Jen Succession Reviewera

SUCCESSION REVIEWER SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 1
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
Based on Jottings and Jurisprudence on the Law on
Succession by Prof. Balane and Cases according to the
200 Syllabus of Justice !ofile"a
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
ART. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisiion !"
#i$ue of %&ic& &e '$o'e$"( $i)&s and
o!*i)aions o &e e+en of &e #a*ue of &e
in&e$iance( of a 'e$son a$e $ansmied
&$ou)& &is dea& o ano&e$ o$ o&e$s ei&e$
!" &is %i** o$ !" o'e$aion of *a%.
The Code has simplified the concept of succession and
treats it simply as one of the 7 Modes of Acquiring
Ownership as enumerated in Art712 of the NCC.
7 ,O-ES O. AC/0IRING O1NERSHIP
1. Occupation
2. ntellectual Creation
!. "aw
#. $onation
%. &state and ntestate 'uccession
(. Tradition
7. )rescription
O*erlap of Codal $efinition with Art77(
Article 77# tal+s of ,property- rights and o.ligations
to the e/tent of the *alue of the inheritance.0
Article 77( tal+s of the ,inheritance0 as including
,all the property- rights and o.ligations of a person
which are not e/tinguished .y his death.0
1or clarity and .etter correlation- )rof. 2alane
opines that Art77# should rather read3
Successon s a mode of acquston by
vrtue of whch the nhertance of a person
s transmtted through hs death to another
or others ether by hs w or by operaton of
aw.
And the inheritance which is transmitted through a
person4s death is defined .y Article 77( to include
5hat are Transmitted .y 'uccession6
Only Transmissi.le 7ights and O.ligations.
8eneral 7ule 9 if the right or o.ligation is strictly
personal :intuitu personae;- it is intransmissi.le<
otherwise it may .e transmitted.
7ule 7egarding )ecuniary O.ligations
A literal construction of Art77# appears to imply
that money o.ligations of the deceased would pass
to the heirs- to the e/tent that they inherit from him.
'eemingly- this article mandates that the
heirs recei*e the estate- and then pay off
the creditors.
=owe*er- )hilippine procedural law- as influenced
.y the common>law system- lays down a different
method for the payment of money de.ts- as found
in 7ules ?? to @A of the 7ules of Court. I is on*"
A.TER &e de!s a$e 'aid &a &e $esidue of
&e esae is dis$i!ued amon) &e successo$s.
7ule @A- 'ec1 pro*ides for the 5hen the Order for the
$istri.ution of 7esidue is made.
According to the rule- when the de.ts- funeral
charges and e/penses of administration- the
allowance to the widow and the inheritance ta/
ha*e all .een paid- that is the only time that the
court shall assign the 7&'$B& of the estate to
persons entitled to it.
The rule also pro*ides that there shall .e no
distri.ution until the payment of the o.ligations
enumerated a.o*e- ha*e .een made or pro*ided
for. =owe*er- if the distri.utees gi*e a .ond for the
payment of the said o.ligations within such time
and of such amount as fi/ed .y the court- the
distri.ution may .e allowed.
In ou$ s"sem &e$efo$e( mone" de!s a$e( '$o'e$*"
s'ea2in)( no $ansmied o &e &ei$ no$ 'aid !"
&em. T&e esae 'a"s &em and i is on*" %&a is
*ef afe$ &e de!s a$e 'aid 3$esidue4 &a a$e
$ansmied o &e &ei$s.
Custice C2" 7eyes o.ser*ed that )hilippine rules of
'uccession Mortis Causa proceed from an imperfect
.lending of ! 'ystems with Contrasting )hilosophies 9
#. $%&'()*C C+)C%P, +- .)*/%&S(L !%*&
=eir directly and immediately steps into
the shoes of the deceased upon the latter4s
death
At one single occasion :uno ictu;
5ithout need of any formality
&n mass
Automatic 'u.Decti*e No*ation
2. -&()C+0SP()*S! S1S,%'
Acquisition of estate .y uni*ersal title .ut
only upon acceptance .y the heir at any time-
with retroacti*e effect.
Acceptance may .e made any time
e/cept when the creditors or the court
requires it .e done within a certain time.
This is the system followed .y the NCC-
.y ha*ing the following features3
aE Bni*ersality of )roperty 7ights and
O.ligations
.E Transmitted from the moment of
death
cE &n .loc- as an entire mass
Jen Laygo 3D Jen Laygo 3DDgests c/o 3C 06-07: Avn Saga, Cece Natvdad, C| Tan, |ue Domngo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nna Rances &
Ryan Ouan 1 1
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
dE Transmitted e*en .efore Dudicial
recognition of heirship.
2. ()$L+0('%&*C() 3C+''+) L(45 S1S,%'
&state must first .e liquidated- assets
marshaled and the de.ts paid or settled
under Dudicial super*ision- .y an inter*ening
trustee or personal representati*e
:administrator or e/ecutor; .efore the net
residue is ta+en o*er .y the successor.
This is the system followed .y the 7ules
of Court- in that3
aE &/ecutor or administrator has
possession and management of the
estate as long as necessary for the
payment of de.ts and e/penses of
administration- with authority to e/ercise
the right of disposition.
.E 'ection ! 7ule ?7 9 action to reco*er
title or possession of lands in the hands
of the e/ecutor or administrator can .e
maintained .y the heir only upon the
order of the Court assigning such land to
the heir or de*isee.
cE 'ection 1 7ule @A 9 heirs may
reco*er their share only upon3
)ayment of de.ts- e/penses
and ta/es
=earing conducted .y the court
Court assigns the residue of the
estate to the heirs.
As a result of the .lending of these ! systems- C2"
7eyes says that we are thus faced with di*ergent- if not
contradictory principles.
$o the successors acquire the 5=O"& of the
transmissi.le assets and lia.ilities of the decedent6
Art77# 9 .y *irtue of succession the
property- rights and o.ligations- to the
e/tent of the *alue of the inheritance of a
person- are transmitted .y and at the
6o6ent of his death- implying a transfer
at that instant of the totality or uni*ersality
of assets and lia.ilities.
$o the successors only acquire the 7&'$BBM
remaining after payment of the de.ts- as implied .y
the 7ules of Court6
Art1A%7 9 within !A days after the court
has issued an order for the distribution of
the estate in accordance with the 7oC-
the heirs- de*isees and legatees shall
signify to the court ha*ing Durisdiction-
whether they accept or repudiate the
inheritance.
The order of distri.ution under the 7oC is
issued only after the de.ts- ta/es and
administration e/penses ha*e .een paid<
hence it is argua.le that the acceptance
can no longer refer to assets already
disposed of .y the administrator- .ut must
.e limited to the net residue.
2ut if title *ests in the heir as of the death
of the decedent then the acceptance of
the heir .ecomes entirely superfluous-
and the law should limit itself to regulating
the effects the effects of a repudiation .y
an heir or legatee- and its retroacti*e
effect.
Or do the successors acquire only the NAF&$
TT"& at the death of the predecessor- .ut with
possession or enDoyment *ested in the
administrator or personal representati*e until after
settlement of the claims against the estate6
7&'B"T of these di*ergent rules 9 Creditors must now
pursue their claims during the settlement proceedings
and not against the heirs indi*idually.
CA'&
Union Bank v. Santibaez
- On May !1- 1@?A- 1irst Country Credit Corporation G1CCCE
and &fraim M. 'anti.aneH entered into a loan agreement in
the amount of )12?-AAA which was intended for the
payment of the purchase price of 1 unit of a tractor. n *iew
of this- &fraim and his son- &dmund e/ecuted a promissory
note in fa*or of 1CCC.
- On $ec. 1!- 1@?A- 1CCC and &fraim entered into another
similar loan agreement which was intended to pay the
.alance of the purchase price of another unit of a tractor.
And again- father and son e/ecuted a promissory note for
the said amount in fa*or of 1CCC.
- =owe*er- sometime in 1e. 1@?1- &fraim died- lea*ing a
holographic will and su.sequently testate proceedings were
commenced .efore the 7TC of loilo with &dmund .eing
appointed as the special administrator of the estate of the
decedent.
- $uring the pendency of the testate proceedings- &dmund
and his sister- 1lorence 'anti.aneH Ariola- e/ecuted a Doint
agreement on Culy 22- 1@?1 wherein they agreed to di*ide
.etween themsel*es and ta+e possession of the ! tractors< 2
for &dmund and 1 for 1lorence- each of them to assume
inde.tedness of their late father to 1CCC.
- On August 2A- 1@?1 a deed of assignment with assumption
of lia.ilities was e/ecuted .y and .etween 1CCC and Bnion
'a*ings and Mortgage 2an+- wherein 1CCC as the
assignor- assigned all its assets and lia.ilities to Bnion
'a*ings and Mortgage 2an+.
- Not long after- demand letter for the settlement of the
account were sent .y Bnion 2an+ to &dmund .ut the latter
refused to pay. Thus Bnion 2an+ filed a complaint for sum of
money against the &dmund and 1lorence .efore the 7TC of
Ma+ati.
- =owe*er the case was dismissed. The lower court said that
the claim should ha*e .een filed with the pro.ate court were
the testate estate of &fraim was pending. 1urthermore- the
agreement was *oid considering that the pro.ate court did
not appro*e the agreement and no *alid partition until after
the will has .een pro.ated.
- Also- the list of assets and lia.ilities of Bnion 2an+ did not
clearly refer to the decedent4s account. Also- it was
contended that the o.ligation of the deceased had passed to
Ryan Ouan 2 2
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
his legitimate children and heirs already- in this case
&dmund and &fraim. CA affirmed 7TC decision.
- =ence this appeal.
5ON the partition in the Agreement e/ecuted .y the heirs is
*alid.
- No- there can .e no *alid partition among the heirs until after
the will has .een pro.ated .y the pro.ate court. This is
specially .ecause when the Doint agreement e/ecuted .y
&dmund and 1lorence partitioning the tractors among
themsel*es were e/ecuted- there was already a pending
proceeding for the pro.ate of their late father4s holographic
will co*ering the said tractors. Thus the pro.ate court had
already acquired Durisdiction o*er the said tractors which
they can4t .e di*ested of. Any e/traDudicial agreement needs
court appro*al.
5ON the heirs4 assumption of the inde.tedness of the
deceased is *alid.
- No- the assumption of the inde.tedness of the decedent .y
&dmund and 1lorence is not .inding. 'uch assumption was
conditioned upon the agreement a.o*e. =ence- when the
agreement of partition .etween &dmund and 1lorence was
in*alidated- then the assumption of the inde.tedness cannot
.e gi*en and force and effect. Also- the court should ha*e
filed it money claim against the decedent4s estate in the
pro.ate court. 1urthermore- it cannot go after 1lorence for
she too+ no part in the documents related to the tractors-
specifically the promissory notes and the continuing
guaranty agreement< they should ha*e gone after &dmund
.eing a co>signatory to the promissory notes and guaranty.
5ON the Bnion 2an+ can hold the heirs lia.le on the o.ligation
of the deceased.
- No- Bnion 2an+ cannot hold the heirs lia.le on the o.ligation
of the deceased .ecause it had not sufficiently shown that it
is the successor>in>interest of the Bnion 'a*ings and
Mortgage 2an+ to which the 1CCC assigned its assets and
lia.ilities. 1urthermore- the documentary e*idence clearly
reflects that the parties in the deed of assignment with
assumption of lia.ilities were the 1CCC- and the Bnion
'a*ings and Mortgage 2an+- with the conformity of 2ancom
)hilippine =oldings- nc. Nowhere can the participation
therein of Bnion 2an+ as a party can .e found. As a result-
Bnion 2an+ has no personality to file the complaint and
therefore cannot hold the heirs lia.le for the o.ligation of the
deceased.
n a sense- it can .e said that e*en money de.ts are
transmitted to and paid for .y the heirs- .ut this would
.e .y mere indirection 9
2ecause whate*er payment is thus made from the
estate is ultimately a payment .y the heirs and
distri.utes- since the amount of the paid claim in
fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs
would ha*e .een entitled to recei*e.
2BT only the payment of MON&I $&2T' has .een
affected .y the 7ules of Court. The transmission of
other o.ligations not .y nature personal follows the rule
in Art77# and is transmitted .y succession.
CA'&
Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety
- "uHon 'urety filed a claim against the &state .ased on 2A
different indemnity agreements or counter .onds- each
su.scri.ed .y a distinct principal and .y the deceased F.=.
=emady- a surety solidary guarantor in all of them- in
consideration of "uHon 'urety4s of ha*ing guaranteed- the
*arious principals in fa*or of different creditors.
- "uHon 'urety also prayed for allowance- as a contingent
claim- of the *alue of the 2A .onds it had e/ecuted in
consideration of the counter.onds- and further as+ed for
Dudgment for the unpaid premiums and documentary stamps
affi/ed to the .onds with 12J interest.
