WHO ARE THE COMPULSORY HEIRS?

(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with

respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents
and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate
children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Illegitimate children
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must
be duly proved.
 ILANO vs. CA
G.R. No. 104376, February 23, 1994

In this regard, Article 287 of the Civil Code provides that illegitimate children other
than natural in accordance with Article 269 and other than natural children by legal
fiction are entitled to support and such successional rights as are granted in the Civil
Code. The Civil Code has given these rights to them because the transgressions of
social conventions committed by the parents should not be visited upon them. They
were born with a social handicap and the law should help them to surmount the
disadvantages facing them through the misdeeds of their parents. However, before
Article 287 can be availed of, there must first be a recognition of paternity either
voluntarily or by court action. This arises from the legal principle that an unrecognized
spurious child like a natural child has no rights from his parents or to their estate
because his rights spring not from the filiation or blood relationship but from his
acknowledgement by the parent. In other words, the rights of an illegitimate child
arose not because he was the true or real child of his parents but because under the
law, he had been recognized or acknowledged as such a child.
 UYGUANGCO versus COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 76873, October 26, 1989
"The issue before the Court is not the status of the private respondent, who has been
excluded from the family and inheritance of the petitioners. What we are asked to decide is
whether he should be allowed to prove that he is an illegitimate child of his claimed father,
who is already dead, in the absence of the documentary evidence required by the Civil Code.
Xxx
Under the Family Code, it is provided that:
Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on
the same evidence as legitimate children.
The following provision is therefore also available to the private respondent in proving his
illegitimate filiation:
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
While the private respondent has admitted that he has none of the
documents mentioned in the first paragraph (which are practically the same
documents mentioned in Article 278 of the Civil Code except for the
"private handwritten instrument signed by the parent himself'''), he insists
that he has nevertheless been "in open and continuous possession of the
status of an illegitimate child," which is now also admissible as evidence of
filiation.

Thus, he claims that he lived with his father from 1967 until 1973, receiving
support from him during that time; that he has been using the surname
Uyguangco without objection from his father and the petitioners as shown
in his high school diploma, a special power of attorney executed in his favor
by Dorotea Uyguangco, and another one by Sulpicio Uyguangco; that he has
shared in the profits of the copra business of the Uyguangcos, which is a
strictly family business; that he was a director, together with the
petitioners, of the Alu and Sons Development Corporation, a family
corporation; and that in the addendum to the original extrajudicial
settlement concluded by the petitioners he was given a share in his
deceased father's estate.
It must be added that the illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed
filiation by "any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws," like his
baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been
entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the
testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court.

The problem of the private respondent, however, is that, since he seeks to prove his
filiation under the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Family Code, his action is now
barred because of his alleged father's death in 1975. The second paragraph of this Article
175 reads as follows:

The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when
the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may
be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. (Italics supplied.)

It is clear that the private respondent can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce
evidence of his open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or
prove his alleged filiation through any of the means allowed by the Rules of Court or
special laws. The simple reason is that Apolinario Uyguangco is already dead and can no
longer be heard on the claim of his alleged son's illegitimate filiation.
 BERNABE vs. ALEJO
G.R. No. 140500, January 21, 2002

• Complaint for Recognition and partition with accounting before

the RTC.

• The son was born on September 18, 1981 and was named
Adrian Bernabe.

• Fiscal Bernabe died on August 13, 1993, while his wife Rosalina
died on December 3 of the same year, leaving Ernestina as the
sole surviving heir.
On May 16, 1994, Carolina, on behalf of Adrian,
filed the aforesaid complaint praying that Adrian
be declared an acknowledged illegitimate son of
Fiscal Bernabe and as such he (Adrian) be given
his share in Fiscal Bernabe’s estate, which is now
being held by Ernestina as the sole surviving
heir.
Issues:

1. Whether or not respondent has a cause of action to file a case

for recognition and partition with accounting after the
putative father’s death in the absence of any written
acknowledgment of paternity by the latter.

