1

DISINHERITANCE.

(3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery or

4blue95 notes:no disinheritance in LEGAL succession. And that disinheritance is
concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
not annulled by preterition.
Adultery and concubinage.-- This needs conviction. E.g., When your parent
4blue95 notes:A testator cannot deprive his compulsory heir of his legitime unless
remarries someone young and you have an affair with that person.
expressly provided by law. The law expressly provides only one way, valid
disinheritance.
(4) When a child or descendant by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue
Requisites:
influence causes the testator to make a will or to change one already made;
1. Made in a valid will. (Art. 916.)
2. Identity of the heir is clearly established
Fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence as regards the will.-- This
3. For a legal cause. (Articles 919 to 921.)
goes into the very essence of will-making-- the freedom deprived by the
4. Expressly made
child or descendant.
5. Cause stated in the will.
6. Absolute or unconditional (not "if he doesn't apologize.")
It does not mention prevent because if he was prevented, how can he make a
7. Total
will of disinheritance? Prevention is a ground for unworthiness (Art. 1032,
8. Cause must be true and if challenged by the heir, it must be proved to be true
par. 7) which has the same effect as disinheritance.
(proponent of disinheritance has the burden of proof.)

(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent or ascendant

Art. 915. A compulsory heir may, in consequence of disinheritance, be
who disinherits such child or descendant;
deprived of his legitime, for causes expressly stated by law.
Refusal, itself, is not a ground; it must be unjustified. E.g., In the FC, there
is an order of preference for support. The person may be willing to support
Art. 916. Disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal
but it is not economically feasible. A person must support his wife and
cause therefor shall be specified.
children first. There is here a justified refusal.

(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the child or

Art. 917. The burden of proving the truth of the cause for disinheritance
descendants;
shall rest upon the other heirs of the testator, if the disinherited heir should
deny it.
No conviction is required as compared to number 1 wherein conviction is
needed. This may be proven by preponderance of evidence. It is possible for
an act not to fall in number 1 but to fall in number 6.
Art. 918. Disinheritance without a specification of the cause, or for a cause
the truth of which, if contradicted, is not proved, or which is not one of those
E.g., The son shoots his father. The father is wounded but he recovers. The
set forth in this Code, shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may
father does not want a scandal so he does not file charges against his son.
prejudice the person disinherited; but the devises and legacies and other
So, he disinherits his son not under number 1 but under no. 6.
testamentary dispositions shall be valid to such extent as will not impair the
legitime.
(7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life;

This is a catch-all provision. "Leads" denotes habituality. Dishonorable and

disgraceful are based on the sense of the community as perceived by the
judge. It is not limited to sexual immorality.
DISINHERITANCE OF DESCENDANTS:
E.g., drug addict, alcoholic.
Art. 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of
children and descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate:
(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil
interdiction.
(1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an attempt against
the life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
Conviction is required.
Accessory penalty that goes w/ the principal penalty of reclusion temporal
Attempt against the life, etc.-- Final conviction is necessary.
and up.
"Attempt" is a generic term which includes all kinds of commission, whether
frustrated or consummated.
Intent to kill must be present.

This is an exclusive list and not illustrative.

(2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for which
the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation has
4BLUE 95 Notes: Conviction is required in numbers 1, 3 and 8.
been found groundless;

Elements:
a. Accusation is a generic term which includes:
(i) filing of an information;
(ii) presenting incriminating evidence;
(iii) acting as a witness against the ascendant.
b. Imprisonment of more than six (6) years

c. Accusation is groundless.-- Ascendant is acquitted on the finding that:

(i) there is no crime; or
(ii) that the ascendant did not commit it.

If the ascendant was acquitted on reasonable doubt, the ascendant cannot

disinherit because the accusation is not groundless.
 2

DISINHERITANCE OF ASCENDANTS: DISINHERITANCE OF A SPOUSE:

Art. 920. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of
parents or ascendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) When the parents have abandoned their children or induced their
daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life, or attempted against their virtue;
a. Abandonment by parent of his children.-- In abandonment, there are two (2)
views:
1. Strict.-- Leaving them alone while still children under
circumstances that would endanger them.
2. Accepted.-- Any case where a parent, without justifiable cause,
withholds his care. E.g., Leaving someone at the doorstep.
b. Induced their daughter to live a corrupt or immoral life.-- Does it include
grandparents to granddaughters? Yes. The provision covers ascendant's vis-à-vis
descendants.
Art. 921. The following shall be sufficient causes for disinheriting a spouse:
(1) When the spouse has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the
testator, his or her descendants, or ascendants;
(2) When the spouse has accused the testator of a crime for which the law
prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, and the accusation has been
found to be false;
(3) When the spouse by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence
causes the testator to make a will or to change one already made;
(4) When the spouse has given cause for legal separation;
(5) When the spouse has given grounds for the loss of parental authority;
(6) Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or the other spouse.
Similar grounds found in Articles 919 and 920.
1. Both.
2. Both.
3. Both.
5. Art. 920 only.
6. Both.

