Error in the Name ART.
844
MODULE 7: TESTATE SUCCESSION
INSTITUTION, PRETERITION,
SUBSTITUION OF HEIRS
INSTITUTION OF HEIRS
Act of testator designating in his will the person/s who
are to succeed him in his property, transmissible rights
and obligations. ART. 840
Institution must not affect the legitime.
Only in testate succession because intestate succession
is done according to provisions of law.
Does testator have freedom of disposition? IT DEPENDS. If he
has compulsory heir, freedom of institution is limited by the
legitime. If no compulsory heir, free to dispose everything.
Requisites for a Valid Institution:
1. Will must be extrinsically valid
Testator must be capacitated; formalities must be
observed, no vitiated consent, duly probated, and will is
the personal act of the testator.
2. Institution must be intrinsically valid
Legitime must not be impaired; heir must be certain or
ascertainable; no preterition
3. Institution must be effective
No predeceased instituted heir; no repudiation of
instituted heir; no incapacitated instituted heir
OTHERWISE, INVALID.
Remedy of Testator: In case of predecease 
substituted with new heir
Non-Necessity of Institution of Heir
A will is VALID, unless defective, even if: ART. 841
1. It does not contain an institution of an heir
2. Institution does not comprise the entire estate
Instituted heir will only receive portion of estate (rmr,
mixed succession is allowed)
3. Person instituted repudiates or is incapacitated to
succeed
A died, giving nothing in his will to brother B, and instituting his
friend C. If C repudiates/disqualified to inherit, B as sole legal heir
gets the estate w/o prejudice to the remaining effective provisions
of the will.
Rules for Freedom of Disposition of Estate ART. 842
1. If no compulsory heirs
Can give his estate or any portion to anybody qualified to
inherit from him
2. If with compulsory heirs
Must respect the legitime (unless there is valid cause for
disinheritance). Free portion can be given to anybody.
BOTH instances to respect restrictions by special laws.
Necessity of Adjudication
REQUIRED FOR ALL INSTANCES. Judicial recognition
that testator did not contravene the law and heir is not
disqualified to inherit.
How Designation of Heir is Made ART. 843
Testator designate heir by first and last name
Not mandatory. As long as identity can be ascertained
through extrinsic evidence other than testator’s oral
declarations.
Effect of Doubt  NO ONE INHERITS
To my classmate in IV-A, Jose (If there be two Joses). Cannot give
half-and-half because only one person was intended by testator.
Error in the name, surname and circumstance of heir will
NOT VITIATE the institution IF person is ascertainable.
Effect of Error  not decisive, as long as intent is clear
Effect of Misdescription  may be corrected by
extrinsic evidence but not by oral declarations of testator
Disposition to Unknown Person ART. 845
VOID. Unless his identity becomes certain.
Disposition to definite class or group  VALID
Ex. all USC 4th year law students for AY 20-21.
Anne instituted “my friend.” If Anne has many friends  disposition
is VOID, for lack of certainty.
Anne instituted “my student in IV-A who will get the highest grade”
 VALID because of the determining circumstances
Unknown person – not necessarily a stranger; cannot
be identified from the will. Determining event may occur
before or after testator’s death.
Presumption in Institution of Heirs
1. Presumption of Equality ART. 846
Heirs instituted without designation of shares shall inherit
in equal parts.
TN: In case one instituted is a compulsory heir, legitime
must first be removed and what remains will be divided
equally.
A instituted B (son), C and D to an estate of 300k. B gets a
legitime ½ or 150k. The remaining 150k will be divided equally
among B, C, and D. Thus, B gets a total of 200k. 150k as legitime,
50k as instituted heir
Special Cases:
a. All are voluntary heirs, but shares of some are
designated, while shares of others are not.
A, B, C and D are instituted, but A is given specifically a share of
1/10 only. What to do with remaining 9/10? → Remainder will be
divided equally among B, C and D.
b. All are voluntary heirs but specific properties of the
estate have been given as part of their share
A, B, and C were instituted heirs to an estate of 300k. It was
specifically provided that piano (10k)  A, diamond ring (30k) 
B. How will the estate be divided? Each will receive 100k. A gets
10k piano PLUS 90k. B gets 30k ring PLUS 70k. C gets 100k.
TN: It would have been different had testator stated that
“the car should go to A, ring to B, and the REST would
be divided EQUALLY among A, B, and C.
2. Presumption of Individuality ART. 847
GR: Collectively designated heirs considered as
individually instituted.
XPN: Contrary intention of testator.
I hereby institute A, B and the 3 children of C as my sole heirs. 
heirs are A, B, C.1, C.2, and C.3
I institute A, B and my 3 children as my heirs  (1) give 3 children
legitime (2) remaining will be divided among the 5 heirs instituted.