2. Whether or not the respondents had four years from the

attainment of majority to file an action for recognition as
provided in Art. 285 of the Civil Code, in complete disregard of
its repeal by the express provisions of the Family Code and
the applicable jurisprudence.
HELD: Under the Family Code, an action for the recognition of
an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the
alleged parent. The Family Code makes no distinction on
whether the former was still a minor when the latter died. Thus,
the putative parent is given by the new Code a chance to dispute
the claim, considering that "illegitimate children are usually
begotten and raised in secrecy and without the legitimate family
being aware of their existence. x x x The putative parent should
thus be given the opportunity to affirm or deny the child’s
filiation, and this, he or she cannot do if he or she is already
dead.

Nonetheless, the Family Code provides the caveat that rights

that have already vested prior to its enactment should not be
prejudiced or impaired as follows:
"ART. 255. This Code shall have retroactive effect
insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or
acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or
other laws.”

A vested right is defined as "one which is absolute,

complete and unconditional, to the exercise of which
no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect
in itself and not dependent upon a contingency.
Respondent however contends that the filing of an
action for recognition is procedural in nature and that
"as a general rule, no vested right may attach to [or]
arise from procedural laws."
Bustos v. Lucero distinguished substantive from procedural law in
these words:

Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines

and regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties
which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which
courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or
remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or
obtains redress for their invasion.

If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the

rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be
classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of
implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with
procedure."
Applying the foregoing jurisprudence, we hold that
Article 285 of the Civil Code is a substantive law, as it
gives Adrian the right to file his petition for recognition
within four years from attaining majority age.
lllegitimate children who were still minors at the time
the Family Code took effect and whose putative parent
died during their minority are thus given the right to
seek recognition (under Article 285 of the Civil Code)
for a period of up to four years from attaining majority
age. This vested right was not impaired or taken away
by the passage of the Family Code.
Uyguangco v. Court of Appeals is not
applicable to the case at bar, because the
plaintiff therein sought recognition as an
illegitimate child when he was no longer a
minor. On the other hand, in Aruego Jr. v.
Court of Appeals the Court ruled that an
action for recognition filed while the Civil
Code was in effect should not be affected
by the subsequent enactment of the
Family Code, because the right had already
vested.
Not Limited to Natural Children
To be sure, Article 285 of the Civil Code refers to the
action for recognition of "natural" children. Thus,
petitioner contends that the provision cannot be
availed of by respondent, because at the time of his
conception, his parents were impeded from marrying
each other. In other words, he is not a natural child.
A strict and literal interpretation of Article 285 has
already been frowned upon by this Court in the
aforesaid case of Aruego, which allowed minors to file a
case for recognition even if their parents were
disqualified from marrying each other.
 2 or more Legitimate Children –
1/2
Legitimate Child alone – ½ Surviving Spouse – same as the
share of 1 Legitimate Child

Parents alone – ½ Illegitimate Children – 1/3

Surviving Spouse – 1/3
Legitimate Parents – 1/2
Surviving Spouse alone – 1/2, Surviving Spouse – 1/4
1/3,1/2
Illegitimate Children – 1/4
Surviving Spouse – 1/8
Illegitimate Child alone – ½ Legitimate Parents – 1/2
1 Legitimate Child – ½ Illegitimate Parents – 1/4
Surviving Spouse – 1/4 Surviving Spouse – 1/4
CAN THE LEGITIME BE BURDENED?

Gen. Rule: No burden, condition, charge, encumbrance

imposed upon the legitime.

Exceptions:

a. Reserva Troncal – The legitime is subject to

reservation in favor of the reservees (Art. 891).

b. Partition – The testator may prohibit partition of

the property for a period not exceeding 20 years
even if the property constitutes the legitime of
the heirs (Art. 1083).
WHAT IS RESERVA TRONCAL?

