WILLS & SUCCESSION

JUDGE RACQUEL C. REYES-AGLAUA

COURSE OUTLINE

I. PRELIMINARY:

a. John Langbein, The Twentieth Century Revolution in Family Wealth

Transmission, 86 Mich L Rev, 722, 736-46 (1988)
b. Edward C. Halbach Jr., An Introduction to Chapters 1-4 in Death, Taxes,
and Family Property 3. (Halbach ed.) West Publishing Co. 1977. pp 3, 4-6
c. Lawrence M Friedman, The Law of Succession in Social Perspective in
Death, Taxes, Family Property 9 (Halbach ed.) West Publishing Co. 1977.
pp 9, 11-14

II. CONCEPT OF SUCCESSION

a. Art. 774-776, Succession vs. Inheritance, Art. 781, Composition of

Inheritance.

a.1. Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety, 100 Phil 388 (What
kind(s) of obligations are transmissible upon the death of the
decedent? Are contingent claims chargeable against the estate?)
a.2. Sicad vs. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 183; Scherer vs.
Hyland, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1977. 75 N.J. 127, 380
A.2d 698. (What are some of the circumstances used to determine
whether a donation is inter vivos or mortis causa?)
a.3. Newman vs. Dore, Court of Appeals of New York, 1937. 275
NY 371, 9 N.E. 2d 966. (How can you “really” dispose of your
properties during your lifetime?)

b. Art. 777, Death to Open Succession, Elements of Transmission of

Property, Rights & Obligations.

b.1. Uson v s. Del Rosario, 92 Phil 531 (When and how can a
person renounce his inheritance?)
b.2. De Borja vs. Vda. De Borja, 46 SCRA 577 (Can an heir sell or
enter into a compromise involving his hereditary rights?)
b.3. Bonilla vs. Barcena, 71 SCRA 490 (What kind(s) of legal
actions survive(s) the death of a party?)
b.4. Go Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 270 (What are the
rights of an heir pending the administration of an estate? What is
the extent of the powers of an administrator of an estate?)
b.5. Butte vs. Manuel Uy & Sons, 4 SCRA 526 (When can an heir
exercise rights of ownership over properties belonging to the
estate?)
b.6. Reganon vs. Imperial, 22 SCRA 80 (Can one attach the
interest of an heir during the settlement process?)
b.7. Ramirez vs. Baltazar, 24 SCRA 918 (What are the remedies
against an erring administrator?)
 b.8. Noceda vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 504; Nufable vs.
Nufable, 309 SCRA 692 (What are the rights of an heir prior to
actual partition and distribution of the estate?)
b.9. Balus vs. Balus, G.R. No. 168970, January 15, 2010.
b.10. Ferrer vs. Diaz, G.R. 165300, April 23, 2010.
b.11. Pasco vs. Heirs of Filomena De Guzman, G.R. No. 165554, July
26, 2010.
b.12. Cruz vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 173292, September 1, 2010.
b.13. De Belen vda. De Cabalu vs. Tabu, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Tarlac City, Branch II, G.R. No. 188417, September 24, 2012.
b.14. Alcazar vs. Arante, G.R. No. 177042, December 10, 2012.
b.15. Ining vs. Vega, G.R. No. 174727.
b.16. Pacaña-Contreras vs. Rovila Water Supply, Inc., G.R. No. 168979.

c. Art. 778-780, Contractual Succession, Art. 50 (FC), Freak Succession, Art.

390-391, Rules on Presumption of Death,

d. Art. 781, After-acquired Properties and the Concept of Future Inheritance

d.1. Blas vs. Santos, 1 SCRA 899 (What is “really” a contract of

future inheritance?)

e. Art. 782 Heir(s) vs. Legatee/Devisee, Importance of Difference

e.1. Neri vs. Akutin, 74 Phil 185 (Would you rather be a legatee or
devisee than an heir or does it really matter?)