- 2efore the answer was filed- the lower court dismissed the
claims of "uHon 'urety- on two grounds3 G1E that the
premiums due and cost of documentary stamps were not
contemplated under the indemnity agreements to .e a part
of the underta+ing of the guarantor G=emadyE- since the
were not lia.ilities incurred after the e/ecution of the
counter.onds< and G2E that ,whate*er losses may occur after
=emady4s death- are not chargea.le to his estate- .ecause
upon his death he ceased to .e guarantor.0
4hether losses are chargeable to !e6ady7s %state.
- I&'. 5hile in our successional system the responsi.ility of
the heirs for the de.ts of their decedent cannot e/ceed the
*alue of the inheritance they recei*e from him- the principle
remains intact that these heirs succeed not only to the rights
of the deceased .ut also to his o.ligations.
- Bnder the CC- the heirs- .y *irtue of the rights of succession
are su.rogated to all the rights and o.ligations of the
deceased and cannot .e regarded as third parties with
respect to a contract to which the deceased was a party-
touching the estate of the deceased.
- 2y contract- the articles of the Ci*il Code that regulate
guaranty or suretyship contain no pro*ision that the guaranty
is e/tinguished upon the death of the guarantor or the
surety.
- Although Art. 2A%( requires that one who is required to
furnish a guarantor must present a person who possesses
integrity- capacity to .ind himself- and sufficient property to
answer for the o.ligation which he guarantees- it will .e
noted that the law requires these qualities to .e present only
at the time of the perfection of the contract of guaranty
- The contract of suretyship entered into .y F.=. =emady in
fa*or of "uHon 'urety not .eing rendered intransmissi.le
due to the nature of the underta+ing- nor .y the stipulations
of the contracts themsel*es- nor .y pro*ision of law- his
e*entual lia.ility thereunder necessarily passed upon his
death to his heirs. The contracts- therefore- gi*e rise to
contingent claims pro*a.le against his estate.
- The 'C re*ersed the order of the lower court and instead
ordered the case .e remanded to the C1.
- The )ene$a* $u*e is that a party4s contractual rights and
o.ligations are transmissi.le to the successors.
- Art. 1!11 of NCC3 Contracts ta+e effect only as .etween the
parties- their assigns and heirs- e/cept in the case where the
rights and o.ligations arising from the contract are not
transmissi.le .y their nature- or .y stipulation or .y pro*ision
of law.
- Art. 77# of NCC3 Succession is a mode of acquisition .y
*irtue of which the property- rights and o.ligations to the
e/tent of the *alue of the inheritance of a person are
Ryan Ouan 3 3
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
transmitted through his death to another or other either .y
his will or .y operation of law.
- Art. 77( of NCC3 The in&e$iance includes all the property-
rights and o.ligations of a person which are not
e/tinguished .y his death.
- The .inding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the
deceased party is not altered .y the pro*ision in the 7ules of
Court that money de.ts of a deceased must .e liquidated
and paid from the estate .efore the residue is distri.uted
among said heirs. The reasons is that whate*er payment is
made from the estate is ultimately a payment .y the heirs-
since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or
reduces the shares that the heirs would ha*e .een entitled
to recei*e.
Alvarez v. IAC
- Aniceto Ianes owned a parcel of land identified as "ot 77!
in Negros Occidental. =e was sur*i*ed .y his children-
7ufino- 1elipe- and Teodora.
- Aniceto left his children with "ots 77! and ?2!.
- Teodora culti*ated part of "ot ?2!.
- 7ufino and his children left the pro*ince to settle in other
places as a result of the out.rea+ of 55.
- After the li.eration- 7ufino4s children went .ac+ to the land
to get the their share in the sugar produce. They were
informed that 'antiago already owned "ot 77!- and had the
corresponding TCTs.
- 'antiago sold the land to 1uenta.ella.
- After 1uenta.ella died- the administratri/ of his estate
GArseniaE filed a motion requesting authority to sell "ot 77!
Galready su.di*ided to "ots 77!>A and 77!>2E.
- The motion was granted and Arsenia sold the lands to
Al*areH.
- Teodora and 7ufino4s children GIanesesE filed a complaint in
C1 Negros Occidental for the ,return0 of the possession and
ownership of "ots 77! and ?2!.
- $uring the pendency of the case- Al*areH sold the land to
'iason.
- C1 ordered Al*areH to recon*ey "ots 77! and ?2! to the
Ianeses.
- &/ecution of the decision was unsuccessful with regard to
"ot 77! as it was already in the name of 'iason.
- Another action was instituted .y the Ianeses- this time
impleading 'iason.
- 'iason claims that he was a purchaser in good faith and
thus- he has title to "ot 77!.
- C1 dismissed the complaint against 'iason and ordered the
children of Al*areH to solidarily pay the Ianeses )hp
2A-AAA- representing the actual *alue of "ot 77!.
4+) it was correctly ruled that the children of (l8are9 be
6ade responsible for the liability of their father :(l8are9;.
- I&'. The rights and o.ligations of the deceased are
generally transmissi.le to his legitimate children and heirs.
- As heirs of the late Al*areH- the children cannot escape the
consequences of their father4s transaction- which ga*e rise
to the present claim for damages.
- The children are- howe*er- lia.le only to the e/tent of the
*alue of their inheritance.
- Art. 77#- NCC3 'uccession is a mode of acquisition .y *irtue
of which the property- rights and o.ligations to the e/tent of
the *alue of the inheritance- of a person are transmitted
through his death to another or others either .y his will or .y
operation of law.
- Art. 77(- NCC3 The inheritance includes all the property-
rights and o.ligations of a person which are not e/tinguished
.y his death.
ART. 775. In &is Ti*e( 6deceden7 is &e )ene$a*
e$m a''*ied o &e 'e$son %&ose '$o'e$" is
$ansmied &$ou)& succession( %&e&e$ o$
no &e *ef a %i**. If &e *ef a %i**( &e is a*so
ca**ed &e esao$.
$ecedent 9 general term- person whose property is
transmitted
Testator 9 specific term- person who transmits his
property *ia a will.
t is unfortunate that the Code does not use the term
,ntestate0 to refer to a decedent who died without a
will- This would ha*e pre*ented the am.iguity now
inherent in the term ,decedent0
ART. 778. T&e in&e$iance inc*udes a** &e
'$o'e$"( $i)&s and o!*i)aions of a 'e$son
%&ic& a$e no e+in)uis&ed !" &is dea&.
O*erlap of Codal $efinition with Art77(
Article 77# tal+s of ,property- rights and o.ligations
to the e/tent of the *alue of the inheritance.0
Article 77( tal+s of the ,inheritance0 as including
1or clarity and .etter correlation- )rof. 2alane
opines that Art77# should rather read3
Successon s a mode of acquston by
vrtue of whch the nhertance of a person
s transmtted through hs death to another
or others ether by hs w or by operaton of
aw.
And the inheritance which is transmitted through a
person4s death is defined .y Article 77( to include ,all
the property- rights and o.ligations of a person which
are not e/tinguished .y his death.0
ART. 777. T&e $i)&s o &e succession a$e
$ansmied f$om &e momen of &e dea& of
&e deceden.
Time of Kesting of 'uccessional 7ight
Ryan Ouan 4 4
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
)rof. 2alane says the terminology used in this article is
,infelicitous0 .ecause the right to the succession is not
trans6itted< .ut rather 8ested.
To say that it is transmitted upon death implies that
.efore the decedent4s death- the right to the
succession was possessed .y the decedent :which
is a.surd;.
To say that it *ests upon death implies that .efore
the decedent4s death the right was merely inchoate
:which is correct;.
THE LA1 PRES0,ES THAT THE PERSON
S0CCEE-ING 9
#. !as a right to succeed by
aE "egitime :compulsory succession;-
.E 5ill :testamentary succession;- or
cE "aw :intestate succession;
2. !as the legal capacity to succeed< and
2. (ccepts the successional portion
T&e #esin) of &e $i)& occu$s immediae*" u'on
&e deceden:s dea&; i.e. %i&ou a momen:s
ine$$u'ion. 1rom this principle- the following
consequences flow 9
#. ,he law in force at the ti6e of the decedent7s
death will deter6ine who the heirs should be
New Ci*il Code 9 August !A- 1@%A
2. +wnership passes to the heir at the 8ery
6o6ent of death< who therefore< fro6 that
6o6ent ac=uires the right to dispose of his share.
2. ,he heirs ha8e the right to be substituted for
the deceased as party in an action that sur8i8es.
2ecause the heir acquires ownership at
the moment of death and .ecome parties
in interest.
t should .e emphasiHed that the operation of Art. 777
is at the *ery moment of the decedent4s death- meaning
&e $ansmission !" succession occu$s a &e
'$ecise momen of dea& and &e$efo$e &e &ei$(
de#isee( o$ *e)aee is *e)a**" deemed o &a#e
acqui$ed o%ne$s&i' a &a momen( e#en if(
'a$icu*a$*" in &e &ei$:s case( &e %i** )ene$a**" no
2no% &o% muc& &e %i** !e in&e$iin) and %&a
'$o'e$ies &e %i** u*imae*" !e $ecei#in)( and no a
&e ime of dec*a$aion of &ei$s o$ 'a$iion o$
dis$i!uion.
CA'&'
Uson v. el !osario
"aw in force at time of decedent4s death
determines who the heirs should .e.
- Maria Bnson was the legal wife of 1austino Ne.rada.
1austino died in 1@#% lea*ing % parcels of land with no other
heir e/cept his legal wife.
- =owe*er- it was the common>life- Maria del 7osario who
too+ possession of the lands- depri*ing Bnson the
enDoyment and possession of the same.
- Thus- the legal wife filed a case for reco*ery of ownership
and possession of the said parcels of land against del
7osario.
- Maria de 7osario contended that Bnson and 1austino
agreed to separate some time in 1@!1. Bnson was gi*en a
parcel of land as alimony on the condition that the latter will
renounce her right to inherit any property that may .e left .y
the hus.and upon his death.
- 5hether or not Bnson is entitled to reco*er the parcels of
land in question.
- The 'C held for Maria Bnson.
- The Ci*il Code pro*ides that the inheritance of a person is
transmitted to another at the moment of his death.
- Accordingly- the 'upreme Court said that the parcels of land
of 1austino passed from the moment of his death to his only
heir- Maria Bnson.
- The contention that Bnson and 1austino agreed that the
former would NOT inherit anything from the latter cannot .e
made effectual. 1uture inheritance cannot .e *alidly made
the su.Dect of any contract nor can it .e renounced.
- $el 7osario also argued that her illegitimate children with
1austino ha*e the right to inherit .y *irtue of the pro*ision of
the new Ci*il Code granting successional rights to
illegitimate children.
- 'aid argument is untena.le. t is true that the new Ci*il
Code grants successional rights to illegitimate children and
that this right shall .e gi*en retroacti*e effect e*en though
the e*ent which ga*e rise to said right may ha*e occurred
under the former legislation. G1austino died in 1@#%- The
NCC too+ effect in 1@%AE.
- =owe*er- according to the NCC- this new right must not
preDudice or impair any *ested or acquired right.
- n this case- and as already e/plained- the right o*er the
parcels of land *ested upon Bnson from the moment of
death of 1austino. Thus- the new right cannot .e enforced
wLout preDudice to Bnson4s *ested right o*er the properties.
- 7ights o*er the inheritance of a person are transmitted upon
his death to another.
- MThe property .elongs to the heirs at the moment of death of
the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had e/ecuted
and deli*ered to them a deed for the same .efore his death.0
e Bor"a v. e Bor"a
Ownership passes to heir at the
*ery moment of death- with right to dispose
- 1rancisco $e 2orDa and Cose $e 2orDa were co>
administrators of the testate estate of Cosefa $e 2orDa-
1rancisco4s wife and Cose4s mother
- 5hen 1rancisco died- Cose .ecame the sole administrator in
the testate proceedings of his mother .efore the C1 of
7iHal.
- t appears that after the death of Cosefa- widower 1rancisco
married Tasiana Ongsingco.
- 1ollowing the death of 1rancisco- Tasiana was appointed as
special administratri/ in the testate proceedings of 1rancisco
.efore the C1 of Nue*a &ciDa.
- Multiple suits ensued .etween the children of the first
marriage and Tasiana until at some point- when .oth parties
Ryan Ouan 5 5
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
agreed to enter into a compromise agreement on Octo.er
12- 1@(!.
- n the said agreement- Cose $e 2orDa- personally and as
administrator of the estate of Cosefa- and Tasiana
Ongsingco- e/pressed their mutual desire to end the suits
.etween them .y selling the )o.lacion portion of the
CalaDala- 7iHal properties of 1rancisco- from the proceeds of
which )?AA-AAA- representing )2AA-AAA from each of the #
children from the first marriage- shall .e paid to Tasiana as
full and complete payment and settlement of Tasiana4s
hereditary share in the estate of 1rancisco as well as of
Cosefa- and to any properties .equeathed or de*ised to her
.y 1rancisco- .y will or .y donation purportedly con*eyed
for consideration or otherwise.