• The process by which an ascendant who

inherits by operation of law from his
descendant which the latter may have
acquired by gratuitous title from another
ascendant or a brother or sister, is obliged by
law to reserve such property for the benefit of
third degree relatives who belong to the line
from which the property came from;
• Purpose: to prevent the accidental transfer of
property/wealth from one line to another line.
WHO ARE THE PARTIES IN RESERVA
TRONCAL?
 SIENES vs. ESPARCIA
1 SCRA 750

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the simultaneous sales

made by both the reservor and the reservees to two different
buyers. The reservor may alienate the reservable property
subject to as resolutory condition - his death – by virtue of
which, the property shall be transferred to relatives of the
prepositus within the third degree (reservees). In effect, there is
a double resolutory condition – (1) death of the reservoir; and
(2) the survival of the reservees upon the death of the reservor.
 MENDOZA, ET. AL. VS. DELOS SANTOS
G.R. NO. 176422, MARCH 20, 2013

• RULIN
• Based on the circumstances of the present case, Article 891 on reserva troncal is
not applicable.
• The fallacy in the CA’s resolution is that it proceeded from the erroneous premise
that Placido is the ascendant contemplated in Article 891 of the Civil Code. From
thence, it sought to trace the origin of the subject properties back to Placido and
Dominga, determine whether Exequiel predeceased Placido and whether Gregoria
predeceased Exequiel.
• It should be pointed out that the ownership of the properties should be reckoned
only from Exequiel’s as he is the ascendant from where the first transmission
occurred, or from whom Gregoria inherited the properties in dispute. The law does
not go farther than such ascendant/brother/sister in determining the lineal
character of the property. What is pertinent is that Exequiel owned the properties
and he is the ascendant from whom the properties in dispute originally came.
Gregoria, on the other hand, is the descendant who received the properties from
Exequiel by gratuitous title.
• Article 891 provides that the person obliged to reserve the property
should be an ascendant (also known as the reservor/reservista) of
the descendant/prepositus. Julia, however, is not Gregoria’s
ascendant; rather, she is Gregoria’s collateral relative. Gregoria’s
ascendants are her parents, Exequiel and Leonor, her grandparents,
great-grandparents and so on. On the other hand, Gregoria’s
descendants, if she had one, would be her children, grandchildren
and great-grandchildren. Not being Gregoria’s ascendants, both
petitioners and Julia, therefore, are her collateral relatives.
• Moreover, petitioners cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios
as they are not relatives within the third degree of Gregoria from
whom the properties came. The person from whom the degree
should be reckoned is the descendant/prepositus―the one at the
end of the line from which the property came and upon whom the
property last revolved by descent. It is Gregoria in this case.
Petitioners are Gregoria’s fourth degree relatives, being her first
cousins. First cousins of the prepositus are fourth degree relatives
and are not reservees or reservatarios
• They cannot even claim representation of their predecessors Antonio and Valentin
as Article 891 grants a personal right of reservation only to the relatives up to the
third degree from whom the reservable properties came. The only recognized
exemption is in the case of nephews and nieces of the prepositus, who have the
right to represent their ascendants (fathers and mothers) who are the
brothers/sisters of the prepositus and relatives within the third degree.
• If at all, what should apply in the distribution of Gregoria’s estate are Articles 1003
and 1009 of the Civil Code, which provide:
• Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a
surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
deceased in accordance with the following articles.
• Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters, nor children of brothers or
sisters, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate.
• The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by
reason of relationship by the whole blood.
2 Theories on the Value of the Reserva:

1.Under the theory of RESERVA MAXIMA, all

that can be embraced or included in the
legitime shall be considered as reservable
property.

2.Under the theory of RESERVA MINIMA, only

HALF of the property received from the origin
to the descendant is transferred to the
ascendant reservor as legitime.
Example: Propositus inherited a land worth
P500,000 from his maternal grandparent. Upon
his death, he also has P 1M worth of properties
aside from theP 500,000.

The descendant propositus has no issues and

thus, all his properties will go to his father
(ascendant). The descendant made a will giving
all his properties to his father. If the father has
no other properties, how much should be the
value of the properties came from the
propositus should the reservor (father) reserve
in favor of the reservees?
• The legitime of the ascendant is P750,000, which is
from P 1,500,000 M divided by 2.

