Santiago City, Philippines

________________________________________________________________
BASIC SUCCESSION
SY 2023-2024, Second Semester
Individual Activity No. 4
(Art. 960 to Art. 1014)

DIRECTIONS: Answer with legal basis and send your answers to basicsuccession20232024@gmail.com.

1. When does an intestate succession takes place?

Article 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,
or if the heir dies before the testator, or repudiates the inheritance, there being no substitution, and
no right of accretion takes place;

(4) When the heir instituted is incapable of succeeding, except in cases provided in this Code. (912a)

2. Who inherits in default of testamentary heirs?

Article 961. In default of testamentary heirs, the law vests the inheritance, in accordance with the
rules hereinafter set forth, in the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of the deceased, in the
surviving spouse, and in the State. (913a)

3. What is the order of preference among intestate heirs?

Intestate succession laws vary depending on the jurisdiction, but generally, the order of preference
among intestate heirs follows a pattern based on familial relationships. Here's a common order of
preference:

1. Surviving spouse: In many jurisdictions, the surviving spouse typically inherits a significant portion
or all of the estate, especially if there are no surviving children or descendants. The portion may vary
depending on the presence of other heirs and the laws of the jurisdiction.
2. Children and descendants: If there is no surviving spouse or if the estate is not entirely inherited
by the spouse, the next in line are the children or descendants of the deceased. They usually inherit
equally if there is more than one.

3. Parents: If there are no surviving spouse or children or descendants, the deceased person's
parents may inherit the estate, usually equally if both are alive.

4. Siblings: If there are no surviving spouse, children, descendants, or parents, the deceased person's
siblings or their descendants may inherit the estate.

5. Grandparents: In some jurisdictions, if there are no surviving spouse, children, descendants,

parents, or siblings, the estate may pass to the deceased person's grandparents or their
descendants.

6. More distant relatives: If there are no closer relatives, the estate may pass to more distant
relatives, such as aunts, uncles, cousins, etc., depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

It's important to note that intestate succession laws can vary significantly by jurisdiction, and this
order of preference may not apply universally. Additionally, some jurisdictions have specific
provisions for situations where there are no living heirs, in which case the estate may escheat
(revert) to the state. Consulting with a legal professional familiar with the laws of the relevant
jurisdiction is advisable for accurate information.

4. Discuss and illustrate the following rules in intestate succession:

a. Rule of Proximity
b. Rule of Equal Division
c. Rule of Preference Between Lies

a. Rule of Proximity:
- The Rule of Proximity, also known as the Rule of Degree, determines the closest degree
of relationship to the deceased when determining intestate heirs.
- It operates on the principle that closer relatives should inherit before more distant
ones.
- For example, if the deceased has surviving children and parents, the children would
inherit before the parents because they are in a closer degree of relationship.

- If there are no surviving children but there are surviving siblings and parents, the
siblings would inherit before the parents because they are in a closer degree of relationship.

b. **Rule of Equal Division**:

- The Rule of Equal Division stipulates that when there are multiple heirs in the same
degree of relationship to the deceased, they should inherit equally.
 - For example, if the deceased has two surviving children, they would typically inherit
the estate equally, with each child receiving an equal share.
- This rule ensures fairness and prevents favoritism among heirs who are equally related
to the deceased.

c. **Rule of Preference Between Lines**:

- The Rule of Preference Between Lines establishes an order of priority among different
lines of heirs when determining intestate succession.
- It prioritizes certain lines of descent over others based on their degree of relationship
to the deceased.
- For example, if the deceased has surviving children and surviving grandchildren
(children of a deceased child), the children would inherit before the grandchildren. However, if
there are no surviving children, then the grandchildren would inherit.
- This rule ensures that descendants inherit before more distant relatives, but also
respects the right of representation, allowing descendants of deceased heirs to inherit their
share.

Illustration:
Suppose a person, John, dies intestate, leaving behind the following relatives:

- Surviving spouse, Sarah

- Two children, Alice and Bob
- Two grandchildren, Carla (Alice's child) and David (Bob's child)
- Parents, Michael and Emily
- Sibling, Lisa

According to the rules:

- **Rule of Proximity**: Sarah, the surviving spouse, would inherit first, followed by the
children. In this case, Alice and Bob would inherit equally. If Sarah were not alive, the children
would inherit equally.
- **Rule of Equal Division**: Alice and Bob, being in the same degree of relationship as
children, would inherit equally.
- **Rule of Preference Between Lines**: Children inherit before grandchildren, so Alice
and Bob would inherit before Carla and David. If any child were deceased, their share would
pass to their children (Carla and David) by representation.

Understanding and applying these rules helps ensure fair and orderly distribution of an estate in
intestate succession.

