Civil Law Review Lecture and Recitation Notes

Glenn Tuazon, 4-A

Atty. Ruben F. Balane
SY 2010-11
Midterms Succession
Finals Obligations and Contracts

CIVIL LAW
We are part of the civil law tradition. This is our mindset in approaching
problems.
Most of Western Europe countries follow the civil law tradition, as well
South America except for the former British Colonies. Include:
Louisiana, Quebec, and parts of Black Africa (Senegal, Ivory Coast,
Congo). Asia: Philippines (Spain), Indonesia (Portuguese/Dutch
influence), China, Japan.
Common Law: UK, Ireland, All of US except for Louisiana, etc.
Civil Law was founded in 450 BC. It is older than the Church. Rome
conquered the world 3 times: by its arms, faith, and law. - Thus what
we study are developments of the Civil Law tradition.
Common Law began around 1066 AD.

SUCCESSION
General provisions
(774) A mode of acquiring ownership
o It is not delivery (tradition) that vests ownership. Succession
itself is the mode. You do not need delivery of the thing to the
successors.
o In due time, the successor acquires a right to possession of the
thing, which may be in the hands of someone else. But this is
an action of assertion/vindication of possession based on
ownership.
What is transferred?
o The inheritance.
o Inheritance is defined in 776 as the transmissible rights and
obligations of a person
o Are there intransmissible rights and obligations?
Yes.
1. Purely personal;
2. Intransmissible by stipulation
3. Intransmissible by operation of law
Are these conveyed by succession?
No.
What are examples?
A purely personal obligation or right
Ex. Right to receive support from ones
parents
Give an example of a transmissible obligation.
X entered into a perfect contract to sell his
car to Y, but it has not been consummated.
X died. This transfers to his heirs.
o Is a money debt a transmissible obligation?
Yes.
But is it transmitted directly to the heirs?
No. It is paid by the estate, upon claim by
the creditor. (Unionbank v. Santibanez)
Does this not violate Article 774?
No. Although the creditors do not claim
directly from the heirs, the effect is the same
what the heirs would have otherwise
gotten is diminished, so they are indirectly
and ultimately paying the debt.
Does this provision on money claims affect other
claims?
No. They are still transmitted to the heirs.
When does transmission take place?
o (777) Transmission takes place from the moment of death
o This is legal fiction, because you dont really physically get it
the inheritance at the moment of death.
o Why is it proper to say the rights to succession vest
instead of get transmitted?
Because you already have that right, albeit inchoate.
It only vests upon death of the predecessor.
What are the consequences of Art. 777?
o 1. Determination of who the heirs will be is determined at the
moment of death; also, what law is in effect; what portions they
will get, etc.
Uson v. Del Rosario: Decedent died during
effectivity of the old Civil Code, so the spurious
children are excluded (unlike in the NCC, where they
would get something)
o 2. Even before the actual partition of the estate, the heir can
dispose can dispose of his/her interest over the inheritance.
De Borja v. De Borja the heir was allowed to
onerously dispose of her share even if she did not
know how much exactly she would get.
Could she have disposed of it gratuitously?
Yes.
o 3. Heirs have a right to substitute their predecessor in an
action that survives.
Bonilla v. Barcena
Patrimonial right right to prosecute an action
Updates on the abovementioned jurisprudence:
o Lee v. RTC (423 SCRA 497)
An heir can sell his right/interest in property under
administration. However, an heir can only alienate
such portion of the estate allotted to him in the
division of estate.
So he can only sell his ideal or undivided share in the
estate, and not specific properties.
o Liu v. Loi (405 SCRA 316)
An heir can sell his interest in the decedents estate,
but always subject to the rights of the creditors and
the result of the partition.
So if you end up having no share in the estate, then
what you sold is subject to the creditors claim.
o Heirs of Conti v. CA (300 SCRA 345)
Reiterated Bonilla case: prior settlement of estate not
necessary for heirs to commence action or continue
action pertaining to the estate.
o Heirs of Pinchay [?] v. Del Rosario
Prevented from filing action because the plaintiffs
have not established proof that they are the
decedents heirs.
How to resolve: you can continue an action if you are
indisputably an heir.
What are the three kinds of succession?
o 1. Compulsory
o 2. Testamentary
o 3. Intestate
In absence or default of valid will
(781) is a WRONG provision. The heirs acquire rights to the
inheritance upon death. Any fruits/accruals after will indeed belong to
the heirs, but not through succession, but through accession discrete or
continua.
What is the importance of distinguishing between heirs and
legatees/devisees?
o This is an important distinction because of the rules on
preterition.
o Heirs succeeds to an aliquot part of the estate, whether
through testate or intestate
COMPULSORY SUCCESSION
Legitimes
(886) Legitime
o A part of the testators property
An aliquot or fractional part
o Which he cannot dispose of gratuitously
Why is gratuitously underlined?
Because he can dispose of it onerously. He
cannot donate to an extent that will eat into
the value of the legitime.
But he can sell his properties. Onerous
dispositions do not impair the legitime.
(J oaquin v. CA)
So he can gratuitously dispose?
YES. But, he cannot eat into the legitime.
Manongsong v. Estimo: Sale does not affect the
value of the decedents estate. There is an exchange
of value.
Who are the compulsory heirs? (887)
o 1. LC and descendants
o 2. LPs and ascendants (in default of #1)
o 3. Widow or widower
o 4. ICs
Which are primary and which are secondary?
o Primary those who are never excluded
Legitimate children/descendants
o Secondary those who receive only in default of the primary
Legitimate parents/ascendants
Illegitimate parents
N.B. does not go beyond parents
o Concurring compulsory heirs
Surviving spouse
Illegitimate children/descendants
What are the two principles?
o A) Exclusion and B) concurrence
o These two principles simultaneously operate to establish
combinations of compulsory heirs
Legitimary combinations [recit]
1 LC, 1 IC LC = ; IC =
1 LC, 2 IP LC =
3 IC, 2 LP, SS LP = each; 3 IC = 1/12 each; SS =
1/8
2 IP; SS IP = 1/8 each; SS =
2 AC; 1 LC; 1 IC LC = 1/6 each; IC = 1/12
1 LC; 2 IC; SS LC = ; SS = ; IC = 1/4 each, but
reduced to 1/8
6 LC; 3 IC LC = 1/12; IC = 1/24
5 IC; SS SS = 1/3; IC = 1/15
1 AC; 2 LP; SS AC = ; SS =1/4; LP = 0
3 LGP; SS 1 LGP (one line) = ; 2 LGP (other
line) = 1/8; SS =
1 IC; SS IC = 1/3; SS =1/3
2 AC; 2 LP AC = each
3 LC; 2 IC; SS LC = 1/6 each; IC = 1/12 each; SS =
1/6
2 AC; 1 LP; SS AC = each; SS =