3. Presumption of Simultaneity ART. 849
When testator institutes person and person’s children
GR: Deemed to have been instituted simultaneously.
XPN: Contrary intention of testator
I institute A, and his 2 children  A and his 2 children will succeed
simultaneously. Had institution been successive, A would get all
while the 2 children would get nothing during A’s lifetime.
Institution of Brothers and Sisters
When testator institutes siblings (half or full)
GR: Shares are distributed equally
XPN: Contrary intention of testator
 Testamentary Succession Intestate Succession
Half and full share equally Full-blood siblings gets double
the share of half-blood sibling
Institution Based on a False Cause
GR: Statement of a false cause for the institution of an
heirs is considered NOT WRITTEN. ART. 850
XPN: If testator would not have made institution had he
known the falsity of such cause.
The ff must concur:
a. Cause of institution of heir must be stated in the will
b. Cause must be false
c. Appears from the face of the will that testator would
not have made institution had he known the falsity of
such cause
I institute Juan as my sole heir for having topped the exams in
Succession. Juan will succeed
I intend to institute Juan as my sole heir. But I like persons who
would top the exams, I hereby institute as my sole heir having
topped the exams in Succession. Juan will not succeed
Institution of Aliquot Parts
If testator instituted only 1 heir limited to an aliquot part
of the inheritance, legal succession takes place with
respect to the remainder of the estate ART. 851
a. If no intent to give all to instituted heir/s  legal
succession as to remainder
b. If with intent  remainder should be divided
proportionately
One heir instituted. If heir is given 3/4, remaining ¼ goes to legal
heirs
Several Heirs instituted. A instituted B to 1/3, C to ¼ of the
inheritance (total of 7/12). Remaining 5/12 will go to the legal heirs
by way of intestate succession
Proportional Increase or Reduction
ART. 852 If intent of testator that instituted heirs
become sole heirs of whole estate/free portion AND the
aliquot parts of sole heirs do not cover the whole
inheritance/ free portion  EACH PART TO BE
INCREASED PROPORTIONALLY
I institute A, B, and C as sole heirs to my estate. A will get ¼, B ¼,
and C ¼.” The remaining ¼ share shall be distributed to the
named heirs, proportionately.
ART. 853 If testator gives away more than his estate,
shares of instituted heirs will be DECREASED
PROPORTIONALLY
PRETERITION
Omission, intentional or not, from the inheritance of a
compulsory heir in the direct line whether living at the
time of execution of the will or born after death of
testator. ART. 854
Requisites:
1. Complete and total omission in the inheritance
Heir did not receive anything.
No total and complete omission when heir still received:
a. Legacy or devise
b. Donation inter vivos
c. Not named in the will but testator did not dispose
all his estate (heir can still claim remaining
property to complete his legitime)
2. Omission is of a compulsory heir
3. In the direct line
No preterition of a surviving spouse, because she is not
in the direct line
Compulsory heirs in the direct line:
a. Legitimate children and descendants wrt their
legitimate parents and ascendants – parents
and children
b. Legitimate parents wrt their legitimate children
and descendants – child to their parents or to
their grandparents
c. Illegitimate children
d. Father and mother of illegitimate child or
adopted child
Effects of Preterition
1. Institution of heirs is automatically annulled. No need
for court action.
2. Legacies and devises shall remain valid INSOFAR
as they are not inofficious. NOT VOIDED but
reducible if legitime has been impaired.
T has 2 sons, A and B. In T’s will, he gave F, a friend 10k as a
legacy out of an estate of 100k. A and B were omitted. How
should the estate be distributed? Since estate is worth 100k,
free portion is 50k. Thus, 10k is not inofficious, and remains
effective. Remaining 90k will be divided equally between the two
children. A = 45k B = 45k F = 10K 100k
T has 2 sons, A and B. In T’s will, he gave F, a friend as a legacy
of 10k; instituted A as heir; and deliberately omitted B. If estate is
100k, how should the estate be distributed on T’s death? In
view of preterition, institution of A is not valid, but legacy is
effective as legitime has not been impaired. THUS, remaining 90K
will be divided intestate. A = 45k B = 45K C = 10k 100k
Where share of omitted heir must be taken ART. 855
Instances: (1) omitted heir (2) heir received less than his
legitime
1. From part of estate not disposed of by will
2. If insufficient, take proportionally from shares of
other compulsory heirs
Effect of predecease or incapacity of heir ART. 856
Voluntary Heir Compulsory Heir
If voluntary heir dies, will not Right of representation with
transmit rights to his heirs respect to the legitime (not
free portion)
Estate: 1M
If both A and B alive:
A  250k (legitime) + 250K free portion
B  250k (legitime) + 250K free portion
If B predeceased testator:
C (son of B)  250k (legitime of B)
A  250k (legitime) + 500k (free portion)
If B repudiates:
A  1M
Effect of Repudiation  cannot transmit any right to
his own heirs
SUBSTITUTION
Appointment of another heir to enter into the inheritance
in default of the heir originally instituted ART. 857
Purpose: (1) avoid intestate succession (2) prevent
descent of property from those not desired by testator
(3) allow testator greater freedom to dispose property
Instances when substitution takes place: ART. 859
1. Predeceased
2. Incapacity
3. Repudiation of original instituted heir
When there is no statement as to the instance, it is
presumed that it will cover the three.