5. Discuss and illustrate the following exceptions to rule of equal division:

a. Division in representation
 b. Division in the ascending line
c. Division between full-blood and half-blood relatives
d. Division between legitimate and illegitimate children

a. **Division in Representation**:
- Division in representation, also known as per capita representation, occurs when the share of a
deceased heir passes equally to their descendants, rather than being divided equally among the
surviving heirs.
- This exception applies when an heir who would have been entitled to a share of the estate
predeceases the decedent but leaves surviving descendants (such as children or grandchildren).
- The share that would have been inherited by the deceased heir is divided equally among their
descendants.
- For example, if a deceased person leaves behind two children and one of the children has
predeceased them but has two children of their own (grandchildren of the decedent), the estate
would be divided equally among the two surviving children and the two grandchildren.

b. **Division in the Ascending Line**:

- Division in the ascending line occurs when the estate is inherited by relatives in the ascending line
(e.g., parents or grandparents) instead of being divided equally among the heirs in the same
generation.
- This exception typically applies when there are no surviving descendants (children or
grandchildren) but there are surviving ancestors (parents or grandparents) of the deceased.
- The estate would be inherited by the closest surviving ancestor(s) of the deceased.
- For example, if a deceased person has no surviving spouse, children, or grandchildren but has
surviving parents, the estate would be inherited by the parents.

c. **Division Between Full-Blood and Half-Blood Relatives**:

- In some jurisdictions, there may be a distinction between full-blood relatives (those who share
both parents with the deceased) and half-blood relatives (those who share only one parent with the
deceased).
- The rule of equal division may be modified to give preference to full-blood relatives over half-blood
relatives.
- For example, if a deceased person has both full-blood siblings and half-blood siblings, the full-blood
siblings may inherit a larger share of the estate compared to the half-blood siblings.

d. **Division Between Legitimate and Illegitimate Children**:

- In some jurisdictions, there may be differences in how the estates of deceased persons with both
legitimate and illegitimate children are distributed.
- While legitimate children typically inherit equally under the rule of equal division, the inheritance
rights of illegitimate children may vary.
- Some jurisdictions may grant equal inheritance rights to both legitimate and illegitimate children,
while others may provide different shares or exclude illegitimate children altogether.
- The treatment of illegitimate children in intestate succession depends on the laws of the
jurisdiction and any relevant legal precedents.

Illustration:
Suppose a person, Emily, dies intestate, leaving behind the following relatives:

- Surviving spouse, John

- Two children, Alice and Bob
- One deceased child, Carol, who has two children (Emily's grandchildren), David and Eve
- Parents, Michael and Sarah
- One half-sibling, Lisa

According to the exceptions:

- **Division in Representation**: Since Carol has predeceased Emily but has surviving descendants
(David and Eve), Emily's estate would be divided equally among Alice, Bob, David, and Eve.
- **Division in the Ascending Line**: If Emily has no surviving spouse, children, or grandchildren, but
has surviving parents (Michael and Sarah), her estate would be inherited by her parents instead of
being divided equally among her siblings.
- **Division Between Full-Blood and Half-Blood Relatives**: If Emily has both full-blood siblings
(Alice, Bob) and a half-sibling (Lisa), the estate may be divided unequally, with the full-blood siblings
receiving a larger share than the half-sibling.
- **Division Between Legitimate and Illegitimate Children**: Depending on the laws of the
jurisdiction, the treatment of legitimate and illegitimate children may vary. Some jurisdictions may
grant equal inheritance rights to both legitimate and illegitimate children, while others may provide
different shares or exclude illegitimate children altogether.

6. What is the rule on determination of degree of relationship?

The rule on the determination of the degree of relationship in intestate succession is crucial for
establishing the order of inheritance among potential heirs. It involves calculating the closeness of
relationship between the deceased individual and their potential heirs, which helps determine the
priority of inheritance according to the laws of intestacy.

The rule typically follows a system of counting degrees of relationship based on familial connections.
Here's how it generally works:

1. **Direct Line**: The degree of relationship is determined by counting the number of generations
between the deceased and the potential heir. Each generation counts as one degree.
- For example, a parent is one degree away from their child, a grandparent is two degrees away from
their grandchild, and so on.
2. **Collateral Line**: The degree of relationship is determined by counting the number of common
ancestors shared by the deceased and the potential heir. Each individual along the path of descent
to a common ancestor counts as one degree.
- For example, siblings are considered to be two degrees apart because they share one common
ancestor (their parents). First cousins are considered to be three degrees apart because they share
two common ancestors (their grandparents).

The degree of relationship helps establish the priority of inheritance among potential heirs.
Generally, the closer the degree of relationship, the higher the priority for inheritance. This principle
is reflected in intestate succession laws, where closer relatives are typically given precedence over
more distant ones.

Understanding the rule on the determination of the degree of relationship is essential for accurately
applying intestate succession laws and ensuring that estates are distributed according to legal
requirements and familial ties.

7. Differentiate full blood and half blood relations.

Full blood and half blood relations refer to the degree of biological relationship between individuals,
particularly in the context of family relationships. The distinction between full blood and half blood
relations is based on the extent to which individuals share common ancestry. Here's a breakdown of
each:

1. **Full Blood Relations**:

- Full blood relations refer to individuals who share both parents in common.
- For example, siblings who have the same biological mother and father are considered full blood
siblings. They share a complete set of genetic material inherited from both parents.
- Full blood relations typically have a closer biological connection than half blood relations because
they share a more extensive genetic heritage.

2. **Half Blood Relations**:

- Half blood relations refer to individuals who share only one parent in common.
- For example, half siblings share one biological parent but have different biological parents from the
other side. For instance, if two individuals have the same father but different mothers or vice versa,
they are half siblings.
- Half blood relations share only a portion of their genetic material inherited from the common
parent, resulting in a less extensive biological connection compared to full blood relations.

In the context of intestate succession and inheritance laws, the distinction between full blood and
half blood relations may have implications for the distribution of the deceased individual's estate.
Some jurisdictions may treat full blood and half blood relatives differently, particularly when
determining inheritance rights in the absence of a will.
 It's important to note that the treatment of full blood and half blood relations may vary depending
on the specific laws and customs of the jurisdiction in question. Some legal systems may consider
both full blood and half blood relations as equally entitled to inheritance, while others may give
preference to full blood relatives or have specific rules governing the distribution of assets among
different types of relatives.