Legitimate children or descendants
o Get a constant
Note: There are only three cases where nobody gets
:
SS 1/3; IC 1/3
SS, exceptional circumstance of in articulo
mortis 1/3
SS 1/4; IP 1/4
o They are the primary compulsory heir
o The nearer exclude the more remote. So children exclude
grandchildren.
o BUT the grandchildren can inherit if representation is proper
Predecease
Disinheritance
Incapacity/Unworthiness
o N.B. If all the children renounce, then the grandchildren will all
inherit equally (per capita)
But if only a few renounce and not all, the remaining
child/children will get what is left to the exclusion of
the grandchildren
o The adopted child is, for purposes of succession, in the exact
position as a LC
Must be legally, not de facto adopted
o Does the adopted child retain the right to succeed his
biological parents?
This is still an open question. There is an obiter in the
Stephanie Garcia case that the adopted child does,
but it is a mere obiter, and it cites a Family Code
provision that might have been repealed by the
Domestic Adoption Act.
Legitimate parents or ascendants
o Nearer exclude more remote. Parents exclude grandparents.
o Equal division by line. So paternal and maternal lines split by
half then divide between the parents.
Surviving spouse
o Before, in the Spanish Code, she cannot concur with LC; she
would only get usufructuary right over the property of the LC.
Now, she can concur, and is in fact always an heir. But her
share is variable.
o What kind of marriage is needed to become a SS?
Valid or voidable
o What is the effect of legal separation?
Final decree will disqualify the guilty spouse from
inheriting through compulsory, testamentary, or
intestate succession.
Unless there is reconciliation.
Lapuz v. Eufemio: If pending a case for legal
separation, one of the spouses dies, the action is
automatically extinguished and there will be no LS.
o What are the prerequisites to have the SS inherit only 1/3?
1. SS inherits alone
2. The marriage was in articulo mortis
3. Decedent dies within 3 months of the marriage
4. Couple did not live together for at least 5 years
5. The decedent was the one at the point of death
upon marriage
Illegitimate Children or descendants
o No more distinction between natural and spurious children.
o What if they concur with legitimate children?
Always get of one LCs share
Their share can be reduced pro rata if the shares
exceed 1 whole. They are less preferred than SS and
LC.
o What if they do not concur with legitimate children?
Variable shares. If with SS, then 1/3. If with IP, then
. Alone, collectively. If with LP and SS, then .
o What is the rule on representation?
The illegitimate children of an illegitimate child can
represent the latter. The illegitimate children of a
legitimate child cannot represent the latter.
Illegitimate Parents
o Excluded by BOTH legitimate and illegitimate children.
o No succession for illegitimate ascendants beyond IPs
Preterition (854)
What is preterition?
o Total omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line from the
inheritance.
o What is the mistake of the judge in Seangio?
He said that it is total omission from the will. It must
be total omission from the inheritance.
When is a compulsory heir completely omitted?
o When he gets nothing in the way of:
1. testamentary (institution of heir) disposition
2. legacy or devise
3. intestate succession
4. donation inter vivos
Dont forget donation inter vivos!
and he was not disinherited.
Why does it mention compulsory heirs in the direct line? Who is
a compulsory heir not in the direct line?
o The surviving spouse.
o So who is covered?
It can be LC, IC, and as circumstances apply, LP or
IP
o How do you determine who are the compulsory heirs?
Determine only at the time of death because that is
only when the rights to succession vest.
What if there is something is given but is insufficient?
o Remedy is completion of legitime (906)
What is the effect of preterition?
o Annulment of the institution of heir. But legacies and devises
are valid in so far as they are not inofficious.
o If there are no legacies or devises, the entire estate is thrown
open to intestacy.
Does the fact that an heir is not mentioned in the will mean that he
is preterited?
o No, if the will does not dispose of the entire estate. (Seangio)
If someone dies intestate, can there be preterition?
o No.
Does the fact that an heir is mentioned in the will mean he is not
preterited?
o Not always! [ex. there was no disposition in his favor]
X has two children, A and B. X made a will giving B of his
estate, and the other half to Ateneo. X did not give A anything by
way of donation inter vivos either. But A predeceased X. Is there
preterition?
o No. A predeceased. You only determine fact of preterition
upon death of testator. (J LT Agro)
[Same facts] A, however, had a son A1. A predeceased X still. Is
there preterition?
o Yes. But not of A, but of A1.
o Does it matter than A1 was born after the will was made?
It does not matter. The reckoning point is still time of
death of the testator, not time of making the will.
o What is the effect?
The entire estate is thrown open to intestacy because
there are no legacies or devises.
X said I will disinherit my son B because he took up law, not
medicine. Is this a valid disinheritance?
o No. It is not one of the grounds. It is rendered ineffective, and
therefore, there is no preterition.
[Same facts] But the second sentence now says, in addition, so
I give of my estate to Ateneo, and the other 1/2 to my brother Z.
What happens here?
o There was no preterition. So X will get his legitime because
the disinheritance is ineffective. The dispositions in favor of
Ateneo and Z are valid but inofficious, so these will just be
reduced but not rendered invalid. [Take note of this
scenario]
o Why does it become like this? Because preterition will only
apply when there is inadvertent omission from the will (without
the heir being expressly disinherited). An ineffective
disinheritance, thus only results into the heir being able to
demand his rightful share. Preterition does not vest.
Disinheritance (915-923)
What is the effect of disinheritance?
o Primary effect exclusion from the legitime
o Actual effect TOTAL exclusion of the heir from all manner of
succession: exclusion of the heir from the legitime and the
intestate portion, if any, and also from testamentary succession
is instituted in an earlier will.
Requisites?
o 1. Made in a will
Can you disinherit in a medium other than a will?
No. ONLY through a will.
o 2. Done for a cause specified by law.
o 3. Specify the cause
o 4. Must be unconditional
o 5. Must be total
o 6. Cause must true
o 7. If the truth of the cause is challenged, the truth of the cause
must be proved by the proponent
What is the policy of the law?
It is reluctant to grant disinheritance. This is
why the burden of proof is automatically with
the proponent of the will. The rebutting heir
is not tasked to prove the denial.
Take note of the following:
o 1. Some of the requisites require conviction by final judgment.
Example: Number 1. Mere attempt to take the life is
not enough; there must be conviction.
But some do not need final conviction, like
Maltreatment by word or deed
Living a dishonorable life
o 2. The grounds are exclusive.
o Self-study the grounds RFB
Is there representation in disinheritance?
o Yes, if the disinherited heir is a descendant.
o No, if the disinherited heir is an ascendant.
o N.B. representation does not apply to testamentary succession
(obviously).
How can disinheritance be lifted?
o Reconciliation between the parties.
o It may be oral, in writing, or by conduct (implied).
What is the effect of reconciliation?
o It removes the disinheritance.
o Does he recover legitime?
Definitely. The heir recovers his right to the legitime.
o Does he receive anything by intestate succession?
He recovers the right to the intestate portion, if there
is any left.
o Does it revive testamentary dispositions in a prior will?
Yes, unless it was revoked.
Unworthiness (1032-1040)
1032 enumerates causes for incapacity to succeed/unworthiness and
there is a close parallel with disinheritance. As with disinheritance,
there is need for final conviction for some, not for others, and one
requires exoneration.
First ground (actually three):
o 1. Abandonment of child
o 2. Inducement by parent for daughters to live a corrupt or
immoral life
o 3. Attempt against virtue of daughter
This article refers to unworthiness of compulsory heirs. Parents
who have abandoned their children. But what if the child is under
the authority of grandparents, will this apply?
o RFB thinks so. It should probably be ascendants who
abandon descendants.
Abandonment has no precise meaning. How do we understand it
here?
o When the parent/ascendant culpably neglects the support of
the child. Culpably means without justification.
o What about giving consent to adoption, is it
abandonment?
No. It is not a culpable act. It is encouraged by law.
Re: inducement. What about grandchildren/granddaughters?
What about grandsons?
o A liberal interpretation would include all these.
Attempt against virtue?
o This should include grandparents
o Does this need conviction?
No.
o What does attempt cover?
All stages of commission.
Also not limited to rape: it should cover other offenses
against chastity.
Are the grounds exclusive?
o Yup.
Do you need actual disinheritance?
o No. The law itself excludes the heir.
What is the extent of the disqualification?
o Total, like in disinheritance no compulsory, testamentary,
intestate
Is there representation here?
o Yes, in the same way as disinheritance. But again, it has to be
a descendant.
How does one set aside unworthiness?
o 1. Written condonation
o 2. Execution by offended party of a will with knowledge of the
cause of unworthiness
Why is the code stricter in unworthiness than disinheritance?
o This is an inconsistency, because there are many grounds
common between both unworthiness and disinheritance. This
happens when if the offended party avails himself of that
ground and actually disinherits.
o Ex. X is the son of Y. X attempts to take Ys life. A case for
frustrated parricide was filed, and he was convicted with final
judgment. It is a common ground in unworthiness and
disinheritance. So in this case, he is automatically unworthy.
But Y still disinherits X, which he can do. There is no problem
here; he is just double dead. But what if X and Y reconcile?
Y admitted X back into his house, and forgave him orally.
Under the rules on disinheritance, reconciliation is enough to
set aside the disinheritance. But because there is no written
pardon, the unworthiness persists.
o How do we resolve this?
Commentators like Tolentino say that it is the rules on
disinheritance that prevail, because disinheritance is
the express will of the aggrieved party. It should
prevail over unworthiness.
If the facts are the same but Y did not disinherit X,
unworthiness will apply. So there has to be a written
pardon.
D of child/des D of parent/as D of spouse Unworthiness
Attempt against
life
Attempt against
life
Attempt against
life
Attempt against
life
Accusation of
crime
Accusation of
crime
Accusation of
crime
Accusation of
crime
Adultery/conc. Adultery/conc. Adultery/conc.
Force to change
will
Force to change
will
Force to change
will
Force to change
will
Refuse to
support
Refuse to
support
Refuse to
support