III. INTRODUCTION TO WILLS:

a. Art. 783-787, Definition and Characteristics of a Will

b. Art. 788-794, Rules on Interpretation of Wills.

b.1. Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon, 33 SCRA 554 (How can one distribute
an estate when there is something “wrong” with the will?)
b.2. Parish Priest of Victoria, Tarlac vs. Rigor, 89 SCRA 493;
Fischer vs. Johnson, Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1969. 441 S.W.
2d 132; In Re Estate of Russell, Supreme Court of California,
1968. 69 Cal. 2d 200, 444 P.2d 353, 70 Cal. Rptr. 561. (How can
you determine the intent of the testator?)
b.3. John Langbein and Lawrence Waggoner, “Reformation of Wills
on the Ground of Mistake, Change of Direction in American Law?”,
130 U. Pa. L. Rev. 521, 524-28 (1982)

c. Art. 795, Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of Wills

c.1. Bellis vs. Bellis, 20 SCRA 358 (Do you remember the renvoi
doctrine?)

d. Art. 796-803, Testamentary Capacity, Burden of Proof of Capacity

 d.1. Bagtas vs. Paguio, 22 Phil 227; Matter of Estate of Bonjean,
Appellate Court of Illinois, 1980. 90 Ill. App. 3d 582, 45 Ill. Dec.
872, 413 N.E. 2d 205. (What does it take for a testator to be
considered as “crazy”?)
d.2. Barnes vs. Marshall, Supreme Court of Missouri, 1971. 467
S.W. 2d 70. (Who can say a testator is crazy?)
d.3. In Re Honigman’s Will, Court of Appeals of New York, 1960. 8
N.Y. 2d 244, 168 N.E. 2d 676. (Who has the burden of proving the
presence of testamentary capacity?)

IV. FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF WILLS:

a. Art. 804, Objective of Formalities of Wills

a.1. Lopez vs. Liboro, 81 Phil 429 (What language should a

testator use in making a will?)
a.2. Suroza vs. Honrado, 110 SCRA 381 (How can you prove that
the language used is known and understood by the testator?)

b. Art. 805, Formal Requisites of Ordinary Wills

b.1. Balonan vs. Abellana, 109 Phil 359; Garcia vs. Lacuesta, 90
Phil 189 (How can one “sign for or in behalf” of the testator?)
b.2. Nera vs. Rimando, 18 Phil 450; In Re Estate of Weber,
Supreme Court of Kansas, 1963. 192 Kan. 258, 387 P 2d 165.
(What do you mean by “in the presence of”?)
b.3. Burns vs. Adamson, Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1993. 313
Ark. 281, 854 S.W. 2d 723. (What is the purpose of the
requirement of presence of witnesses?)
b.4. Taboada vs. Rosal, 118 SCRA 195 (What do you mean by
“attestation” and by “subscription”?)
b.5. Cagro vs. Cagro, 92 Phil 1032; Abangan vs. Abangan, 40 Phil
476; Icasiano vs. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422 (What are the
“excusable” defects in a will?)
b.6. Vda. De Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 393 (What is
the effect of negative testimony?)

c. Art. 806, Purpose of Acknowledgment of Wills, Duties of a Notary

c.1. Cruz vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 31; Garcia vs. Gatchialian, 21

SCRA 1056; Gabucan vs. Manta, 95 SCRA 752 (What are non-
excusable lapses?)
c.2. Echavez vs. Dozen Construction and Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 192916.

d. Art. 807-808, Additional Requirements for Blind and Deaf-Mute Testators

d.1. Garcia vs. Vasquez, 32 SCRA 498 (Who is a blind testator?)

d.2. Alvarado vs. Gaviola, G.R. No. 74695. September 14, 1993
(Who can be considered as blind testators?)
 e. Art. 809 Doctrine of Liberal Interpretation

e.1. Sebastian vs. Panganiban, 59 Phil 653

e.2. Gil vs. Murciano, 87 Phil 260
e.3. Caneda vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103554. May 28, 1993

f. Art. 810, Formal Requisite of Holographic Wills; Importance of the Date

f.1. Gan vs. Yap, 104 Phil 509 (May a holographic will probated
upon the testimony of witnesses?)
f.2. Rodelas vs. Aranza, 119 SCRA 16 (May a photocopy of a
holographic will be admitted to probate?)
f.3. In Re Estate of Muder, Supreme Court of Arizona, 1988. 159
Ariz. 173, 765 P. 2d 997. (Can there be a pro forma holographic
will?)
f.4. Roxas vs. De Jesus Jr., 134 SCRA 245 (What kind of date is
sufficient?)
f.5. Labrador vs. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 170 (Where in the
will must the date appear?)

g. Art. 811, Witnesses to Holographic Wills

g.1. Azoala vs. Singson, 109 Phil 102; Codoy vs. Calugay, 312
SCRA 333 (How many witnesses do you “really” need?)

V. FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS ON WILLS:

a. Art. 812-813, Placement Disposition vis-à-vis Testator’s Signature; Art.

814, Cancellation of Dispositions

a.1. Kalaw vs. Relova, 132 SCRA 327 (Is it cancellation or

revocation?)

b. Art. 815-817, Rule 77, Rules of Court, Conflicts of Law on Wills

b.1. In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil 156 (What is the applicable

law when it comes to the determination of the intrinsic validity of a
will?)
b.2. In re: In the matter of the petition to approve the Will of
Ruperta Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011.

c. Art. 818-819, Nature of Joint Wills

c.1. Dela Cerna vs. Rebeca-Potot, 12 SCRA 576 (Can a joint will
be admitted to probate?)

d. Art. 820-822, Witnesses to Wills, Art 823-824 Additional Qualifications for

Witnesses.

d.1. Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, 90 SCRA 187 (What must

instrumental witnesses possess to be considered as “credible”?)
 d.2. In Re Estate of Watts, Appellate Court of Illinois, 1979. 67
Ill.App.3d 463, N.E. 2d 589, 23 Ill Dec. 795. (Is the will
invalidated because of the presence of an interested witness?)

e. Art. 825-827, Codicils, Incorporation by Reference, Art. 835-837,

Republication and Revival of Wills.

e.1. Clark vs. Greenhalge, Supreme Court of Massachusetts, 1991.

411 Mass 410, 582 N.E. 2d 949.

f. Art. 828-831, Method of Revocation

f.1. Gago vs. Mamuyac, 49 Phil 902 (Are there other ways of
revoking a will?)
f.2. Harrison vs. Bird, Supreme Court of Alabama, 1993. 621 So.
2d 972. (Are there “really” other ways of revoking a will?)
f.3. Estate of Maloto vs. Court of Appeals, 158 SCRA 451 (What
does it take to revoke a will?)
f.4. Gilbert vs. Gilbert, Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1983, 652
S.W. 2d 663. (Is it revocation or modification?)

g. Art. 832, Theory of Dependent Relative Revocation.

g.1. Schneider vs. Harrington, Supreme Judicial Court of

Massachusetts, 1947. 320 Mass. 723, 71 N.E. 2d 242.

VI. PROBATE OF WILLS:

a. Art. 838, Nature of Probate Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Probate Court,

Rule 75-76 of the Rules of Court

a.1. Heirs of Guido vs. Del Rosario, 304 SCRA 18 (How can one be
declared an “heir”?)
a.2. Maloles II vs. Phillips, G.R. 129505, Jan 31, 2000 (Who has
the right to intervene in cases involving the estate?)
a.3. Galanosa vs. Archangel, 83 SCRA 676 (What are the effects of
a will after it has been admitted to probate?)
a.4. Pastor vs. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 883 (Can a probate
court rule on issues involving ownership?)
a.5. Jimenez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 184 SCRA vs. 367
(Can a probate court rule on issues involving ownership?)
a.6. Agapay vs. Palang, 276 SCRA 341 (Can a probate court rule
on issues involving ownership?)
a.7. Lim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 124715, Jan 24, 2000 (May a
corporation be included in the inventory of the estate?)
a.8. Ching vs. Hon. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 192828, November
28, 2011.
a.9. Romero vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 188921, April 12,
2012.

b. Art. 839, Undue Influence

 b.1. Ozaeta vs. Cuartero, 99 Phil 1041 (When is influence
considered undue?)
b.2. In Re Dilios’ Will, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1960. 156
Me. 508, 167 A.2d 571. (How do you determine when the
influence is really “undue”?)
b.3. Coso vs. Fernandez-Deza, 42 Phil 596 (When is love or
affection considered as undue influence?)
b.4. Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 206 (When is
love or affection considered as undue influence?)
b.5. In Re Will of Moses, Supreme Court of Mississippi, 1969. 227
So. 2d 829. (Is personal intimacy considered undue influence?)
b.6. Haynes vs. First National State Bank of New Jersey, Supreme
Court of New Jersey, 1981. 87 N.J. 163, 432 A.2d 890. (Who has
the burden of proving undue influence?)

c. Art. 839, Fraud and Mistake

c.1. Latham vs. Father Divine, Court of Appeals of New York,

1949. 299 N.Y. 22, 85 N.E. 2d 168. (What kind of fraud must be
present to nullify a will?)