8. Discuss and give an example on the the right of accretion among relatives of the same degree
in case one or some of them renounce their share or is incapacitated to succeed from the
decedent.

The right of accretion, also known as the right of survivorship or right of increase, comes into play in
intestate succession when one or more heirs renounce their share of the inheritance or are legally
incapacitated from inheriting. In such cases, the renounced or incapacitated share(s) are distributed
among the remaining heirs who are in the same degree of relationship to the deceased. This ensures
that the estate is fully distributed according to the laws of intestacy and that no portion of the estate
goes unclaimed.

Here's how the right of accretion typically works:

1. **Renunciation**: If one or more heirs voluntarily renounce their share of the inheritance, their
renounced share(s) are distributed among the remaining heirs in the same degree of relationship to the
deceased. The renouncing heir(s) effectively waive their right to inherit and do not receive any portion
of the estate.

2. **Incapacity to Succeed**: If an heir is legally incapacitated from inheriting due to reasons such as
being a minor, mentally incompetent, or disqualified by law, their share of the inheritance is also
redistributed among the remaining heirs in the same degree of relationship.

Here's an example to illustrate the right of accretion:

Suppose a person, Sarah, dies intestate, leaving behind the following relatives:

- Surviving spouse, John

- Two children, Alice and Bob
- One sibling, Carol
- One nephew, David (son of Carol)

In this scenario, according to the laws of intestacy, the estate would typically be divided equally
between John (the surviving spouse) and the two children, Alice and Bob. However, if John renounces
his share of the inheritance, or if he is legally incapacitated from inheriting (for instance, if he
predeceased Sarah), his share of the estate would be redistributed among Alice, Bob, Carol, and David.
Let's say John renounces his share of the inheritance. In that case, the estate would now be divided
equally among Alice, Bob, Carol, and David. Each would receive a one-fourth share of the estate.

If both John and Carol were to renounce their shares, the entire estate would be inherited by Alice and
Bob, as they are the only remaining heirs in the same degree of relationship to Sarah.

The right of accretion ensures that the estate is distributed among the rightful heirs according to the
laws of intestacy, even if some heirs renounce their share or are legally incapacitated from inheriting.

9. What is the effect of repudiation by nearest relatives?

When the nearest relatives of a deceased individual repudiate their right to inherit, it can have several
effects on the distribution of the estate and the inheritance process. Here are some potential
consequences:

1. **Redistribution of Shares**: Repudiation by the nearest relatives may result in the redistribution of
their shares among other heirs according to the laws of intestacy or any applicable legal provisions. The
renounced shares are typically distributed among the remaining heirs in the same degree of relationship
to the deceased.

2. **Acceleration of Inheritance**: Repudiation by nearest relatives may accelerate the inheritance

process for other heirs, particularly those who would have received a portion of the renounced shares
through the right of accretion or survivorship. By renouncing their rights, the nearest relatives allow
other heirs to inherit without delay.

3. **Avoidance of Disputes**: Repudiation by the nearest relatives can help avoid potential conflicts or
disputes among heirs regarding the distribution of the estate. By clearly stating their intention to waive
their right to inherit, the renouncing relatives provide clarity and reduce the likelihood of contentious
legal battles over the estate.

4. **Impact on Estate Administration**: The repudiation of inheritance by the nearest relatives may
simplify the process of estate administration by streamlining the distribution of assets and reducing
administrative burdens. With fewer heirs to account for, the executor or administrator of the estate can
proceed with the distribution more efficiently.

5. **Loss of Inheritance Rights**: By repudiating their right to inherit, the nearest relatives forfeit any
claim to the deceased individual's estate. Once renounced, the inheritance rights cannot typically be
reclaimed, and the renouncing relatives do not have any further entitlement to the estate.
6. **Potential Tax Implications**: Depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances,
repudiation of inheritance by nearest relatives may have tax implications. It's essential for renouncing
relatives to consider any potential tax consequences and seek professional advice if necessary.

Overall, the effect of repudiation by nearest relatives on the inheritance process can vary depending on
the specific legal framework, the terms of the deceased individual's will (if applicable), and the
preferences of the renouncing relatives. It's essential for all parties involved to understand the
implications of renunciation and seek legal guidance when navigating the complexities of estate
distribution.

10. What is representation?

a. What are the effects of representation?
b. When does representation takes place?
c. What is representation in the collateral line?

Representation is a legal concept that allows the descendants of a deceased individual to inherit their
share of an estate when the deceased would have been entitled to inherit but is deceased at the time of
distribution. Representation typically occurs in intestate succession or when a beneficiary of a will
predeceases the testator (the person who made the will).

