INTESTATE SUCCESSION

A. JLT AGRO VS BALANSAG

G.R. NO. 141882, MARCH 11, 2005

Facts:

Don Julian L. Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena , and after her death,
with Milagros DonioTeves. Don Julian had two children with Antonia, namely:
JosefaTevesEscaño and Emilio Teves . He had also four (4) children with Milagros Donio,
namely: Maria Evelyn DonioTeves, Jose CatalinoDonioTeves , Milagros ReyesTeves and Pedro
Reyes Teves. The present controversy involves a parcel of land covering nine hundred and fifty-
four (954) square meters, known as Lot No. 63 of the BaisCadastre, which was originally
registered in the name of the conjugal partnership of Don Julian and Antonia under Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 5203 of the Registry of Deeds of Bais City. When Antonia died,
the land was among the properties involved in an action for partition and damages docketed as
Civil Case No. 3443 entitled "JosefaTevesEscaño v. Julian Teves, Emilio B. Teves, et al."
Milagros Donio, the second wife of Don Julian, participated as an intervenor. Thereafter, the
parties to the case entered into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the partition of all the
properties of Don Julian. The CFI decision declared a tract of land known as Hacienda
MedallaMilagrosa as property owned in common by Don Julian and his two (2) children of the
first marriage. The property was to remain undivided during the lifetime of Don Julian. Josefa
and Emilio likewise were given other properties at Bais, including the electric plant, the "movie
property," the commercial areas, and the house where Don Julian was living. The remainder of
the properties was retained by Don Julian, including Lot No. 63.

Issue:

Whether the future legitime can be determined and reserved prior to the death of Don Julian

Ruling:

No, the future legitime cannot be determined and reserved prior to the death of Don Julian.

The Compromise Agreement incorporated in CFI decision dated 31 January 1964, particularly
paragraph 13 thereof, determined, adjudicated and reserved to Don Julian’s two sets of heirs their
future legitimes in his estate except as regards his (Don Julian’s) share in Hacienda
MedallaMilagrosa. The two sets of heirs acquired full ownership and possession of the properties
respectively adjudicated to them in the CFI decision and Don Julian himself could no longer
dispose of the same, including Lot No. 63. The disposition in the CFI decision constitutes res
judicata. Don Julian could have disposed of only his conjugal share in the Hacienda
MedallaMilagrosa. Nobody in his right judgment would preterit his legal heirs by simply
executing a document like the Supplemental Deed which practically covers all properties which
Don Julian had reserved in favor of his heirs from the second marriage. It also found out that the
blanks reserved for the Book No. and Page No. at the upper right corner of TCT No. T-375, "to
identify the exact location where the said title was registered or transferred," were not filled up,
thereby indicating that the TCT is "spurious and of dubious origin."

Well-entrenched is the rule that all things, even future ones, which are not outside the commerce
of man may be the object of a contract. The exception is that no contract may be entered into
with respect to future inheritance, and the exception to the exception is the partition intervivos
referred to in Article 1080.

For the inheritance to be considered "future," the succession must not have been opened at the
time of the contract. A contract may be classified as a contract upon future inheritance,
prohibited under the second paragraph of Article 1347, where the following requisites concur:
(1) That the succession has not yet been opened; 39 (2) That the object of the contract forms part
of the inheritance; and (3) That the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a
right which is purely hereditary in nature.

The first paragraph of Article 1080, which provides the exception to the exception and therefore
aligns with the general rule on future things, reads: ART. 1080. Should a person make a partition
of his estate by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does
not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.

In interpreting this provision, Justice Edgardo Paras advanced the opinion that if the partition is
made by an act inter vivos, no formalities are prescribed by the Article. The partition will of
course be effective only after death. It does not necessarily require the formalities of a will for
after all it is not the partition that is the mode of acquiring ownership. Neither will the formalities
of a donation be required since donation will not be the mode of acquiring the ownership here
after death; since no will has been made it follows that the mode will be succession (intestate
succession). Besides, the partition here is merely the physical determination of the part to be
given to each heir.

B. FRANCISCO VS FRANCISCO-ALFONSO
G.R. NO. 138774 MARCH 8, 2001

Facts:

Respondent Aida Francisco-Alfonso (hereafter Aida) is the only daughter of spouses Gregorio
Francisco and Cirila de la Cruz, who are now both deceased. Petitioners, on the other hand, are
daughters of the late Gregorio Francisco with his common law wife Julia Mendoza, with whom
he begot seven (7) children.

