1

LEGAL/INTESTATE SUCCESSION
I. INTESTACY.
That which takes place by operation of law in default of
compulsory and testamentary succession. It is the least preferred
among the three modes of succession, but is the most common. It
takes place only:
(a) insofar as it does not impair legitimes;
(b) only if there is no will disposing of the property. It applies the
principle of exclusion and concurrence (the same principles as in
compulsory succession.)
Art. 960. Legal or intestate succession takes place:
(1) If a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one which has
subsequently lost its validity;
(2) When the will does not institute an heir to, or dispose of all the
property belonging to the testator. In such case, legal succession shall
take place only with respect to the property of which the testator has not
disposed;
(3) If the suspensive condition attached to the institution of heir does
not happen or is not fulfilled, of if the heir dies before the testator, or
repudiates the inheritance, there being no substitution, and no right of
accretion takes place;

II. INTESTATE HEIRS (4) When the heir instituted is incapable of succeeding, except in cases
provided in this Code.
1. Legitimate children or descendants
2. Illegitimate children or descendants This enumeration is NOT EXCLUSIVE. There are other causes.
3. Legitimate parents or ascendants
4. Illegitimate parents
5. Surviving spouse A. Kinds
6. Brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces
7. Other collateral relatives up to the fifth degree 1. Total - No testamentary disposition at all.
2. Partial - A will that disposes of part of the free portion
8. The State.
B. Causes
2022 Notes: Numbers 1 to 5 are both compulsory and intestate
heirs.Numbers 6 to 8 are intestate heirs. 1. a. No will.-- Total intestacy
This shows why the rules on legitime are similar to the rules of b. Void will = no will.-- Total intestacy
intestacy. c. Erroneous.-- will, once valid, always valid but may lose its
efficacy, e.g., when revoked.

2.
a. "does not institute an heir."-- Useless will as far as
succession is concerned.
b. "Does not dispose all."-- Partial intestacy
III. BASIC RULES OF INTESTACY
3. "Suspensive condition does not happen."-- Intestacy as to that specific
institution.
1. Rule of Relationship.-- Intestate heir must be related to the 4. "Incapable of succeeding-- Only specific provision will give rise to
deceased. intestacy.
There are four kinds:
a. Family.-- Js familial, ascendants and descendants in the direct 5. Others not in Art. 960.
line. a. The arrival of the resolutory term.
b. Blood.-- Jus sanguinis, collaterals up to the fifth degree. b. Impossibility of ascertaining the will of the testator.
c. Spouse.-- Jus conjugis.
d. State.-- Jus imperii, the right of sovereignty.

2. Rule of Preference of lines.-- This is also true in compulsory

succession. The descending is preferred over the ascending.

3. Rule on proximity of degree.-- This rule excludes the further.

(This qualifies) representation.
Art. 961. In default of testamentary heirs, the law vests the inheritance,
in accordance with the rules hereinafter set forth, in the legitimate and
4. Rule of equality among relatives of the same degree.-- This is illegitimate relatives of the deceased, in the surviving spouse, and in the
corollary to the third. State.

Five exceptions:
Art. 962. In every inheritance, the relative nearest in degree excludes
the more distant ones, saving the right of representation when it
a. Relatives of the full and half blood.-- Art. 1026 (does not refer
property takes place.
to blood cousins, bec. they inherit equally.) Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares, subject to the
b. Rule of division by line in the ascending line.-- Maternal/ provisions of article 1006 with respect to relatives of the full and half
paternal blood, and of article 987, paragraph 2, concerning division between the
c. Rule on preference of lines.-- Art. 928 if decedent is survived paternal and maternal lines.
by a father and son, the father is excluded.
d. Distribution between legitimate and illegitimate children.-- 2 :
1, although in the same degree.
e. By representation.-- Because of this, they inherit in different
shares.

RELATIONSHIP.
FULL BLOOD RELATIONSHIP
Full blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same
father and the same mother. (Art. 967, par. 1)
HALF BLOOD RELATIONSHIP
Half-blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same
father, but not the same mother, or the same mother, but not the same father.
(Art. 967, par. 2)
Importance of Distinction Between Full Blood and Half Blood
Relationship (Arts. 1006, 1008)
Ratio of 2:1 for full-blood and half-blood relationship in Articles 1006 and
1008, for brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces.
ARTICLES 963 TO 967 ON RELATIONSHIPS.
1. (These rules on relationship are) important because of certain
principles which ordain in intestacy, namely:
a. Nearer excludes the more remote;
b. Direct line is preferred over the collateral;
c. Descending line is preferred over the ascending.
2. Two basic concepts in relationship:
a. Concept of degree.-- This is the method of computing the
proximity of relationship. Every degree is one generation.
b. Concept of lines.-- (These are) relative positions in the
family between 2 persons (genealogical chart.)
IN INTESTACY:
a. There is no limit.-- Direct line-- (i) ascending
(ii) descending
b. Limit of five degrees.-- Collateral line-- 2 persons having a
common ascendant
Illustration:
A
| \
B D
| |
C E
For B, A is in the direct line. D is in the collateral line.
3. Full and half-blood relations in intestacy.
a. Brothers and sisters. (Art. 1006.)-- 2 : 1-- This is
applicable only in intestate succession.
b. Nephews and nieces. (Art. 1008.)-- 2 : 1-- Nephews or
nieces of the half blood-- child of a brother or sister of the half
blood.
Art. 968. If there are several relatives of the same degree, and one or
some of them are unwilling or incapacitated to succeed, his portion shall
accrue to the others of the same degree, save the right of representation
when it should take place.
2
RENUNCIATION IN INTESTACY
If the inheritance should be repudiated by the nearest relative, should
there be one only, or by all the nearest relatives called by law to succeed,
should there be several, those of the following degree shall inherit in
their own right and cannot represent the person or persons repudiating
the inheritance. (Art. 969)
Effect of Renunciation by All in the Same Degree
The right of succession should first be passed on the heirs in succeeding degrees,
before the next line can succeed.
1. The descending line inherits first.
NOTE: If ALL the descendants of a certain degree renounce,
succession passes to the descendants of the next degree, and so on.
2. The ascending line inherits next.
NOTE: Should no one be left in the descending line, the heirs in the
ascending line acquire the right of succession, in order of degrees of
proximity.
3. The collateral line inherits last.
NOTE: Only if all the descendants and ascendants renounce will the
collateral relatives acquire the right to succeed.
The effect of renunciation by all in the same degree applies in cases of predecease
or incapacity by all in the same degree, except in cases where representation is
proper.
ACCRETION IN INTESTACY
If there are several relatives of the same degree, and one or some of them are
unwilling or incapacitated to succeed, his portion shall accrue to the others
of the same degree, save the right of representation when it should take
place. (Art. 968)
Accretion applies among heirs of the same degrees in the following
instances: (Arts. 1015, 1016) (GROUNDS FOR REPRESENTATION)
1. Predecease;
2. Incapacity;
3. Renunciation
HOWEVER, in case of predecease or incapacity,
representation, if proper will prevent accretion from occurring.
Relatives must be in the same kind of relationship for accretion
to take place. This is because of the PRINCIPLE OF
PREFERENCE OF LINES in intestate succession.
 3

RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION. CAPACITY TO SUCCEED.

Art. 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of law, by virtue of In representation, there are three parties:
which the representative is raised to the place and the degree of the 1. The decedent;
person represented, and acquires the rights which the latter would have 2. The person represented;
if he were living or he could have inherited. 3. The representative.

1. This article contains the definition of representation. Representation is Questions:

not a very accurate term because it does not convey the full meaning of the a. Must 3 have capacity to succeed from 1? Yes, bec. he is really
process. succeeding from 1.
Illustration: b. Must 3 have capacity to succeed from 2? No, bec. 3 is not succeeding
from 2.
X c. Must 2 have capacity to succeed from 1? No. This is precisely why 3
/ | \ succeeds 1.
A B C
/ \
b1 b2 Art. 974. Whenever there is succession by representation, the division
of the estate shall be made per stirpes, in such manner that the
B predeceases X. When X dies, b1 and b2 are excluded bec. of the rule that representative or representatives shall not inherit more than what the
the nearer excludes the more remote. Only A and C should inherit. But person they represent would inherit, if he were living or could inherit.
because of the right of representation, b1 and b2 will inherit in the place of
B. They are raised to the level of B. They will only get what B would have
gotten.The better term is successional subrogation.It is a process whereby
one person takes another's place. The representative is subrogated (takes the Art. 975. When children of one of more brothers or sisters of the
place) of the person represented. deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by representation, if
they survive with their uncles or aunts. But if they alone survive, they
2. Under what situations does it operate? shall inherit in equal portions.
a. Predecease.-- Articles 982, 975.
b. Disinheritance.-- Art. 923. Representation:
c. Incapacity or unworthiness to succeed.-- Art. 1035.
1. In collateral line.
(This) does not apply to renunciation. (See Articles 968, 969, 977.)
a1
3. In what kinds of succession does it operate? /
A-- a2
a. Compulsory /
b. Intestate X-- B -- b
\
It does not apply to testamentary succession. C-- c1
E.g., "I institute my son, and if he predeceases me, he will be represented by \
his son." This is substitution and not representation. c2

Art. 971. The representative is called to the succession by the law and a. If A, B and C predecease X, all nephews inherit in their son right, per
not by the person represented. The representative does not succeed the capita.
person represented but the one whom the person represented would
have succeeded.

Art. 972. The right of representation takes place in the direct 2. In the direct line. (Art. 982.)
descending line, but never in the ascending.
In the collateral line, it takes place only in favor of the children of X
brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full or half blood. / | \
A B C
1. In legitime, in what direction does it operate? Only in the descending, / | | | \
never in the ascending. a1 a2 b c1 c2

2. In intestacy, in what direction does it operate? a. In A, B and C predecease X, all grandchildren inherit by representation,
a. In descending line.-- Same as in legitimes. per stirpes.
b. Only one instance in the collateral line.-- Nephews and nieces in b. If A, B and C renounce, all grandchildren inherit by their own right, per
representation of their parents who predeceased their decedent brother or capita.
sister.
Articles 976 and 977.
In renunciation:
X a. Person who renounces cannot be represented. (Art. 977.)
/ | \ b. Person who renounces can represent. (Art. 976.)
A B C
/ \ Illustration: A
b1 b2 |
B
B predeceases A. When A dies, b1 and b2 can represent B in B's share in |
the estate of A.Teotico v. Del Val.-- An adopted child cannot represent his C
adoptive parent bec. the fiction is only between the adopter and the adopted. |
D

C renounces his inheritance from B. B then dies. Later on, A dies.

Effect:
1. D cannot represent C in B's estate.
2. Can C represent B in A's estate? Yes. When C renounced, he only
renounced his right to inherit from B. He did not renounce his right to
inherit from A.
 4

ORDER OF INTESTATE SUCCESSION.

Subsection 1.-- Descending Direct Line. Subsection 3.-- Illegitimate Children.

Art. 978. Succession pertains, in the first place, to the
descending direct line.
Art. 979. Legitimate children and their descendants succeed
the parents and other ascendants, without distinction as to sex
or age, and even if they should come from different marriages.
An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting
parents in the same manner as a legitimate child.
Art. 988. In the absence of legitimate descendants or ascend-
ants, the illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate
of the deceased.
Art. 989. If, together with illegitimate children, there should
survive descendants of another illegitimate child who is dead,
the former shall succeed in their own right and the latter by
right of representation.