VII. RULES IN CASE OF VACANCY:

a. Art. 840-849, Rules in the Institution of Heirs, Identification of Heirs, Art.

850, With a False Cause

a.1. Austria vs. Reyes, 31 SCRA 754 (When is a cause considered

to be false to invalidate a will?)

b. Art. 851-853, Rule in Increasing or Decreasing of Shares.

c. Art. 854-855, Preterition vs. Disinheritance, Requisites

c.1. Aznar vs. Duncan, 17 SCRA 590

c.2. Nuguid vs, Nuguid, 17 SCRA 44
c.3. Acain vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 155 SCRA 100
c.4. Goff vs. Goff, Supreme Court of Missouri, 1944. 352 Mo. 809,
179 S.W. 2d 707.
c.5. Heirs of P. Ureta Sr., et al. vs. Heirs of L. Ureta, et al., G.R.
No. 165748. September 14, 2011.

d. Art. 857-862, Classes of Substitution, Art. 863-869, Fideicommissary

Substitution

d.1. Vda. De Mapa vs. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 294

d.2. Crisologo vs. Singson, 4 SCRA 491

e. Art. 870, Extent of Inalienability

 e.1. Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, 27 SCRA 546 (How long must
I wait?)

VIII. CONDITION & TERMS IN SUCCESSION: (Review Articles 1179-1198)

a. Art. 871-874, Conditions, Terms, Modes in Testamentary Succession, Art.

1183, Rule in Impossible Conditions

a.1. Natividad vs. Gabino, 36 Phil 663

a.2. U.S. National Bank of Portland v. Snodgrass, Supreme Court
of Oregon, 1954. 202 Or. 530, 275 P2d 860. (What is the extent
of the powers of the testator to impose conditions in a will?)

b. Art. 875, Disposition Captatoria.

c. Art. 876-878, Potestative, Casual, and Mixed Conditions, Art. 879,

Caucion Muciana.

d. Art. 880-885, Rule 84, 85 & 87, Rules of Court, Powers of the
Administrator vis-à-vis Rights of the Heirs Prior to the Arrival of the
Condition/Term

d.1. Rabadilla vs. Court of Appeals, June 29, 2000

IX. LEGITIME, COMPULSORY HEIRS, & COLLATION:

a. Art. 886-890, Definition and Extent of Legitime, Compulsory Heirs

a.1. Noble vs. Noble, 18 SCRA 1104; Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr., 139
SCRA 139; Rosales vs. Rosales, 148 SCRA 69 (Who are considered
heirs?)

b. Art. 892-894, Legitime of Compulsory Heirs

c. Art. 906, Completion of Legitime vs. Preterition

d. Art. 905 & 907-911, Art. 1061, Concept of Collation,

d.1. Vizconde vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 217; Mateo vs.
Lagua, 29 SCRA 864 (What properties are subject to collation?)
d.2. Vda. De Tupaz vs. RTC of Negros Occidental, 144 SCRA 622
(Are all donations subject to collation?)
d.3. Arellano vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 189776, December 15, 2010.

e. Art. 982-992, Iron Curtain Rule

e.1 Aquino vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 208912 - G.R. No. 209018,
December 07, 2021
 f. Art. 1061-1077 Mathematical Determination of Legitime, Rules on
Collation on Donations.

f.1. Art. 1061, Collation Procedure

f.2. Art. 1064-66, Duty to Collate of Grandchildren, Parents and
Spouses
f.3. Art. 1067-1071, Things subject to Collation

X. Article 891

a. Concept of Reserva Troncal, Rights and Obligations of the Reservor and

Reservee

a.1. Edroso vs. Sablan, 25 Phil 295 (What are the extent of the
rights of reservee and of the reservor?)
a.2. Sienes vs. Esparcia, 1 SCRA 750 (When it comes to reservable
property, who would you rather deal with – the reservee or the
reservor?)
a.3. Mendoza vs. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 176422.