Here's a breakdown of representation and its effects:

a. **Effects of Representation**:
- Representation allows the descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.) of a deceased individual to
inherit the share of the estate that their deceased ancestor would have received if they were alive.
- The effect of representation is to ensure that the estate is distributed among the descendants of the
deceased individual in a fair and equitable manner.
- The share that would have been inherited by the deceased individual is divided equally among their
descendants who are alive at the time of distribution.
- Representation essentially allows the lineage of the deceased individual to continue to benefit from
the inheritance, ensuring that the estate passes down to the next generation.

b. **When Representation Takes Place**:

- Representation typically takes place when an individual entitled to inherit from the deceased has
predeceased them.
- In intestate succession, representation occurs when a descendant of the deceased, such as a child or
grandchild, predeceases the decedent.
- Representation may also occur in the context of a will if a beneficiary named in the will predeceases
the testator, and the will includes provisions for representation.

c. **Representation in the Collateral Line**:

- Representation in the collateral line refers to the application of representation to heirs who are not
direct descendants (e.g., children or grandchildren) but are related through a common ancestor.
- For example, if a deceased individual has siblings who predeceased them but have surviving children
(nieces and nephews of the deceased), those nieces and nephews may inherit their parent's share of the
estate through representation.
- Representation in the collateral line ensures that the descendants of the deceased individual's siblings
are treated equally in the distribution of the estate, even if their parent predeceased the decedent.

Representation plays a critical role in ensuring the fair distribution of an estate, especially in cases where
heirs predecease the decedent. It allows for the continuation of inheritance rights through successive
generations, preserving the intended distribution of assets among the descendants of the deceased
individual.

11. Discuss and illustrate the division of the estate per capita and per stripes.

The division of an estate can occur in different ways, depending on the principles applied by the legal
system and the preferences of the decedent. Two common methods of estate division are per capita
and per stirpes. Let's discuss and illustrate each:

1. **Per Capita**:
- In per capita distribution, the estate is divided equally among the surviving heirs, regardless of their
generational level or branch of the family tree.
- Each eligible heir receives an equal share of the estate, regardless of whether they are direct
descendants (children, grandchildren) or more distant relatives (siblings, nieces, nephews).
- Per capita distribution ensures that each eligible heir receives an equal portion of the estate,
promoting fairness and equality among the heirs.

**Illustration**:
Suppose a deceased individual, Sarah, leaves behind the following heirs:
- Two children: Alice and Bob
- One sibling: Carol
- One niece: Diana (daughter of Carol)

In a per capita distribution, the estate would be divided equally among the four heirs: Alice, Bob, Carol,
and Diana. Each would receive a one-fourth share of the estate.

2. **Per Stirpes**:
- In per stirpes distribution, the estate is divided among the branches of the family tree, with each
branch receiving a share based on their level of relationship to the deceased individual.
- If an eligible heir predeceases the decedent, their share is divided equally among their descendants,
preserving the intended distribution within their branch of the family.
- Per stirpes distribution ensures that the descendants of a deceased heir inherit their parent's share,
maintaining the intended distribution among the various branches of the family.

**Illustration**:
Using the same scenario as above, let's assume that Bob predeceases Sarah, leaving behind two
children: Emily and Frank. In a per stirpes distribution:
- Alice would receive a one-third share of the estate (as Sarah's surviving child).
- Bob's share would be divided equally between his two children, Emily and Frank, each receiving a one-
sixth share.
- Carol and Diana would each receive a one-sixth share of the estate, as Sarah's sibling and niece,
respectively.

Per capita and per stirpes distributions serve different purposes and may be used in different situations
based on the preferences of the decedent and the legal requirements of the jurisdiction. Per capita
distribution ensures equal treatment among all heirs, while per stirpes distribution preserves the
intended distribution among the branches of the family tree, even if some heirs predecease the
decedent.

12. How will succession operate when only nephews and nieces survive?

When only nephews and nieces survive and there are no surviving children, siblings, or other closer
relatives, intestate succession laws typically govern the distribution of the deceased individual's estate.
The exact process may vary depending on the jurisdiction, but here's a general overview of how
succession would operate in such a scenario:

1. **Determination of Heirs**: The first step is to identify the nephews and nieces who are eligible to
inherit from the deceased. This includes the children of the deceased individual's siblings.

2. **Equal Distribution**: In many jurisdictions, when nephews and nieces are the closest surviving
relatives, the estate is typically divided equally among them.

3. **Per Stirpes Distribution**: If any of the deceased individual's siblings predeceased them, and those
siblings had children (the nephews and nieces), a per stirpes distribution may apply. This means that the
share that would have been inherited by the predeceased sibling is divided equally among their children
(the nieces and nephews), preserving the distribution within each branch of the family.

4. **Representation**: Representation ensures that the descendants of predeceased nephews and

nieces inherit their parent's share of the estate. This allows for the continuation of inheritance rights
through successive generations.
5. **Administration of the Estate**: The estate administration process involves identifying and valuing
the assets of the deceased individual, paying off any outstanding debts and taxes, and distributing the
remaining assets to the nephews and nieces according to the rules of intestate succession.

It's important to note that the specific rules governing intestate succession, including the order of
priority among relatives and the distribution of assets, may vary by jurisdiction. Additionally, some
jurisdictions may have provisions for situations where there are no surviving close relatives, which could
result in the estate escheating (reverting) to the state.

If there are any complexities or uncertainties regarding the distribution of the estate, it's advisable to
consult with a legal professional familiar with the laws of the relevant jurisdiction to ensure that the
estate is distributed in accordance with the law.

13. Explain: “renouncer may represent but may not be represented”.

The statement "renouncer may represent but may not be represented" refers to a principle in estate
law, particularly in the context of renunciation of inheritance rights. Let's break down what this means:

1. **Renouncer May Represent**: This part of the statement implies that an individual who renounces
their inheritance rights (the renouncer) retains the ability to represent their own descendants in the
inheritance process. In other words, if an heir voluntarily renounces their right to inherit, their
renounced share of the estate may be distributed among their own children or other descendants if
they have any. The renouncer has the power to represent their descendants and ensure that they
receive the portion of the estate that would have been inherited by the renouncer.