Art. 980. The children of the deceased shall always inherit
from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal
shares.
Art. 981. Should children of the deceased and descendants of
other children who are dead, survive, the former shall inherit
in their own right, and the latter by right of representation.
Art. 982. The grandchildren and other descendants shall
inherit by right of representation, and if any one of them
should have died, leaving several heirs, the portion pertaining
to him shall be divided among the latter in equal portions.
Only legitimate descendantsGeneral rule: Art. 982
Exception: Art. 992 --An illegitimate child has no right to inherit
ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father
or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same
manner from the illegitimate child.
Art. 990. The hereditary rights granted by the two preceding
articles to illegitimate children shall be transmitted upon their
death to their descendants, who shall inherit by right of repre-
sentation from their deceased grandparent.
Art. 991. If legitimate ascendants are left, the illegitimate
children shall divide the inheritance with them, taking one-half
of the estate, whatever be the number of the ascendants or of
the illegitimate children.
Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father
or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the
same manner from the illegitimate child.
This applies only to child, not descendants
This is called the IRON CURTAIN RULE

This applies only to child, not descendant

This is called the "iron curtain rule."
Art. 983. If illegitimate children survive with legitimate
children, the shares of the former shall be in the proportions
prescribed by article 895.

Article 895 - note article 176 FC - Illegitimate child is entitled to

1/2 of share of a legitimate child. The legitime of the illegitimate
child shall be taken from the free portion, provided in no case shall
the total legitime of illegitimate child exceed the free portion, and
the legitime of surviving spouse must first be fully satisfied.
Art. 993. If an illegitimate child should die without issue, either
Art. 984. In case of death of an adopted child, leaving no legitimate or illegitimate, his father or mother shall succeed to
children or descendants, his parents and relatives by his entire estate; and if the child's filiation is duly proved as to
consanguinity and not by adoption, shall be his legal heirs. both parents, who are both living, they shall inherit from him
share and share alike.

Subsection2.-- Ascending Direct Line.
Art. 985. In default of legitimate children and descendants of
the deceased, his parents and ascendants shall inherit from
him, to the exclusion of collateral relatives.
Art. 994. In default of the father or mother, an illegitimate
child shall be succeeded by his or her surviving spouse, who
shall be entitled to the entire estate.
If the widow or widower should survive with brothers and
sisters, nephews and nieces, she or he shall inherit one-half of
the estate, and the latter the other half.

Art. 986. The father and mother, if living, shall inherit in

equal shares.Should one only of the survive, he or she shall
succeed to the entire estate of the child.

Art. 987. In default of the father and mother, the ascendants

nearest in degree shall inherit.
Should there by more than one of equal degree belonging to
the same line they shall divide the inheritance per capita;
should they be of different lines but of equal degree, one-half
shall go to the paternal and the other half to the maternal
ascendants. In each line the division shall be made per capita.

Per capita means equally


Subsection 4.-- Surviving Spouse.
Art. 995. In the absence of legitimate descendants and as-
cendants, and illegitimate children and their descendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, the surviving spouse shall
inherit the entire estate, without prejudice to the rights of
brothers and sister, nephews and nieces, should there by any
under article 1001.
Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children
survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled
to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or
their children to the other half.
Art. 996. If a widow or widower and legitimate children or
descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession
the same share as that of each of the children.
Art. 997. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate
parents or ascendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to
one-half of the estate, and the legitimate parents or ascendants
to the other half.
Art. 998. If a widow or widower survives with illegitimate
children, such widow or widower shall be entitled to one-half
of the inheritance, and the illegitimate children or their
descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, to the other
half.
Art. 999. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate
children or their descendants and illegitimate children or their
descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, such widow or
widower shall be entitled to the same share as that of a legiti-
mate child.
Art. 1000. If legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse, and
illegitimate children are left, the ascendants shall be entitled to
one-half of the inheritance, and the other half shall be divided
between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate children so
that such widow or widower shall have one-fourth of the estate,
and the illegitimate children the other fourth.
Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive
with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-
half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their
children to the other half.
Art. 1002. In case of a legal separation, if the surviving spouse
gave cause for the separation, he or she shall not have any of
the rights granted in the preceding article.
5
Subsection 5.-- Collateral Relatives
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. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of
the full blood, they shall inherit in equal shares.
Art. 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together with
nephews and nieces, who are the children of the decedent's
brothers and sisters of the full blood, the former shall inherit
per capita, and the latter per stirpes.
Per capita means equally
per stirpes means by representation
Art. 1006. Should brothers and sisters of the full blood survive
together with brother and sisters of the half blood, the former
shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter.
Art. 1007. In case brothers and sisters of the half blood, some
on the father's and some on the mother's side, are the only
survivors, all shall inherit in equal shares without distinction
as to the origin of the property.
Art. 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood
shall succeed per capita or per stirpes, in accordance with the
rules laid down for brothers and sisters of the full blood.
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.
Art. 1010. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend
beyond the fifth degree of relationship in the collateral line.
Surviving Spouse
1. Legitimate Kids
SS is same share of EACH legit children (even if with illeg—
1/2 to share of each legit child)
2. Brothers and Sisters ½, ½
3. Legitimate Parents ½, ½
Illegitimate Kids ½, ½
Combination Parent ½ , (SS ¼, illegit kids ¼ )
 6