Instances when substitution is extinguished:
a. Substitute predeceases testator
b. Substitute is incapacitated
c. Substitute renounces inheritance  intestate succ.
d. Institution of heir is annulled
e. Institution/substitution is revoked by testator
f. Will is void, disallowed or revoked
Effect of substitution: ART. 862
GR: If substitute inherits, he must fulfil conditions and
charges imposed on original heir
XPN: (1) testator expressly provided contrary in the will
(2) conditions and charges are personally applicable
only to instituted heir
KINDS OF SUBSTITUTION
1. Simple or Common
Testator designates one or more persons to substitute
heir/s instituted in case such heir/s predecease,
repudiate or is incapacitated
2. Brief or Compendious ART. 860
Brief substitution – 2 or more substitute takes place of 1
Compendious substitution – 1 substitute takes place of 2
or more
3. Reciprocal ART. 861
2 or more persons are instituted as heirs and also
designated mutually as substitutes for each other
4. Fideicommissary ART. 863
Indirect substitution. Testator institutes a 1st heir and
charges him to preserve and transmit the whole or part
of the inheritance later on the 2nd heir.
Purpose: prosperity and prestige of family; maintenance
of tradition and social standing of family
Simple Substitution Fideicomissary
Only one of the Both inherit. 1st heir = beneficial
heirs inherits ownership (usufructuary right). 2nd heir =
naked ownership
Requisites of Fideicomissary:
1. Must be expressly made
2. There is a fiduciary (1st heir)
3. There is a fideicommissary (2nd heir)
4. There is obligation imposed upon 1st heir to preserve
the estate and to transmit it to 2nd heir
5. 1st and 2nd heirs must be living and qualified to be
heirs at the time of death of testator
6. Fiduciary and fideicommissary only 1 degree apart
Rights of Fiduciary:
1. Acquire rights of a usufructuary until delivery to
fideicommissary
2. Possess beneficial ownership of property
3. Deduct amount of legitimate expenses, credits and
improvements made on the property
Limitations on Fideicommissary Sub ART. 864
Must never burden the legitime. No substitution of any
kind can be imposed on the legitime.
Testator has 1,000 sqm of land. His will states, ‘I institute my friend
500sqm and 500sqm to my son w/ express obligation to preserve
and transmit this to my grandchild.’ Valid? NO. Substitution
burdens the legitime of the son. 500sqm is the legitime of the son.
But since there is a fideicommissary substitution, son was not able
to claim his legitime which is rightfully his.
ART. 865 Fideicomissary substitution must be expressly
made to be VALID.
TN: Exact words need not be given, sufficient that there
is absolute obligation of delivering property to 2 nd heir.
When to deliver: if no period fixed, death of 1st heir
Extent of inheritance: unless specified by testator,
whole property
Allowable deductions: (1) legitimate expenses (2)
legitimate credits (3) legitimate improvements
ART 866
SHAJ – end of 7/22
401 – 10/36
Seangio vs Reyes
Testator did not name any heir but only disinherit one
heir, SC said that is valid because by disinheriting one of
the heirs, the share of the disinherited heir will now go to
the other heirs.
MODULE 7: INSTITUTION, PRETERATION,
SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS
Montinola-Sanson v. CA
Testator's liberality to choose successor when no
compulsory heirs
Our law provides that one that who has no compulsory
heirs may dispose by will his estate or a part of it in
favour of any person having capacity to succeed.
Relationship and blood ties in our country is strong, but
the liberty to dispose of one’s estate by will when there
are no forced heirs is rendered sacred by our laws. It is
the testator’s right to disregard non- compulsory heirs.
Hacbang v. Alo
On matters of inheritance to the heirs
Inheritance passes to the heirs at the precise moment
of death — not at the time the heirs are declared, nor at
the time of the partition, nor at the distribution of the
properties.