c. Attempt against their virtues.-- Mere attempt is enough as long as it can be

proven.
Note: In all 3 cases, conviction is not required.
(2) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of an attempt against
the life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
The only new ground is number 4:
4blue95 notes: Legal separation is not a ground. If there is legal separation, you
do not need to disinherit. Disinheritance takes place by operation of law.
As long as there is cause for legal separation, you can disinherit provided you are
the offended spouse.

(3) When the parent or ascendant has accused the testator of a crime for
which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, if the
accusation has been found to be false;

(4) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of adultery or

concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
BAR MATTER 2023. TO EASILY MEMORIZE
(5) When the parent or ascendant by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue
influence causes the testator to make a will or to change one already made; CHILDREN

1.found guilty against life of testator

2.accused of crime which prescribe for 6 yrs or more
(6) The loss of parental authority for causes specified in this Code; 3.cause testator to make/change will w/ FVIU
4.refusal w/o justifiable cause to support testator
FC does not include all causes of loss of parental authority. Exception: Adoption, (if spouse/parent: children and descendant)
age of majority.
The grounds refer to those which involve the same moral culpability. Exception: 5.convicted of adultery w/ spouse of testator
Articles 229, par. 4, 230 and 231 of FC. 6.maltreatment
7.leads dishonourable life
8.conviction of crime w/c carries civil interdiction

(7) The refusal to support the children or descendants without justifiable

cause;

(8) An attempt by one of the parents against the life of the other, unless there ASCENDANT
has been a reconciliation between them.
(1-5 above) + 1.loss parental authority
This does not need conviction. Exception: When they reconcile. 2.abandonement by parent…
This presupposes that there is no disinheritance yet. 3.attempt by parent vs other…
Losses right to disinherit upon reconciliation.
But what if already disinherited before reconciliation? This is not clear. But it
should be considered revoked bec. in case of doubt, resolve against
disinheritance.

SPOUSE

(1 of ascendant, 1-4 of children) + spouse give Cause for legal

4BLUE 95. Numbers 2, 5 and 7 are the same as the grounds in Art. 919. Separation.