• Under the theory of reserva maxima, the reservable

property is that which can be embraced in the
legitime. As such, the entire P 500,000 is reservable
because it can be embraced in the whole legitime
worth P 750,000. Out of the legitime, P500,000 is
reservable and P 250,000 is property owned by the
descendant.
 Estate

P750,000 500,000

250,000

Legitime subject to reserva Legitime not subject to reserva

Free Portion
Under the theory of reserva minima, only half
of the property received from the origin to the
descendant is reservable. So, half of P 500,000
and half of P 1M will be part of the legitime,
which is equal to P 750,000. Thus, the
reservable property is only P 250,000, which is
half of the property received from the origin to
the descendant.
 Estate

P250,000 P250,000

P500,000 P500,000

Legitime subject to reserva (from origin) Legitime from prepositus efforts

Free Portion From Prepositus Efforts Free Portion From Origin
Example: Propositus inherits a land worth P
1,000,000. Upon his death, he also has P500,000
worth of properties aside from the P1,000,000.The
descendant propositus has no issues and thus, all his
properties will go to his father (ascendant). The
descendant made a will giving all his properties to his
father. If the father has no other properties, how
much should be the value of the properties came
from the propositus should the reservor (father)
reserve in favor of the reservees?
The legitime of the ascendant is P750,000,
which is from P 1,500,000 divided by 2. Under
the theory of reserva maxima, the reservable
property is that which can be embraced in the
legitime. As such, only P 750,000 is reservable
because it is only up to such amount that can be
embraced in the whole legitime worth P
750,000.
 Estate

P250,000

P750,000

P500,000

Legitime (Reserva) Free Portion from propositus own efforts

Free Portion from origin
Under the theory of reserva minima, only half
of the property received from the origin to the
descendant is reservable. So, half of P 1M and
half of P 500,00 will be part of the legitime,
which is equal to P 750,000. Thus, the
reservable property is only P 500,000, which is
half of the property received from the origin
to the descendant.
 Estate

P250,000

P500,000

Free Portion Legitime

P500,000

P250,000

Legitime from Origin (reserva) Legitime from efforts of Propositus

Free Portion from Origin Free Portion from Propositus
The reserva maxima theory is more
in keeping with Article 891. Reserva
minima is more in keeping with
equity and justice. What is followed
is reserva minima.
IF THERE IS NO WILL:

• The entire property which came from the other

ascendant is reservable because the entire property was
transferred to the ascendant by operation of law because
there is no will. So, the entire P 500,000 is reservable
from the first example and the entire P1,000,000 is
reservable from the second example if there was no will.

• When there is a will, only that part which corresponds to

the legitime is transferred by operation of law.

• But if there is no will then everything is reservable.

OBLIGATIONS OF THE RESERVOR DURING THE
SUBSISTENCE OF THE RESERVA:

1. The reservor must make an inventory of the

property received by operation of law from the
descendant;

2. He must register the inventory with the Registry of

Property;

3. If the property received from the descendant is Real

property, then the reservor has the obligation to furnish
a bond, mortgage or security to insure the safe delivery
of the property to the reservees who might be living at
the time of the death of the reservor;
4. If the real property is already registered, then the
reservor is obliged to annotate the reserva. He must do this
within 90 days from the time he received the property from
the descendant or from the time the court makes a decision
that the reservor is entitled to receive the property. If the
reservor does not make the annotation, then the reservees
have the right to file an action to compel the reservor to
make the annotation but they must wait after the lapse of
90 days. The annotation itself is sufficient protection or if
there is no annotation, bond, security, or mortgage must be
furnished.

5. The reservor also must not substitute the property with

another. The same property received from the origin and
from the descendant must be same properties to be given
to the reserves.
Exceptions:

1.If the property is sold to the innocent

purchaser for value, in effect the obligation
of the reservor is substituted with the
obligation to pay money to reserve;

2.If the property is lost or destroyed without

the fault of the reservor, then the obligation
is extinguished.
• The reservees may intervene in the land registration
proceeding not for the purpose of opposing the
registration but for the purpose of having their claim
to the reserva being annotated to the title.

