descendants
by the
primary or GR:
secondary - All illegitimate children are given
heir, neither equal legitimary portions
do they - For illegitimate descendants, the
exclude one nearer exclude the more remote
another; they
succeed EXC:
together with - Rule on representation, when

1
Jampac 2014-03685
Tercero 2015-1-003346
Vallarit 2019-1-003007

the primary proper

and
secondary
heirs

2.
● The estate must be distributed as follows:
The Net Hereditary Estate of X: 1.5 million.
A: PhP 300,000.00
B: PhP 300,000.00
C: PhP 300,000.00
D: PhP 300,000.00
F: PhP 300,000.00
● The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own
right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares. (Art. 980 NCC)
● F will inherit by right of representation assuming that E and F are
legitimate relatives. Since X had a predeceased daughter E and E had a
child F, F, as the representative is raised to the place and degree of E and
acquires the rights which the E would have if she was living or if she could
have inherited. . (Art. 970, NCC). Whenever there is succession by
representation, the division of the estate shall be made per stirpes (Art.
974 NCC).
● If a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the
surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of
the children. (Art 996 NCC)

3. Johnny Bravo died in 2020 leaving a net estate worth 60 million pesos. In his will
executed in 2018, he bequeathed his properties (worth 10 million each) - a house
and lot in Quezon City, a farm in Nueva Ecija, and a fish pond in Pangasinan - to
his kids, A, B and C. However, he acquired 3 more properties worth 10 million
each - house and lot in Makati, a farm in Zambales, and a ranch in La Union -
after the execution of the said will. Johnny Bravo never got to amend his old will,
or execute another will including the subsequently acquired properties.
In the present case, the will executed by Johnny will be heeded, with the
properties bequeathed to his surviving compulsory heirs. Since the will executed
by the decedent disposes half of his estate, the other half composing of the
subsequently acquired properties (free disposable portion) shall be equally

2
Jampac 2014-03685
Tercero 2015-1-003346
Vallarit 2019-1-003007

distributed to A, B and C, as per the law in intestate succession. Mixed

succession exists when when a testator made a will but omitted some properties,
rights or has acquired some properties after the execution of his last will and
testament (Art. 780, NCC). Therefore, the distribution of Johnny’s estate shall be
as follows:
Net estate - P60,000,000.00 composed of 6 properties worth P10,000,000.00
each
As to subsequently acquired
As per the will executed in 2018 properties in accordance to intestate
succession

House and lot in Makati, farm in

A- house and lot in Quezon City Zambales, ranch in La Union -equally
B- farm in Nueva Ecija divided among the three, subject to
their partition and concurrence (Art.
C- pond in Pangasinan 960, 980, NCC)

4. Yes, CC 1080 provides a person with two options in making a partition of his
estate: (1) by an act inter vivos, or (2) by will; when a person makes the partition
of his estate by an act inter vivos, such partition may even be oral or written, and
need not be in the form of a will, provided that the partition does not prejudice the
legitime of compulsory heirs (Chavez VS IAC, 1990).

5. Yes. A partition may be rescinded or annulled for the same causes as contracts.
(Art. 1097 NCC). A partition may also be rescinded on account of lesion, when
any one of the co-heirs received things whose value is less, by at least one-
fourth, than the share to which he is entitled, considering the value of the things
at the time they were adjudicated. (Art. 1098 NCC). Partition resulting in the
preterition of the right of a compulsory heir which is attended in bad faith must be
rescinded. (Bautista v Griño-Aquino, 166 SCRA 760) A partition can be
rescinded in order to protect the interests and rights of the heirs or persons who
are entitled to such shares in the estate.

6. Yes, one may rescind a partition made by the testator when by the virtue of such
partition, the legitime of the compulsory heirs are impaired or may reasonably be
presumed, that the intention of the testator was otherwise (Art. 1099, NCC).
Likewise, when a partition is made by the testator inter vivos, the Supreme Court

3
Jampac 2014-03685
Tercero 2015-1-003346
Vallarit 2019-1-003007

has held that the decedent must first execute a will. If the will is void, the partition
is void (Dimayuga v. Court of Appeals).

A partition made by the testator that prejudices the legitime of the compulsory
heirs runs counter to the intent of the law to protect the interest of the latter. In
the case of Legasto v. Versoza, the Supreme Court held that Art. 1056 of the
Civil Code insinuates that when the law speaks of the partition inter vivos made
by a testator of his property, it necessarily refers to that property which he has
devised to his heirs. In employing the word "testator," the law evidently desired to
distinguish between the one who freely donates his property in life and one who
disposes of it by will to take effect his death.