BAR QUESTIONS:
Q: By virtue of a Codicil appended to his will, Theodore devised to Divino a tract
of sugar land, with the obligation on the part of Divino or his heirs to deliver to
Betina a specified volume of sugar per harvest during Betina’s lifetime. It is also
stated in the Codicil that in the event the obligation is not fulfilled, Betina should
immediately seize the property from Divino or latter’s heirs and turn it over to
Theodore’s compulsory heirs. Divino failed to fulfill the obligation under the
Codicil. Betina brings suit against Divino for the reversion of the tract of land. 1.
Distinguish between modal institution and substitution of heirs. 2. Distinguish
between simple and fideicommissary substitutionofheirs. 3. Does Betina have a
cause of action against Divino? Explain. (2002 Bar)
A:
1. A MODAL INSTITUTION is the institution of an heir made for a certain
purpose or cause. (Arts. 871 and 882) SUBSTITUTION is the appointment of
another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of the heir
originality instituted. (Art. 857)
2. In a SIMPLE SUBSTITUTION of heirs, the testator designates one or more
persons to substitute the heirs instituted in case such heir or heirs should die before
him, or should not wish or should be incapacitated to accept the inheritance. In a
FIDEICOMMISSARY SUBSTITUTION, the testator institutes a first heir and
charges him to preserve and transmit the whole or part of the inheritance to a
second heir. In a simple substitution, only one heir inherits.In a fideicommissary
substitution, both the first and second heirs inherit.(Art. 859 and 869)
3. Yes, Betina has a cause of action against Divino. This is a case of a
testamentary disposition subject to a mode and the will itself provides for the
consequence if the mode is not complied with. To enforce the mode, the will itself
gives Betina the right to compel the return of the property to the heirs of Theodore.
(Rabadilla v. Conscoluella, G.R. No. 113725, June 29, 2000)
Q: Crispin died testate and was survived by Alex and Josine, his children from his
first wife; Rene and Ruby, his children from his second wife; and Allan, Bea, and
Cheska, his children from his third wife. One important provision in his will reads
as follows: "Ang lupa at bahay sa Lungsod ng Maynila ay ililipat at ilalagay sa
pangalan nila Alex at Rene hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang
pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang sinuman sa aking mga anak,
sampu ng aking mga apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa habang panahon, ay may tutuluyan
kung magnanais na mag-aral sa Maynila o sa kalapit na mgalungsod." Is the
provision valid? (2014 Bar)
A: No, the provision imposing the division of the property “habang panahon” is
invalid. In Santiago v. Santiago (G.R. No. 179859, August 9, 2010), a similar
provision appears in the will. However, Art. 1083 provides that the period of
indivision imposed by the testator shall not exceed 20 years. Hence, the provision
leaving the administration of the house and lot to Alex and Rene is valid but the
provision “habang buhay” is invalid as to the excess beyond 20 years.
Q: Raymond, single, named his sister Ruffa in his will as a devisee of a parcel of
land which he owned. The will imposed upon Ruffa the obligation of preserving
the land and transferring it, upon her death, to her illegitimate daughter Scarlet
who was then only one year old. Raymond later died, leaving behind his widowed
mother, Ruffa and Scarlet. 1. Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa, to preserve the
property and to transmit it upon her death to Scarlet, valid? 2. If Scarlet
predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the property? 3. If Ruffa predeceases Raymond,
can Scarlet inherit the property directly from Raymond?(2008 Bar)
A:
1. When an obligation to preserve and transmit the property to Scarlet was
imposed on Ruffa, the testator Raymond intended to create a fideicommissary
substitution where Ruffa is the fiduciary and Scarlet is the fideicommissary.
Having complied with the requirements of Arts. 863 and 869, the fideicommissary
substitution is valid.
2. If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, the fideicommissary substitution is rendered null
or ineffective under Art. 863, the fideicommissary clause is disregarded without
prejudice to the validity of the institution of the fiduciary. In such case, Ruffa shall
inherit the devise free from the condition.
3. In a fideicommissary substitution, the intention of the testator is to make the
second heir his ultimate heir. The right of the second heir is simply postponed by
the delivery of the inheritance to the first heir for him to enjoy the usufruct over
the inheritance. Hence, when the first heir predeceased the testator, the first heir
did not qualify to inherit and the right of the second heir to receive the inheritance
will no longer be delayed provided the second heir is qualified to inherit at the
time of the testator’s death. In fideicommissary substitution, the first and the
second heirs inherit from the testator, hence, both should be qualified to inherit
from the testator at the time of his death. In the problem, when Ruffa predeceased
Raymond, she did not qualify to receive the inheritance to enjoy its usufruct,
hence, the right of Scarlet to receive the inheritance upon the death of the testator
will no longer be delayed. However, Scarlet is not qualified to inherit from
Raymond because she is barred by Art. 992 of the New Civil Code being an
illegitimate child of Raymond’s legitimate father. The devise will therefore be
ineffective and the property will be disposed of by intestacy.
3
Q: If a will is executed by a testator who is a Filipino citizen, what law will govern
if the will is executed in the Philippines? What law will govern if the will is
executed in another country? Explain your answers. If a will is executed by a
foreigner, for instance, a Japanese, residing in the Philippines, what law will
govern if the will is executed in the Philippines? And what law will govern if the
will is executed in Japan, or some other country, for instance, the U.S.A.? Explain
your answers. (1990 Bar)
A: If the testator who is a Filipino citizen executes his will in the Philippines,
Philippine law will govern the formalities. If said Filipino testator executes his
will in another country, the law of the country where he maybe or Philippine law
will govern the formalities.(Art. 815)
Q: Stevie was born blind. He went to school for the blind, and learned to read in
Braille Language. He Speaks English fluently. Can he: 1. Make a will? 2. Act as a
witness to awill? 3. In either of the above instances, must the will be read to
him?(2008Bar)
A:
1. Yes. Assuming that he is of legal age (Art. 797) and of sound mind at the time
of execution of the will (Art. 798), Stevie, a blind person, can make a notarial will,
subject to compliance with the “tworeading rule” (Art. 808) and the provisions
ofArts. 804 and 806 oftheCivilCode.
2. No, Stevie cannot be a witness to a will. Art. 820 of the Civil Code provides
that “any person of sound mind and of age of eighteen years or more, and not
blind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and write, may be a witness to the execution
of a will.
3. Yes. The will must be read to him twice, once by one of the subscribing
witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom thewill is acknowledged.
(Art. 808)
Q: Arthur executed a will which contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting his
daughter Bernica for running off with a married man, and (ii) a provision
disposing of his share in the family house and lot in favor of his other children
Connie and Dora. He did not make any provisions in favor of his wife Erica,
because as the will stated, she would anyway get ½ of the house and lot as her
conjugal share. The will was very brief and straight forward and both the above
provisions were contained in page 1, which Arthur and his instrumental witness,
signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the attestation clause and the signatures, at
the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental witnesses which included Lambert, the
driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who
prepared the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only contained the notarial
acknowledgement. The attestation clause stated the will was sighed on the same
occasion by Arthur and his instrumental witnesses who all signed in the presence
of each other, and the notary public who notarized the will. There are no marginal
signatures or pagination appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his death, it was
discovered that apart from the house and lot, he has a P1 million account deposited
with ABC back. 1. Was Erica preterited? 2. What other defects of the will, if any,
can cause denial of probate? 3. Was the disinheritance valid? (2008 Bar)
A:
1. No. Erica was not preterited. Art. 854 of the Civil Code provides that only
compulsory heirs in the directline can be preterited.
2. The other defects of the will that can cause its denial are as follows: (a) Atty.
Zorba, the one who prepared the will was one of the three witnesses, violating the
threewitnesses rule; (b) no marginal signature at the last page; (c) the attestation
did not state the number of pages upon which the will is written; and, (d) no
pagination appearing correctively in letters on the upper part of the three pages.
(Azuela v. CA, G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006 and cited cases therein, Art. 805
and 806)
3. Yes, the disinheritance was valid. When a child or descendant leads a
dishonorable or disgraceful life, like running off with a married man, there is
sufficient cause for disinheritance. (Art. 919, par.7)
Q: Mr. Cruz, widower, has three legitimate children, A, B and C. He executed a
Will instituting as his heirs to his estate of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos his
two children A and B, and his friend F. 1. Upon his death, how should Mr. Cruz's
estate be divided? Explain. 2. In the preceding question, suppose Mr. Cruz
instituted his two children A and B as his heirs in his Will, but gave a legacy of P
100,000.00 to his friend F. How should the estate of Mr. Cruz be divided upon his
death? Explain.(1999 BAR)
A:
1. Assuming that the institution of A, B and F were to the entire estate, there was
preterition of C since C is a compulsory heir in the direct line. The preterition will
result in the total annulment of the institution of heirs. Therefore, the institution of
A, B and F will be set aside and Mr. Cruz’s estate will be divided, as in intestacy,
equally among A, B and C as follows: A - P333,333.33; B - P333.333.33; and C -
P333,333.33.
2. On the same assumption as letter (a), there was preterition of C. Therefore, the
institution of A and B is annulled but the legacy of P100.000.00 to F shall be
respected for not being inofficious. Therefore, the remainder of P900.000.00 will
be divided equally among A,B and C.
 4