- The C1 of 7iHal appro*ed the agreement whereas the C1
of Nue*a &ciDa did not.
- Tasiana4s grounds for her opposition to the agreement after
it was su.mitted to the court for appro*al were3 1E no such
agreement is *alid without first pro.ating the will of
1rancisco< 2E it compromises the *alidity of the marriage
.etween 1rancisco and Tasiana< and- !E the resolutory (A>
day period had lapsed so that the agreement had ceased to
.e *alid.
- Tasiana cited $ue8ara 8. $ue8ara which did not allow an
e/traDudicial settlement of a decedent4s estate if there has
.een left a will- stating that it was against the law and pu.lic
policy.
- Thus- pending pro.ate of 1rancisco4s will when the
agreement was made- it was in*alid.
5hether or not the compromise agreement was in*alid without
first pro.ating the will of 1rancisco.
- NO. The compromise agreement was *alid.
- $ue8ara 8. $ue8ara was inapplica.le.
- 1ollowing a re*iew of the pro*ision in the agreement where
full and complete payment was made to Tasiana in the
amount of )?AA-AAA- it was clear that there was no attempt
to settle or distri.ute 1rancisco4s estate .efore the pro.ate of
his will.
- ts o.Dect was con*eyance .y Tasiana of her indi*idual
share and interest- actual or e*entual- in the estates of
1rancisco and Cosefa.
- A hereditary share in a decedent4s estate is transmitted or
*ested immediately from the moment of the death of such
causante or predecessor in interest GArt. 777- NCC.E
- Thus- there is no legal .ar to a successor Gwith requisite
contracting capacityE disposing of his or her hereditary share
immediately after such death- e*en if the actual e/tent of
such share is not determined until the su.sequent liquidation
of the estate.
- The effect of such alienation is limited to what is ultimately
adDudicated to the *endor heir.
- Moreo*er- as sur*i*ing spouse of 1rancisco4s- Tasiana was
a compulsory heir so that her successional interest e/isted
independent of 1rancisco4s will and testament and would
e/ist e*en if such were not pro.ated at all.
- Also- the agreement .ound the parties- in their indi*idual
capacities- upon the perfection of the contract- e*en a.sent
a pre*ious authority from the Court.
- The only difference .etween an e/traDudicial compromise
and one su.mitted and appro*ed .y the court is that the
latter is enforcea.le .y e/ecution proceedings.
5hether or not the agreement compromises the status and
*alidity of the marriage .etween 1rancisco and Tasiana.
- NO. n the *ery opening paragraph of the agreement itself-
she was descri.ed as the heir and sur*i*ing spouse of
1rancisco $e 2orDa which was a definite admission of her
ci*il status.
5hether or not the compromise agreement had ceased to .e
*alid.
- NO. Cose4s act of see+ing a court order for the appro*al and
enforcement of the agreement is Dustified as said agreement
had not .een a.andoned and not in*alidated .y the ina.ility
of the parties to reach a no*atory accord in a quest for a
more satisfactory compromise following Tasiana4s unilateral
attempts to .ac+ out from the same.
- A hereditary share in a decedent4s estate is transmitted or
*ested immediately from the moment of the death of such
causante or predecessor in interest GArt. 777- NCC.E
- Thus- there is no legal .ar to a successor Gwith requisite
contracting capacityE disposing of his or her hereditary share
immediately after such death- e*en if the actual e/tent of
such share is not determined until the su.sequent liquidation
of the estate.
- The effect of such alienation is limited to what is ultimately
adDudicated to the *endor heir.
- The only difference .etween an e/traDudicial compromise
and one su.mitted and appro*ed .y the court is that the
latter is enforcea.le .y e/ecution proceedings.
Bonilla v. Bar#ena
=eirs ha*e right to .e su.stituted for deceased
in an action that sur*i*es.
- On March !1- 1@7% 1ortunata 2arcena- mother of minors
7osalio 2onilla and 'al*acion 2onilla and wife of )onciano
2onilla- instituted a ci*il action in the Court of 1irst nstance
of A.ra- to quiet title o*er certain parcels of land located in
A.ra.
- On August #- 1@7%- the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that 1ortunata 2arcena is dead
and- therefore- has no legal capacity to sue.
- $uring the hearing- counsel for the plaintiff confirmed the
death of 1ortunata 2arcena and as+ed for su.stitution .y her
minor children and her hus.and- the petitioners herein< .ut
the court after the hearing immediately dismissed the case
on the ground that a dead person cannot .e a real party in
interest and has no legal personality to sue.
- 5hether the court acted correctly in dismissing the
complaint on the ground that the plaintiff- who had died
pending the proceedings- has no more personality to sue.
- 5hile it is true that a person who is dead cannot sue in
court- yet he can .e su.stituted .y his heirs in pursuing the
case up to its completion.
- The court had acquired Durisdiction o*er the person of the
deceased. f thereafter she died- 'ection 1(- 7ule ! of the
7ules of Court pro*ides that Nwhene*er a party to a pending
case dies . . . it shall .e the duty of his attorney to inform the
court promptly of such death . . . and to gi*e the name and
residence of his e/ecutor- administrator- guardian or other
legal representati*es.N This duty was complied with .y the
counsel for the deceased plaintiff when he manifested
.efore the respondent Court that 1ortunata 2arcena died on
Ryan Ouan 6 6
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
Culy @- 1@7% and as+ed for the proper su.stitution of parties
in the case.
- Article 777 of the Ci*il Code pro*ides Nthat the rights to the
succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of
the decedent.N -ro6 the 6o6ent of the death of the
decedent< the heirs beco6e the absolute owners of his
property< sub>ect to the rights and obligations of the
decedent< and they cannot be depri8ed of their rights thereto
e?cept by the 6ethods pro8ided for by law. ,he 6o6ent of
death is the deter6ining factor when the heirs ac=uire a
definite right to the inheritance whether such right be pure or
contingent. ,he right of the heirs to the property of the
deceased 8ests in the6 e8en before >udicial declaration of
their being heirs in the testate or intestate proceedings.
5hen 1ortunata 2arcena- therefore- died her claim or right
to the parcels of land in litigation was not e/tinguished .y
her death .ut was transmitted to her heirs upon her death.
=er heirs ha*e thus acquired interest in the properties in
litigation and .ecame parties in interest in the case. There
is- therefore- no reason for the Court to disallow their
su.stitution as parties in interest for the deceased plaintiff.
- "i+ewise- when counsel as+ed that the minor children .e
su.stituted for the deceased and suggested that the uncle
.e appointed as guardian ad litem for them .ecause their
father is .usy earning a li*ing for the family- it is gra*e error
for the court to refuse the request for su.stitution on the
ground that the children were still minors and cannot sue-
.ecause it ought to +now that 'ection 17- 7ule ! of the
7ules of Court- directs the Court to appoint a guardian ad
litem for the minor.
- 1rom the moment of the death of the decedent- the heirs
.ecome the a.solute owners of his property- su.Dect to the
rights and o.ligations of the decedent- and they cannot .e
depri*ed of right thereto e/cept .y the methods pro*ided for
.y law. The moment of death is the determining factor where
the heirs acquire a definite right to the inheritance whether
such right to .e pure or contingent. The right of the heirs to
the property of the deceased *ests in them e*en .efore
Dudicial declaration of their .eing heirs in the testate or
intestate proceedings.
Cases for Arti#les $$%&$$$
Heirs of S'ouses Sande"as v. Lina
- &liosoro 'andeDas was appointed administrator for the
settlement of the estate of his wife- 7emedios.
- =e e*entually sold parcels of land to Ale/ "ina- who agreed
to .uy it for )1M.
- &liosoro e*entually died and Ale/ "ina was appointed new
administrator of the estate of 7emedios.
- The heirs of 'andeDas now filed a M7 for the appointment of
a new administrator.
- "ina filed a Motion to appro*e the deed of conditional sale.
5hether or not &liosoro is legally o.ligated to con*ey title to
the property which is found .y the lower court to .e a contract
to sell.
- NO. 2ecause the condition is the procurement of court
appro*al and not the payment of the purchase price.
5hether or not the pro.ate court has Durisdiction o*er the
appro*al of the sale.
- I&'. 'C held that pro.ate court has Durisdiction o*er it since
it co*ers all matters relating to the settlement of estates and
the pro.ate of wills of deceased persons- including the
appointment and remo*al of administrators and e/ecutors. t
also e/tends to incidental and collateral matters such as
selling- mortgaging or otherwise encum.ering real property
.elonging to the estate.
- The stipulation requiring court appro*al does not affect the
*alidity and the effecti*ity of the sale as regards the selling
heirs. t merely implies that that the property may .e ta+en
out of custodia legis- only with court4s permission.
5hether or not "ina can apply to the court for the appro*al of
the sale.
- 2ecause the other heirs did not consent to the sale of their
ideal shares in the disputed lots- it is only limited to the pro>
indi*iso share of &liosoro.
- The proper party must .e the one who is to .e .enefited or
inDured .y the Dudgment- or one who is to .e entitled to the
a*ails of the suit.
5hether or not &liosoro is in .ad faith
- NO. 'C held that he is not in .ad faith .ecause3 G1E he
informed "ina of the need to secure court appro*al prior to
the sale of the lots- and G2E he did not promise he could
o.tain the appro*al.
=ow much is &liosoro4s share in the property6
- 'C held that his share is 11L2A of the entire property
.ecause he owned O of these lots plus a further 1L1A of the
remaining half- in his capacity as one of the legal heirs.
Lim"o#o v. Intestate of (la)rante
- Assailed is the decision of the )u.lic 'er*ice Commission
granting a certificate of pu.lic con*enience to install-
maintain and operate an ice plant in 'an Cuan to the
ntestate &state of )edro O. 1ragrante.
- 1ragrante died pending the conclusion of his application to
Commission.
- The Commission granted the application in *iew of the
financial a.ility of the estate to maintain and operate the ice
plant
5hether the su.stitution of the legal representati*e of the
&state of 1ragante for the latter as party applicant in the case
pending .efore the Commission .e allowed.
- Ies. =ad 1ragante not died- he would ha*e the right to
prosecute his application to its final conclusion. This right
did not lapse through his death. =ence- it constitutes a part
of the assets of his estate- for such a right was property
despite the possi.ility that the application may .e denied. A
certificate of pu.lic con*enience once granted should
descend to the estate as an asset. 'uch certificate would
certainly .e property and the right to acquire such .elonged
to the decedent in his lifetime and sur*i*ed to his estate and
Dudicial administrator after his death.
5hether the &state of 1ragante is a person within the meaning
of the )u.lic 'er*ice Act.
Ryan Ouan 7 7
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- Ies. The 'upreme Court of ndiana declared that a
collection of property to which the law attri.utes the capacity
of ha*ing rights and duties- such as the estate of a
deceased- is an artificial person- and to rule otherwise would
result in a failure of Dustice. n this case- there would also .e
a failure of Dustice if the estate would not .e regarded as a
person as it would preDudice 1ragante4s in*estment of )hp.
!%T.
5hether the &state of 1ragante can .e considered as a citiHen
of the )hilippines.
- Ies. The fiction of e/tension of the citiHenship of 1ragante
is grounded upon the same principle as that of the e/tension
of his personality.
- The decedent4s rights which .y their nature are not
e/tinguished .y death go to ma+e up a part and parcel of
the assets of his estate- which- .eing placed under the
control and management of the administrator- can not .e
e/ercised .ut .y him in representation of the estate for the
.enefit of the creditors- de*isees or legatees and heirs.
- 7eal property- as estate or interest- ha*e also .een declared
to include e*ery species of title- inchoate or complete and
em.race rights which lie in contract- whether e/ecutory or
e/ecuted.
- t is the estate or mass of property- rights and assets left .y
the decedent- instead of the heirs directly- that .ecomes
*ested and charged with his rights and o.ligations which
sur*i*e after his demise. This doctrine is an a.rogation of
art. ((1 of the Ci*il Code .rought a.out .y the enactment of
the Code of Ci*il )rocedure.
ART. 77<. Succession ma" !e=
>1? Tesamena$"
>@? Le)a* o$ Inesae( o$
>A? ,i+ed
ART. 77B. Tesamena$" succession is &a %&ic&
$esu*s f$om &e desi)naion of an &ei$( made
in a %i** e+ecued in &e fo$m '$esc$i!ed !"
*a%.
ART. 7<C. ,i+ed succession is &a effeced 'a$*"
!" %i** and 'a$*" !" o'e$aion of *a%.
! FN$' O1 'BCC&''ON ACC$8 TO A7T. 77?3
1. T&'TAM&NTA7I
That which results from the designation of
an heir- made in a will.
2. "&8A" O7 NT&'TAT&
"ost definition3 ,ta+es place .y operation
of law in the a.sence of a *alid will.0
!. MP&$
That effected partly .y will and partly .y
operation of law.
'ome o.ser*ations 9
&numeration cannot satisfactorily accommodate
the system of legitimes.