Maltreatment by
word/deed

Dishonorable life
Crime with civil
interdiction

Abandoned,
induced to
corrupt life,
attempt v. virtue
Abandoned,
induced to
corrupt life,
attempt v. virtue
Loss of P.A. Loss of P.A.
Attempt by one
parent against
life of other

Cause for LS
Prevent from
making will or
revoking one
Falsification or
forgery of will

Representation
Definition of representation?
o Article 970.
o Comment on fiction of law?
This is unnecessary. It is a right created by law, after
all.
o Comment on the term representation?
Its a misnomer. Because what he gets in succession
belongs to him! He is actually subrogated.
When does representation apply?
o ONLY Predecease, Disinheritance, Unworthiness/incapacity
o There is no representation in renunciation
In what kinds of succession does representation operate?
o 1. Compulsory
o 2. Intestate
In what lines does representation obtain?
o N.B. In both compulsory and intestate succession there is a
direct line and a collateral line. The direct line you have the
ascending and descending. Collateral are not ascendants or
descendants, but are related to you up to the 5
th
degree.
o Representation operates ONLY in the descending direct
line. NEVER in ascending.
What is the rule on adopted children?
o Cannot represent nor be represented, because the legal
relationship in adoption is strictly between adopter and
adopted.
What is the rule on representation by illegitimate children?
o This is the iron curtain provision.
o An illegitimate child of a legitimate child cannot represent the
latter.
o An illegitimate child of an illegitimate child can represent the
latter.
o If the child is legitimate, he can obviously represent either
illegitimate or legitimate parent.
What is the rule on shares of the succeeding representatives?
o Since they are only stepping into the shoes of the person
represented, they could get unequal shares. Ex. A had 2
children, B had 3. Both A and B predecease their father, X.
The 2 children of A split As share by each and the 3
children of B split Bs share by 1/3 each.
o N.B. Take note that the rule changes when ALL, not just some,
of the children renounce. The grandchildren will inherit per
capita.
o What if all children predecease?
The grandchildren still inherit by representation, and
not per capita.
o IMPT. How does the rule change for the sole case of
representation in the collateral line?
A, B, and C are brothers and sisters of X. If A and B
predecease X, then the children of A and B inherit per
representation.
But if ALL of A, B, and C predecease the nieces and
nephews of X will inherit per capita. NOTE that this is
different because in the descending line, it will be still
succession by representation.
o Is it even relevant to talk about disinheritance or
unworthiness for collateral heirs?
Its not. You cannot disinherit a brother or sister
because hes not a compulsory heir.
o What if there is renunciation by all collateral heirs?
Same rule as direct line heirs: the nephews and
nieces will inherit per capita.
What are the 3 rules on qualification?
o 1. Representative must be qualified to succeed the decedent
(e.g. C must be qualified to represent A)
o 2. Representative need not be qualified to succeed the person
represented (e.g. C need not be qualified to succeed B)
o 3. The person represented need not be qualified to succeed
the representative (e.g. B need not be qualified to succeed C)
What is the difference between representation OF and BY a renouncer?
o Representation OF renouncer does not happen
o Representation BY renouncer can happen.
Illustrate this rule. ABC. C renounced Bs
inheritance. But C can represent B if B predeceases
A, because C is inheriting from A, not B.
Reserva troncal
What is Reserva Troncal?
o See Article 891
Whats the purpose of reserve troncal?
o To keep property or return property to the line of origin.
(Sanchez Roman view)
What are the requisites of RT?
o 1. Person acquires property from ascendant or brother/sister
through gratuitous title
o 2. Dies without legitimate issue
o 3. Inherited by another ascendant through operation of law
o 4. There are relatives within the 3
rd
degree of consanguinity
belonging to the line from where the property came
Why is the reserve troncal included in compulsory succession?
o The RT can limit the operation of the legitime
o If that part which is reservable passes as legitime, the law says
that it should pass with no burden. But if it passes as RT, it will
be under the burden of RT because the law says so.
o Its better to take it up as part of compulsory succession
because it can become an encumbrance on the legitime.
What are the two transmissions that have to take place?
o 1. By gratuitous title, from the origin to the prepositus
This can include donation or any kind of succession
o 2. By operation of law, from the prepositus to the reservista
ONLY compulsory or intestate succession
What if there is only one transmission?
o There is no RT. There have to be two transmissions for there
to be RT.
o Solivio: there was just one transmission from the mother to the
son, by donation. When the son died, he had no ascendants
at all or descendants either. Because there was no other
ascendant, the second transmission could not happen. The
closest relatives are two aunts, who are not ascendants.
Who are the parties in RT?
o But first, two basic rules:
1. All of these parties must be legitimate. If any of the
relationships is illegitimate, there can be no RT.
2. No further inquiry beyond the origin is required
o 1. The origin
Ascendant of prepositus, of any degree, of either line
Or brother/sister of prepositus, either full or half blood
If full blood, Manresa says yes. JBL says
no, because there is no possibility of the
property leaving the line. The ascendant
lines are common.
1

o 2. Prepositus
o 3. Reservista
Has to be a different ascendant from the origin
Must he be another ascendant from another line
or can it be same line?
If another line, no question he can be a
reservista. (Ex. F S M)
If same line (Ex. GF grandson F [same
line as grandfather, since he is the son of the
grandfather]), according to JBL, there is no
RT. According to Manresa and Sanchez-
Roman, there is an RT.
2

o 4. Reservatarios
They must be related within the third degree, in
relation to the prepositus
Of course exclude legitimate descendants, since if the
prepositus had decendants, there would have been
no RT
Who are these possible reservatarios?
Parent, grandparent, great grandparent
Brother, sister, nephew, nieces, uncles,
aunts
Note: in the situation that JBL seeks to exclude (but
Manresa favors), there is no need to make a
distinction since there is no change in lines.
When do you determine who the reservatarios?
When the reservista dies. They do not have
to exist when the prepositus dies.