• If the reservees did not intervene in the said

proceedings, within 1 year, they can file for a review
of decree of registration so that they can cause the
annotation thereof. But they can no longer do so
beyond the 1-year period if the purchaser is innocent.
If the purchaser is not innocent, the 1-year period
does not apply. The purchaser may still be obliged to
return the property because knowledge is equivalent
to registration.
 DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS AGUAS
GR. NO. L-42737, AUGUST 11, 1936

The above-stated facts are not disputed by the parties. The

principal question raised in this appeal is whether or not the
reservation established by article 811 of the Civil Code, for the
benefit of the relatives within the third degree belonging to the
line of the descendant from whom the ascendant reservor
received the property, should be understood as made in favor of
all the relatives within said degree and belonging to the line
above-mentioned, without distinction between legitimate,
natural and illegitimate ones not having the legal status of
natural children.
It appears, with respect to the second question raised and
referred to in the first finding, that both the extraordinary
reservation of article 811 of the Civil Code and the ordinary
reservation of article 968 thereof are established in favor of
legitimate relatives; and furthermore, with respect to the
extraordinary reservation, the petitioner cannot allege that
she belongs to the line from which the property claimed by
her came because said line is formed by generations from
validly celebrated marriages, and said petitioner is not a
legitimate granddaughter descendant of the person who
contracted the first marriage; and with respect to the
second reservation, it ceased upon the death of said
petitioner's natural father, in accordance with article 971 of
the Civil Code, and in so holding, the branch of the court
which rendered the decision has not violated the laws cited
in the other grounds of the appeal.
The law imposes the obligation to reserve only upon the
legitimate ascendant, and under the Civil Code, the legitimate
relationship forms the general rule and the natural
relationship the exception; which is the reason why, as may
be easily seen, the law in many articles speaks only of
children or parents, of ascendants or descendants, and in
them reference is of course made to those who are
legitimate; and when it desire to make a provision applicable
only to natural relationship, it does not say father or mother,
but natural father or natural mother; it does say child, but
natural child; it does not speak of ascendants, brothers or
parents in the abstract, but of natural ascendants, natural
brothers or natural parents.
WHAT IS THE DELAYED INTESTACY THEORY?

When the resolutory condition of the

reserva is fulfilled, the properties are distributed
to the reservees as if they are inheriting from the
prepositus at the time of fulfillment of the
condition. Since there is no will, then the
reserves inherit by virtue of intestate succession,
the decedent being the prepositus; thus the
name Delayed Intestacy.
HOW IS RESERVA EXTINGUISHED?

1.Upon the death of reservor;

2.Upon the death of ALL the would-be

reservees ahead of the reservor;

3.Upon the loss of the reservable

properties without the fault or
negligence of the reservor.
4. Upon prescription – Adverse possession as against reservees
by the reservor or a stranger of the reservable property as free
from reserva for 30 years if it is a real property and 8 years if it is
a personal property. In order for prescription to run, the fact
that the reservor repudiates or hold the property free from the
reserva must be communicated to the reservees, the reservees
must know that the reservor is holding the property as free from
the reserva otherwise there will be no prescription.

5. Upon registration under the Torrens System as free from the

reservation.

6. Upon renunciation or waiver by ALL reservees AFTER the

death of the reservor.
• Reservable property is not extinguished by the
government. It will just continue on the indemnity
or just compensation.

• If the reservable property is insured and then,

destroyed, there is reserva on the insurance
indemnity or proceeds thereof
 DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS AGUAS
GR. NO. L-42737, AUGUST 11, 1936