Gregorio Francisco (hereafter Gregorio) owned two parcels of residential land, situated in
Barangay Lolomboy, Bocaue, Bulacan, When Gregorio was confined in a hospital in 1990, he
confided to his daughter Aida that the certificates of title of his property were in the possession
of Regina Francisco and ZenaidaPascual. After Gregorio died on July 20, 1990 Aida inquired
about the certificates of title from her half sisters. They informed her that Gregorio had sold the
land to them on August 15, 1983. After verification, Aida learned that there was indeed a deed of
absolute sale in favor of Regina Francisco and ZenaidaPascual. Thus, on August 15, 1983,
Gregorio executed a "KasulatansaGanapnaBilihan, whereby for P25,000.00, he sold the two
parcels of land to Regina Francisco and ZenaidaPascual. By virtue of the sale, the Register of
Deeds of Bulacan issued TCT No. T-59.585 to Regina Francisco and TCT T-59.586 to Zenaida
Pascual.

On April 1, 1991, Aida filed with the Regional Trial Court, Bulacan a complaint against
petitioners for annulment of sale with damages. She alleged that the signature of her late father,
Gregorio Francisco, on the KasulatansaGanapnaBilihan dated August 15, 1983, was a forgery. In
their joint answer to the complaint, petitioners denied the alleged forgery or simulation of the
deed of sale. After due proceedings, on July 21, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision
dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision reversing that of the
trial court.

Issue:

May a legitimate daughter be deprived of her share in the estate of her deceased father by a
simulated contract transferring the property of her father to his illegitimate children?

Ruling:

No. The kasulatan was simulated. There was no consideration for the contract of sale. Felicitas
de la Cruz, a family friend of the Franciscos, testified that ZenaidaPascual and Regina Francisco
did not have any source of income in 1983, when they bought the property, until the time when
Felicitas testified in 1991.

As proof of income, however, ZenaidaPascual testified that she was engaged in operating a
canteen, working as cashier in Mayon Night Club as well as buying and selling RTW (Ready to
Wear) items in August of 1983 and prior thereto. Zenaida alleged that she paid her father the
amount of P10,000.00. She did not withdraw money from her bank account at the Rural Bank of
Meycauayan, Bulacan, to pay for the property. She had personal savings other than those
deposited in the bank. Her gross earnings from the RTW for three years was P9,000.00, and she
earned P50.00 a night at the club.

Regina Francisco, on the other hand, was a market vendor, selling nilugaw, earning a net income
of P300.00 a day in 1983. She bought the property from the deceased for P15,000.00. She had no
other source of income.

We find it incredible that engaging in buy and sell could raise the amount of P10,000.00, or that
earnings in selling go to could save enough to pay P15,000.00, in cash for the land. The
testimonies of petitioners were incredible considering their inconsistent statements as to whether
there was consideration for the sale and also as to whether the property was bought below or
above its supposed market value. They could not even present a single witness to the kasulatan
that would prove receipt of the purchase price. Since there was no cause or consideration for the
sale, the same was a simulation and hence, null and void.
Even if the kasulatan was not simulated, it still violated the Civil Code provisions insofar as the
transaction affected respondent's legitime. The sale was executed in 1983, when the applicable
law was the Civil Code, not the Family Code. Obviously, the sale was Gregorio's way to transfer
the property to his illegitimate daughters at the expense of his legitimate daughter. The sale was
executed to prevent respondent Alfonso from claiming her legitime and rightful share in said
property. Before his death, Gregorio had a change of heart and informed his daughter about the
titles to the property.

According to Article 888, Civil Code: "The legitime of legitimate children and descendants
consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. "The latter may
freely dispose of the remaining half subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the
surviving spouse as hereinafter provided."

Gregorio Francisco did not own any other property. If indeed the parcels of land involved were
the only property left by their father, the sale in fact would deprive respondent of her share in her
father's estate. By law, she is entitled to half of the estate of her father as his only legitimate
child. The legal heirs of the late Gregorio Francisco must be determined in proper testate or
intestate proceedings for settlement of the estate. His compulsory heir can not be deprived of her
share in the estate save by disinheritance as prescribed by law.