"egal or intestate succession operates
only in default of a will :Arts@(A and @(1;-
while the legitime operates whether or not
there is a will- in fact pre*ails o*er a will.
There are instances where the rules on
legitime :Arts ??7..; operate- to the e/clusion
of the rules on intestacy :Arts @(A..;
t is therefore .est for clarity- to classify
succession to the legitime as a separate and
distinct +ind of succession- which- for want of
a .etter term- can .e denominated
compulsory succession.
Bntil the effecti*ity of the 1amily Code- there was
one e/ceptional case of succession .y contract
:contractual succession; found in Article 1!A of Ci*il
Code.
ART 130. The future spouses may
gve each other n ther marrage
settements as much as one-ffth of ther
present property, and wth respect to
ther future property, ony n the event of
death, to the extent ad down by the
provsons of ths Code referrng to
testamentary successon.
@onations propter nuptias of future
property- made .y one of the future spouses
to the other- too+ effect 6ortis cause- and had
only to .e done in the marriage settlements-
which were go*erned only .y the 'tatute of
1rauds.
t was the only instance of Contractual
'uccession in our ci*il law.
This has .een eli6inated .y the 1amily
Code in Article ?# paragraph 23
Donatons of future property sha
be governed by the provsons on
testamentary successon and the
formates of ws.
'ince under the pro*ision- any donation of
future property .etween the affianced couple
is to .e go*erned .y the rules of testamentary
succession and the forms of wills- contractual
succession no longer e/ists in this
Durisdiction.
'uch a donation .ecomes an ordinary
case of testamentary succession.
.O0R DIN-S O. S0CCESSION ACCOR-ING TO
I,PORTANCE 3P$of. Ea*ane4
#. C+'P.LS+&1
'uccession to the legitime
)re*ails o*er all other +inds
Ryan Ouan
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
2. ,%S,('%),(&1 3(rt. AAB5
'uccession .y will
2. *),%S,(,%
'uccession in default of a will
C. '*D%@ 3(rt. AE05
Not a distinct +ind really- .ut a
com.ination of any two or all of the first
three.
ART. 7<1. T&e in&e$iance of a 'e$son inc*udes
no on*" &e '$o'e$" and &e $ansmissi!*e
$i)&s and o!*i)aions e+isin) a &e ime of
&is dea&( !u a*so &ose %&ic& &a#e acc$ued
&e$eo since &e o'enin) of &e succession.
Article 7?1 is .est deleted< it ser*es only to confuse.
The inheritance includes only those things enumerated
in Article 77(. 5hate*er accrues thereto after the
decedent4s death :which is when the succession opens;
.elongs to the heir- not .y *irtue of succession- .ut .y
*irtue of ownership.
To say- as Art7?1 does- that accruals to the inheritance
after the decedent4s death are included in the
inheritance is to negate the principle in Art777 that
transmission ta+es place precisely at the moment of
death.
Once the decedent dies and the heir inherits- the
fruits of the property or inheritance .elongs to the
heir .y accession- and not .y succession. This is
so e*en if the heir does not actually recei*e the
inheritance.
Art7?1 should ha*e left well enough alone.
Question 9 f the assets left .ehind .y the decedent are
not sufficient to pay the de.ts- may the creditors claims
the fruits produced .y the decedent4s property after his
death6 Or do these fruits pertain to the heirs6
2ut wouldn4t the de.ts .e deducted from the estate
first .efore the properties are distri.uted to the
heirs6
ART. 7<@. An &ei$ is a 'e$son ca**ed o &e
succession ei&e$ !" &e '$o#ision of a %i** o$
!" o'e$aion of *a%.
-e#isees and *e)aees a$e 'e$sons o
%&om )ifs of $ea* and 'e$sona* '$o'e$" a$e
$es'eci#e*" )i#en !" #i$ue of a %i**.
=&7 9 person called to the succession either .y will or
.y law
$&K'&& 9 persons to whom gifts of real property are
gi*en .y *irtue of a will.
"&8AT&& 9 persons to whom gifts of personal
property are gi*en .y *irtue of a will.
The distinction .etween an heir and a de*isee or
legatee is important .ecause on this distinction
depends the correct application of Art?%# on preterition.
n cases of preterition- the institution of an heir is
annulled- while the institution of legatees and de*isees
is effecti*e to the e/tent that the legitimes are not
impaired.
The codal definitions are neither clear nor *ery helpful.
They are so open>ended that an heir can fall under the
definition of a legateeLde*isee and *ice>*ersa.
, gi*e P my fishpond in Na*otas0 9 .y definition of
heir- is not P called to the succession .y pro*ision
of a will and therefore an heir6
, gi*e P R of my estate0 9 if in the partition- P
recei*es a fishpond- can P- .y definition- not .e
considered a de*isee- ha*ing recei*ed a gift of real
property .y will6
The definitions of the 'panish Code in conDunction with
Castan4s e/planations are more helpful3
=&7 9 one who succeeds to the 5=O"& or an
Aliquot part of the inheritance
$&K'&& L "&8AT&& 9 those who succeed to
definite- specific- and indi*idual
properties.
Case for Arts. $$*&$*+
KC Holdin)s Cor'. v. CA
- $FC entered into a Contract of "ease with Option to 2uy
with &ncarnacion 2artolome- where.y $FC was gi*en the
option to lease or lease with purchase a land .elonging to
&ncarnacion- which option must .e e/ercised within 2 years
from the signing of the Contract.
- n turn- $FC undertoo+ to pay )hp !-AAA a month for the
reser*ation of its option.
- $FC regularly paid the monthly )hp !-AAA until
&ncarnacion4s death. Thereafter- $FC coursed its payment
to Kictor- the son and sole heir of &ncarnacion. =owe*er-
Kictor refused to accept these payments.
- Meanwhile- Kictor e/ecuted an Affida*it of 'elf>AdDudication
o*er all the properties of &ncarnacion- including the su.Dect
lot. Thus- a new TCT was issued in the name of Kictor.
- "ater- $FC ga*e notice to Kictor that it was e/ercising its
option to lease the property tendering the amount of )hp
1%-AAA as rent.
- Again- Kictor refused to accept the payment and to
surrender passion of the property.
- $FC thus opened a sa*ings account in the name of Kictor
and deposited therein the rental fee.
- $FC also tried to register and annotate the Contract on the
title of Kictor .ut the 7egister of $eeds refused to register or
annotate the same.
- Thus- $FC filed a complaint for specific performance and
damages.
- n the course of the proceedings- a certain "oHano- who
claimed that he was and has .een a tenant>tiller of the lot for
#% years- filed a Motion for nter*ention.
- The 7TC denied "oHano4s Motion and dismissed the
complaint filed .y $FC.
Ryan Ouan ! !
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- 5hether the Contract of "ease with Option to 2uy entered
into .y the late &ncarnacion 2artolome with $FC was
terminated upon her death or whether it .inds her sole heir-
Kictor- e*en after her demise.
- The 'C held that Kictor is .ound .y the Contract of "ease
with Option to 2uy.
- Article 1!11 of the NCC pro*ides3 Contracts ta+e effect only
.etween the parties- their assigns and heirs- e/cept in case
where the rights and o.ligations arising therefrom are not
transmissi.le .y G1E their nature- G2E stipulation or G!E
pro*ision of law.
- n this case- there is neither contractual stipulation nor legal
pro*ision ma+ing the rights and o.ligation under the contract
intransmissi.le. More importantly- the nature of the rights
and o.ligations therein are- .y their nature- transmissi.le.
- 5here the ser*ice or act is of such a character that it may .e
performed .y another- or where the contract- .y its terms-
shows the performance .y others was contemplated- death
does not terminate the contract or e/cuse nonperformance.
- n this case- there is no personal act required from the late
&ncarnacion. 7ather- the o.ligation of &ncarnacion to
deli*er possession of the property may *ery well .e
performed .y Kictor.
- Also- the su.Dect matter of the contract is a lease- a property
right. The death of a party does not e/cuse nonperformance
of a contract which in*ol*es a property right- and the rights
and o.ligations thereunder pass to the personal
representati*es of the deceased.
- 'ince $FC e/ercised its option in accordance with the
contract- the 'C held that Kictor has the o.ligation to
surrender possession of and lease of premises for ( years.
=owe*er- 'C held that the issue of tenancy should .e
*entilated in another proceeding.
- The )ene$a* $u*e- therefore- is that heirs are .ound .y
contracts entered into .y their predecessors>in>interest
e,#e't when the rights and o.ligations arising therefrom are
not transmissi.le .y G1E their nature- G2E stipulation or G!E
pro*ision of law.
- 5here acts stipulated in a contract require the e/ercise of
special +nowledge- genius- s+ill- taste- a.ility- e/perience-
Dudgment- discretion- integrity- or other personal qualification
of one or .oth parties- the agreement is of personal nature-
and terminates on the death of the party who is required to
render such ser*ice.
- There is pri*ity of interest .etween an heir and his deceased
predecessor 9 he only succeeds to what rights his
predecessor had and what is *alid and .inding against the
latter is also *alid and .inding against the former.
- The death of a party does not e/cuse nonperformance of a
contract which in*ol*es a property right- and the rights and
o.ligations thereunder pass to the personal representati*es
of the deceased. 'imilarly- nonperformance is not e/cused
.y the death of the party when the other party has a property
interest in the su.Dect matter of the contract.
CHAPTER @
TESTA,ENTARF S0CCESSION
SEC-I./ 0 1 2ILLS
Subse#tion 0 1 2ills in 3eneral
ART. 7<A. A %i** is an ac %&e$e!" a 'e$son is
'e$mied( %i& &e fo$ma*iies '$esc$i!ed !"
*a%( o con$o* o a ce$ain de)$ee &e
dis'osiion of &is esae( o a2e effec afe$
&is dea&.
Operati*e 5ords in the $efinition
1. ACT
The definition of a will as an act is too
.road and should ha*e .een more clearly
delimited with a more specific term such as
instru6ent or docu6ent- in *iew of the
pro*ision of Art?A# that ,e*ery will must .e in
writing.0
N0NC0PATIVE or oral wills are not
recogniHed in our Code- unli+e the 'panish
Ci*il Code wherein military wills could .e oral.
2. )&7MTT&$
5ill>ma+ing is purely statutory.
!. 1O7MA"T&' )7&'C72&$ 2I "A5
The requirement of form prescri.ed
respecti*ely for attested and holographic
wills.
#. CONT7O" TO A C&7TAN $&87&&
The testator4s power of testamentary
disposition is limited .y the rules on legitimes.
%. A1T&7 =' $&AT=
Testamentary succession- li+e all other
+inds of succession in our Code- is 6ortis
causa.
Ryan Ouan 10 10
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
C C HARACTERISTICS HARACTERISTICS O O . . 1 1 ILLS ILLS
1. P.&%L1 P%&S+)(L
Articles 7?#- 7?% and 7?7
2. -&%% ()@ *),%LL*$%),
Article ?!@
The testator4s consent should not .e
*itiated .y the causes mentioned in Article ?!@
paragraphs 2>( on nsanity- Kiolence-
ntimidation- Bndue nfluence- 1raud and
Mista+e.
2. S+L%') ()@ -+&'(L
Articles ?A#>?1# and ?2A>?21
The requirements of form depend on
whether the will is attested or holographic.
Articles ?A%>?A? and ?2A>?21 go*ern
attested wills. Articles ?1A>?1# go*ern
holographic wills. Article ?A# applies to .oth.
C. &%/+C(BL% ()@ ('B.L(,+&1
Article ?2?
F. '+&,*S C(.S(
Article 7?!
This is a necessary consequence of
Articles 77# and 777.
. *)@*/*@.(L
Article ?1?
Coint wills are prohi.ited in this
Durisdiction.
A. %D%C.,%@ 4*,! ()*'.S ,%S,()@*
This characteristic is implied in Article
7?!
7iHal4s *aledictory poem ,Bltimo
Adios0 was not a will. An instrument which
merely e/presses a last wish as a thought or
ad*ice .ut does not contain a disposition of
property and was not e/ecuted with ani6us
testandi- cannot .e legally considered a will.
E. %D%C.,%@ 4*,! ,%S,('%),(&1 C(P(C*,1
Articles 7@( 9 ?A! on testamentary
capacity and intent
B. .)*L(,%&(L
This characteristic is implied in Article
7?!
#0. @*SP+S*,*/% +- P&+P%&,1
Article 7?! seems to consider the
disposition of the testator4s estate 6ortis causa
as the purpose of will>ma+ing.
The present Ci*il Code seems to limit the concept of a
will to a disposition of property to ta+e effect upon and
after death.
t is only when the will disposes of property- wither
directly or indirectly- that it has to .e pro.ated. 5hen
there is no disposition of property- it is su.mitted that-
although the instrument may .e considered as a will- it
does not ha*e to .e pro.ated< its dispositions which are
pro*ided .y law- such as the ac+nowledgment of a
natural child or the order that the patria potestas of the
widow shall continue after her remarriage- can .e gi*e
effect e*en without pro.ating the will.