2. **May Not Be Represented**: This part of the statement indicates that while a renouncer may
represent their own descendants, they themselves cannot be represented by others in the inheritance
process. Once an individual renounces their inheritance rights, they effectively forfeit their entitlement
to the estate, and their renounced share is distributed according to the rules of intestate succession or
any applicable legal provisions. Unlike in representation scenarios where descendants can inherit the
share of a predeceased ancestor, a renouncer does not have someone else who can inherit on their
behalf. They cannot be represented by other heirs or individuals in the distribution of the estate.

In summary, the principle "renouncer may represent but may not be represented" underscores the
distinction between renunciation of inheritance rights and representation in inheritance. While a
renouncer has the ability to represent their own descendants in the inheritance process, they
themselves cannot be represented by others once they have renounced their entitlement to the estate.

14. What is the rule on preference of direct descending line?

The rule on the preference of the direct descending line, also known as the rule of proximity,
establishes that descendants of a deceased individual typically inherit before more distant relatives.
This rule prioritizes the lineage of the deceased individual's children, grandchildren, and other direct
descendants in the distribution of the estate.

Here's a breakdown of the rule on the preference of the direct descending line:

1. **Priority to Descendants**: The rule gives priority to the direct descendants of the deceased
individual over other relatives, such as siblings, nieces, nephews, and more distant relatives.

2. **Equal Division Among Descendants**: Among the descendants of the deceased, the estate is
usually divided equally if there is more than one descendant in the same generation.

3. **Representation**: If a descendant predeceases the decedent but leaves behind children or

other descendants, representation allows the share that would have been inherited by the
predeceased descendant to pass to their own children or descendants.

4. **Per Stirpes Distribution**: In cases where a descendant predeceases the decedent and there
are surviving grandchildren or great-grandchildren, a per stirpes distribution may apply. This means
that the share that would have been inherited by the predeceased descendant is divided equally
among their own children (the grandchildren) or other descendants.

5. **Preservation of Lineage**: The rule on the preference of the direct descending line ensures
that the lineage of the deceased individual continues to benefit from the inheritance, with priority
given to the deceased's own children and their descendants.

Overall, the rule on the preference of the direct descending line reflects the principle of familial
succession, where priority is given to the closest relatives in lineage to the deceased individual. It
ensures that the descendants of the deceased inherit before more distant relatives, promoting
fairness and preserving family connections in the distribution of the estate.

15. Prepare the table of intestate shares of the following and indicate the legal basis or article of
the New Civil Code:
a. Legitimate children alone
b. Legitimate children and illegitimate children
c. Legitimate children and surviving spouse
d. Legitimate children, surviving spouse and illegitimate children
e. Legitimate parents alone
f. Legitimate ascendants (other than parents) alone
g. Legitimate parents and illegitimate children
h. Legitimate parents and surviving spouse
i. Legitimate parents, surviving spouse and illegitimate children
j. Illegitimate children alone
k. Illegitimate children and surviving spouse
 l. Surviving spouse alone
m. Surviving spouse and illegitimate parents
n. Surviving spouse and legitimate brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces
o. Surviving spouse and illegitimate brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces
p. Illegitimate parents alone
q. Illegitimate parents and children of any kind
r. Legitimate brothers and sisters alone
s. Legitimate brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces
t. Nephews and nieces with uncles and aunts
u. Illegitimate brothers and sisters alone
v. Illegitimate brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces
w. Nephews and nieces alone
x. Other collaterals
y. State

PROVISION SURVIVING HEIRS RULE/DIVISION OF ESTATE

Art. 890 a. Legitimate children The whole estate in equal shares.

Art. 983 b. Legitimate children and The whole estate. Share of

illegitimate children illegitimate children in the same
proportion prescribed in Art. 895.

Art. 996 c. Legitimate children and Surviving spouse has the same share
surviving spouse as each child.

Art. 999 d. Legitimate children, surviving The share of the spouse is the same
spouse and illegitimate children share as of a legitimate child.

Share of illegitimate children in the

same proportion prescribed in Art.
895.

Art. 985 e. Legitimate parents alone All, in equal shares.

Art. 987 f. Legitimate ascendants (other All, observing the proper cases.
than parents) alone

Art. 991 g. Legitimate parents and ½ distributed among each group

illegitimate children equally.

Art. 997 h. Legitimate parents and ½ of the estate to each equally.

surviving spouse
Art. 1000 i. Legitimate parents, ½ of the estate,
surviving spouse and
 illegitimate children ¼ of the estate,
¼ of the estate.

Art. 988 j. Illegitimate children alone They succeed to the entire estate.

Art. 998 k. Illegitimate children and ½ of the estate to each equally.

surviving spouse
Art. 995 l. Surviving spouse alone Inherits the whole estate.

m. Surviving spouse and ½ of the estate to each equally.

illegitimate parents
Art. 1001 n. Surviving spouse and legitimate ½ of the estate to each equally.
brothers and sisters, nephews
and nieces
Art. 995 o. Surviving spouse and The whole estate;

Art. 994 Illegitimate brothers and sisters, Illegitimate children cannot inherit ab
nephews and nieces intestato from the legitimate children
and relatives of his mother or father.
Legitimate children cannot inherit in
the same way from the illegitimate
child.