Q: Don Ricardo had 2 legitimate children - Tomas and Tristan. Tristan has 3
children. Meanwhile, Tomas had a relationship with Nancy, who was also single
and had the legal capacity to marry. Nancy became pregnant and gave birth to
Tomas, Jr. After the birth of Tomas, Jr., his father, Tomas, died. Later, Don
Ricardo died without a will and Tristan opposed the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be
declared an heir of the deceased since he is an illegitimate child. Tomas, Jr.
countered that Article 992 of the Civil Code is unconstitutional for violation of the
equal protection of the laws. He explained that an illegitimate child of an
illegitimate parent is allowed to inherit under Articles 902, 982 and 990 of the
Civil Code while he - an illegitimate child of a legitimate father - cannot. Civil
Law commentator Arturo Tolentino opined that Article 992 created an absurdity
and committed an injustice because while the illegitimate descendant of an
illegitimate child can represent, the illegitimate descendant of a legitimate child
cannot. Decide the case and explain. (2016 BAR)
A: I will deny the motion of Tomas, Jr. to be declared as an heir of the deceased.
Tomas Jr., being an illegitimate child of the deceased legitimate son, Tomas,
cannot inherit ab intestate from the deceased, Don Ricardo, because of the iron
curtain rule under Art. 992 of the CivilCode. Tomas cannot argue thatArt. 992is
violative of the equal protection clause because equal protection simply requires
that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed. (Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155,
May 31, 1957) It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws
to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality
among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal
protection clause permits classification.
Q: The spouses Peter and Paula had three (3) children. Paula later obtained a
judgment of nullity of marriage. Their absolute community of property having
been dissolved, they delivered P1 million to each of their 3 children as their
presumptive legitimes. Peter later re- married and had two (2) children by his
second wife Marie. Peter and Marie, having successfully engaged in business,
acquired real properties. Peter later diedintestate. 1. WhoarePeter’s
legalheirsandhowwill his estate be divided among them? 2. What is the effect of
the receipt by Peter’s 3 children by his first marriage of their presumptive
legitimes on their right to inherit following Peter’s death? (2010 Bar)
A:
1. The legal heirs of Peter are his children by the first and second marriages and
his surviving secondwife. Their shares in the estate of Peter will depend, however,
on the cause of the nullity of the first marriage. If the nullity of the first marriage
was psychological incapacity of one or both spouses, the three children of that
void marriage are legitimate and all of the legal heirs shall share the estate of Peter
in equal shares. If the judgment of nullity was for other causes, the three children
are illegitimate and the estate shall be distributed such that an illegitimate child of
the first marriage shall receive half of the share of a legitimate child of the second
marriage, and the second wife will inherit a share equal to that of a legitimate
child. In no case may the two legitimate children of the second marriage receive a
share less than onehalf of the estate which is their legitime. When the estate is not
sufficient to pay all the legitimes of the compulsory heirs, the legitime of the
spouse is preferred and the illegitimate children suffer the reduction.

Q: Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses and
agreed to raise a son of Bert's living brother as their child without legally adopting
him. Bert worked while Joe took care of their home and the boy. In their 20 years
of cohabitation they were able to acquire real estate assets registered in their
names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died of cardiac arrest, leaving no will.
Bert was survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the boy. 1. Can Article 147
on co-ownership apply to Bert and Joe, whereby all properties they acquired will
be presumed to have been acquired by their joint industry and shall be owned by
them in equal shares? 2. What are the successional rights of the boy Bert and Joe
raised as their son? 3. If Bert and Joe had decided in the early years of their
cohabitation to jointly adopt the boy, would they have been legally allowed to do
so? Explain with legal basis. (2015 Bar)
A: 1. No, Article 147 cannot apply to Bert and Joe because the law only applies to
a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other who live together as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. In the
case of Bert andJoe, they are both men, so the law does notapply. 2. Neither of the
two will inherit from Bert. Joe cannot inherit because the law does not recognize
the right of a stranger to inherit from the decedent in the absence of a will. Their
cohabitation will not vest Joe with the right to inherit from Bert. The child will
likewise not inherit from Bert because of the lack of formal adoption of the child.
A mere ward or ―ampon‖ has no right to inherit from the adopting parents.
(Manuel v. Ferrer, 247 SCRA 476) 3. No, Bert and Joe could not have jointly
adopted the boy. Under the Domestic Adoption Act, joint adoption is permitted,
and in certain cases mandated, for spouses. Here, Bert and Joe are not spouses.

Q: Ernesto, an overseas Filipino worker, was coming home to the Philippines after
working for so many years in the Middle East. He has saved P100,000 in his
savings account in Manila which intended to use to start a business in his home
country. On his flight home, Ernesto has a fatal heart attack. He left behind his
widowed mother, his common- law wife and their twin sons. He left no will, no
debts, no other relatives and no other properties except the money in his savings
account. Who are the heirs entitled to inherit from him and how much should each
receive? (2008Bar)
A: The mother and twin sons are entitled to inherit from Ernesto. If legitimate
ascendants are left, the twin sons shall divide the inheritance with them taking
one-half of the estate. (Art. 991) Thus, the widowed mother gets P50,000.00 while
the twin sons shall receive P25,000.00 each. The common-law wife cannot inherit 2. In the distribution of Peter’s estate, 1/2 of the presumptive legitime received by
from him because when the law speaks ―widow or widower‖ as a compulsory heir, the 3 children of the first marriage shall be collated to Peter’s estate and shall be
the law refers to a legitimate spouse. (Art. 887, par 3) imputed as an advance of their respective inheritance from Peter. Only half of the
presumptive legitime is collated to the estateofPeterbecause theother half shall be
collated to the estate of his first wife.

Q: Mr. XT and Mrs. YT have been married for 20 years. Suppose the wife, YT,
died childless, survived only by her husband, XT. What would be the share of XT
from her estate as inheritance? Why? Explain. (2004 Bar)
A: Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a legal and compulsory heir of
the deceased spouse. If the widow is the only surviving heir, there being no
legitimate ascendants, descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and nieces, she
gets the entire estate.
Q: TRUE or FALSE. In reserve troncal, all reservatarios (reservees) inherit as a
class and in equal shares regardless of their proximity in degree to the prepositus.
(2009 Bar)
A: FALSE. Not all the relatives within the third degree will inherit as reservatario,
and not all those who are entitled to inherit will inherit in the equal shares. The
applicable laws of intestate succession will determine who among the relatives
will inherit as reservatarios and what shares they will take, i.e., the direct line
excludes the collateral, the descending direct line excludes the ascending, the
nearer excludes the more remote, the nephews and nieces exclude the uncles and
the aunts, and half blood relatives inherit half the share of full-blooded relatives.