The above-stated facts are not disputed by the parties. The

principal question raised in this appeal is whether or not the
reservation established by article 811 of the Civil Code, for the
benefit of the relatives within the third degree belonging to the
line of the descendant from whom the ascendant reservor
received the property, should be understood as made in favor of
all the relatives within said degree and belonging to the line
above-mentioned, without distinction between legitimate,
natural and illegitimate ones not having the legal status of
natural children.
It appears, with respect to the second question raised and
referred to in the first finding, that both the extraordinary
reservation of article 811 of the Civil Code and the ordinary
reservation of article 968 thereof are established in favor of
legitimate relatives; and furthermore, with respect to the
extraordinary reservation, the petitioner cannot allege that
she belongs to the line from which the property claimed by
her came because said line is formed by generations from
validly celebrated marriages, and said petitioner is not a
legitimate granddaughter descendant of the person who
contracted the first marriage; and with respect to the
second reservation, it ceased upon the death of said
petitioner's natural father, in accordance with article 971 of
the Civil Code, and in so holding, the branch of the court
which rendered the decision has not violated the laws cited
in the other grounds of the appeal.
The law imposes the obligation to reserve only upon the
legitimate ascendant, and under the Civil Code, the legitimate
relationship forms the general rule and the natural
relationship the exception; which is the reason why, as may
be easily seen, the law in many articles speaks only of
children or parents, of ascendants or descendants, and in
them reference is of course made to those who are
legitimate; and when it desire to make a provision applicable
only to natural relationship, it does not say father or mother,
but natural father or natural mother; it does say child, but
natural child; it does not speak of ascendants, brothers or
parents in the abstract, but of natural ascendants, natural
brothers or natural parents.
WHAT IS THE DELAYED INTESTACY THEORY?

When the resolutory condition of the

reserva is fulfilled, the properties are distributed
to the reservees as if they are inheriting from the
prepositus at the time of fulfillment of the
condition. Since there is no will, then the
reserves inherit by virtue of intestate succession,
the decedent being the prepositus; thus the
name Delayed Intestacy.
 DISINHERITANCE

Disinheritance can be effected

only through a will wherein the
legal cause therefor shall be
specified.
Ways of depriving the compulsory heir of his
legitime

1.Disinheritance (Article 915)

2.Repudiation of the inheritance - the act of the
heir himself
3.Incapacity by reason of unworthiness
4.Predecease - the actual or presumptive death
of the heir
5.Loss of the estate
6.When the death or charges are equal to or
more than the value of the estate
Requisites for a valid disinheritance:

1. The disinheritance must be made in valid will.

2. The disinheritance must be made expressly, not

impliedly.

3. There must be a legal cause for the disinheritance.

4. The disinheritance must be made for a true cause.

5. The disinheritance must be for an existing cause.

• A conditional disinheritance is not allowed:

“I will disinherit my son if he will kill me in the future”

But a conditional revocation of disinheritance is allowed:

“My son attempted for my life. I will disinherit him. However, if he will
ask for my forgiveness, I will revoke the disinheritance”.

6. The disinheritance must be total or complete.

7. The cause must be stated in the will itself.

8. The heir disinherited must be clearly identified, so that there

will be no doubt as to who is really being disinherited.

9. The will in which the disinheritance is stated must not have

been revoked, at least in so far as the disinheritance is concerned.
 SEANGIO VS. REYES
G.R. Nos. 140371-72, November 27, 2006

On September 21, 1988, private respondents filed a petition

for the settlement of the intestate estate of the late Segundo
Seangio. Petitioners Dy Yieng, Barbara and Virginia, all
surnamed Seangio, opposed the petition and contended
among others that: Segundo left a holographic will, dated
September 20, 1995, disinheriting one of the private
respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for cause. In view of the
purported holographic will, petitioners averred that in the
event the decedent is found to have left a will, the intestate
proceedings are to be automatically suspended and replaced
by the proceedings for the probate of the will.
Kasulatan sa pag-aalis ng mana

Tantunin ng sinuman

Ako si Segundo Seangio Filipino may asawa

naninirahan sa 465-A Flores St., Ermita, Manila at
nagtatalay ng maiwanag na pag-iisip at disposisyon ay
tahasan at hayagang inaalisan ko ng lahat at
anumang mana ang paganay kong anak na si Alfredo
Seangio dahil siya ay naging lapastangan sa akin at
isan beses siya ng sasalita ng masama harapan ko at
mga kapatid niya na si Virginia Seangio labis kong
kinasama ng loob ko at sasabe rin ni Alfredo sa akin na
ako nasa ibabaw gayon gunit daratin ang araw na ako
nasa ilalim siya at siya nasa ibabaw.
Labis kong ikinasama ng loob ko ang gamit ni
Alfredo ng akin pagalan para makapagutang na
kuarta siya at kanya asawa na si Merna de los
Reyes sa China Bangking Corporation na millon
pesos at hindi ng babayad at hindi ng babayad
ito ay nagdulot sa aking ng malaking kahihiya sa
mga may-ari at stockholders ng China Banking.
At ikinagalit ko pa rin ang pagkuha ni Alfredo at
ng kanyang asawa na mga custome[r] ng Travel
Center of the Philippines na pinagasiwaan ko at
ng anak ko si Virginia.
Dito ako nagalit din kaya gayon ayoko
na bilanin si Alfredo ng anak ko at
hayanan kong inaalisan ng lahat at
anoman mana na si Alfredo at si
Alfredo Seangio ay hindi ko siya anak
at hindi siya makoha mana.