Questions
5ould a document merely appointing an e/ecutor-
not containing any dispositi*e pro*ision- ha*e to
comply with the formal requirements of a will in
order to .e effecti*e6 5ould such a document
ha*e to .e pro.ated6
Custice =ofilena says NO- .ecause there
is no disposition and such appointment
would not .e under the category of a will.
Therefore- the formal requirements of a
will do not apply.
5ould a document containing only a disinheriting
clause ha*e to .e in the form of a will and .e
pro.ated6 :Article @1(;
I&'. According to Art@1(- disinheritance
can .e effected only through a will
wherein the legal cause therefore shall .e
specified.
A *alid disinheritance is in effect a
disposition of the property of the testator
in fa*or of those who would succeed in
the a.sence of the disinherited heir.
Bnless the will is pro.ated- the
disinheritance cannot .e gi*en effect.
CA'&'
4itu) v. CA
- 7omarico Kitug and Nenita Alonte were co>administrators of
$olores Kitug4s GdeceasedE estate. 7owena Corona was the
e/ecutri/.
- 7omarico- the deceased4s hus.and- filed a motion with the
pro.ate court as+ing for authority to sell certain shares of
stoc+ and real properties .elonging to the estate to co*er
alleged ad*ances to the estate- which he claimed as
personal funds.
- The ad*ances were used to pay estate ta/es.
- Corona opposed the motion on ground that the ad*ances
came from a sa*ings account which formed part of the
conDugal partnership properties and is part of the estate.
Thus- there was no ground for reim.ursement.
- 7omarico claims that the funds are his e/clusi*e property-
ha*ing .een acquired through a sur*i*orship agreement
e/ecuted with his late wife and the .an+.
- The agreement stated that after the death of either one of
the spouses- the sa*ings account shall .elong to and .e the
sole property of the sur*i*or- and shall .e paya.le to and
collecti.le or withdrawa.le .y such sur*i*or.
- The lower court upheld the *alidity of the agreement and
granted the motion to sell.
- CA re*ersed stating that the sur*i*orship agreement
constitutes a con*eyance 6ortis causa which did not comply
with the formalities of a *alid will. Assuming that it was a
donation inter 8i8os- it is a prohi.ited donation Gdonation
.etween spousesE.
- 5ON the sur*i*orship agreement was *alid.
- I&'.
Ryan Ouan 11 11
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- The con*eyance is not 6ortis causa- which should .e
em.odied in a will. A will is a personal- solemn- re*oca.le
and free act .y which a capacitated person disposes of his
property and rights and declares or complies with duties to
ta+e effect after his death. The .equest or de*ise must
pertain to the testator.
- n this case- the sa*ings account in*ol*ed was in the nature
of conDugal funds.
- 'ince it was not shown that the funds .elonged e/clusi*ely
to one party- it is presumed to .e conDugal.
- t is also not a donation inter 8i8os .ecause it was to ta+e
effect after the death of one party. t is also not a donation
.etween spouses .ecause it in*ol*ed no con*eyance of a
spouse4s own properties to the other.
- t was an error to include the sa*ings account in the
in*entory of the deceased4s assets .ecause it is the
separate property of 7omarico.
- Thus- 7omarico had the right to claim reim.ursement.
- A will is a personal- solemn- re*oca.le and free act .y which
a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and
declares or complies with duties to ta+e effect after his
death.
- 'ur*i*orship agreements are permitted .y the NCC.
=owe*er- its operation or effect must not .e *iolati*e of the
law Gi.e. used as a cloa+ to hide an inofficious donation or to
transfer property in fraud of creditors or to defeat the legitime
of a forced heirE.
ART. 7<4. T&e ma2in) of a %i** is a s$ic*"
'e$sona* ac; i canno !e *ef in %&o*e o$ in
'a$ o &e disc$eion of a &i$d 'e$son( o$
accom'*is&ed &$ou)& &e ins$umena*i" of
an a)en o$ ao$ne".
This pro*ision gi*es the will its purely personal
character.
NONG-ELEGAEILITF O. 1ILLG,ADING 9
t is the e/ercise of the disposing power that
cannot .e delegated.
O.*iously- mechanical aspects- such as typing- do
not fall within the prohi.ition.
ART. 7<5. T&e du$aion o$ efficac" of &e
desi)naion of &ei$s( de#isees o$ *e)aees( o$
&e dee$minaion of &e 'o$ions %&ic& &e"
a$e o a2e( %&en $efe$$ed o !" name( canno
!e *ef o &e disc$eion of a &i$d 'e$son.
4hat Constitute the %ssence of 4ill0'aGing or the
%?ercise of the @isposing PowerH ,he ff are non0
delegableI
1. The designation of heirs- de*isees or legatees
2. The duration of efficacy of such designation-
including such things as conditions- terms-
su.stitutions<
!. The determination of the portions they are to
recei*e.
ART. 7<8. T&e esao$ ma" en$us o a &i$d
'e$son &e dis$i!uion of s'ecific '$o'e$" o$
sums of mone" &a &e ma" *ea#e in )ene$a*
o s'ecified c*asses o$ causes( and a*so &e
desi)naion of &e 'e$sons( insiuions o$
esa!*is&mens o %&ic& suc& '$o'e$" o$
sums a$e o !e )i#en o$ a''*ied.
&/ception to the 7ule on Non>$elega.ility of 5ill>
Ma+ing. 5ithout this pro*ision- the things allowed to .e
delegated here would .e non>delega.le.
T1O THINGS ,0ST EE -ETER,INE- EF THE
TESTATOR 9
1. The property or amount of money to .e gi*en<
and
2. The class or the cause to .e .enefited.
T1O THINGS ,AF EE -ELEGATE- EF THE
TESTATOR 9
1. The designation of persons- institutions- or
esta.lishments within the class or cause<
2. The manner of distri.ution
Question 9 'uppose the testator specified the
recipients .y specific designation .ut left to the !
rd
person the determination of the sharing- e/. , lea*e
)%AA-AAA for the )N7C- the ')CA- and the Tala
"eprosarium- to .e distri.uted among these institutions
in such proportions as my e/ecutor may determine.0
Kalid6
One Kiew 9 Article 7?% seems to prohi.it this-
.ecause the recipients are referred to .y name and
therefore the portions they are to ta+e must .e
determined .y the testator. Article 7?( applies only
where the testator merely specifies the class or the
cause .ut not the specific recipients.
Contra 9 This actually in*ol*es a lesser discretion
for the !
rd
person than the instances allowed .y
Article 7?( and should .e allowed.
ART. 7<7. T&e esao$ ma" no ma2e a
esamena$" dis'osiion in suc& manne$ &a
ano&e$ 'e$son &as o dee$mine %&e&e$ o$
no i is o !e o'e$ai#e.
This rule is consistent with- and reinforces- the purely
person character of a will- laid down in Article 7?#.
This article should .e interpreted rationally. t is not to
.e so interpreted as to ma+e it clash with the principle
e/pressed in Articles 1A#1>1A%7 of the NCC that the
Ryan Ouan 12 12
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
heir is free to accept or reDect the testamentary
disposition.
5hat this article prohi.its is the delegation to a 2
rd
person of the power to decide whether a disposition
should taGe effect or not.
Case for Arts. $*5&$*$
el !osario v. el !osario
- $on Nicolas left a will awarding parts of his estate to his
nephews- $on &nrique and plaintiff- $on 7amon su.Dect to
certain conditions. G'ee case page !22E
- =e also left a part of his estate to his si.lings- one of which
is $ona "uisa. And upon the latter4s death- her share shall
.e di*ided .etween her two nephews after )1-AAA has .een
gi*en to $ona "uisa4s male children.
- $oSa =onorata- $on Nicolas4 wife- left her estate to his
hus.and. Bpon the hus.and4s death- it shall .e passed on to
her hus.and4s si.lings. =owe*er- upon the death of her
sister>in>law- $ona "uisa- same pro*isions shall apply as
what is stated in her hus.and4s will.
- )laintiff now institutes this present case against the
e/ecutor- who is one of his uncles- $on Clemente. =e see+s
to .e entitled to a certain part of the share of the estates left
to $ona "uisa during her life- and he as+s that the e/ecutor
.e directed to render accounts and to proceed to the
partition of the estate.
5hether or not he is entitled to any share of the estate left .y
the spouses.
- )laintiff is not entitled to any allowance under the will of $on
Nicolas .ecause3
a. =e is only allowed such amount if widow
remarries and he is still continuing studies-
which are not present in this case.
.. =is interest in the share of $ona "uisa in $on
Nicolas4 will was gi*en to him as an heir and not
as a legatee.
- =e is not entitled to li*e in the widow4s house .ecause such
was terminated upon the widow4s death.
- =e is entitled to .e paid the sum of )1%AA gi*en to $on
&nrique in addition to the )1%AA pesos already recei*ed .y
plaintiff under the @
th
clause of $ona =onorata4s will
.ecause3
a. The will specifically awarded the said amounts
to him as a legatee and the fact that they were
called natural sons of $on Clemente only ser*es
as a further description and needs no proof to .e
gi*en.
.. 2y *irtue of the right of accretion- plaintiff is also
entitled to the other )1%AA share of $on &nrique
since the latter died .efore $on =onorata.
- =e is entitled to the share of the estate left .y the will of
$ona =onorata to $ona "uisa during her life- after deducting
)1-AAA .ecause3
a. The share of plaintiff from $ona "uisa4s share is
gi*en to him whether or not $ona "uisa dies
.efore or after $ona =onorata.
.. =is right in the share of $ona "uisa is e/pressly
left to him as a legacy.
- The reser*ation of property in a will to the name of specific
persons shall .e considered as a legacy.
- 5here the will authoriHes the e/ecutor to pay the legacies-
e/pressly or .y natural inference- action will lie .y the
legatee against the e/ecutor to compel allowance and
payment hereof. f the e/ecutor is not authoriHed- action will
lie against the heirs. An heir on the other hand- can maintain
no such action against the e/ecutor.
ART. 7<<. If a esamena$" dis'osiion admis of
diffe$en ine$'$eaions( in case of dou!( &a
ine$'$eaion !" %&ic& &e dis'osiion is o
!e o'e$ai#e s&a** !e '$efe$$ed.
Articles 7??>7@# lays down the rules of construction
and interpretation.
The underlying principle here is that testacy is preferred
to intestacy- .ecause the former is the e/press will of
the decedent whereas the latter is only his implied will.
n statutory construction- the canon is3 ,That the thing
may rather .e effecti*e than .e without effect.0
A similar principle in contractual interpretation is found
in Art1!7!- which pro*ides that ,if some stipulation of
any contract should admit of se*eral meanings- it shall
.e understood as .earing that import which is most
adequate to render it effectual.0
ART. 7<B. 1&en &e$e is an im'e$fec desc$i'ion(
o$ %&en no 'e$son o$ '$o'e$" e+ac*"
ans%e$s &e desc$i'ion( misa2es and
omissions mus !e co$$eced( of &e e$$o$
a''ea$s f$om &e cone+ of &e %i** o$ f$om
e+$insic e#idence( e+c*udin) &e o$a*
dec*a$aions of &e esao$ as o &is
inenion; and %&en an unce$ain" a$ises
u'on &e face of &e %i**( as o &e a''*icaion
of an" of is '$o#isions( &e esao$:s
inenion is o !e asce$ained f$om &e %o$ds
of &e %i**( a2in) ino conside$aion &e
ci$cumsances unde$ %&ic& i %as made(
e+c*udin) suc& o$a* dec*a$aions.
@ DIN-S O. A,EIG0ITF RE.ERRE- TO 9
1. L(,%), 9 not o.*ious on the face of the will
5hen there is an imperfect description or
when no person or property e/actly answers
the description
aE "atent as to )&7'ON 9 , institute to
R of my estate my first cousin Cose0
and the testator has more than one
first cousin named Cose.
.E "atent as to )7O)&7TI 9 , de*ise
to my cousin )acifico my fishpond in
Ryan Ouan 13 13
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
7o/as City0 and the testator has
more than one fishpond in 7o/as
City.
2. P(,%), 9 o.*ious on the face of the will
5hen an uncertainty arises upon the face
of the will- as to the application of any of its
pro*isions
a) )atent as to )&7'ON 9 , institute R
of my estate to so6e of my first
cousins.
b) )atent as to )7O)&7TI 9 ,
.equeath to my cousin )acifico so6e
of my cars.0
n .oth cases- the am.iguity is e*ident
from a reading of the testamentary
pro*isions themsel*es< the am.iguity is
patent :patere 9 to .e e/posed;
HO1 TO -EAL 1ITH A,EIG0ITIES 9
The pro*isions of this article do not ma+e a
distinction in the solution of the pro.lem of
am.iguities 9 whether latent or patent.
=ence- the distinction .etween the 2 +inds
of am.iguity isin the light of the codal
pro*isions- an all .ut theoretical one.
,he a6biguity should< as far as possible< be
cleared up or resol8ed< in order to gi8e effect to the
testa6entary disposition.