• For intestate heirs, this means that they are
immediately entitled to their hereditary shares in the
estate even though they may not be entitled to any
particular properties yet.
• For legatees and devisees granted specific properties,
this means that they acquire ownership over the
legacies and devises at that immediate moment
without prejudice to the legitimes of compulsory heirs.
Bishop Sofronio did not die intestate. He left a will that
was probated in 1937. He left half of his properties to his
parents and the remaining half to his sister Dolores
Hacbang Alo. The admission of his will to probate is
conclusive with respect to its due execution and extrinsic
validity
The settlement proceedings were never concluded; the
case was archived without any pronouncement as to the
intrinsic validity of the will or an adjudication of the
properties. Because of this, the petitioners posit that
intestate succession should govern.
Even though the CFI archived the settlement
proceedings, there is no indication that it declared any of
the dispositions in the will invalid. Bishop Sofronio was
free to dispose of his estate without prejudice to the
legitimes of his compulsory heirs. Bishop Sofronio's only
compulsory heirs were his parents. Their legitime was
one-half of Bishop Sofronio's estate. Considering that
Bishop Sofronio gave his parents half of his estate, then
he was free to dispose of the free portion of his estate in
favor of his sister, Dolores Hacbang Alo. Thus, his will
was intrinsically valid.
Extent on testator to choose who shall inherit
his/her estate
A person without compulsory heirs may dispose of his
estate, either in part or in its entirety, in favor of anyone
capacitated to succeed him; if the testator has
compulsory heirs, he can dispose of his property
provided he does not impair their legitimes.
Austria v. Reyes
Annulling the institution of heirs based on false
clause; Requisites
1. the cause for the institution of heirs must be stated in
the will;
1. the cause must be shown to be false; and
2. it must appear from the face of the will that the
testator would not have made such institution if he
had known the falsity of the cause.
The decedent’s will does not state in a specific or
unequivocal manner the cause for such institution of
heirs
In the case at bar...
The phrases, "mga sapilitang tagapagmana" and
"sapilitang mana," were borrowed from the language of
the law on succession and were used, respectively, to
describe the class of heirs instituted and the abstract
object of the inheritance. They offer no absolute
indication that the decedent would have willed her estate
other than the way she did if she had known that she
was not bound by law to make allowance for legitimes
The testatrix possessed testamentary capacity and her
last will executed was free from falsification, fraud,
trickery, or undue influence.
Issues on adoption should be assailed in a separate
action
As to the legality of the adoption, the respondents can
assail it only in a separate action brought for that
purpose, and cannot be the subject of a collateral
attack.
Morales v. Olondriz
Preterition
Preterition is the complete and total omission of a
compulsory heir from the testator’s inheritance
without the heir’s express disinheritance. Under the
Civil Code, the pretertion of a compulsory heir in the
direct line shall annul the institution of heirs, but the
devises and legacies shall remain valid insofar as the
legitimes are not impaired.
Illegitimate child = compulsory heirs in the direct
line
In this case, the decedent’s will omitted Francisco, an
illegitimate child of the decedent, who is a compulsory
heir in the direct line. Thus, the omission of Francisco
amounted to a preterition.
NOTE: while it is true that Francisco was not
preterited because he received donations inter vivos
and advances on his legitime from the decedent,
however, the petitioner, who was given an opportunity to
present evidence, committed procedural lapse by not
appearing during the hearing dates, which effectively
waived his right to present evidence on the issue.
MODULE 8 SHAJ NOTES NOT
YET INCLUDED
MODULE 8: TESTATE SUCCESSION
LEGITIME, RESERVA TRONCAL, COLLATION
LEGITIME
Testator’s property which he cannot dispose because
the law has reserved it for compulsory heirs. ART. 886
Compulsory Heirs – for whom the legitime is reserved
by law and will succeed whether testator likes it or not
 Cannot demand legitime
 Not compelled to accept legitime
Purpose: to protect compulsory heirs from testator’s
unjust anger, weakness or thoughtlessness
Remedy for testator to not include compulsory heir:
disinheritance
System of Reservation:
1. Total reservation – give everything to heir
2. Partial reservation – legitime + free portion
Kinds of Compulsory Heirs
ART. 887
1. Primary Compulsory Heirs
ALWAYS entitled to the legitime regardless of class
Legitimate children and descendants
Father, son and grandchild
2. Secondary Compulsory Heirs
May be excluded by other compulsory heirs; succeed
only in the ABSENCE of primary compulsory heirs
Legitimate parents and/or ascendants; Illegitimate
parents
Grandfather
3. Concurring Compulsory Heirs XPN to XPN: BUT testator and SS have been living
Succeeds together with primary or secondary together as husband and wife for 5 years before the
compulsory heirs; can always inherit but their legitime is marriage in articulo mortis.
variable. Illegitimate Parents
Illegitimate children and/or descendants, illegitimate or Survivors: IP/A Survivors: IP/A, LC or IC
legitimate; surviving spouse IP/A - 1/2 IP/A – 0
Surviving lawful spouse LC or IC – xx see above
Difference between LP/A and IP/A
TABLE OF LEGITIME LP/A + IC = can concur
Survivor Share Example IP/A + IC or LC = IP/A IS EXCLUDED
½ of estate Net estate - 1M Adopted Child
Can get legitime LC – 500k (1/2) Must be legally adopted.