Subsection 6.-- The State.
Art. 1011. In default of persons entitled to succeed in
accordance with the provisions of the preceding Sections, the
State shall inherit the whole estate.
Art. 1012. In order that the State may take possession of the
property mentioned in the preceding article, the pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court must be observed.
Art. 1013. After the payment of debts and charges, the
personal property shall be assigned to the municipality or city
where the deceased last resided in the Philippines, and the real
estate to the municipalities or cities, respectively, in which the
same is situated.
If the deceased never resided in the Philippines, the whole
estate shall be assigned to the respective municipalities or cities
where the same is located.
Such estate shall be for the benefit of public schools, and public
charitable institutions and centers, in such municipalities or
cities. The court shall distribute the estate as the respective
needs of each beneficiary may warrant.
The court, at the instance of an interested party, or in its own
motion, may order the establishment of a permanent trust, so
that only the income from the property shall be used.
Art. 1014. If a person legally entitled to the estate of the
deceased appears and files a claim thereto with the court
within five years from the date the property was delivered to
the State, such person shall be entitled to the possession of the
same, or if sold, the municipality or city shall be accountable to
him for such part of the proceeds as may not have been
lawfully spent.
7
SUMMARY 2024
1. Legitimate children/ descendants
a. excludes ascendants, all collaterals, the State
b. concurs with illegitimate children/ descendants,
surviving spouse
c. excluded by no one.
2. Illegitimate children/ descendants
a. excludes illegitimate parents, collaterals, the State
b. concurs with surviving spouse, legitimate children,
legitimate ascendants
c. excluded by no one.
3. Legitimate parents
a. excludes collaterals, the State
b. concurs with illegitimate children, surviving spouse
c. excluded by legitimate children.
4. Illegitimate ascendants
a. excludes collaterals, the State
b. concurs with the surviving spouse
c. excluded by legitimate descendants, illegitimate
descendants.
5. Surviving spouse
a. excludes collaterals, other than brothers and sisters,
nephews and nieces, the State
b. concurs with legitimate child, illegitimate child,
legitimate and illegitimate brothers
and sisters, nephews and nieces.
c. excluded by no one.
6. Brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces
a. excludes all other collaterals, the State
b. concurs with the surviving spouse
c. excluded by legitimate children, illegitimate children,
legitimate parents, illegitimate parents.
7. Other collaterals
a. exludes collaterals in remote degrees, the State
b. concurs with collaterals in equal degree
c. excludes legitimate/ illegitimate children/ parents,
surviving spouse, brothers and sisters, nephews and
nieces.
8. The State
a. excludes no one
b. concurs with no one
c. excluded by everybody else.
Articles 978 to 1014.-- Various Combinations-- Total Intestacy
4blue95 Note: The rules on exclusion and concurrence in legitime
will also apply to intestacy.