2ased on principle that testacy is
preferred to intestacy.
(6biguity 6ay be resol8ed using any e8idence
ad6issible and rele8ant< e?cluding the oral
declarations of the testator as to his intention.
7eason for the statutory e/clusion is that
a dead man cannot refute a tale.
ART. 7BC. T&e %o$ds of a %i** a$e o !e a2en in
&ei$ o$dina$" and )$ammaica* sense( un*ess
a c*ea$ inenion o use &em in ano&e$ sense
can !e )a&e$ed( and &a o&e$ can !e
asce$ained.
Tec&nica* %o$ds in a %i** a$e o !e a2en
in &ei$ ec&nica* sense( un*ess &e cone+
c*ea$*" indicaes a con$a$" inenion( o$
un*ess i saisfaco$i*" a''ea$s &a &e %as
unacquained %i& suc& ec&nica* sense.
'imilar rules are laid down in 7ule 1!A 'ections 1A and
1# of the 7ules of Court 9
Sec10. Interpretaton of a wrtng accordng
to ts ega meanng - The anguage of a wrtng
s to be nterpreted accordng to the ega
meanng t bears n the pace of ts executon,
uness the partes ntended otherwse.
Sec14. Pecuar sgnfcaton of terms The
terms of a wrtng are presumed to have been
used n ther prmary and genera appcaton,
but evdence s admssbe to show that they
have a oca, technca, or otherwse pecuar
sgnfcaton, and were so used and understood
n the partcuar nstance, n whch case the
agreement must be construed accordngy.
n contractual interpretation- a similar principle is
e/pressed in Article 1!7A par13
Art1370. If the terms of a contract are cear
and eave no doubt upon the ntenton of the
contractng partes, the tera meanng of ts
stpuatons sha contro.
ART. 7B1. T&e %o$ds of a %i** a$e o $ecei#e an
ine$'$eaion %&ic& %i** )i#e o e#e$"
e+'$ession some effec( $a&e$ &an one
%&ic& %i** $ende$ an" of &e e+'$essions
ino'e$ai#e; and of %o modes of ine$'$ein)
a %i**( &a is o !e '$efe$$ed %&ic& %i**
'$e#en inesac".
A similar rule is found in 7ule 1!A 'ec11 of the 7oC 9
Sec11. Instrument construed so as to gve
effect to a provsons - In the constructon of an
nstrument where there are severa provsons or
partcuars, such a constructon s, f possbe, to
be adopted as w gve effect to a.
n contractual interpretation- Articles 1!7! and 1!7# lay
down similar principles 9
Art1373. If some stpuaton of any contract
shoud admt of severa meanngs, t sha be
understood as bearng that mport whch s most
adequate to render t effectua.
Art1374. The varous stpuatons of a
contract sha be nterpreted together,
attrbutng to the doubtfu one that sense whch
may resut from a of them taken |onty.
ART. 7B@. T&e in#a*idi" of one of se#e$a*
dis'osiions conained in a %i** does no
$esu* in &e in#a*idi" of &e o&e$
dis'osiions( un*ess i is o !e '$esumed &a
&e esao$ %ou*d no &a#e made suc& o&e$
dis'osiions if &e fi$s in#a*id dis'osiion &ad
no !een made.
This article ma+es applica.le to wills the
S%/%&(B*L*,1 +& S%P(&(B*L*,1 P&*)C*PL% in
statutory construction frequently e/pressly pro*ided in a
separa.ility clause.
Ryan Ouan 14 14
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
The source of this article is Art2A?% of the 8erman Ci*il
Code which pro*ides that the in*alidity of one of se*eral
dispositions contained in a will results in the in*alidity of
the other dispositions only if it is to .e presumed that
the testator would not ha*e made these if the in*alid
disposition had not .een made.
ART. 7BA. P$o'e$" acqui$ed afe$ &e ma2in) of a
%i** s&a** on*" 'ass &e$e!"( as if &e esao$
&ad 'ossessed i a &e ime of ma2in) &e
%i**( s&ou*d i e+'$ess*" a''ea$ !" &e %i**
&a suc& %as &is inenion.
This article creates pro.lems which would not ha*e
e/isted had it not .een so nonchalantly incorporated in
the Code- an implant from the Code of Ci*il )rocedure
and ultimately from American law.
The pro.lem springs from the fact that this article
ma+es the will spea+ as of the time it is made- rather
than at the time of the decedent4s death :which is more
logical .ecause that is when the will ta+es effect
according to Article 777;.
llustration 9 P e/ecutes a will in 1@?% containing a
legacy3 , gi*e to M all my shares in 2).0 The testator
dies in 1@@A- owning at the time of his death ten times
as many 2) shares as he did when he made the will.
Bnder Article 7@!- the shares acquired
after the will was e/ecuted are NOT included in
the legacy.
A$ic*e 7BA &e$efo$e de'a$s f$om &e coda*
'&i*oso'&" of A$ic*es 774 and 778 and consiues
an EHCEPTION o &e conce' of succession as
*in2ed o dea& and $ende$ed *e)a**" effeci#e !"
dea&.
)rof. 2alane suggests the pro*isions .e reworded as3
,)roperty acquired after the ma+ing of a will passes
there.y unless the contrary clearly appears from the
words or the conte/t of the will.0
n the meantime- it is suggested that a li.eral
application of the article .e allowed.
Can the word ,e/pressly0 in this article .e
interpreted to mean ,clearly0 e*en if it might .e
stretching a point6
ART. 7B4. E#e$" de#ise o$ *e)ac" s&a** co#e$ a**
&e ine$es %&ic& &e esao$ cou*d de#ice o$
!equea& in &e '$o'e$" dis'osed of( un*ess
i c*ea$*" a''ea$s f$om &e %i** &a &e
inended o con#e" a *ess ine$es.
This article should .e read together with Art@2@- which
pro*ides that ,if the testator- heir- or legatee owns only
a part of or an interest in the thing .equeathed- the
legacy or de*ise shall .e understood limited to such
part or interest- unless the testator e/pressly declares
that he gi*es the thing in its entirety.
8&N&7A" 7B"& 9 in a legacy or de*ise the testator
gi*es e/actly the interest he has in the thing.
&PC&)TON' 9 he can gi*e a less interest :Art7@#; or a
greater interest :Art@2@; than he has.
n the latter case- if the person owning the interest
to .e acquired does not wish to part with it- the
solution in Art@!1 can .e applied wherein the
legatee or de*isee shall .e entitled only to the
CB'T KA"B& O1 T=& NT&7&'T that should
ha*e .een acquired.
Ryan Ouan 15 15
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
R R EG EG C C AP O. THE AP O. THE R R 0LES ON 0LES ON
I INTERPRETATION NTERPRETATION
AN- AN- C C ONSTR0CTION O. ONSTR0CTION O. 1 1 ILLS ILLS
2. n case of dou.t- testacy is preferred and
disposition should .e interpreted in manner which
would ma+e it operati*e.
!. Two +inds of Am.iguities
"atent 9 imperfect description or
when no person or property e/actly answers
to description.
)atent 9 .ased on the face of the
will as to the application of any of its
pro*isions
#. n case of am.iguity- may resort to any e*idence-
e*en e/trinsic e*idence- .ut may not resort to
oral declarations of the testator as to his
intention.
%. 5ords of a will shall .e ta+en in their ordinary
and grammatical sense- unless3
Another sense or meaning is clearly
intended to .e used- and
That other sense or meaning can .e
ascertained
(. Technical words shall .e ta+en in technical
sense- e/cept3
5hen conte/t clearly indicates
otherwise
5ill was drawn solely .y the testator
and he was not acquainted with the technical
meaning of such word.
7. 5ords are to recei*e interpretation which will gi*e
it some effect.
?. n*alidity of one disposition in a will does not
mean the other dispositions are also in*alid.
2ut in*alidity of one pro*ision
affects the other if it is to .e presumed that
the testator would not ha*e made such other
disposition if the first in*alid disposition had
not .een made.
@. )roperty that is acquired .y the testator after the
will was e/ecuted shall only .e transmitted along
with those in the will- if the testator e/pressly
states in the will that such is his intention.
1A. A de*ise of legacy shall transmit the whole e/tent
of the testator4s interest in the property disposed.
ART. 7B5. T&e #a*idi" of a %i** as o is fo$m
de'ends u'on &e o!se$#ance of &e *a% in
fo$ce a &e ime i is made.
ASPECTS O. VALI-ITF O. 1ILLS
A. EHTRINSIC 9 $efe$s o &e $equi$emen of fo$m
I fo$ma* #a*idi"
#. $o8erning law as to ,*'%
a. 1ilipinos 9 law in force when the will was
e/ecuted :Art7@%;
.. 1oreigners 9 same rile. The assumption
here is that the will is .eing
pro.ated in the )hilippines.
2. $o8erning law as to PL(C%
1ilipinos or 1oreigners
a. "aw of citiHenship
.. "aw of domicile
c. "aw of residence
d. "aw of place of e/ecution- or
e. )hilippine law
Articles ?1%>?17 > 7ules of formal *alidity
a. 1ilipino A.road > According to the
law in the country in which he may .e
and may .e pro.ated in the )hilippines
.. Alien a.road > =as effect in the
)hilippines if made according to3 "aw
of place where he resides- "aw of his
own country or )hilippine law
c. Alien in the phils. > Kalid in )hils.
as if e/ecuted according to )hil. laws-
if3 Made according to law of country
which he is a citiHen or su.Dect- and
May .e pro*ed and allowed .y law of
his own country.
E. INTRINSIC 9 $efe$s o &e su!sance of &e
'$o#isions I su!sani#e #a*idi"
#. $o8erning law as to ,*'%
a. 1ilipinos 9 law at the time of death-
in connection with Art22(!.
.. 1oreigners 9 depends on their
personal law :Art1(- par2 and
Art1A!@;
2. $o8erning law as to PL(C%
a. 1ilipinos 9 )hilippine law :Art1( par2
and Art1A!@;
.. 1oreigners 9 their national law :Art1(
par2 and Art1A!@;
Art22(! pro*ides that ,7ights to the inheritance of a
person who died- with or without a will- before the
effecti*ity of this Code :August !A- 1@%A;- shall .e
go*erned .y the Ci8il Code of #EEB< by other pre8ious
laws< and by the &ules of Court. The inheritance of
those who- with or without a will- die after the .eginning
of the effecti*ity of this Code- shall .e adDudicated and
distri.uted in accordance with this new body of laws
and by the &ules of Court< .ut the testamentary
pro*isions shall .e carried out insofar as they may .e
Ryan Ouan 16 16
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
permitted .y this Code. Therefore- legiti6es<
better6ents< legacies and be=uests shall be respectedJ
howe8er< their a6ount shall be reduced if in no other
manner can e*ery compulsory heir .e gi*en his full
share according to this Code.0
Art1( par2 pro*ides that ,intestate and testamentary
successions- .oth with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights
and to the intrinsic *alidity of testamentary pro*isions-
shall .e regulated .y the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration- whate*er
may .e the nature of the property and regardless of the
country wherein said property may .e found.0
5hile Art1A!@ pro*ides that ,Capacity to 'ucceed is
go*erned .y the law of the nation of the decedent.0
Cases for Arts. $**&$67
Uriarte v. C(I
- Kicente Briarte instituted a special proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of $on Cuan Briarte .efore the C1
of Negros.
- Kicente Briarte contends that he is an ac+nowledged son of
the deceased and that as the natural son- he should .e
considered as the sole heir. Gt appears that Kicente
instituted a case .efore the same court for his
ac+nowledgment as a natural son- howe*er such case is yet
to attain finality.E
- =iginio Briarte filed an opposition to the special proceeding
alleging that $on Cuan Briarte e/ecuted a "ast 5ill and
Testament in 'pain.
- n another occasion- Cuan Tamacona commenced a special
proceeding for the pro.ate of the last will of $on Cuan .efore
the C1 of Manila.
- At the same time- Cuan Tamacona also filed a Motion to
$ismiss on the special proceeding instituted .y Kicente
alleging that .y *irtue of the will e/ecuted .y $on Cuan-
there is no legal .asis to proceed in the intestate proceeding
and that Kicente has no legal standing to initiate said
proceeding.
- The C1 of Negros accordingly dismissed the case. To
protect his interest- Kicente Briarte filed an Omni.us Motion
praying that he .e allowed to nter*ene .efore the C1 of
Manila or that the proceedings therein .e dismissed.
5hether or not the testate proceeding filed .y Cuan Tamacona
should ta+e precedence o*er the intestate proceeding
instituted .y Kicente
- The 'C held that in accordance with well settled
Durisprudence- testate proceedings for the settlement of the
estate of a deceased person shall ta+e precedence o*er
intestate proceedings o*er the same.
- This doctrine is in accord with the principle that T&'TACI is
preferred to NT&'TACI.
- Thus- in if in the case of intestate proceedings pending
.efore a court- it is found that the decedent had left a last
will- proceedings for the pro.ate of the latter should replace
the intestate proceedings e*en if at the stage an
administrator has already .een appointed.