1
The difference is explained by different theories. JBLs view is that RT is
curative or remedial; if it does not leave the line, no need for RT. Manresa
says that it is preventive, too the RT seeks to prevent the property from
leaving the line as well.
2
Again, the source of disagreement is a different in theories on nature and
purpose of RT. RFB leans towards Manresas and Sanchez Romans view.
If there are several, but of different degrees, how
do you determine who gets what?
Tolentino: Selection is made on preferential
basis, not integral and indiscriminate, as
Scaevola believed.
Apply the rules on intestate succession
(direct over collateral). Another rule of
intestacy that applies is representation of
nephews or nieces of brothers/sisters [so the
brothers/sisters do not exclude
nieces/nephews].
What is the consequence?
Gonzales: The reservista cannot choose, by
will who the reservatarios will be. The law
chooses for her.
Should the reservatario be related to the origin?
A1 and A2 have a child, B1. B1 is married to
B2, and have a child C. A1 donates property
to C. B1 died, when C dies, it goes to B2.
Thus, there is an RT here. When B2 dies,
A2 survives and claims the property as
reservataria (since she is related by 2
nd

degree to C, the prepositus).
MANRESA she is a reservataria, she
meets the purpose and requirements
SANCHEZ ROMAN she is not, because
you didnt return it to A1s line and A1s
relatives. A2 is not related .
So what is the majority view?
The reservatarios must be related by blood
to the origin.
This is not yet established by jurisprudence,
but this is a good view point.
What is the nature of the right of the reservista? (Edroso)
o 1. Right of ownership
o 2. Subject to the resolutory condition that there will be
reservatarios present upon the reservistas death
o 3. The right is alienable, subject to the same resolutory
condition
4. The right of ownership is registrable
What is the right of the reservatarios? (Sienes)
o 1. Right of expectancy
o 2. Subject to a suspensive condition, that there will be
reservatarios present upon the reservistas death
o 3. The right is alienable, subject to the same suspensive
condition
o 4. The right of expectancy is registrable
o Dont these two rights of registration conflict with each
other?
No. Theres only one title. The right of the reservista
is annotated as ownership; the right of the
reservatario is annotated as an encumbrance.
What kind of property can be reserved?
o Any type
What are the rights and obligations of the reservatarios and
reservistas?
o Reservista prepares inventory
o Right of reservatarios to annotate in case the reservista
alienates (within 90 days from acceptance by the reservista)
o Appraise the movables
o Secure by means of mortgage
o Registration is demandable Sumaya
What are the causes for extinguishment of RT?
o 1. Death of reservista (causes it to transfer)
o 2. Death of all the reservatarios
o 3. Renunciation by all the reservatarios, and none is born
subsequently
o 4. Total fortuitous loss of the property
o 5. Merger or confusion of rights
o 6. Prescription or adverse possession
TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION
In general
Testamentary succession can never impair the legitime
What is a will?
o An act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities
prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition
of his estate to take effect after his death
o Why is this inaccurate?
Act is too broad. Instrument is a better word.
What are the two kinds of wills?
o Holographic and attested/notarial
What are the three common requisites (first two, textual; one is
non-textual)?
o 1. It must be in writing (textual requirement)
o 2. Executed in a language or dialect understood by the
testator(textual requirement)
Is this rule mandatory?
Definitely.
So can the will be translated to the testator?
No. It must be written in a language known
to him. Do not confuse this with the
attestation clause, which can be translated.
Must the will state it was written in a language
known to the testator?
No. It can be shown by extraneous
evidence/evidence aliunde.
o 3. Testamentary capacity
Who can make a will?
Natural person (juridical person cannot make
a will)
Who are the two classes of disqualified persons?
Those below 18 years old
Those of unsound mind
Putting it positively, one must be a natural person 18
years old or above and of sound mind.
What must you know to establish a sound mind?
1. Character of estate
2. Proper objects of your body
3. Nature of the testamentary act
Is there a presumption?
Yes, a rebuttable presumption of
testamentary capacity
When is there no presumption?
o 1. If the testator, 1 month or less
before the making of the will, was
publicly known to be of unsound
mind
o 2. When the testator has been
placed under guardianship for
insanity
What is the presumption then?
o There is a presumption of insanity,
not just a presumption of sanity.
Again, this is rebuttable
A requirement is that the testator must sign the will and every page at
the left hand margin, except the last.
How can the testator usually sign?
o He writes his name
What are the other recognized ways?
o Affixing thumbmark (Matias v. Salud)
Is the thumbmark for the testator always a valid
way to sign the will?
Yes. Under all circumstances, even if not
infirm or ill.
o Is a cross allowed (Garcia v. Lacuesta)?
No, in general.
THE EXCEPTION: If that is his usual way of signing.
There are two ways of interpreting the word the end, where the
testators signature should be. What are these?
o 1. The physical end, where the writing stops
o 2. The logical end, if there are non-dispositive portions written
in the will
Must the signing always be at the left margin?
o No. It can be any margin.
o Why is there no requirement for marginal signing on the
last page?
Because it would be superfluous. He also signs at
the end.
The testator must sign in the presence of the witnesses. The
witnesses must also sign in the presence of the testator and of one
another. What does the law mean by in the presence?
o Nera: The requirement of presence does not mandate that the
person must actually see the other party signing; what is
required is that he could have seen, by casting his eyes in the
proper direction (without changing his physical position).
One of the options given to the testator is that he/she may ask
someone else to sign for him, provided some conditions are
present (1. Express direction; 2. In his presence).
o Should the testator be physically prevented from signing
or have any particular reason to get an agent?
No.
o What should the agent write?
He must write the testators name
It must be in the agents own handwriting
o Must the agent write his own name?
It is not required.
Must the attestation clause be signed?
o Yes.
o By whom?
The witnesses.
o What about the testator?
No. The attestation clause is purely an affair of the
witnesses.
Where should the witnesses sign the attestation?
o At the end of the attestation clause.
o Can they sign at the margin or elsewhere (beside)?
No. The attestation clause is deemed unsigned.
What must the attestation clause state?
o 1. Number of pages of the will
o 2. Fact that the testator signed the will and all the pages
thereof, or caused some other person to write his name under
his express direction, and in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses
o 3. That the witnesses signed the will and all the pages thereof
in the presence of the testator and of one another
Must the attested will bear a date?
o No.
o Why?
The certification of the acknowledgement will be
dated anyway.
o Who certifies?
The notary public as required by the notarial law.
Should a holographic will be dated?
o Yes.
What if the notary public acted outside his notarial jurisdiction?
o It is void and tantamount to not being notarized.
If the will was notarized by one of the witnesses, who was also a
notary public, will this make the will void?
o No, if there are three other witnesses apart from the notary.
o If there are less than three witnesses including him?
The will is void. There is a failure to meet the
required number of witnesses.
o But can a notary public be a witness?
Definitely. But the notary public cannot be counted as
a witness, and the witness cannot be the notary public
too. For the latter, you are undermining the notary
publics impartiality.
What is the requirement if the testator is blind?
o Two readings by the notary public and by one of the attesting
witnesses.
o Is this mandatory?
Yes. Non compliance makes the will void.
Should this mandatory nature extend to illiterate
deaf mutes?
Yes.
o Must the will or attestation clause mention compliance
with this mandatory requirement?
No. It can be established by extrinsic evidence.
o Garcia: The lawyer who assisted the testator read the will.
It was read only once. The lawyer, however, read it aloud
in the presence of the attesting witnesses and the notary
public, who had their own copies of the will. The testator
was also listening. Art. 808 was hence not complied with.
But is this valid?
This is valid, because there was substantial
