CIVIL LAW

TIPS BATCH 1

SUCCESSION
Q: Sylvia died intestate leaving only her grandchildren Andy and Vicky, the illegitimate children of her only son Piolo by his lawful husband Pablo, and her niece Fe, the daughter of Sylvia's sister Julie, as her only surviving relatives. Andy filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration to herself, claiming to be a legal heir of her grandmother Sylvia, in representation of her father Piolo. Fe opposed the petition on the theory that Andy has no interest in the estate of Sylvia since by reason of her illegitmacy, Andy is not an heir of Sylvia. Decide who among the two is correct. A: Fe is correct. The petition should be denied. While the New Civil Code may have granted successional rights to illegitimate children, Article 992 prohibits the right of representation from being exercised where the person to be represented is a legitimate child. Needless to say, the determining factor is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the person to be represented. If the person to be represented is an illegitimate child, then his descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, may represent him; however, if the person to be represented is legitimate, his illegitimate descendants cannot represent him because the law provides that only his legitimate descendants may exercise the right of representation by reason of the barrier imposed Article 992. (Diaz vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-66574, 21 Feb. 1990) Q: Nelly, a Filipino citizen, left a holographic will providing that all her property in the Philippines should transmit to her friend Polly upon her death. She has no compulsory heirs. She executed the holographic will alone in her apartment in England, where an unwitnessed holographic will is not allowed by law. The will was submitted by Polly to a Manila court for probate. Nelly's nephew Derek opposed the petition for probate on the ground that the holographic will is not allowed under the laws of the country where it is executed. He showed proof of English laws which do not allow said will. If you were the judge, how will you decide? A: The will should be allowed for probate. While it is true that under Art. 17 of the Civil Code, the forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed, Art. 810 specifically provides that a person may execute a holographic will in the form prescribed by said Article under Philippine law, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed. Besides, Art. 816 allows an alien, wherever he may reside, to execute a will in accordance with the Civil Code. It can hardly be argued that the Code intends to invalidate a will executed by a Filipino citizen abroad, in accordance with Philippine law. (P. 117, Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines Vol. III) Q: Rita died in 2008, leaving as her descendants 4 children and 3 grandchildren, Debbie, Eddie and Dora, the children of her son Ted, who died in 2009. Eddie and Dora are actually the legally adopted children of Ted, whose biological parents are Ted's second cousin Dinky and her husband Enrico. Debbie on the other hand is Ted's daughter by her lawful wife Isabel, who died in 2005. In 2010, Debbie, Eddie and Dora file an action for partition against their uncles and aunts (brothers and sisters of Ted) to claim their father's share in the estate of Rita. Will the case prosper? A: No. They cannot assert successional rights the estate of Rita because they are excluded by the presence of Rita's other children. Since they are already second degree descendants, the first degree descendants will exclude them in accordance with Art. 962 of the Civil Code, saving the right of representation when it properly takes place. They also cannot represent their father Ted because Ted did not predecease Rita. Unless he repudiated his share or was incapacitated, his children cannot represent him. (De la Puerta vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77867, 6 February 1990)

CIVIL LAW

CIVIL LAW

TIPS BATCH 1

And even if the right of representation properly takes place, it is only Debbie who can represent Ted. Eddie and Dora cannot represent their adoptive father in the succession to their adoptive grandmother's estate. To them, Ted's parents are total strangers. While it is true that the adopted child shall be deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same right as the latter, these rights do not include the right of representation. The relationship created by the adoption is between only the adopting parents and the adopted child and does not extend to the blood relatives of either party. (Sayson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 89224-25, 23 January 1992) Q: Jaime died without issue in 2010. Ten years before his death, he executed a holographic will containing only one disposition, instituting his brother Fernando as his only heir, who is entitled to the enjoyment of the estate during the latter's lifetime. It states however that Fernando should preserve the estate in the state in which he received it, and that upon Fernando's death, the estate shall pass to their sister Francisca. Fernando presented the will for probate. Said probate was opposed by Francisca, claiming that the substitution is invalid. Is Francisca correct? A: Yes. Art. 863 provides that a fideicommissary substitution one by virtue of which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part of inheritance. Since the disposition provides that Jaime should inherit and enjoy the estate, with an obligation to preserve it for Francisca (ie the second heir), what was provided was a fideicommisary substitution. Said Article also provides that in order for it to be valid, such substitution should not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted. The degree mentioned in the provision refers to a degree of relationship. Inasmuch as Francisca is two degrees of relationship away from the first heir Fernando, the substitution is void. (Palacios vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. L-27952, 15 February 1982)