Art. 993 p. Illegitimate parents alone The whole estate.

q. Illegitimate parents and illegitimate parents = excluded

children of any kind
Children
Art. 983
a. Child alone (legitimate or
illegitimate) = whole estate
b. Legitimate and
illegitimate children= each
illegitimate gets ½ share of
one legitimate child

Art. 1004 r. Legitimate brothers and sisters All, divide equally among them.
alone
Art. 1005 s. Legitimate brothers and sisters, Siblings inherit per capita; nieces and
nephews and nieces nephews inherit per stirpes.

t. Nephews and nieces with Uncle and aunts - excluded

uncles and aunts
Nephews and nieces – all, per capita
but observing 2:1 proportion for the
full and half-blood

Art. 1007 u. Illegitimate brothers and sisters All. Inherit in equal shares without
 alone distinction as to the origin of the
property.

Art. 1008 v. Illegitimate brothers, sisters, All. Succeed per capita or per stirpes,
nephews and nieces in accordance with the rules under
Article 1005.

Art. 975 w. Nephews and nieces alone When children of one or more
brothers or sisters of the deceased
survive, they shall inherit from the
latter by representation, if they
survive with their uncles or aunts. But
if they alone survive, they shall
inherit in equal portions.

Art. 1009 x. Other collaterals Entire estate. Other collateral

relatives succeed without distinction
of lines or preference among them by
reason of relationship by the whole
blood.

The right to inherit ab intestato shall

Art. 1010 not extend beyond the fifth degree of
relationship in the collateral line.

Art. 1011 y. State In default of persons entitled to

succeed in accordance with the
provisions of the preceding Sections,
the State shall inherit the whole
estate.
Art. 1013
The whole estate,
Assignment/ Disposition
1. If decedent was a resident of the
Philippines at any time:
a. Personal property - to
municipality of last residence
b. Real property - where situated
2. If decedent was never a resident
of the Philippines:
Personal and real property - where
respectively situated