compliance. The intent of the law was achieved to
prevent fraud upon the testator.
o Alvarado: Invalid because it was done by the lawyer who
drafted the will who read it aloud, so it wasnt even one of the
two parties enumerated. And he read it out loud only once.
Art 809 is the provision on substantial compliance with respect to the
attestation clause, which needs three things (# of pages, fact that the
testator signed at the end in the presence of the witnesses, and that the
witnesses did the same in the presence of the testator and of one
another). How strict must this be in light of Art. 809?
o In the code itself, there is no clear rule about how liberal
interpretation could be.
o Caneda: defect was failure to state that the witnesses signed
in the presence of the testator and of one another. HELD:
This was a fatal defect. Adopting JBL Reyess suggested
standard, it could not be remedied by visually examining the
will.
o Azuela: Deficiency was failure of the clause to state the
number of pages, which was left blank. HELD: valid omission,
because it can be supplied by a visual examination of the will.
Requirements of a Holographic will?
o Completely written, dated, and signed by the testator
o Roxas v. de J esus: Feb/61 was held as a sufficient date this
is a problematic decision. Fortunately, there was no other will
also made in Feb/61, which could have possibly repealed it. In
a very liberal decision, it was upheld.
o Where should the date be?
There was no mention where it should be. It could be
in the body.
o Can you sign by a thumbmark, as in an attested will?
Seems unlikely. It must be written by the hand not
a thumbmark. Though there is no jurisprudence on
this.
813-4 dispositions after the signature
o Some commentators say that this implies that the signature
must be at the bottom of the holographic will.
o If there is only one additional disposition, it must be written and
signed by the testator.
o If there are several, what is the rule?
1. Dated and signed
2. Or each additional disposition may be signed,
provided the last one is dated and signed
Kalaw v. Relova: Cancellation of the name of the original heir and
writing above it of the name of another heir invalid because it was not
validated, because it was not signed.
o But the court weirdly held that the cancellation was valid! But it
was not signed. This is an odd decision, because it had an
internal contradiction.
Rules on probate
Codicils and incorporation by reference (825 and 827)
o Article 825 defines a codicil. This is exam material. It assumes
the existence of a prior will. You cannot have a codicil without
a prior will. It can explain or alter the prior will.
o Sometimes its hard to determine whether it is a codicil or a
second will.
If it makes an independent disposition, it is a second
will.
If it alters, modifies, changes, it is a codicil.
o But honestly, this distinction is academic, because the
requirements of a codicil and a will are just the same.
o 827 An incorporated document. It is attached to a will and is
intended to explain. It cannot make a testamentary disposition
because otherwise, it has to comply with the requisites and
form of a will.
Requisites?
1. It must predate the will
2. It must be signed on every page by the
testator and witnesses, except if it is
voluminous
3. It must be clearly referred to in the will
4. It must referred to in probate as that
document
So since it requires witnesses, can you not have
an incorporated document with holographic wills?
Some say you cannot because there are no
witnesses. RFB says that you must interpret
it liberally, and since there are no witnesses,
then it just means its just the testator that
signs.
Two modes of testamentary succession:
o 1. Institution of an heir
o 2. Institution of devisee or legatee
What is the permissible form of instituting a successor, whether
heir, devisee, or legatee?
o Only thing required is that the identity of the successor is
adequately determined in the will. No need to mention by
name, as long as the successors identity is determinable.
I institute my brothers and sisters to of the share of my estate.
What does this mean?
o Siblings, whether legitimate, illegitimate, or half, inherit in equal
shares.
o This is different from intestacy, where whole, half, and
illegitimate siblings inherit in 2:1:0 ratio. (You cannot inherit
from your illegitimate sibiling)
What is the rule on statement of false causes on a will?
o In general, it is deemed not written.
o Unless it is shown that:
1. Cause must be false
2. It must be shown to be false
3. It must appear on the face of the will that the
testator would not have made the institution had he
known of the falsity of the cause
If heirs are given different fractions each, and the total is less than
the free portion, what happens? (852/3)
o The rest of the free portion goes into intestacy.
o But what if it is shown that the testator intended to
dispose the entire free portion?
If the disposition is less than the portion, you increase
proportionately. If more, you decrease
proportionately.
924-959 Legacies and devises
Some provisions are inaccurate. It is estate that is liable for legacies
and devises, not compulsory heirs as 925 says. You cannot charge the
compulsory heir for the legacies and devises. Exception: indirect legacy
929-937 outline:
o 1. General rule: you give away what your interest covers. No
more, no less. If you own the whole thing, you give the whole
thing.
Exception you can give more than you own. This
estate will attempt to acquire it, but if the estate fails,
the monetary equivalent is given.
Exception 2 you give less than you own.
o 2. Legacy or devise of a thing belonging to another under the
ff rules, you can:
A) if the testator gives an order to acquire it, the
estate tries. If the owner refuses to sell, the estate
gives the monetary equivalent.
B) If the testator wrongfully believed he owned the
thing, the disposition is void.
Exception if subsequent to making the
disposition, the testator acquires the thing
gratuitously or onerously.
If he knew he did not own it, but did not order for its
acquisition there is an implied order to acquire.
o 3. The legacy or devise of a thing already belongs to the
devisee or legatee
If a thing given already belongs to the legatee or
devisee, the disposition is void
Subsequent alienation is not validated,
unless as Manresa says, the alienation is to
the testator himself
If the thing belongs to somebody else when the will
was made, and he erroneously believed it belong to
him, and later, the legatee or devisee acquired the
thing
It is still void, because the testator was in
error
If the testator knew it did not belong to him,
and the thing was acquired onerously by the
devisee/legatee, the estate pays
o Except if acquired gratuitously,
then there is nothing else to be
done
If the thing was owned by the testator at the making of
the will, but the legatee/devisee acquired the thing
from the testator after, the disposition is void
(because subsequent disposition, even to the
recipient himself, renders the legacy/devise useless)
o 4. Legacy/devise directing the estate to remove the
encumbrance of property of another the estate pays for it
Pledge/mortgage estate must pay for it first
Any other kind of encumbrance like easement or
encumbrance passes with the things
o 5. Legacy of credit or remission
i.e. giving to the recipient the debt owed to me by
another person effective as to remaining debt owed
upon the testator when he dies
If the testator sues after making the disposition
ipso facto the legacy is revoked. Mere filing revokes
the disposition. Extrajudicial demand does not revoke
the disposition. It must be a complaint for collection.
If generic, on the debts existing when the disposition
was made. Ex. X owed Y 2 debts in 1999. Y, in his
will, gave Z the debts X owed Y. X owed Y 3 more
debts in 2001. Y died. What debts transfer?
Just the 2 existing when the will was made.
What is the order in 950 for reduction?
o 1. Remuneratory
o 2. Preferred
o 3. Legacy for support
o 4. Education
o 5. Specific
o 6. All other, pro rata
What is the rule in 911?
o 1. Reduce pro rata non-preferred legacies and devises
o 2. Reduce pro rata preferred legacies and devises
When do you use which?
o If the reason for reduction is impairment of legitimes, use Rule
in 911.
o If the reason for reduction is something else, use Rule 950.
o What other reasons could exist?
A testator has no compulsory heirs, but he gave away
too many legacies and devises, by sheer
mathematical necessity. Rule 950 is followed.
Or maybe the testator already covered for the
compulsory heirs legitimes through donations inter
vivos, so the remaining parts are all free portion.
When is a legacy or devise without effect?
o 1. Transformation
Converted the thing
o 2. Alienation
Either onerous or gratuitous, and even if the thing
reverts to the testator
Exceptions?
1. Reversion was caused by annulment of
alienation because there was vitiated
consent
2. Reversion due to redemption in a pacto de
retro sale
o 3. Total loss before the testators death