b. Theory of Delayed Intestacy

b.1. Padura vs. Baldovino, 104 Phil 1065

b.2. De Papa vs. Camacho, 144 SCRA 281

c. Requisites for Reserva Troncal to be Effective

c.1. Lacerna vs. Vda. De Corcino, 1 SCRA 1226

c.2. Chua vs. Court of First Instance, 78 SCRA 412
c.3. Florentino vs. Florentino, 40 Phil 480
c.4. Gonzalez vs. Court of First Instance, 104 SCRA 481

XI. DISINHERITANCE:

a. Art. 915-918, Concept & Requisites of Disinheritance

b. Art. 919, Ground for Disinheritance, Descendant, Art. 6, 11, & 12 (RPC),
Effects of Stages of the Crime and Attendant Circumstances, Art. 194-207
(FC), Rule on Support

b.1. Seangio vs. Reyes, G.R. 140371-72, Nov 27, 2006

b.2. In Re Tarlo’s Estate, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1934.
315 Pa. 321, 172 A 139.

c. Art. 920, Grounds for Inheritance, Ascendant, Art. 229-232 (FC), Loss,
Suspension, Deprivation of Parental Authority

d. Art. 921, Grounds for Disinheritance, Spouse Article 55 (FC), Grounds for
Legal Separation
 e. Art. 922 & 1032, Effect of Reconciliation on Unworthiness.

XII. LEGACIES: (Art. 924-959)

a. Art. 415-416, Immovable and Movable Properties

b. Art. 930-933, Special Rules on Legacy
c. Art. 935, Legacy of Credit and Legacy of Remission
d. Art. 940, Alternative Legacies
e. Art. 950 Order of Preference in Legacies
f. Art. 957, Conversion of Legacies

f.1. In Re Estate of Nakoneczny, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,

1974. 456 Pa. 320, 319 A.2d 893. (“When is a legacy or devise
considered revoked?”)

XIII. INTESTATE SUCCESSION:

a. Art. 960, Concept of Intestate Succession

a.1. Rodriguez vs. Borja, 17 SCRA 418 (Which is the preferred

mode of settling an estate?)

b. Art. 962, Rules of Intestate Succession

b.1. Baguno vs. Piedad, Dec. 8, 2000

c. Art. 963-967, Direct and Collateral Relatives,

d. Art. 968-977, Accretion & Representation, Requirements for

Representation, Representation in Testate and Intestate Succession

d.1. Abellana-Bacayo vs. Ferraris-Borromeo, 14 SCRA 986

d.2. Uriarte vs. Court of Appeals, June 22, 1998

e. Order of Intestate Succession (Art. 978-1014) Exclusion & Concurrence.

e.1. Art. 978-987, In the Legitimate Line

1. Bolaños vs. Bernarte, G.R. No. 180997
e.2. Art. 988-994, In the Illegitimate Line
e.2.1. Del Prado vs. Santos, 18 SCRA 68
e.2.2. Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 322
e.2.3. Cacho vs. Udan, 13 SCRA 693)
e.3. Art. 190 (FC), In the Adopted Line

f. Art. 992, The Bar between the Legitimate and the Illegitimate Family

f.1. Grey vs. Fabie, 68 Phil 128

f.2. Corpus vs. Corpus 85 SCRA 567
f.3. Leonardo vs. Court of Appeals, 120 Phil 890
 f.4. Diaz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 150 SCRA 645, Diaz
vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 182 SCRA 427
f.5. De la Merced vs. De la Merced, Feb. 25, 1999
f.6. Vda. De Crisologo vs. Court of Appeals, 137 SCRA 233
f.7. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 183053, October
10, 2012.

g. Art. 1003-1010, How Collateral Relatives Inherit

h. Art. 1011-1014, Rule 91, Rules of Court, State as an Intestate Heir

XIV. COMMON TESTATE & INTESTATE PROVISIONS:

a. Art. 1015-1023, Requisites for the Right of Accretion

b. Art. 1024-1025, Incapacity to Inherit, Art. 1026-1040

b.1. Cid vs. Burnaman, 24 SCRA 435

c. Art. 1041, Acceptance and Repudiation

d. Art. 1058-1060, Rule 78-85, Rules of Court, Executors & Administrators

1. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 183053, June 16,

2010.

e. Art. 1078-1087 & 1089-90, Partition of the Estate, Art. 1088, Subrogation

e.1. Hermoso vs. Court of Appeals, Dec. 29, 1998

f. Rule 90, Rules of Court, Art. 1091-1105, Effects, Nullity & Rescission of
Partition.