RECONCILIATION

Art. 922. A subsequent reconciliation between the offender and the offended
person deprives the latter of the right to disinherit, and renders ineffectual
any disinheritance that may have been made.

1. Reconciliation.-- Two persons who are at odds decide to set aside their
differences and to resume their relations. They need not go back to their old
relation. A handshake is not reconciliation. It has to be something more. It must
be clear and deliberate.

2. What is the effect of reconciliation?

a. If there is no will.-- It deprives the offended person of his right to disinherit the
offending person.
b. If already disinherited.-- It sets aside disinheritance already made.

3. This is inconsistent with Art. 1033. In disinheritance, reconciliation is

sufficient. It need not be in writing. In unworthiness, however, it needs to be in
writing. This is inconsistent bec. when you are dealing w/ the express will to
disinherit, reconciliation is enough when you are dealing w/ the presumed will, it
must be in writing.

REPRESENTATION IN DISINHERITANCE:

Art. 923. The children and descendants of the person disinherited shall take
his or her place and shall preserve the rights of compulsory heirs with respect
to the legitime; but the disinherited parent shall not have the usufruct or
administration of the property which constitutes the legitime.

Representation in case of disinheritance:

1. Effect of disinheritance is not explicitly provided for.

The total exclusion = loss of legitime, right to intestate succession, and of any
disposition in a prior will.

2. "Takes place only in legitime."-- The law assumes that free portion has been
given away. If not, include the intestate portion.

3. Representation.-- (This is applicable only) if (the) person disinherited is a child

or descendant.

Includes both legitime and intestate share of the disinherited heir.

X
----------
| |
A B
--------
| |
a1 a2

a. X made a will giving Y, a friend, 1/2 of his estate. This covered the free
portion. X validly disinherited A. Can a1 and a2 represent A? Yes. Children of
A can represent him as to the legitime only bec. the free portion has been given to
B.

b. X validly disinherits A. X did not dispose of his free portion. How much will
the children of A inherit from X? They will inherit A's share in the legitime and in
the free portion, 1/4 -- legitime,1/4 -- free portion.

The representative of the disinherited person will receive both the legitime and the
free portion which might have accrued to the person disinherited if he had not
been disinherited