Q: Ramon Mayaman died intestate, leaving a net estate of P10,000,000.00.
Determine how much each heir will receive from the estate: 1. If Ramon is
survived by his wife, three full- blood brothers, two half-brothers, and one nephew
(the son of a deceased full-blood brother)? Explain. 2. If Ramon is survived by his
wife, a halfsister, and three nephews (sons of a deceased full-blood brother)?
Explain. (2008 Bar)
A:
1. Having died intestate, the estate of Ramon shall be inherited by his wife and his
full and half-blood siblings or their respective representatives. In intestacy, if the
wife concurs with no one but the siblings of the husband, all of them are the
intestate heirs of the deceased husband. The wife will receive half of the intestate
estate, while the siblings or their respective representatives, will inherit the other
half to be divided among them equally. If some siblings are of the fullblood and
the other of the half blood, a half blood sibling will receive half the share of a full-
blood sibling.
a) The wife of Ramon will, therefore, receive one half (1/2) of the estate or the
amount of P5,000,000.00.
b) The three (3) full-blood brothers,will, therefore, receive P1,000,000.00each. c)
The nephew will receive P1,000,000.00 by right of representation. d) The two (2)
half-brothers will receive P500,000.00 each.
2. The wife will receive one half (1/2) of the estate or P5,000,000.00. The other
half shall be inherited by (1) the full-blood brother, represented by his three
children, and (2)the half-sister. They will divide the other half between them such
that the share ofthe halfsister is just half the share of the full-blood brother. The
share of the full-blood brother shall in turn be inherited by the three nephews in
equal shares by right of representation. Therefore, the three (3) nephews will
receive P1,111,111.10 each the half- sister will receive the sum of P1,666,666.60.
Q: Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a serious motor vehicle
accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel and Mrs. Cruz seated beside him, resulting in
the instant death of Mr. Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still alive when help came but she
also died on the way to the hospital. The couple acquired properties worth One
Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos during their marriage, which are being claimed by
the parents of both spouses in equal shares. Is the claim of both sets of parents
valid and why? (1999 Bar)
A: No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When Mr. Cruz died, he was
succeeded by his wife and his parents as his intestate heirs who will share his
estate equally. His estate was 0.5 Million pesos which is his half share in the
absolute community amounting to 1 Million Pesos. His wife, will, therefore,
inherit O.25 Million Pesos and his parents will inherit 0.25 Million Pesos. When
Mrs. Cruz died, she was succeeded by her parents as her intestate heirs. They will
inherit all of her estate consisting of her 0.5 Million half share in the absolute
community and her 0.25 Million inheritance from her husband, or a total of 0.750
Million Pesos. In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will inherit 250,000 Pesos while
the parents of Mrs. Cruz will inherit 750,000 Pesos.
(b) Suppose in the preceding question, both Mr. and Mrs. Cruz were already dead
when help came, so that nobody could say who died ahead of the other, would
your answer be the same to the question as to who are entitled to the properties of
the deceased couple?
A: This being a case of succession, in the absence of proof as to the time of death
of each of the spouses, it is presumed they died at the same time and no
transmission of rights from one to the other is deemed to have taken place.
Therefore, each of them is deemed to have an estate valued at P500,000,00, or
one-half of their conjugal property of P1 million. Their respective parents will thus
inherit the entire P1 Million in equal shares, of P500,000.00 per set of parents.
Q: Esteban and Martha had four (4) children: Rolando, Jun, Mark, and Hector.
Rolando had a daughter, Edith, while Mark had a son, Philip. After the death of
Esteban and Martha, their three (3) parcels of land were adjudicated to Jun. After
the death of Jun, the properties passed to his surviving spouse Anita, and son
Cesar. When Anita died, her share went to her son Cesar. Ten (10) years after,
Cesar died intestate without any issue. Peachy, Anita’s sister, adjudicated to
herself the properties as the only surviving heir of Anita and Cesar. Edith and
Philip would like to recover the properties claiming that they should have been
reserved by Peachy in their behalf and must now revert back to them. Is the
contention of Edith and Philip valid? (2014 Bar)
A: No, the contention is not valid. The property adjudicated to Jun from the estate
of his parents which he in turn left to Anita and Cesar is not subject to reservation
in favor of Edith and Philip. In Mendoza et. al. v. Policarpio, et. al. (G.R. No.
176422, March 20 2013), the court ruled that lineal character of the reservable
property is reckoned from the ascendant from whom the propositus received the
property by gratuitous title. The ownership should be reckoned only from Jun, as
he is the ascendant from where the first transmission occurred or from whom
Cesar inherited the properties. Moreover, Art. 891 provides that the person obliged
to reserve the property should be an ascendant. Peachy is not Cesar’s ascendant
but a mere collateral relative. On the assumption that the property is reservable,
Edith and Philip being first cousins of Cesar who is the propositus are disqualified
to be reservatarios as they are not third-degree relatives of Cesar.
8
Q: On March 30, 2000, Mariano died intestate and was survived by his wife,
Leonora, and children, Danilo and Carlito. One of the properties he left was a
piece of land in Alabang where he built his residential house. After his burial,
Leonora and Mariano’s children extrajudicially settled his estate. Thereafter,
Leonora and Danilo advised Carlito of their intention to partition the property.
Carlito opposed invoking Article 159 of the Family Code. Carlito alleged that
since his minor child Lucas still resides in the premises, the family home continues
until that minor beneficiary becomes of age. Is the contention of Carlito tenable?
(2014 Bar)
A: No, the contention of Carlito is not tenable. To qualify as beneficiary of the
family home, the person must be among those mentioned in Art. 154, he/she must
be actually living in the family home and must be dependent for legal support
upon the head ofthe family.(Patricio v. Dario, G.R. No. 170829, November 20,
2006) While Lucas,the son of Carlito satisfies the first and second requisites, he
cannot however, directly claim legal support from his grandmother, Leonora
because the person primarily obliged to give support to Lucas is his father, Carlito.
Thus, partition may be successfully claimed by Leonora andDanilo.
Q: Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, were passengers of Flight No.
317 of Oriental Airlines. The plane they boarded was of Philippine registry. While
en route from Manila to Greece some passengers hijacked the plane, held the chief
pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered him to fly instead to Libya. During the
hijacking Isidro suffered a heart attack and was on the verge of death. Since Irma
was already eight months pregnant by Isidro, she pleaded to the hijackers to allow
the assistant pilot to solemnize her marriage with Isidro. Soon after the marriage,
Isidro expired. As the plane landed in Libya Irma gave birth. However, the baby
died a few minutes after complete delivery. Back in the Philippines, Irma
Immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed her claim
contending that the marriage between her and Isidro was void ab initio on the
following grounds: (a) they had not given their consent to the marriage of their
son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the solemnizing officer had no authority
to perform the marriage; and, (d) the solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit
of marriage with the proper civil registrar. Does Irma have any successional rights
at all? Discuss fully. (1995,1999Bar)
A: Irma succeeded to the estate of Isidro as his surviving spouse to the estate of
her legitimate child. When Isidro died, he was succeeded by his surviving wife
Irma, and his legitimate unborn child. They divided the estate equally between
them, the child excluding the parents of Isidro. An unborn child is considered born
for all purposes favorable to it provided it is born later. The child was considered
born because, having an intra-uterine life of more than seven months, it lived for a
few minutes after its complete delivery. It was legitimate because it was born
within the valid marriage of the parents. Succession is favorable to it. When the
child died, Irma inherited the share of the child. However, the share of the child in
the hands of Irma is subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the
child within the third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the line of Isidro.
Q: Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (P1 0,000,000.00) Pesos. His
widow gave birth to a child four months after Mr. Luna's death, but the child died
five hours after birth. Two days after the child's death, the widow of Mr. Luna also
died because she had suffered from difficult childbirth. The estate of Mr. Luna is
now being claimed by his parents, and the parents of his widow. Who is entitled to
Mr. Luna's estate and why? (1999 Bar)
A: Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna as their
inheritance from Mrs. Luna,while theotherhalfwillbe inherited by the parents of
Mr. Luna as the reservatarios of the reserved property inherited by Mrs. Luna from
her child. When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and the unborn child. The
unborn child inherited because the inheritance was favorable to it and it was born
alive later though it lived only for five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited half of the 10
Million estate while the unborn child inherited the other half. When the child died,
it was survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As the only heir, Mrs. Luna inherited, by
operation of law, the estate of the child consisting of its 5 Million inheritance from
Mr. Luna. In the hands of Mrs. Luna, what she inherited from her child was
subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child within the
third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the line
where the property came from. When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her
parents as her only heirs. Her parents will inherit her estate consisting of the 5
Million she inherited from Mr. Luna. The other 5 Million she inherited from her
child will be delivered to the parents of Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of the reserved
property. In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna's estate will go to the parents of
Mrs. Luna, while the other 5 Million Pesos will go to the parents of Mr. Luna as
reservatarios.
Q: Cristina the illegitimate daughter of Jose and Maria, died intestate, without any
descendant or ascendant. Her valuable estate is being claimed by Ana, the
legitimate daughter of Jose, and Eduardo, the legitimate son of Maria. Is either,
both, or neither of them entitled to inherit? Explain. (1996 Bar)
A: Neither Ana nor Eduardo is entitled to inherit of ab intestato from Cristina.
Both are legitimate relatives of Cristina's illegitimate parents and therefore they
fall under the prohibition prescribed by Art. 992. (Manuel v. Ferrer, G.R. No.
117246, August 21, 1995; Diaz v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66574, February 21, 1990)