1 and free portion Free portion – 500k
legitimat Survivors: legitimate parents, illegitimate parents (biological)
or entire free IP – ½
e child portion given by Free portion may be given to Adopters – ½
testator any person including LC Free portion - 0
Net estate – 1M
1 LC – 500k
½ of estate
legitimat SS – 250k Rule of Proximity and Right of Representation
e child Free portion – 250k
+ Rule of Proximity - Relative nearest in degree excludes
Surviving ¼ of estate the more distant ones, saving the right of representation
spouse Free portion may be given to
when it properly takes place.
any person including LC
Net estate – 1M Right of Representation – GR: heir in the direct line
½ but divided
2 or LC – 500k descending of the predeceased heir will take his place
among the
more legitimate Since 5 LC – 100k/each XPN: children of siblings
legitimat children SS – 100k (same as each Testator
e child LC)
+ Portion of share Free portion – 400k
Surviving of each child – A (LC) B (LC)
spouse same as Free portion may be given to
legitimate child any person including LC C (LC)
TN: Share of SS = 1 LC if LC is 2 or more
TN: Share of IC = ½ of LC If A and B are alive: Rule of Proximity
A – 250k, B – 250k, C – 0, Free Portion – 500k
Net estate – 1M Net estate – 1M If A predeceased testator: Right of Representation
Survivors: 1 LC, 1 IC Survivors: 1 LC, SS, 1 IC B – 250k, C – 250k, Free portion – 500k
LC – 500k (1/2) LC – 500k (1/2)
IC – 250k (1/2 of LC) SS – 250k (1/4) Rule of Preference and Division
Free portion – 250k IC – 250k (1/2 of LC)
Net estate – 1M Net estate – 1M
Rule of Preference with respect to legitimate parents
Survivors: 5 LC, SS, 5 IC Survivors: 5 LC, SS, 10 IC and ascendants:
LC – 500k (1/2) LC – 500k (1/2) 1. Legitime shall be divided between LP equally
Each LC – 100k (500k/5) Each LC – 100k (500k/5) 2. If one of LP dies before testator, entire ½ will pass to
SS – 100k (same as each LC) SS – 100k (same as each LC) survivor
IC – 250k (1/2 of LC) IC – 400k 3. If both LP dies before testator, BUT survived by
Each IC – 50k (250k/5) Each IC – 40k (400k/10)
Free portion – 150k TN: Rule that ICs will get only ascendant by equal degree, legitime will be divided
½ of share of 1 LC will not equally between paternal and maternal line
apply. Rule is remainder must 4. If survived by ascendants by different degrees,
be divided among ICs. legitime shall pertain entirely to nearest degree
Legitimate Parents and Ascendants Ex. Both GP, and father still alive – father will get
Survivors: LP/A, IC everything.
Survivors: LP/A
LP/A – ½ Survivors: LP/A Rule of Proximity; No right of representation in
LP/A – ½ ascending line
IC – ¼
Free portion – ½ Free portion – ¼ Parents – 500k (1/2  250k each)
Survivors: LP/A, SS Survivors: LP/A, SS, IC Grandparents (maternal and paternal) – 0
LP/A – ½ LP/A – ½ Free portion – 500k
SS – ¼ SS – 1/8 OR
IC – ¼ Father – 500k (1/2  250k each)
Grandparents (maternal and paternal) – 0
GR: SS gets ½ if surviving alone Free portion – 500k
XPN: Marriage in articulo mortis, testator died w/in 3
months from marriage and only heir is SS. The SS Survivors: GP Maternal, GP Paternal
SHARE WILL BE ONLY 1/3. Gold digger spouse Grandparents (maternal) – 250k (125k each)
Grandparents (paternal) – 250k (125k each)
Free portion – 500k
INSERT CHART pg 20
RESERVA TRONCAL
Ascendant (reservista or reservor) who inherits from
descendant (propositus) any property by gratuitous title
from another ascendant, brother or sister (origin).