5hich of the two courts is the proper *enue for the settlement
of estate of $on Cuan
- The 'C held that the proper *enue should ha*e .een with
the C1 of Negros.
- The Courts of 1irst nstance is granted the original and
e/clusi*e Durisdiction o*er all matters of pro.ate Gthis
includes testate and intestate proceedingsE
- n this light- .oth the C1 of Manila and Negros ha*e
Durisdiction o*er the su.Dect matter. Thus- the question .oils
down to where the proper *enue lies.
- Kenue in the settlement of an estate- if the decedent is an
inha.itant of foreign country- is in the C1 of any pro*ince on
which the decedent had an estate. This is true for .oth the
C1 of Manila and Negros.
- Although as declared a.o*e that an intestate intestate
proceeding should gi*e way to testate proceedings- records
show that e/pediency would ha*e .een achie*ed if
Tamacona filed the petition in the Negros Court.
- The Negros court was already informed of the e/istence of a
will .y =iginio and that in fact the latter was requested to
su.mit a copy of the said will.
- 2ut since *enue is a wai*ea.le defect- Kicente is .arred .y
laches from raising the same as it was almost a year when
he raised the o.Dection.
- Testacy is preferred to ntestacy.
- f in the case of intestate proceedings pending .efore a
court- it is found that the decedent had left a last will-
proceedings for the pro.ate of the latter should replace the
intestate proceedings e*en if at the stage an administrator
has already .een appointed.
- This is without preDudice that should the alleged will .e
reDected or disappro*ed- the proceeding shall continue as an
intestacy.
Enri8uez9 et al. v. Abadia9 et al.
- n 1@2!- 1r. 'ancho A.adia of Talisay- Ce.u e/ecuted a
document purporting to .e his "ast 5ill and Testament
co*ering his properties the estimated *alue of which was
)?AAA when he died in 1@#!.
- Andres &nriqueH- one of the legatees- filed a petition for its
pro.ate in the C1 of Ce.u- to the opposition of the late
priest4s cousins and nephews.
- One of the witnesses Gthe other two ha*e diedE related that
in his presence and of his co>witnesses- 1r. A.adia wrote
out in longhand in 'panish which the testator spo+e and
understood< signed on the left hand margin each of the three
pages- num.ered the same with Ara.ic numerals- and
signed the last page after declaring that it was his last will-
after which the three witnesses signed on the last page as
well.
- n 1@2!- long .efore the New Ci*il Code was in force-
holographic wills Gas the one prepared .y 1r. A.adia-
determined as such .y the lower courtE were in#a*id.
- The law at the time also required num.ering correlati*ely
each page in letters and signing on the left hand margin .y
the testator and .y the three attesting witnesses on each of
the three pages- among others- which were not followed in
the present will.
- =owe*er- the lower court said that since the New Ci*il Code
was already in effect at the time of the hearing and the
ma+ing of the decision in 1@%2- a li.eral *iew ought to .e
Ryan Ouan 17 17
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
ta+en to carry out the intention of the testator which is the
controlling factor and which may o*erride any defect in form.
5hether or not the pro*isions of the New Ci*il Code which
allowed holographic wills may .e applied to *alidate 1r.
A.adia4s will.
- NO. No su.sequent law with more li.eral requirements or
which dispenses with such requirements as to e/ecution
should .e allowed to *alidate a defecti*e will and there.y
di*est the heirs of their *ested rights in the estate .y
intestate succession. The general rule is that the "egislature
cannot *alidate *oid wills.
- Art. 7@% of the New Ci*il Code pro*ides3 ,The *alidity of a
will as to its form depends upon the o.ser*ance of the law in
force at the time it is made.0
- The a.o*e pro*ision weight of authority to the effect that the
*alidity of a will is to .e Dudged not .y the law in force at the
time of the testator4s death or at the time the supposed will is
presented in court for pro.ate or when the petition is
decided .y the court .ut at the time the instrument was
e/ecuted.
- The wishes of the testator a.out the disposition of his estate
among his heirs and among the legatees is gi*en solemn
e/pression at the time the will is e/ecuted- and in reality- the
legacy or .equest then .ecomes a completed act.
- The position that su.sequent statutes should .e applied to
*alidate wills defecti*ely e/ecuted according to the law in
force at the time of e/ecution is untena.le.
- The reason for the a.o*e is that from the day of the death of
the testator- if he lea*es a will- the title of the legatees and
de*isees under it .ecomes a *ested right- protected under
the due process clause of the constitution.
- Art. 7@% of the New Ci*il Code pro*ides3 ,The *alidity of a
will as to its form depends upon the o.ser*ance of the law in
force at the time it is made.0
- The a.o*e pro*ision weight of authority to the effect that the
*alidity of a will is to .e Dudged not .y the law in force at the
time of the testator4s death or at the time the supposed will is
presented in court for pro.ate or when the petition is
decided .y the court .ut at the time the instrument was
e/ecuted.
- No su.sequent law with more li.eral requirements or which
dispenses with such requirements as to e/ecution should .e
allowed to *alidate a defecti*e will and there.y di*est the
heirs of their *ested rights in the estate .y intestate
succession. The general rule is that the "egislature cannot
*alidate *oid wills.
In re Estate of Calderon
- This is an appeal made .y the attorneys for 2asilla 'alteras-
)otenciana de la CruH and 2enigno Calderon- the latter as
the natural guardian of the minors Maria and Cosefa
Calderon from an order which directed that the administrator
.e authoriHed to ma+e a con*eyance of property- a house
and lot- situate in 2inondo to )etronila &ugenio.
- The case questions on 1E =ow and what manner the
pro*isions made .y the testator- the deceased Miguel 1a.le-
in clause 12 of his will should .e complied with< and 2E 5ho
should recei*e pro rata the legacy specified in the said
clause.
- The said clause states that the property on Calle Analogue
will .e left as legacy to his wife under the condition that with
its re*enue she shall care for and educate and assist during
her widowhood the children of their ser*ants and the two
children of $. "ucas y &ugenio<
- n the same will- Miguel 1a.ie authoriHed her wife to pro*ide
in her will that property .e deli*ered to the persons who may
ha*e assisted and cared for her during her widowhood until
her death and to sell the property so that the proceeds to .e
di*ided if there .e any foreseea.le disagreements o*er the
property<
- The same will also pro*ided that should the wife forget to
ma+e a will- that it .e complied with and fulfilled .y his
.rother 7amon 1a.le.
- The testator4s will- as recorded in the a.o*ementioned is so
clear and definite that in order duly to comply therewith- it
needs .ut .e determined who are the persons that must .e
considered as the legatees on account of their ha*ing
ser*ed and cared for the testator4s widow until their death.
- 1rom a due e/amination of the e*idence presented at the
trial- those entitled are &ncarnacion 8utierreH Calderon-
1ilomena Calderon- )otenciana de la CruH- 2asilisa
'alteras- Candida 7eyes- 2enita 8arcia- Maria and Cosefa
Calderon and )etronilla &ugenio.
- The minor children were also of ser*ice to the widow- and
should equally recei*e a pro>rate share on the property4s
*alue. t was not only )etronila who had ser*ed the widow-
there were many others and she should not alone get the
property.
- 'ince some of them did so- as pro*en .y the record- the law
must .e fulfilled in accordance with the tenor of the last will
of the testator.
- t is the settled rule that the intention and wishes of the
testator- when clearly e/pressed in his will- constitute the
fi/ed law of interpretation.
Balanay v. :artinez
- "eodegaria Culian- in her will- partitioned her paraphernal as
well as all the conDugal properties as if they were all owned
.y her- disposing of her hus.andUs one>half share- and
pro*iding that the properties should not .e di*ided during
her hus.andUs lifetime .ut should remain intact and that the
legitimes should .e paid in cash to .e satisfied out of the
fruits of the properties.
- 1eli/ 2alanay- Cr. filed a petition for the appro*al of his
motherUs will which was opposed .y the hus.and and some
of her children.
- $uring the pendency of the pro.ate proceedings petitioner
su.mitted to the court a document showing his fatherUs
conformity to the testamentary distri.ution- renouncing his
hereditary rights in fa*or of his children in deference to the
memory of his wife.
- The Court denied the opposition- set for hearing the pro.ate
of the will and ga*e effect to the affida*it and conformity of
the sur*i*ing spouse.
- Meanwhile- a certain Atty. $a*id MontaSa- 'r. allegedly- in
.ehalf of the petitioner- mo*ed to dismiss the pro.ate
proceedings and requested authority to proceed .y intestate
proceedings on the ground that the will was *oid G.ecause
"eodegaria cannot *alidly dispose of her hus.and4s shareE -
which motion was granted .y the pro.ate court. The Court-
howe*er- did not a.rogate its prior orders to proceed with
the pro.ate proceedings.
- )etitioner impugned the order of dismissal claiming that Atty.
MontaSa had no authority to as+ for the dismissal of the
petition for allowance of will and that the court erred in
declaring the will *oid .efore resol*ing the question of its
formal *alidity.
Ryan Ouan 1 1
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
5hether the pro.ate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic
*alidity of the will- .efore ruling on its allowance or formal
*alidity- and in declaring it *oid.
- NO. n *iew of certain unusual pro*isions of the will- which
are of du.ious legality- and .ecause of the motion to
withdraw the petition for pro.ate Gwhich the lower court
assumed to ha*e .een filed with the petitionerUs
authoriHationE- the trial court acted correctly in passing upon
the willUs intrinsic *alidity e*en .efore its formal *alidity had
.een esta.lished.
- The pro.ate of a will might .ecome an idle ceremony if on
its face it appears to .e intrinsically *oid. 5here practical
considerations demand that the intrinsic *alidity of the will .e
passed upon- e*en .efore it is pro.ated- the court should
meet the issue
5hether the court erred in con*erting the testate proceeding
into an intestate proceeding notwithstanding the fact that in its
order of Cune U?- 1@7! it ga*e effect to the sur*i*ing hus.andUs
conformity to the will and to his renunciation of his hereditary
rights which presuma.ly included his one>half share of the
conDugal estate.
- I&'. The rule is that Nthe in*alidity of one of se*eral
dispositions contained in a will does not result in the
in*alidity of the other dispositions- unless it is to he
presumed that the testator would not ha*e made such other
dispositions if the first in*alid disposition had not .een
madeN GArt. 7@2- Ci*il CodeE.
- N5here some of the pro*isions of a will are *alid and others
in*alid- the *alid parts will .e upheld if they can .e
separated from the in*alid without defeating the intention of
the testator or interfering with the general testamentary
scheme- or doing inDustice to the .eneficiariesN
- Koid pro*isions in the will3
1. The statement of the testatri/ that she owned the
Nsouthern halfN of the conDugal lands is contrary to law
.ecause- although she was a co>owner thereof- her
share was inchoate and pro indi*iso
2. that the properties of the testatri/ should not .e
di*ided among her heirs during her hus.andUs lifetime
.ut should .e +ept intact and that the legitimes
should .e paid in cash is contrary to article UA?A of
the Ci*il Code
5hether an heir may *alidly renounce his share
- I&'. 1eli/ 2alanay- 'r. could *alidly renounce his hereditary
rights and his one>half share of the conDugal partnership
GArts. U7@:U; and UA#U- Ci*il CodeE .ut insofar as said
renunciation parta+es of a donation of his hereditary rights
and his one>half share in the conDugal estate GArt. UA%A:U; Ci*il
CodeE- it should .e su.Dect to the limitations prescri.ed in
articles 7%A and 7%2 of the Ci*il Code. A portion of the
estate should .e adDudicated to the widower for his support
and maintenance. Or at least his legitime should .e
respected.
- 8enerally- the pro.ate of a will is mandatory and it is the
duty of the court to pass first upon its formal *alidity e/cept
in e/treme cases where the will is on its face intrinsically
*oid.
- A will is not rendered null and *oid .y reason of the
e/istence of some illegal or *oid pro*isions since the
in*alidity of one of se*eral dispositions contained in a will
does not result in the in*alidity of the other dispositions
unless it is to .e presumed that the testator would not ha*e
made such other dispositions if the first in*alid disposition
had not .een made<
- 5here some pro*isions are *alid and others in*alid- the
*alid pro*isions shall .e upheld if they can .e separated
from the in*alid pro*isions without defeating the intention of
scheme or doing inDustice to the .eneficiaries.
- The *ery e/istence of a purported testament is in itself prima
facie proof that the supposed testator has willed that his
estate should .e distri.uted in the manner therein pro*ided-
and it is incum.ent upon the state that- if legally tena.le-
such desire .e gi*en effect independent of the attitude of the
parties affected there.y
- Testacy is fa*ored. $ou.ts are resol*ed in fa*or of testacy
especially where the will e*inces an intention on the part of
the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate.
Bellis v. Bellis
- Amos 2ellis was a citiHen of the 'tate of Te/as and of the
Bnited 'tates.