Q: F had three (3) legitimate children: A, B, and C. B has one (1) legitimate child
X. C has two (2) legitimate children: Y and Z. F and A rode together in a car and
perished together at the same time in a vehicular accident, F and A died, each of
them leaving substantial estates in intestacy. 1. Who are the intestate heirs of F?
What are their respective fractional shares? 2. Who are the intestate heirs of A?
What are their respective fractional shares? 3. If B and C both predeceased F, who
are F’s intestate heirs? What are their respective fractional shares? Do they inherit
in their own right or by representation? Explain your answer. 4. If B and C both
repudiated their shares in the estate of F who are F's intestate heirs? What are their
respective fractional shares? Do they inherit in their own right or by
representation? Explain your answer. (1992, 2008 Bar)
A: 1. B = 1/2 ; C= 1/2 2. Under Art. 1005, should brothers and sisters survive
together with nephews and nieces, who are the children of the decedent’s brothers
and sisters of the full blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per
stripes. B and C should inherit both ½ of thewhole estate. 3. Under Art. 982, the
grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of representation, and if
any one of them should have died, leaving several heirs, the portion pertaining to
him shall be divided among the latter in equal portions. X should inherit 1/2 share
by representation of B. Y and Z should inherit 1/4 share each by representation of
C. 4. X inherits 1/3 in his own right; Y inherits 1/3 in his own right; Z inherits 1/3
in his own right; Art. 977 provides that heirs who repudiate their share cannot be
represented.
Q: Enrique died, leaving a net hereditary estate of P1.2 million. He is survived by
his widow, three legitimate children, two legitimate grandchildren sired by a
legitimate child who predeceased him, and two recognized illegitimate children.
Distribute the estate in intestacy. (1997, 1998, 2003Bar)
A: Under the theory of Concurrence, the shares are as follows:
Q: Ricky and Arlene are married. They begot Franco during their marriage. Franco
had an illicit relationship with Audrey and out of which, they begot Arnel. Franco
predeceased Ricky, Arlene and Arnel. Before Ricky died, he executed a will
which when submitted to probate was opposed by Arnel on the ground that he
should be given the share of his father, Franco. Is the opposition of Arnel correct?
Why? (2012 Bar)
A: No, his opposition is not correct. Arnel cannot inherit from Ricky in the
representation of his father Franco. In representation, the representative must not
only be a legal heir of the person he is representing, he must also be a legal heir of
the decedent he seeks to inherit from. While Arnel is a legal heir of Franco, he is
not a legal heir of Ricky because under Art. 992, an illegitimate child has no right
to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or
mother. Arnel is disqualified to inherit from Ricky because Arnel is an illegitimate
child of Franco and Ricky is a legitimate relative of Franco.
Q: Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, and two nieces, Michelle and
Jorelle, who are the legitimate children of an elder sister who had predeceased her.
The only property she left behind was a house and lot worth two million pesos,
which Tessie and her husband had acquired with the use of Mario's savings from
his income as a doctor. How much of the property or its value, if any, may
Michelle and Jorelle claim as their hereditary shares? (1998 Bar)
A: Art. 1001 of the Civil Code provides, "Should brothers and sisters or their
children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half
of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half."
Tessie's gross estate consists of a house and lot acquired during her marriage,
making it part of the community property. Thus, one-half ofthe said property
would have to be set aside as Mario's conjugal share from the community
property. The other half, amounting to one million pesos, is her conjugal share (net
estate), and should be distributed to her intestate heirs. Applying the above
provision of law, Michelle and Jorelle, Tessie's nieces, are entitled to one-half of
her conjugal share worth one million pesos, or 500,000 pesos, while the other one-
half amounting to P500,000 will go to Mario, Tessie's surviving spouse. Michelle
and Jorelle are then entitled to P250,000 pesos each as their hereditary share.
9
Q: Luis was survived by two legitimate children, two illegitimate children, his
parents, and two brothers. He left an estate of P1 million. Luis died intestate. Who
are his intestate heirs, and how much is the share of each in his estate? (2003 Bar)
A: The intestate heirs are the two (2) legitimate children and the two (2)
illegitimate children. In intestacy the estate of the decedent is divided among the
legitimate and illegitimate children suchthattheshareof eachillegitimate child is
one -half the share of each legitimate child. Their share are: For each legitimate
child – P333,333.33 For each illegitimate child – P166, 666.66 (Art. 983, NCC;
Art. 176, FC)
Q: Eugenio died without issue, leaving several parcels of land in Bataan. He was
survived by Antonio, his legitimate brother; Martina, the only daughter of his
predeceased sister Mercedes; and five legitimate children of Joaquin, another
predeceased brother. Shortly after Eugenio's death, Antonio also died, leaving
three legitimate children. Subsequently, Martina, the children of Joaquin and the
children of Antonio executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Eugenio,
dividing it among themselves. The succeeding year, a petition to annul the
extrajudicial settlement was filed by Antero, an illegitimate son of Antonio, who
claims he is entitled to share in the estate of Eugenio. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that Antero is barred by Article 992 of the Civil
Code from inheriting from the legitimate brother of his father. How will you
resolve the motion? (2000Bar)
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. Art. 992 does not apply. Antero is not
claiming any inheritance from Eugenio. He is claiming his share in the inheritance
of his father consisting of his father's share in the inheritance of Eugenio. (Dela
Merced v. Dela Merced, G.R. No. 126707, February 25, 1999)
Q: Dr. Lopez, a 70-year-old widower, and his son Roberto both died in a fire that
gutted their home while they were sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms.
Roberto’s wife, Marilyn, and their two children were spared because they were in
the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left an estate worth P20M and a life insurance
policy in the amount of P1M with his three children --- one of whom is Roberto ---
as beneficiaries. Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her children her
husband’s share in the estate left by Dr. Lopez, and her husband’s share in the
proceeds of Dr. Lopez’s life insurance policy. Rule on the validity of Marilyn’s
claims with reasons. (1999, 2009 Bar)
A: As to the estate of Dr. Lopez: Marilyn is not entitled to a share in the estate of
Dr. Lopez. For purposes of succession, Dr. Lopez and his son Roberto are
presumed to have died at the same time, there being no evidence to prove
otherwise, and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other.
(Article 43) Hence, Roberto inherited nothing from his father that Marilyn would
in turn inherit from Roberto. The children of Roberto, however, will succeed their
grandfather, Dr. Lopez, in representation of their father Roberto and together will
receive 1/3 of the estate of Dr. Lopez since their father Roberto was one of the
three children of Dr. Lopez. Marilyn cannot representherhusbandRoberto because
the right is not given by law to a surviving spouse. As to the proceeds of the
insurance on the life of Dr. Lopez: Since succession is not involved as regards the
insurance contract, the provisions of the Rules of Court on survivorship shall
apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez, who was 70 years old, is presumed to have
died ahead of Roberto, who is presumably between the ages of 15 and 60. Having
survived the insured, Roberto’s right as a beneficiary became vested upon the
death of Dr. Lopez. When Roberto died after Dr. Lopez, his right to receive the
insurance proceeds became part of his hereditary estate, which in turn was
inherited in equal shares by his legal heirs, namely, his spouse and children.
Therefore, Roberto’s children and his spouse are entitled to Roberto’s one-third
share in the insurance proceeds.
Q: At the age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her own
life and named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was already due
to give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her unborn child, were
kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were vacationing. The military gave
chase and after one week, they were found in an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian
and Pietro were hacked with bolos. Marian and the baby were both found dead,
with the baby’s umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived. 1. Between Marian
and the baby, who is presumed to have died ahead? 2. Will Pietro, as surviving
biological father of the baby, be entitled to claim the proceeds of the life insurance
on the life of Marian? (2008 Bar)
A:
1. Marian is presumed to have died ahead of the baby. Art. 43 applies to persons
who are called to succeed each other. The proof of death must be established by
positive or circumstantial evidence derived from facts. It can never be established
from mere inference. In the present case, it is very clear that only Marian and
Pietro were hacked with bolos. There was no showing that the baby was also
hacked to death. The baby’s death could have been due to lack of nutrition.
2. Pietro, as the biological father of the baby, shall be entitled to claim the
proceeds of life insurance of Marian because he is a compulsory heir of hischild.
 10