Such ascendant is OBLIGED to reserve property
acquired by operation of law for relatives within 3rd
degree of descendant propositus who belong to the line
from which said property came. ART. 891
Purpose: (1) prevent strangers from acquiring by
chance or accident said properties (2) maintain
separation of paternal and maternal lines
Requisites for Reserva Troncal to Apply:
1. Property was acquired by descendant propositus
from ascendant reservista, brother origin or sister
origin by gratuitous title
2. Property was acquired by another ascendant
reservista by operation of law to descendant
propositus upon death of said descendant
propositus.
3. Descendant propositus dies without any legitimate
issue in the direct descending line
4. There are relatives of descendant propositus within
the 3rd degree, called reservatarios, belonging to the
line said property came. They are relatives by blood
or consanguinity.
Definition of Terms:
1. Origin
Owner of property; must be legitimate relative
2. Propositus
Legitimate descendant (brother or sister) OR legitimate
half-brother or half-sister of origin
To whom property was transferred by gratuitous title;
acquired property from origin; died without legitimate
issue
3. Reservista or reservor
Ascendant who acquired property from propositus by
operation of law; must preserve property to reservatarios
(relatives of propositus w/in 3 rd degree and belong to the
line from which said property came)
TN: Relatives w/in 3rd degree is counted from
propositus
Obligations of Reservista
Upon Receipt of Property from Propositus
1. Annotate in the registry of property the reservable
character of the property
Must be done w/in 90 days from acquisition of property
2. Furnish a bond, security or mortgage to guarantee
the safe delivery of the reservable property to the
reservatarios
XPN: when property is already registered as subject of
reserva truncal  there is already protection
3. Make an inventory of the reservable property which
can be subject of reserve truncal
Inventory can be any form (public or private)
4. Appraise value of reservable movable property
5. NOT to substitute the reservable property w/ others
Reservist is liable for the lost or destroyed property and
must pay, cannot be substituted
4. Reservatarios or reserve
Relatives of propositus w/in 3 rd degree of consanguinity
for whose benefit the reservation was constituted
While property is with reservista, can he dispose of that reservable
property? YES, can dispose inter vivos BUT….
GR: buyer of reservable property will only have a limited
and revocable title, subject to recession of the sale.
XPN: buyer is a purchaser for value in GF
Remedy of reservatarios in casea of purchase for
value in GF: go after reservista and demand for value of
that property
Requisites of passing of title
From reservista to reservatarios
1. Must be a legitimate relative of descendant
propositus within the 3rd degree
1 deg – parents of propositus
st
2nd deg – grandparents, siblings
3rd deg – great-grandparents, uncles, aunts, nephews,
nieces
Apply proximity rule if all is alive.
2. Reservatarios must come from line from which
reservable property came
3. Reservatarios must survive the reservista
If no relatives in 3rd degree survive  reserve truncal is
extinguished
Extinguishment of Reserva Troncal
1. Death of reservista – reservable property will go to
reservatarios
2. Death of all WOULD BE reservatarios
3. Loss of reservable property, PROVIDED, reservista
had no fault (accident, fortuitous event)
4. Prescription – property was held adversely against
reserves
5. Registration of reservable property as free from
reservation AND was bought by buyer in GF
6. All reservatarios waive / renunciate / repudiate after
death of reservista the reserve troncal
COLLATION
Act by which descendants or other compulsory heirs
bring into the common mass the property which they
received (donation or gratuitous title) from decedent
during his lifetime
Purpose: (1) secure equality among compulsory heirs
(2) determine free portion after the determination of the
legitime to reduce inofficious donations
Concepts of Collation
1. Fictitious mathematical operation by additing n of the
value of donations to the net value of the hereditary
estate to compute the legitime and free portion
2. Act of charging or imputing such value against the
legitime of the compulsory heir
Deducting donations from legitime of each heir, being an
advance legitime
3. Restoring to the estate those inofficious donations
4.
 MODULE 8: LEGITIME, RESERVA TRONCAL,
COLLATION
Manongsong v. Estimo
As to the issue of the Kasulatan
The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged before
a notary public, is a public document and prima facie
evidence of its authenticity and due execution. Even if
the Kasulatan was not notarized, it would be deemed an
ancient document and thus still presumed to be
authentic.
Party who invokes the presumption that all property
of marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership,
must first prove that the property was acquired
during the marriage
No evidence presented to establish that Navaro acquired
the property during her marriage. Thus, no basis for the
court’s declaration that the sale in the kasulatan
deprived compulsory heirs of Guevarra of their legitimes
Sps. Joaquin v. CA
Rights of the heirs before death of the owner =
merely inchoate
Petitioners' right to their parents' properties is merely
inchoate and vests only upon their parents' death. While
still living, the parents of petitioners are free to dispose
of their properties.