How property is to be used

1. For the benefit of public
 educational and charitable
institution in the respective
municipalities or cities

16. What is the iron curtain rule?

a. Prepare a case digest of the case Aquino vs. Aquino, GR Nos. 208912 and 209018,
December 7, 2021
b.
The iron-curtain rule is a legal principle that prevents illegitimate children from inheriting from
legitimate children and relatives of their parents in intestate succession.
FACTS
Miguel Aquino (Miguel) died intestate leaving personal and real properties. The estate of his first wife,
Amadea Aquino (Amadea), was already settled. Miguel was survived by: (1) Enerie Aquino, his second
wife; (2) Abdulah Aquino (Abdulah) and Rodolfo Aquino (Rodolfo), his sons with Amadea; and (3) the
heirs of Wilfredo Aquino, his son with Amadea who also died earlier. Miguel was also predeceased by
another son with Amadea, Arturo Aquino (Arturo).
On July 2, 2003, Amadea Angela Aquino (Angela) moved that she be included in the distribution and
partition of Miguel’s estate. She alleged that she was Arturo’s only child as evidenced by a hospital
Certification stating that she was Arturo and Susan Kuan’s daughter.
Angela stated Arturo died before she was born on October 9, 1978. While her parents were not married,
they did not suffer from any impediment to marry. Her parents were planning to marry before Arturo
died.
Angela further claimed that her grandfather, Miguel, took care of her mother’s expenses during her
pregnancy with her. Angela also lived with her mother and the Aquino family at their ancestral home.
Since
her birth, her father’s relatives had continuously recognized her as Arturo’s natural child. Abdulah, her
father’s brother, was even her godfather. In support of this, Angela presented her baptismal certificate
stating that she was Arturo’s daughter.
Angela even claimed that Miguel provided for her needs and supported her education. Miguel also
further instructed the distribution of his properties, wherein Angela was among the heirs who would
receive portions of Miguel’s estate. Miguel gave her a commercial lot, which rentals were now paid to
her.
Later, Angela filed a Motion for Distribution of Residue of Estate or for Allowance to the Heirs. She
alleged that as Arturo’s natural child, she has a legal right to a monthly allowance like those given to
Miguel’s other heirs.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Angela’s motions. Rodolfo filed a petition for certiorari before
the Court of Appeals (CA) which was denied. Meanwhile, Abdulah appealed the RTC’s orders before the
CA, claiming that Angela failed to prove her filiation and, in any case, Angela could not inherit from
Miguel
ab intestato. The CA rendered a decision in favor of Abdulah.
ISSUES
(1) Can Angela, an alleged nonmarital child of Miguel’s marital child, inherit from her grandfather’s
estate?
(2) Can Angela automatically inherit from Miguel’s estate?
RULING
(1) YES. Intestate succession is based on the decedent’s presumed will. Article 992 of the Civil Code
assumes that the decedent’s disposition of their property would not have included any nonmarital
children, due to a supposed hostility between the marital family and the nonmarital child because
the latter was the outcome of an extramarital affair.
However, a nonmarital child is not defined that way. Nonmarital children or “illegitimate children” as
used
under Article 165 of the Family Code are “children conceived and born outside a valid marriage.” The
phrase “outside a valid marriage” does not necessarily mean an extramarital affair. Parents may choose
not
to get married despite having no legal impediment to marry.
If there is a legal impediment, it does not necessarily follow that the impediment is that either or both
parents are married to another person. It is entirely possible that one or both of them are below
marriageable age. Another reason why a child could have been born “outside a valid marriage” is
because
their mother was a victim of sexual assault who did not marry the perpetrator. There are also times
when
the father of an unborn child may have died before being able to marry the child’s mother, as what has
been alleged in Angela’s case.
Children born from these circumstances are also considered “illegitimate.” Yet, there may be no
“antagonism or incompatibility,” “hate,” or “disgraceful looks” to speak of. If Art. 992 of the Civil Code
merely recognizes existing conditions, then it should be construed to account for other circumstances of
birth and family dynamics.
The Court abandoned the presumption that nonmarital children are products of illicit relationships or
that
they are automatically placed in a hostile environment perpetrated by the marital family. The Court is
not
duty bound to uncritically parrot archaic prejudices and cruelties, to mirror and amplify oppressive and
regressive ideas about the status of children and family life. The best interest of the child should prevail.
The Court adopts a construction of Art. 992 of the Civil Code that makes children, regardless of the
circumstances of their births, qualified to inherit from their direct ascendants-such as their
grandparentby their right of representation. Both marital and nonmarital children, whether born from a
marital or
nonmarital child, are blood relatives of their parents and other ascendants.
This interpretation likewise makes Art. 992 of the Civil Code more consistent with the changes
introduced
by the Family Code on obligations of support among and between the direct line of blood relatives.
Accordingly, when a nonmarital child seeks to represent their deceased parent to succeed in their
grandparent’s estate, Article 982 of the Civil Code shall apply. The said article provides:
ARTICLE 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.
The language of Art. 982 of the Civil Code does not make any distinctions or qualifications as to the birth
status of the “grandchildren and other descendants” granted the right of representation. Moreover, to
allow grandchildren and other descendants, regardless of their birth status, to inherit by right of
representation will protect the legitime of the compulsory heir they represent; otherwise, the legitime
will
be impaired, contrary to protections granted to this legitime in other areas of the law on succession.
This ruling will only apply when the nonmarital child has a right of representation to their parent's share
in her grandparent's legitime. It is silent on collateral relatives where the nonmarital child may inherit by
themself. The Court is not ruling on the extent of the right of a nonmarital child to inherit in their own
right. Those will be the subject of a proper case.
(2) NO. The application of Article 982 does not automatically give Angela the right to inherit from
Miguel's
estate. Angela must still prove her filiation.
Jurisprudence dictates illegitimate children who were still minors at the time the Family Code took effect
and whose putative parent died during their minority are given the right to seek recognition under
Article
285 of the Civil Code for a period of up to four (4) years from attaining majority age. This vested right
was
not impaired by the passage of the Family Code.
Hence, Angela, who was not yet born when the Family Code took effect, has the right to prove that she
was her father’s daughter under Article 285 of the Civil Code within four years from attaining the age of
majority. Under Article 402 of the Civil Code, the age of majority is 21 years old. Angela attained
majority
on October 9, 1999. She had until October 9, 2003 to assert her right to prove her filiation with Arturo.
Thus, when she moved to be included in the distribution and partition of Miguel’s estate on July 17,
2003,
she was not yet barred from claiming her filiation.
However, resolving several factual matters raised in the parties’ pleadings and during the oral arguments
requires receiving additional evidence, which the Court is not equipped to do. Documents may need to
be
presented and authenticated; witnesses’ testimonies received and examined; and DNA testing ordered
and
conducted, to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations raised by the parties before the Court. The
Court finds it prudent to remand the cases to their court of origin for reception of evidence, in
conformity
with the legal principles articulated in the present case.
17. What is the effect in succession of a guilty spouse in legal separation?

In many jurisdictions, legal separation can have implications for succession, particularly if one
spouse is found guilty of certain actions or behaviors that affect their rights to inherit from the other
spouse. However, the specific effects can vary depending on the laws of the jurisdiction and the
circumstances of the legal separation. Here are some general considerations:

1. **Effect on Spousal Inheritance Rights**: In legal separation, the spouses may still be legally
married, but they live apart and have formalized their separation through a legal process. In some
jurisdictions, legal separation may affect the inheritance rights of the spouses. For example, a guilty
spouse who is found to have committed certain acts, such as abandonment, cruelty, or adultery,
may be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse's estate.

2. **Disinheritance Provisions**: Some jurisdictions have laws or provisions that allow spouses to
disinherit each other in certain circumstances, such as legal separation or divorce. These provisions
may specify that a guilty spouse forfeits their right to inherit from the innocent spouse's estate or
that their share of the estate is reduced or eliminated altogether.

3. **Surviving Spouse's Election**: In some jurisdictions, a surviving spouse who is legally separated
from the deceased spouse may have the option to elect against the terms of the will or intestate
succession and instead claim their statutory share of the estate. This statutory share, also known as
a forced share or elective share, ensures that the surviving spouse receives a portion of the
deceased spouse's estate regardless of the terms of the will or the presence of legal separation.

4. **Effect on Children's Inheritance**: Legal separation may also affect the inheritance rights of any
children of the marriage. In some jurisdictions, the children's rights to inherit from either parent's
estate may be unaffected by the legal separation between the parents. However, if the legal
separation results in disinheritance provisions or affects the distribution of assets, it could indirectly
impact the children's inheritance rights.