Q: A is the acknowledged natural child of B who died when A was already 22

years old. When B's full blood brother, C, died, he (C) was survived by his widow
and four children of his other brother D. Claiming that he is entitled to inherit from
his father's brother C. A brought suit to obtain his share in the estate of C. Will his
action prosper? (1993Bar)
A: No, the action of A will not prosper. On the premise that B, C and D are
legitimate brothers, as an illegitimate child of B, A cannot inherit in intestacy from
C who is a legitimate brother of B. Only the wife of C in her own right and the
legitimate relatives of C (i.e. the children of D as C's legitimate nephews inheriting
as collateral relatives) can inherit in intestacy. (Arts. 992, 1001, 1OO5 and 975)

Q: For purpose of this question, assume all formalities and procedural

requirements have been complied with. In 1970, Ramon and Dessa got married.
Prior to their marriage, Ramon had a child, Anna. In 1971 and 1972, Ramon and
Dessa legally adopted Cherry and Michelle respectively. In 1973, Dessa died
while giving birth to Larry Anna had a child, Lia. Anna never married. Cherry, on
the other hand, legally adopted Shelly. Larry had twins, Hans and Gretel, with his
girlfriend, Fiona. In 2005, Anna, Larry and Cherry died in a car accident. In 2007,
Ramon died. Who may inherit from Ramon and who may not? Give your reason
briefly. (2007 Bar)
A: The following may inherit from Ramon:
1. Michelle, as an adopted child of Ramon, will inherit as a legitimate child of
Ramon. As an adopted child, Michelle has all the rights of a legitimate child. (Sec
18, Domestic Adoption Law)
2. Lia will inherit in representation of Anna. Although Lia is an illegitimate child,
she is not barred by Articles 992, because her mother Anna is an illegitimate
herself. She will represent Anna as regards Anna's legitime under Art. 902 and as
regards Anna's intestate share under Art. 990.

The following may not inherit from Ramon:

1. Shelly, being an adopted child, she cannot represent Cherry. This is because
adoption creates a personal legal relation only between the adopter and the
adopted. The law on representation requires the representative to be a legal heir of
the person he is representing and also of the person from whom the person being
represented was supposed to inherit. While Shelly is a legal heir of Cherry, Shelly
is not a legal heir of Ramon. Adoption created a purely personal legal relation only
between Cherry and Shelly.
2. Hans and Gretel are barred from inheriting from Ramon under Art. 992. Being
illegitimate children, they cannot inherit ab intestato from Ramon.

Q: D, an Overseas Filipino Worker, was on his way home to the Philippines after
working for so many years in the Middle East. He had saved ₱100,000.00 in his
local savings account which he intended to use to start up a business in his home
country. On his flight home, tragedy struck as a suicide bomber blew up the plane.
All the passengers, including D, died. He left behind his widowed mother M; his
common-law wife, W, who is the mother of his twin sons, T and S; and his
brother, B. He left no will, no debts, no other relatives, and no other properties
except the money in his savings account. Who are the heirs entitled to inherit from
D and how much should each receive? Explain. (2019 Bar)
A: D’s heirs entitled to inherit from him are: M (his mother) – P50,000 and T and
S (his twin sons) – P25,000 each. D died intestate and his heirs are the mother
(legitimate ascendant) and his twin sons (illegitimate). The mother gets one-half of
his estate and his two illegitimate sons get the other half. (Article 991) W, the
common-law wife‖ is not an heir ab intestato because she is not a legal spouse.
She is merely a partner in a non-marital union.