Nila[g]daan ko ngayon ika 20 ng

Setyembre 1995 sa longsod ng Manila
sa harap ng tatlong saksi.
Private respondents moved for the dismissal of the
probate proceedings primarily on the ground that the
document purporting to be the holographic will of
Segundo does not contain any disposition of the estate
of the deceased and thus does not meet the definition
of a will under Article 783 of the Civil Code. According
to private respondents, the will only shows an alleged
act of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son,
Alfredo, and nothing else; that all other compulsory
heirs were not named nor instituted as heir, devisee or
legatee, hence, there is preterition which would result
to intestacy.
HELD: The critical issue to be determined is whether the
document executed by Segundo can be considered as a
holographic will. A holographic will, as provided under
Article 810 of the Civil Code, must be entirely written,
dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is
subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the
Philippines, and need not be witnessed. Segundo’s
document, although it may initially come across as a mere
disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a
holographic will prescribed by law. It is written, dated and
signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose
mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the
instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative
disposition of the latter’s property, the disinheritance of
Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself.
In other words, the disinheritance results in the
disposition of the property of the testator
Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in
the absence of Alfredo. Moreover, it is a
fundamental principle that the intent or the will
of the testator, expressed in the form and within
the limits prescribed by law, must be recognized
as the supreme law in succession. All rules of
construction are designed to ascertain and give
effect to that intention. It is only when the
intention of the testator is contrary to law,
morals, or public policy that it cannot be given
effect.
Holographic wills, therefore, being usually prepared by
one who is not learned in the law, as illustrated in the
present case, should be construed more liberally than
the ones drawn by an expert, taking into account the
circumstances surrounding the execution of the
instrument and the intention of the testator. In this
regard, the Court is convinced that the document, even
if captioned as Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, was
intended by Segundo to be his last testamentary act
and was executed by him in accordance with law in the
form of a holographic will. Unless the will is probated,
the disinheritance cannot be given effect.
With regard to the reasons for
disinheritance that were stated by
Segundo in his document, the Court
believes that the incidents, taken as a
whole, can be considered a form of
maltreatment of Segundo by his son,
Alfredo, and that the matter presents a
sufficient cause for the disinheritance
of a child or descendant under Art.
919 of the Civil Code.
 PECSON vs. MEDIAVILLO
G.R. No. 7890, September 29, 1914

Paragraph 3 of the will disinherited Rosario in the following

language:

I declare that one of my daughters, named Teresa, now

deceased, left a legitimate daughter named Rosario
Mediavillo. I also declare that I disinherit my
granddaughter, the said Rosario Mediavillo, because she
was grossly disrespectful to me and because on one
occasion, when it was I do not remember, she raised her
hand against me. Therefore, it is my will that the said
Rosario Mediavillo shall have no share in my property.

Rosario alleges that she was disinherited without cause.