The sale of the lots to their siblings does not affect the
value of their parents' estate. While the sale of the lots
reduced the estate, cash of equivalent value replaced
the lots taken from the estate
Inadequacy of price does not necessarily connotes
fraud or simulation of sales contract
Art. 1355. Except in cases specified by law, lesion or
inadequacy of cause shall not invalidate a contract,
unless there has been fraud, mistake or undue
Influence.
Art. 1470. Gross inadequacy of price does not affect a
contract of sale, except as may indicate a defect in the
consent, or that the parties really intended a donation or
some other act or contract.
There is no requirement that the price be equal to the
exact value of the subject matter of the sale
Raymundo v. Vda. De Suarez
On matters of compulsory succession
Compulsory succession is a distinct kind of succession,
albeit not categorized as such in Article 778 of the Civil
Code. It reserves a portion of the net estate of the
decedent in favor of certain heirs, or group of heirs, or
combination of heirs, prevailing over all kinds of
succession.
The portion that is so reserved is the legitime. Article 886
of the Civil Code defines legitime as "that part of the
testator's property which he cannot dispose of because
the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are,
therefore, called compulsory heirs."
Herein respondents are primary compulsory heirs,
excluding secondary compulsory heirs, and preferred
over concurring compulsory heirs in the distribution of
the decedent's estate.
Execution sale cannot include properties outside of
ownership (properties owned by other heirs)
Herein respondents' ownership of the subject properties
is no longer inchoate; it became absolute upon
Marcelo's death, although their respective shares
therein remained pro indiviso.
Ineluctably, at the time the subject properties were sold
on execution sale to answer for Teofista's judgment
obligation, the inclusion of herein respondents' share
therein was null and void.
Teofista's ownership over the subject properties is
not absolute. Significantly, petitioner Valente does
not even attempt to dispute the conjugal nature of
the subject properties.
Since Teofista owns only a portion of the subject
properties, only that portion could have been, and was
actually, levied upon and sold on auction by the
provincial sheriff of Rizal. Thus, a separate declaration of
heirship by herein respondents is not necessary to annul
the judicial sale of their share in the subject properties.
De Papa v. Camacho
On matters of Reserva Troncal
Reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to
assure the return of the reservable property to the third
degree relatives belonging to the line from which the
property originally came, and avoid its being dissipated
into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant
(reservista).
Reversion of the reservable property being governed by
the rules on intestate succession, the plaintiffs-
appellees must be held without any right thereto
because, as aunt and uncles, respectively, of Faustino
Dizon (the praepositus), they are excluded from the
succession by his niece, the defendant-appellant,
although they are related to him within the same degree
as the latter.
This conclusion is fortified by the observation, also made
in the Padura case that as to the reservable property,
the reservatarios do not inherit from the reservista, but
from the descendant praepositus
intestacy proceedings, to determine the right of a
reservatario, are not necessary where the final decree of
the land court ordering issuance of title in the name of
the reservista over property subject to reserva troncal
Identifies the reservatario and there are no other
claimants to the latter's rights
Had the reversionary property passed directly from the
praepositus, there is no doubt that the plaintiffs-
appellees would have been excluded by the defendant-
appellant under the rules of intestate succession. There
is no reason why a different result should obtain simply
because "the transmission of the property was delayed
by the interregnum of the reserva;" i.e., the property took
a "detour" through an ascendant- thereby giving rise to
the reservation before its transmission to the
reservatario.
Gonzalez v. CFI Manila
Concept of Reserva Troncal
In reserva troncal, a descendant inherited or acquired by
gratuitous title property from an ascendant or from a
brother or sister. The same property is inherited by
another ascendant or is acquired by him by operation of
law from said descendant. The said ascendant should
reserve the said property for the benefit of relatives who
are within the third degree from the deceased
descendants (prepositus) and whobelong to the line from
which the said properties came.
Transmissions involved
1. First transmission by lucrative title (inheritance or
donation) from an ascendant or brother or sister to
the deceased descendant.
2. Posterior transmission, by operation of law (intestate
succession or legitime) from the deceased
descendant (causante de la reserva) in favor of
another ascendant, the reservor or reservista, which
two transmissions precede the reservation; and,
3. Third transmissions of the property (in consequence
of the reservation) from the reservor to the reserves
(reservatarios) or the relatives within the third degree
from the deceased descendant belonging to the line
of the first ascendant, brother or sister of the
deceased descendant
Thus, if there is only two transmission there is no
reserva.