It's important to consult with a legal professional familiar with the laws of the relevant jurisdiction
to understand the specific effects of legal separation on succession rights and to ensure that estate
planning documents, such as wills and trusts, are drafted in accordance with the applicable laws and
the intentions of the parties involved.

18. Summarize escheat proceedings.

Escheat proceedings refer to the legal process by which the assets of a deceased individual who dies
intestate (without a valid will) and without any known heirs are transferred to the state. Here's a
summary of escheat proceedings:
1. **Identification of Intestate Estate**: The first step in escheat proceedings is identifying the
estate of a deceased individual who has died intestate and without any known heirs. This may
involve locating and valuing the deceased's assets, such as real estate, bank accounts, investments,
and personal property.

2. **Search for Heirs**: Before escheat proceedings can occur, efforts are typically made to locate
any potential heirs of the deceased. This may involve conducting genealogical research, searching
public records, and publishing notices to notify potential heirs of the deceased's passing.

3. **Failure to Identify Heirs**: If no known heirs are identified within a certain period, or if all
potential heirs renounce their right to inherit, the estate may be deemed intestate and subject to
escheat proceedings.

4. **Transfer of Assets to the State**: In escheat proceedings, the assets of the deceased
individual's estate are transferred to the state government. The specific process for transferring
assets to the state may vary depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

5. **Administration by the State**: Once the assets are transferred to the state, they become part
of the state's unclaimed property or escheat fund. The state may then administer the assets, sell
them, or use them for public purposes, such as funding government programs or services.

6. **Potential Claim by Heirs**: In some cases, even after escheat proceedings have occurred, heirs
may come forward and claim their right to inherit from the deceased's estate. Depending on the
laws of the jurisdiction, heirs may have a limited period to make a claim after the assets have been
transferred to the state.

Overall, escheat proceedings serve as a mechanism to ensure that the assets of a deceased
individual who dies intestate and without known heirs do not remain unclaimed or abandoned. The
process allows for the transfer of these assets to the state, where they can be managed and used for
the public benefit. However, it's essential for individuals to engage in estate planning to avoid
intestacy and ensure that their assets are distributed according to their wishes.

19. To whom should an escheated property be assigned?

Escheated property, which refers to property that has reverted to the state due to the lack of heirs
or the failure to claim the property, is typically assigned to the state government. Once property has
gone through the escheat process and no valid claims by heirs or other parties have been
established, it becomes the property of the state.

Assigning escheated property to the state serves several purposes:

1. **Custody and Management**: The state takes custody of escheated property to ensure that it is
properly managed and protected. This may include safeguarding assets, maintaining records, and
managing any income or proceeds generated by the property.

2. **Utilization for Public Benefit**: Escheated property can be utilized by the state for various
public purposes, such as funding government programs, infrastructure projects, education, or other
services that benefit the community.

3. **Return to Owners or Heirs**: In some cases, the state may hold escheated property for a
certain period, during which potential owners or heirs may come forward to claim the property. If
valid claims are established within the specified timeframe, the property may be returned to the
rightful owners or heirs.

4. **Sale or Auction**: Depending on the nature of the property and the laws of the jurisdiction, the
state may sell or auction escheated property to generate revenue. The proceeds from the sale or
auction may be used to support government operations or public initiatives.

5. **Unclaimed Property Fund**: Escheated property may become part of a state's unclaimed
property fund, where it is held until rightful owners or heirs come forward to claim it. States often
have laws and procedures in place to facilitate the return of unclaimed property to its rightful
owners.

Ultimately, the assignment of escheated property to the state allows for the proper management
and utilization of assets that would otherwise remain unclaimed or abandoned. While the state
assumes ownership of escheated property, efforts are often made to return the property to its
rightful owners or heirs if valid claims are established within the designated timeframe.

20. What is the rule on escheated property/ies if a person legally entitled reappears?

If a person who is legally entitled to escheated property reappears after the property has been
transferred to the state, the process for reclaiming the property typically depends on the laws and
procedures of the jurisdiction where the escheat occurred. Here's a general overview of how the
situation might be handled:

1. **Notification and Claim Process**: When a person entitled to escheated property reappears,
they may need to notify the relevant state agency or department responsible for handling
unclaimed property. The state may have specific procedures and forms for reclaiming escheated
property, which may include providing proof of identity and entitlement to the property.
2. **Verification of Ownership**: The state agency will likely verify the claimant's identity and
ownership rights to the escheated property. This may involve reviewing documents, records, and
other evidence provided by the claimant to establish their entitlement.

3. **Recovery of Property**: If the claim is verified and approved, the state will return the
escheated property to the rightful owner. The state may arrange for the transfer of the property
back to the claimant, either directly or through a designated process outlined in the applicable laws
and regulations.

4. **Reimbursement for Losses**: In some cases, the state may provide compensation or reimburse
the claimant for any losses incurred as a result of the escheatment, such as expenses related to
reclaiming the property or any financial losses suffered during the period when the property was
held by the state.

5. **Legal Recourse**: If the claimant encounters difficulties in reclaiming escheated property or

believes that their rights have been violated, they may have legal recourse to challenge the
escheatment or seek remedies through the courts. Legal proceedings may be initiated to assert
ownership rights and recover the property from the state.

It's important for individuals who believe they are entitled to escheated property to act promptly
and follow the procedures outlined by the state for reclaiming such property. The specific
requirements and processes for reclaiming escheated property can vary widely depending on the
jurisdiction, so it's advisable to consult with legal counsel or the appropriate state agency for
guidance on how to proceed.