Rules common to heirs, legatees, and devisees
Capacity to succeed:
o In fact, the basic rules are common to all kinds of succession
(Alive + qualified to succeed at the time succession opens.
There is no exception here.)
Art 1025 The heir, legatee, or devisee must be living when the
testator dies. There is NO exception, contrary to what this provision
suggests.
o Representation is not an exception because the representative
must at least be conceived already.
o For juridical persons, it must exist juridically when the testator
dies.
1027 First 5 paragraphs are important because they enumerate
instances where one is incapacitated to succeed in testamentary
succession. It does not apply to other kinds of succession.
o Just memorize this list:
1. Priest who head confession of testator during last
illness or minister of gospel extending spiritual aid in
this period. Requisites:
A. Will executed during last illness
B. Spiritual ministration extended during last
illness
C. Will executed during or after the spiritual
ministration
2. Relatives of priest/minister within 4
th
degree or his
institution
3. Guardian, from ward before final accounts of
guardianship approved
Except if guardian is A/D/sibling/spouse
4. Attesting witness to the execution of a will, spouse,
parents, children, or anyone claiming under that
witness, spouse, parent, or children
Put in the exception, where there are three
other competent witnesses to the will, under
here too
5. Physician or health officer who took care of the
testator during last illness
o Take note especially for the priest and the doctor.
1028 only applies to testamentary succession: extend to prohibited
donations in 739
1032 disqualifications these are general; these bar the DQ heir from
compulsory, testamentary, or intestate succession
Substitutions
857-870 Substitutions. You cannot have substitution in compulsory
and intestate succession.
What are the two kinds of substitutions?
o 1. Vulgar
o 2. Fideicomissary
o The code seems to enumerate two more:
1. Reciprocal
2. Compendious
(Several heirs one substitute)
but these actually are just variations. They go into
mode.
What is substitution vulgar?
o Instituting an heir in default of the one instituted
Predecease, incapacity, renouncement
o How do you make it?
Enumerate all the three causes
o Can you restrict vulgar to 1 or 2 grounds?
Yes. Just specify.
What are the requisites for fideicomissary?
o 1. First heir takes the inheritance
o 2. Second heir takes the thing after tenure of the first heir
o 3. The second heir must be one degree from the first heir
What does first degree mean?
It refers to relationship.
o 4. The first heir must have absolute obligation to preserve and
transmit
o 5. Both heirs are alive and capacitated at the death of the
testator
What is the tenure of the first heir?
o What is specified by the testator
o If not specified, it is the lifetime of the testator
Does the first heir have a right to alienate?
o NO. This rule is unlike the reserve troncal.
Conditions, terms, modes
These all burdens in succession, especially since the testator has free
disposal of his property.
What are the types of conditions?
o Suspensive
o Resolutory
What are the special rules on suspensive conditions?
o An impossible condition (873) considered not imposed. The
disposition is valid and becomes pure.
o What about condition not to contract first marriage?
ALWAYS considered not written
o What about subsequent marriages?
Generally void, unless imposed by the deceased
spouse or the latters ascendants/descendants
o BUT what is allowed is to impose a usufruct or some personal
prestation as long as one remains unmarried or a widow is
valid.
o A disposition on condition that the heir/legatee/devisee
must also in turn make a disposition in favor of the
testator or another person?
The entire disposition is void. Take note of this. The
purpose is to prevent the whole system from being
corrupt.
When does a suspensive condition take effect?
o If both conditions exist: 1) the heir is alive when the testator
dies, 2) the heir is alive when the condition happens
What happens while waiting for the suspensive condition to
happen?
o Place the property under administration of
executor/administrator
What is the difference between a term and condition?
o A term is certain, a condition is not.
What are the two types of terms?
o Suspensive term
o Resolutory term
When does an institution based on a term vest?
o A disposition with a term vests upon the death of the testator,
unlike a conditional disposition (esp. suspensive) which only
vests upon the happening of the condition. Since a term is
certain to happen, it follows the general rule in 777 that it vests
upon death.
So must the heir be alive when the term arrives?
No. Just when the testator dies.
So he can transfer his vested right upon his
own successors.
What do you do as you wait for a suspensive term to arrive?
o Governed by 885. While you wait for the term to arrive, you
give it to the legal heirs (intestate heirs).
For resolutory terms?
o After the testators death, you give it to the instituted heirs, and
when the term arrives, they turn it over to the legal heirs.
A condition suspends, but not obligates. A term obligates, but does not
suspend. A term does not delay the efficacy of the disposition, but it
places an obligation upon the instituted heir (even suspensive, since the
instituted heirs have an obligation to turn the property over to the
instituted heir when the term arrives).
What is a mode?
o You have to do something alongside the disposition.
What if the heir fails or refuses to perform the act required?
o The beneficiary can ask for the performance of the obligation.
o The legal heirs can ask for the forfeiture of the disposition.
How must a mode be stated?
o It must be a clear command, not just a request.
When is a caucion muciana needed?
o 1. In a potestative suspensive condition (879)
It is under the sole control of the heir (ex. I give X my
house and lot, as long as he doesnt use it as a drug
den. In order to guarantee that the legal heirs, who
will then be entitled to the property upon violation of
the condition, then X has to put up a bond the
caucion muciana).
o 2. Resolutory term, before the term arrives
The legal heirs have the right to enjoin disposition of
the property, but they have to put up a caucion
muciana
o 3. In case of a mode (882)
As security for compliance with the testators wishes
Accretion (1015-23)
To which kinds of succession does it apply?
o Applies only to testamentary and intestate succession.
Requisites?
o 1. Two or more heirs, legatees, devisees, called to the same
inheritance or portion thereof pro indiviso
What does pro indiviso here mean?
Some commentators say they must have
equal shares (like Tolentino), but this is
wrong. Theres no requirement of equality,
just as long as they have aliquot shares.
This means even the shares can be unequal.
There is no accretion is the shares are
earmarked.
o 2. One or more must predecease the testator, become
incapacitated, or renounce the inheritance.
X gives his BPI account to A, Citibank account to B, PNB to C. C
predeceases. Is there accretion?
o No. The shares are earmarked.
X gives of his estate to A, 1/3 to B, 1/6 to C. C predeceases. Is
there accretion?
o Yes, because they got aliquot shares. A and B receive Cs
shares according to the proportion they received their shares.
In testamentary disposition, what wins out, accretion or
substitution?
o Substitution
In intestate disposition, what wins out, accretion or
representation?
o Representation, when proper
Revocation of wills (828-834)
There is no such thing as an irrevocable will. It only becomes
irrevocable when the testator dies.
What are the three ways of revoking a will, whether total or partial?
o 1. By operation of law
Legal separation (offending party is instituted as a
beneficiary in a will)
Preterition
Where the testator disposes property that is given as
legacy or devise in a will (the legacy/devise is
revoked)
o 2. Subsequent will/codicil
1. The will must comply with the requirements of wills
2. Testamentary capacity
3. Either an express revocatory clause or
incompatibility in the dispositions
4. The will must be admitted to probate
o 3. Physical destruction
Either by the testator personally or in the case of
attested wills, it can be done by his agent acting
under his express direction and in his presence
Molo: There must be both a) corpus (actual
destruction), and b) animus (intent)
What if the revocation was unauthorized?
o If it is an attested will, it can be proved, if there are people
available who can attest to the contents of the will
o If it is a holographic will, too bad if no copies survive. Theres
no way of probating it.
Republication and revival
835 and 836 are inconsistent with each other.
Republication/revival is giving efficacy to a will which somehow lost its
efficacy?
o Ex. it has been revoked, and now you want to revive it.
If it is defective as to form?
o You have to reproduce it in the form of a valid will or codicil.
o You cannot revive it by reference.