Persons involved
1. The ascendant or brother or sister from whom the
property was received by the descendant by lucrative
or gratuitous title;
2. The descendant or prepositus who received the
property;
3. The reservor (reservista), the other ascendant who
obtained the property from the prepositus by
operation of law; and,
4. The reservee who is within the third degree from the
prepositus and who belongs to the line (linea or
tronco) from which the property came and for whom
the property should be reserved by the reservor.
The person from whom the degree should be reckoned
is the descendant, or the one at the end of the line from
which the property came and upon whom the property
last revolved by descent. He is called the propositus.
The reserva creates two resolutory conditions,
namely:
1. The death of the ascendant obliged to reserve
2. The survival, at the time of his death, of relatives
within the third degree belonging to the line from
which the property came.
Rights of reservor
The reservor has the legal title and dominion to the
reservable property but subject to the resolutory
condition that such title is extinguished if the reservor
predeceased the reservee. The reservor is a
usufructuary of the reservable property. He may alienate
it subject to the reservation. The transferee gets the
revocable and conditional ownership of the reservor. The
transferee’s rights are revoked upon the survival of the
reservees at the time of the death of the reservor but
become indefeasible when the
reservees predecease the reservor.
The reservor’s alienation of the reservable property is
subject to a resolutory condition, meaning that if at the
time of the reservor’s death, there are reservees, the
transferee of the property should deliver it to the
reservees. If there are no reservees at the time of the
reservor’s death, the transferee’s title would become
absolute.
Reservatorio's rights
reservee has only an inchoate, expectant or contingent
right. His expectant right would disappear if he
predeceased the reservor. It would become absolute
should the reservor predecease the reservee.
Even during the reservista’s lifetime, the reservatarios,
who are the ultimate acquirers of the property, can
already assert the right to prevent the reservista from
doing anything that might frustrate their reversionary
right, and, for this purpose, they can compel the
annotation of their right in the registry of property even
while the reservista is alive.
The reservable property is not part of the estate of the
reservista who may not dispose of them by will, so long
as there are reservatarios existing. The reservatarios,
therefore, do not inherit from the reservista but frm the
descendant prepositus, of whom the reservatarios are
the heirs mortis causa, subject to the condition that they
must survive the reservista.
Hence, upon the reservista’s death, the reservatario
nearest to the propositus becomes automatically and by
operation of law, the owner of the reservable property.
The reservee CANNOT impugn any conveyance made
by the reservor BUT he canrequire that the reservable
character of the property be recognized by the Maria.
purchaser.
Upon Maria’s death Anacleto and Juliana inherited the
In this case, the properties in question were indubitably land 1⁄2 each. Upon Juliana’s death, Anacleto inherited
reservable property in the hands of Mrs. Legarda. 1⁄2 of Juliana, and he is obliged to reserve the other
Undoubtedly, she was a reservor. The reservaton portion to Leona and Evarista, aunts of Juliana, and her
became a certainty when at the time of her death the relatives within the 3rd degree.
reservees or relatives within the third degree of the
prepositus Filomena Legarda were living or they
survived Mrs. Legarda.

Cano v. Director of Lands

Appellants (oppositors) argue that the reversion in favor

of the reservatario requires the declaration of the
existence of the following facts:
a. The property was received by a descendant by
gratuitous title from an ascendant or from a brother
or sister
b. Said descendant dies without issue;
c. The property is inherited by another ascendant by
operation of law; and
d. The existence of relatives within the third degree
belonging to the line from which said property came.

The requisites enumerated by appellants have already

been declared to exist by the decree of registration
wherein the rights of the appellee as reservatario troncal
were expressly recognized

This decree having become final, all persons are barred

thereby from contesting the existence of the constituent
elements of the reserva. The only requisites for the
passing of the title from the reservista to the appellee
are: (1) the death of the reservista; and (2) the fact that
the reservatario has survived the reservista. It is a
consequence of these principles that upon the death of
the reservista, the reservatario nearest to the prepositus
(the appellee in this case) becomes, automatically and
by operation of law, the owner of the reservable
property.

It is equally well settled that the reservable property

cannot be transmitted by a reservista to her or his own
successors mortis causa, (like appellants herein) so long
as a reservatorio within the third degree from the
prepositus and belonging to the line whence the property
came, is in existence when the reservista dies.

The rights of the reservataria Eustaquia Guerrero have

been expressly recognized, and it is nowhere claimed
that there are other reservatarios of equal or nearer
degree. It is thus apparent that the heirs of the reservista
are merely endeavoring to prolong their enjoyment of the
reservable property to the detriment of the party lawfully
entitled thereto.

Aglibot v. Manalac

The land in question is a reservable property. It

belonged to the conjugal partnership of Anacleto and