Disinheritance shall only take place for one
of the causes expressly fixed by law. Article
849 of the Civil Code provides that the
disinheritance can only be effected by the
testament, in which shall be mentioned
the legal grounds or causes for such
disinheritance. The right of the courts to
inquire into the causes and whether there
was sufficient cause for the disinheritance
or not is supported by express provisions
of the Civil Code.
It appears from the record that when Rosario
Mediavillo was about 14 years of age, she had
received some attentions from a young man —
that she had received a letter from him — and
that her grandfather, Florencio Pecson, took
occasion to talk to her about the relations
between her and the said young man; that it
was upon that occasion when, it is alleged, the
disobedience and disrespect were shown to her
grandfather, and that was the cause for her
disinheritance by her grandfather.
The record shows that very soon after said
event she lost the use of her mental
powers and that she has never regained
them, except for very brief periods, up to
the present time. Taking into consideration
her tender years, and the fact that she very
soon thereafter lost the use of her mental
faculties, the conclusion was reached that
she was probably not responsible for the
disrespect and disobedience shown to her
grandfather in the year 1894 or 1895.
Consequence if there is an invalid
disinheritance

• It shall annul the institution of the heirs but in

so far as only for the purpose of completing
the legitime of the compulsory heir;

• But the devises and legacies and other

testamentary dispositions shall be valid to such
extent as will not impair the legitime.
EXAMPLE # 1:

The testator instituted A and B in his will and disinherited C for

the reason that C is fat. A, B and C are all his legitimate children.
His estate is worth P 120,000.

The effect is it shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as only it

may prejudice the legitime of the invalidly disinherited heir.
Legitime = P 120,000 / 2
= P 60,000
Legitime of each child = P 60,000 / 3
= P 20,000
Distribution:
C = P 20,000 (legitime)
A = P 20,000 + 30,000 = P 50,000
B = P 20,000 + 30,000 = P 50,000
EXAMPLE # 2:

The testator instituted A and B in his will and

disinherited C for the reason that C is fat. X is given a
legacy of P 30,000 cash. A, B and C are all his legitimate
children. His estate is worth P 120,000.
C = P 20,000
A = P 20,000 + P 15,000
B = P 20,000 + P 15,000
X = P 30,000

• Remember, in the order of distribution, the devise or

legacy shall be given ahead of the inheritance.
 PRETERITION VALID DISINHERITANCE
The omission may be either Disinheritance is always
intentional or unintentional as intentional because it has to be
long as the deprivation is total. provided for in the will.
The cause must be provided for
With cause or without cause. by law. (Articles 920 & 921 NCC)
The disinherited heir inherits
Annuls the institution of heirs. nothing from the legitime & the
free portion.
The institution will be followed
unless there is another cause
for not following the institution
The institution is always void. which is not because of the
disinheritance but for other
causes.
 PRETERITION
The institution of heirs is completely
annulled.
If there is a devise or legacy, he will
receive the devise or legacy as long as it is
not inofficious.
It is important to distinguish whether the
person is an instituted heir or a devisee or
legatee.
May be deliberate or inadvertent.
There is no express exclusion.
The omitted heir is compulsory in the Compulsory heir, not necessarily in the
direct line. direct line.
IMPERFECT DISINHERITANCE
The institution remains valid, but must be
reduced insofar as the legitime has been
impaired.
Devises, legacies or other testamentary
dispositions shall be valid. Even if the
person is just an instituted heir, he will still
receive his share or inheritance.
Even if the person is just an instituted heir,
as long as the institution does not
prejudice the legitime of the invalidly
disinherited heir, then, that heir shall
receive the inheritance.
Always deliberate.
The heir must be expressly excluded.
How is disinheritance revoked?

1. There is subsequent reconciliation (so the

disinheritance shall be ineffective);

2. By making the disinherited heir an instituted heir;

3. By the revocation of a will containing

disinheritance;

4. By the disallowance of a will containing the

disinheritance.
An heir who has been disinherited can be represented

• PER CAPITA means one inherits in his own right. In the

example, B inherits in his own right.

• PER STIRPES means one inherits by virtue of

representation. In the example, X and Y inherit as
representatives of A.

• When there is a will, representation takes place only with

respect to the legitime.

• But if there is no will, representation pertains to the

ENTIRE portion
• The disinherited heir who is represented has no usufruct
or administration of the property which constitutes the
legitime. Even if his own children will get the property
which he should have gotten had he not been
disinherited, he cannot use it and he cannot administer it

• There is no representation with respect to the spouse.

• Right of representation pertains only to the descending

and direct line.

• There is no right of representation in the ascending line.