What if it is inoperative by some other reason other than form?
o You can merely revive it by reference.
Executors and administrators (1058-1060)
What if the decedent dies with a will? With no will?
o It has to be probated, and if the will has appointed someone to
take care of the estate, then he becomes the executor.
o If there is none appointed or no will, then the court appoints an
administrator.
Probate
Two aspects of validity of a will?
o Formal (Extrinsic validity)
including capacity of witnesses
o Substantive (intrinsic validity)
Ex. impairment of legitimes, preterition, capacity of
heirs, legality or possibility of conditions
What is probate?
o Mandatory proceeding to determine only the formal validity of
the will
o There is no substitute for probate.
o Guevarra v. Guevarra, Seangio v. Reyes, Heirs of Lasam:
All lay down the rule that probate is mandatory.
Probate is determinative or conclusive of the validity and due execution
of the will.
How does it become final?
o Just like any decision of court.
o Once it becomes final, it becomes res judicata it becomes
unassailable as to matters of form of the will.
o Even if the decision is wrong.
What cannot be assailed after finality of probate decree?
o 1. Testamentary capacity
o 2. That he acted freely
o 3. Followed all the requirements of the will, as to witnesses,
etc.
o 4. It is genuine and not forged
For probate of holographic wills, what must one remember?
o 1. You have to present the will itself (Gan v. Yap)
Except there is a photocopy that survives (Rodella v.
Aranza)
o 2. If the holographic will is contested as probate, three
witnesses who can identify the will and attest to its validity
must be presented.
Is this mandatory?
The leading case of Azaola says that it is
only directory
Godoy: Says that it is mandatory, although it
is criticized
When is it deemed contested?
If it is challenged as a forgery. If it is
admitted as genuine but admitted on other
grounds such as mistake, fraud, or duress, it
is not a contest under 811 and you do not
need three witnesses.
Conflicts rules
Substantive validity?
o Time law as of time of death
o Place law of citizenship of decedent
Formal validity?
o There are always five choices:
o 1. Law of citizenship
o 2. Philippine law
o 3. Law of residence
o 4. Law of place of execution
o 5. Law of domicile
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
In general
What is intestate succession?
o Takes place by operation of law in default of a valid will
Look at the instances in 960 where total or partial intestacy occur.
What are the principles of intestacy?
o Exclusion and concurrence, just like compulsory succession
What is the rule of relationship?
o The intestate heir must be related to the decedent
o Jus familiae (ascendant/descendant)
o Jus sanguinis (collaterals up to fifth degree)
o Jus xxx (husband and wife)
o Jus imperii (decedent and State)
Just familiae and sanguinis requires blood relationship. What is
the exception?
o Legally adopted children and legally adoptive parent
What are the limits?
o Going down, there is no limit
o Going up, there is no limit
o Collateral line, the limit is up to the fifth degree
How do you count degrees?
o For direct line, count degrees
o For collaterals, count up to the nearest ancestor
2
nd
brothers, sisters
3
rd
nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts
And so on
Rule of preference of lines?
o Direct excludes collaterals
o As a general rule, descending excludes ascending
Except: legitimate ascendants not excluded by
illegitimate descendants
o Is there representation in the direct line?
Yes, only in the descending
o Collateral nearer excludes more remote
o Is there representation if the collateral line?
Nephews and nieces exclude predeceased or
unworthy brothers/sisters of decedent
What is the nature of the spouse?
o Concurs with both direct and collateral (up to third degree)
What is the rule of proximity of degree?
o Nearer exclude the more remote
o What is the exception?
Representation (see above direct descending and
nephews/nieces only for collateral)
What is rule of equality of relatives of the same degree?
o Relatives of equal degree inherit equally
o Exceptions?
1. Preference of lines
ex. legitimate direct descendant of 1 degree
excludes legitimate direct ascendant of 1
degree
2. In collateral relationships, full blood and half-blood
distinction
Siblings
Nephews and nieces
3. Representation
See the combinations in the book.
Can the adopted succeed to his biological parents?
o This is the same problem as in compulsory succession so see
the discussion above.
Combinations 2 and 4 in the book are dangerous, so take note that
here (children and illegitimate children) each legitimate child gets
double what the illegitimate children will get. What is the usual
pitfall?
o If you observe the 2:1 ratio intestacy, remember that you still
have the legitimes. You might end up impairing the legitime of
the legitimate children, which cannot be impaired. The
illegitimate children can suffer impairment if there are a lot of
them, but never the legitimate children.
o This problem doesnt apply in any other instance apart from
these two cases.
What is the successional bar?
o 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.
o Manuel v. Ferrer: Article 1006 [?] applies as an exception if
both are [something like if both are illegitimate. I spaced
out]
Situations to take note of:
o In case of the concurrence of the SS and 1 LC, the SS will get
, and the LC gets .
o SS, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces SS gets , brothers
sisters nephews nieces get .
According to the rules of division.
o Nephews and nieces concurring with aunts/uncles of the
decedent nephews and nieces exclude the aunts/uncles
even if they are in the same degree.
What is the difference in rules for brothers/sisters in testate and
intestate succession?
o TESTACY: Difference in the rule of brothers and sisters if
they are instituted indiscriminately, they receive equal shares
whether full or half blood.
o INTESTACY: Take note of the 2:1 ratio [for full and half blood]
and the successional bar.
Is partial intestacy possible?
o Yes, there is a will but it doesnt dispose of the entire free
portion.
Give an example of the difference between total and partial
intestacy.
o Full intestacy:
Legitimes to LC, to SS
Thus, to LC, to SS (entire free portion went to
the SS)
o Partial intestacy: Ex. I gave 1/8 of my estate to Ateneo.
Note that the legitimes are to LC, to SS.
to legitimate children, 1/8 to Ateneo, 3/8 to spouse
Note: the entire remaining free portion of 1/8 went to
the SS.
Acceptance and repudiation of the inheritance (1041-57)
Acceptance and repudiation are always free acts. A person may always
accept or reject, whether compulsory, testatamentary, intestate.
Exception: accion pauliana
o If there are creditors and the decedent does not have enough
property to pay the creditors, the creditors can compel the heir
to accept to the extent of the credit
What is the difference in form?
o Laxer rules in acceptance, and stricter rules in renouncement,
because it is prejudicial
There is need for judicial approval for renouncement
of incapacitated person. For acceptance, no need.
o Acceptance there can be express acceptance in writing, oral,
or there can be tacit acceptance (by doing nothing).
o Renouncement you have to do it in writing or by judicial
approval.
Partition
What is the effect upon death of the decedent?
o The immediate effect of death is the vesting of successional
rights. But at this point, nobody knows what part of the estate
goes to whom.
o The heirs co-own the mass of properties.
You have to collate:
o 1. Inventory
What results are his gross assets
o 2. Deduct debts
This is where the Santibanez and Hemady doctrines
come in. The estate, after all pays money debts, prior
to the heirs receiving their shares.
What results: available assets
o 3. Add the value of donations inter vivos
Net hereditary estate results.
What if the recipients of the donations are the
compulsory heirs?
You impute against their legitimes what they
have received as donations inter vivos.
What if the recipients of the donations are
strangers?
You impute it against the free portion.
What if the donation to the compulsory heir
exceeds his legitime?
The excess is taken out of the free portion
What if the free portion can accommodate all
those donations?
You take it all out from there
Does collation mean you have to physically obtain the assets?
o No. Collating means a purely mathematical computation.
If he died with a will and the free portion cannot accommodate all
the dispositions?
o Reduce testamentary dispositions
o First to be reduced are the non preferred testamentary
dispositions
After reducing them to zero, what if the legitimes are still
impaired?
o Reduce the donations to strangers or donations to compulsory
heirs considered strangers
o How do you reduce?
NOT pro rata but in reverse order. The latest
donation gets reduced first.
Afterwards, the heirs can agree on a partition or go to settlement
proceedings. Partition here is the physical division of the estate.

OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
Trends in Obligations and Contracts:
1. Obligations have been progressively spiritualized
o There is very little requirement as to form. Upon meeting of
the minds, in general, there is a K.
2. The principle of autonomy of will, which is still the general rule in K
law, has been restricted.
o There are prohibited obligations from being entered into
o Art. 1306 Contracting parties may establish clauses and
terms as they may deem convenient
Provided they are not contrary to law, morals, public
order, good customs, or public policy
There are five categories of restrictions. They restrict
freedom but promote the greater good.
Ex. labor contract with consideration less than the
minimum wage.
Ex. Those that violate environmental considerations,
social justice, gender issues, etc.
3. Mitigation of the principle that the debtor must answer with all his
property
o Before: you enter into a K and the creditor can pursue all your
properties to exact fulfillment of the obligation
o Now: In the interest of social justice, there are many things that
the creditor cannot levy upon, although the principle is still
good the creditor can pursue the property of the debtor to
exact fulfillment of the obligation
o In the Rules of Court, there is a list of properties exempt from
attachment, for instance:
1. The Family Home
2. What you receive from support
Etc.
4. Weakening of the principle that liability results from responsibility
o In general, under the law, you are only liable if you are
responsible. Ex. if you are guilty of driving recklessly.
o Ex. employer can be responsible for employees wages if not
paid
5. Unity in modern legislation
o This is especially important in global commerce
o Ex. Bills of Lading, Trust Receipts, Intellectual Property, etc.
Essential requisites of obligations
What are the requisites of obligations?
o Four generally accepted requisites:
o 1. Active subject
A.K.A. Creditor (to give) or obligee (to do)
Has right to demand that the obligation be performed
o 2. Passive subject
A.K.A. Debtor or obligor
Has to perform the obligation (reciprocal obligations)
Note: In a sale of a thing, both parties are
debtors and creditors of each other, with
correlative obligations (as to the thing; and
as to the money)
o 3. Object
o 4. Vinculum juris
For both the active and passive subject, what is required?
o They must be determined or determinable.
What are the types of determined/determinable subjects?
o 1. Obligations where subjects are completely and absolutely
determined at the birth of the obligation
Most common type
o 2. One of the parties is determined, but one is determinable
with a previously-established criterion
Ex. Negotiable instrument: I promise to pay X or
order the amount of P5000, on November 15, 2011.
One of the parties, i.e., me, is determined. The other
is determinable, because X can negotiate it. The
instrument lays down the criterion.
o 3. Subject/s is/are determined in accordance with their relation
to a thing. (Real contracts)
The subject/s may change at the thing passes from
one person to another.
Ex. X borrowed 3M from Y, and placed his house and
lot as security. There is a K of loan and a K of
mortgage, which is registered. X sold his house and
lot to Z, who registered the property in her name. The
mortgage in favor of Y is still annotated. X doesnt
pay by the due date. Y sought to foreclose the
mortgage, and Z cannot deny the mortgage, because
Z is the mortgagor now.
What is the object of the obligation?
o Its the prestation. It consists of conduct or an activity to be
performed by the debtor or obligor.
o Its not the physical thing to be delivered in an obligation to
give. That is merely the object of the prestation.
o Ex. Y has to deliver a car to X on Feb 15, 2011. The object of
the obligation of sale is the act of delivering to X the ownership
the car (tradition). The car is the object of the prestation.
o This distinction is, not, however always observed even by the
NCC.
o What are the requisites for the prestation?
1. Licit
Cannot enter into contract of sale for shabu,
because the object of the prestation is illicit.
2. Possible
Cannot deliver Mount Apo
3. Determinate or determinable
Cannot enter into a K with no defined
prestation
4. With pecuniary value
What is the vinculum juris?
o The compulsive element; the obligatory element in an
obligation. It makes an obligation an obligation.
o This is why an obligation dependent solely on ones will is void.
o Ex. X tells Y, I will sell my car to you when I feel like it. Here,
there is no obligatory force.
Yu v. Asuncion: Enumerated requisites of an obligation.
o 1. Vinculum juris, the efficient cause of the obligation
o 2. The object (prestation/conduct to be observed)
o 3. Subject persons, the active and passive subject
Combined #s 1 and 2 into one.
What is the fifth element, according to Castan?
o The causa. It is the why of the contract.
o Ex. Why is Y bound to deliver the car to X? Because X will
deliver P400000 to Y. Why is X bound to give P400000 to X?
Because Y will deliver the car to X.
o What is the causa for a gratuitous contract?
Liberality.
o What is the causa for a quasi-delict?
Causing an injury to the other.
What is the sixth requisite?
o The form. But it does not refer to a specific form, like putting it
in writing. It refers to the outward or external manifestation of
the obligation.
Sources of obligations
Art 1157 Obligations arise from:
o 1. Law
o 2. Contracts
o 3. Quasi-contracts
o 4. Crimes
o 5. Quasi-delicts
Arts. 1158-62 regulate these five sources
Is this list exclusive?
o Sagrada Orden v. NACOCO: The Japanese during the war
seized the Sagrada Ordens property during the war. Upon
liberation, the US seized enemy property, which included
Sagradas property. The US entered into a custodianship
agreement with NACOCO. Sagrada Orden wanted to collect
rentals from NACOCO. Issue: is there an obligation to pay
rentals to Sagrada? HELD: No obligation to pay rentals. The
court, to arrive at this answer, the court looked at the five
sources of obligations there was no contract, quasi-delict, no
provision of law that requires payment of rental, crime, or
quasi-contract. The implication the court forwarded is that this
is a closed list.
But is it, really? Or should it, really?
o Many commentators believe it is not exclusive.
What are the other obligations?
o Public offer is a sixth source of obligation, for instance
(auslobung in the German code or the unaccepted offer). A
person who by public notice advertises an award in exchange
for a particular result is bound to grant this award.
Ex. Proctor and Gamble announces on TV: For 30
wrappers of Tide, you get a glass imported from
Switzerland. Offer good until Feb 28, 2011 only! X
saw this advertisement, and on Feb 27, 2011,
presents 30 wrappers to the P&G office. Issue: is
there an obligation here? Held: yes. There is a public
offer here.
Ex. X left his important papers inside a cab. X
advertised that whoever returns his papers will get a
P20000 reward. There is a public offer here.
Some commentators say there are only two sources: law and contract.
Some say: laws and acts of persons (whether voluntary or involuntary).
What is the nature of a contract as a source of obligation?
o What the contracting parties establish has the force of law
between them, and must be complied with in GF. They are
free to enter into any contract, provided the stipulations do not
violate Art. 1306. In general, there is no specific form needed.
o How must compliance be done?
1. It must be complied with according to its terms (ius
civile pacta sunt servanda)
2. And according to good faith (ius gentium bona
fide).
[ABSENT ONE SESSION]
Got into a car accident with a bus. Who do you sue? What are
your options?
o 1. Bus driver
o 2. Bus company
o 3. Sue both because theyre joint tortfeasors, and thus
solidarily liable
Do you have to prove negligence when you sue under quasi-
delict?
o Yes, you have to prove negligence of the bus driver. It is not
presumed.
Do you also have to prove the negligence of the bus company?
o Yes, in the selection and supervision of the bus driver. (Culpa
in eligiendo, culpa in vigilando)
o This is a rebuttable/disputable presumption.
As opposed to conclusive and quasi-conclusive
presumptions
In a situation where damage or injury is caused to a party, and
there is a contract between him and the person who caused the
damage, there is no question he can sue under contract. But can
he also sue under quasi-delict?
o There is an old line of SC decisions in this country which says
that you cannot sue under quasi-delict if there is a contract.
There is some basis for this, because Art. 2176 says that the
act or omission must occur when there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties.
o There is, however, the theory of concentric circles (the smaller
circle of contract is always within the bigger circle of quasi-
delict). So if you sue under quasi-delict, you are disregarding
the contract between the parties. This is valid.
o You can sue under quasi-delict if it is the tort breaches the
contract. If an act that constitutes breach of contract would in
itself constitute the source of a quasi-delictual liability had there
been no contract, then there is breach of contract through tort.
o So you can choose to sue under quasi-delict or contract.
Theory of vicarious liability:
o If you sue under quasi-delict and you choose to sue the
company and not the employee, you are really suing under Art.
2180.
o This is actually a wrong term because vicarious means you are
answering for the liability of someone else.
o But the theory under 2180 is that the company/employer itself
is negligent as well.