- 2y his first wife- he had % legitimate children< .y his second
wife- he had ! legitimate children< and he had ! illegitimate
children.
- Amos e/ecuted a will in the )hilippines- in which he
specified how his estate will .e di*ided and distri.uted.
- 'u.sequently- Amos died- a resident of Te/as.
- =is will was admitted to pro.ate in the C1 of Manila.
- The )eople4s 2an+- as e/ecutor of will- paid all the .equests
included in Amos4 will.
- 2efore closing its administration- the e/ecutor su.mitted its
final report and proDect of partition.
- =owe*er- 2 of Amos4 illegitimate children filed their
oppositions to the proDect of partition on the ground that they
were depri*ed of their legitimes as illegitimate children and
therefore compulsory heirs of the deceased.
- The C1 issued an order o*erruling the oppositions and
appro*ing the e/ecutor4s final account- report and proDect
partition. The lower court- relying upon Art. 1( of the NCC-
applied the national law of Amos- which is the Te/as law-
which did not pro*ide for legitimes.
- The illegitimate children thus filed an Appeal.
5hether this case falls under Art. 17 of the NCC.
- NO.
- Appellants argue that their case falls under the
circumstances mentioned in the !
rd
paragraph of Art. 17 in
relation to Art. 1( of the NCC. t argues that Art. 17 pre*ails
as the e/ception to Art. 1(.
- The 'C rule that appellants argument is incorrect.
- t ruled that the change in the NCC shows that whate*er
pu.lic policy and good customs may .e in*ol*ed in our
system of legitimes- Congress has not intended to e/tend
the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Congress
has specifically chose to lea*e the amount of successional
rights to the decedent4s national law.
5hether )hilippine law should go*ern to Amos4 )hilippine
estate.
- NO. Appellants argued that Amos e/ecuted 2 wills 9 one to
go*ern his Te/as estate and the other his )hilippine estate 9
arguing that he intended )hilippine law to go*ern his
)hilippine estate.
- The 'C held that that a pro*ision in a foreigner4s will to the
effect that his properties shall .e distri.uted in accordance
Ryan Ouan 1! 1!
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
with )hilippine law and not with his national law- is i**e)a*
and #oid- for his national law cannot .e ignored in regard to
those matters that Art. 1( of the NCC states said national
law should go*ern.
5hich law must apply 9 Te/as law or )hilippine law6
- Te/as law applies.
- The petitioners admit that Amos was a citiHen of 'tate of
Te/as and that under the laws of Te/as- there are no forced
heirs of legitimes.
- Accordingly- since the intrinsic *alidity of the pro*ision of the
will and the amount of successional rights are to .e
determined under Te/as law- the )hilippine law on legitimes
cannot .e applied to the testacy of Amos.
- A$. 183 7eal property as well as personal property is su.Dect
ot the law of the country where it is situated. =owe*er-
intestate and testamentary succession- .oth with respect to
the order of succession and to the amount of successional
rights and to the intrinsic *alidity of testamentary pro*isions-
shall .e regulated .y the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration- whate*er may .e the
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein
said property may .e found.
- A$. 1CAB3 Capacity to succeed is go*erned .y the law of the
nation of the decedent.
- A$. 173 )rohi.iti*e laws concerning persons- their acts or
property- and those which ha*e for their o.Dect pu.lic order-
pu.lic policy and good customs shall not .e rendered
ineffecti*e .y laws or Dudgments promulgated- or .y
determinations or con*entions agreed upon in a foreign
country.
- The decedent4s national law go*erns the G1E order of
succession- G2E the amount of successional rights- G!E the
intrinsic *alidity of the pro*ision of the will and G#E the
capacity to succeed.
- Testamentary pro*ision that successional right to decedent4s
estate would .e go*erned .y law other than his national law
if *oid- .eing contrary to article 1( of the NCC.
Subse#tion + 1 -estamentary Ca'a#ity
And Intent
ART. 7B8. A** 'e$sons %&o a$e no e+'$ess*"
'$o&i!ied !" *a% ma" ma2e a %i**.
ART. 7B7. Pe$sons of ei&e$ se+ unde$ ei)&een
"ea$s of a)e canno ma2e a %i**.
ART. 7B<. In o$de$ o ma2e a %i** i is essenia*
&a &e esao$ !e of sound mind a &e ime
of is e+ecuion.
ART. 7BB. To !e of sound mind( i is no
necessa$" &a &e esao$ !e in fu**
'ossession of a** &is $easonin) facu*ies( o$
&a &is mind !e %&o**" un!$o2en(
unim'ai$ed( o$ uns&ae$ed !" disease( inJu$"
o$ o&e$ cause.
I s&a** !e sufficien if &e esao$ %as
a!*e a &e ime of ma2in) &e %i** o 2no% &e
nau$e of &e esae o !e dis'osed of( &e
'$o'e$ o!Jecs of &is !oun"( and &e
c&a$ace$ of &e esamena$" ac.
ART. <CC. T&e *a% '$esumes &a e#e$" 'e$son is
of sound mind( in &e a!sence of '$oof o &e
con$a$".
T&e !u$den of '$oof &a &e esao$ %as
no of sound mind a &e ime of ma2in) &is
dis'osiions is on &e 'e$son %&o o''oses
&e '$o!ae of &e %i**; !u if &e esao$( one
mon&( o$ *ess( !efo$e ma2in) &is %i** %as
'u!*ic*" 2no%n o !e insane( &e 'e$son %&o
mainains &e #a*idi" of &e %i** mus '$o#e
&a &e esao$ made i du$in) a *ucid
ine$#a*.
ART. <C1. Su'e$#enin) inca'aci" does no
in#a*idae an effeci#e %i**( no$ is &e %i** of an
inca'a!*e #a*idaed !" &e su'e$#enin) of
ca'aci".
Articles 7@(>?A1 lay down the rules on testamentary
capacity.
Testamentary Capacity 9 testa6enti factioJ
testa6entifacciKn acti8e- the legal capacity to ma+e
a will.
5ho has testamentary capacity6 All NATB7A"
persons- unless disqualified .y law. Curidical
persons are NOT granted testamentary capacity.
-IS/0ALI.IE- PERSONS
#. ,!+S% .)@%& #E 3(&,ABA5
Bnder &O2@2- the Administrati*e Code of
1@?7- which too+ effect on No#em!e$ @4(
1B<B- years are now rec+oned according to
the 8regorian Calendar.
'ec!1 pro*ides for the legal periods
aE Iear 9 12 calendar months
.E Month 9 !A days- unless specific
calendar month is referred to- in
which case it shall .e computed
according to the num.er of days the
specific calendar month contains
cE $ay 9 2# hours
dE Night 9 'unset to sunrise
2. ,!+S% +- .)S+.)@ '*)@ 3(&,ABE5
Bnsoundness of Mind :nsanity;
A.sence of the qualities of soundness of
mind
$efined .y the Code only .y indirection
.ecause only soundness of mind is
defined under Art7@@.
SO0N-NESS O. ,IN- 3SANITF4
N&8ATK&"I
1. Not necessary that testator .e in full
possession of reasoning faculties
Ryan Ouan 20 20
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
2. Not necessary that testator4s mind .e wholly
un.ro+en- unimpaired- unshattered .y
disease- inDury or other cause.
)O'TK&"I 9 A.ility to +now ! things
1. Nature of estate to .e disposed of
Testator should ha*e a fairly accurate
+nowledge of what he owns.
The more one owns- the less accurate his
+nowledge of his estate e/pected to .e.
2. )roper o.Dects of one4s .ounty< V
Testator should +now- under ordinary
circumstances- his relati*es in the most
pro/imate degrees- his +nowledge
e/pectedly decreasing as the degrees
.ecome more remote.
!. Character of testamentary act.
t is not required that the testator +now the
legal nature of a will with the erudition of a
ci*ilest.
All that he need +now is that the
document he is e/ecuting is one that
disposes of his property upon death.
"egal mportance and mplication of Mental Capacity
"aw is interested in the legal consequences of the
testator4s mental capacity or incapacity- not in the
medical aspects of mental disease.
The testator could .e mentally a.errant medically
.ut testamentarily capa.le- or *ice *ersa- mentally
competent medically .ut testamentarily
incompetent.
,%S, L as long as the testator< at the ti6e he
6ade the will< was capable of percei8ing the three
things 3nature of estate< ob>ects of bounty< and
character of testa6entary act5< he has
testa6entary capacity< whate8er else he 6ay be
6edically.
PRES0,PTION I GENERAL R0LE 9 $e!ua!*e
P$esum'ion of Sani" unde$ A$<CC.
T1O EHCEPTIONS 9 %&en &e$e is a $e!ua!*e
'$esum'ion of Insani" 9
1. 5hen testator- one 6onth or less before the
e?ecution of the will< was publicly Gnown to be
insane
2. 5hen the testator e?ecuted the will after being
placed under guardianship or ordered
co66itted- in either case- for insanity under
7ules @! and 1A1 of the 7oC- and .efore said
order has .een lifted.
The time for determining mental capacity
time of e?ecution of the will and no other temporal
criterion is to .e applied
ART. <C@. A ma$$ied %oman ma" ma2e a %i**
%i&ou &e consen of &e$ &us!and( and
%i&ou &e au&o$i" of &e cou$.
'e/ist pro*ision- contains an erroneous and unintended
suggestion that a married man does not ha*e the same
pri*ilege.
'uggested rewording 9
,A married person may ma+e a will without his or
her spouse4s consent.0
ART. <CA. A ma$$ied %oman ma" dis'ose !" %i**
of a** &e$ se'a$ae '$o'e$" as %e** as &e$
s&a$e of &e conJu)a* 'a$ne$s&i' o$ a!so*ue
communi" '$o'e$".
'e/ist pro*ision- contains an erroneous and unintended
suggestion that a married man does not ha*e the same
pri*ilege.
Article @7 of the 1amily Code supersedes this in part
Art@7. &ither spouse may dispose .y will of his or
her interest in the community property.
Cases for Arts. $6;&*<5
Ba)tas v. =a)uio
- This is an appeal from an order of the C1 admitting to
pro.ate a document which was offered as the last will and
testament of )ioquinto )aguio.
- The testator died a year and % months following the date of
the e/ecution of the will.
- 1or some 1# or 1% years prior to his death- the testator
suffered from paralysis of the left side of his .ody.
- A few years prior to his death- his hearing .ecame impaired
and he lost the power of speech.
- Owing to the paralysis of certain muscles- his head fell to
one side and sali*a ran from his mouth. =owe*er- he
retained the use of his right hand- and was a.le to write
fairly well. Through the medium of signs he was a.le to
indicate his wishes to his wife and to other mem.ers of his
family.
- At the time of the e/ecution of the will- there were four
testamentary witnesses.
- t appears that the testator made notes disposition he
desires to ma+e his property- from which his attorney
prepared a formal will which was then read to the testator-
who assented to it section .y section. After which the whole
will is read in a loud *oice and is then signed .y the testator
and four witnesses in the presence of each other.
5hether the will was e/ecuted according to the formalities and
requirements of the law.
- I&'. The 'C held that the requirements of the Code of Ci*il
)rocedure were fully complied with.
5hether the testator was in full enDoyment and use of his
mental faculties to e/ecute a *alid will.
Ryan Ouan 21 21
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- I&'. The is no sufficient e*idence to o*erthrow the legal
presumption of a sound mind and disposing memory.
- 5itnesses testified that- at the time of the e/ecution of the
will- the testator was in his right mind and that although
serious ill- he indicated .y the mo*ements of his head what
his wishes were.
- The e*idence shows that the writing and the e/ecution of the
will occupied a period of se*eral hours and that the testator
was ta+ing an acti*e part in all the proceedings.
- The 'C held that that the testimony of the two physicians do
not in any way strengthens the argument that the testator
was mentally incapacitated. The 'C said that their testimony
only confirms the fact that the testator had .een afflicted with
paralysis .ut neither of them attempted to state what the
mental condition of the testator was at the time he e/ecuted
the will in question.
- The 'C held that it cannot conclude from this that he was
wanting of the necessary mental capacity to dispose of his
property .y will.
- The 'C affirmed the order pro.ating the will.
- n our Durisdiction- the presumption of law is in fa*or of the
mental capacity of the testator and the .urden is upon the
contestants of the will to pro*e the lac+ of testamentary
capacity.
- 5hen a testator has ne*er .een adDudged insane .y a court
of competent Durisdiction- there is a presumption of mental
soundness which must .e o*ercome .y competent proof.
- To constitute a sound mind and disposing memory- it is not
necessary that the mind shall .e wholly un.ro+en-
unimpaired- and unshattered .y disease or otherwise- or
that the testator .e in full possession of all his reasoning
faculties.
- )erfect soundness of mind is not essential to testamentary
capacity.
- 1ailure of memory is not sufficient unless it .e total or
e/tends to his immediate family or property.
- The question is that- were his mind and memory sufficiently
sound to ena.le him to +now and understand the .usiness
in which he was engaged at the time when he e/ecuted his
will.
>a' -ua v. >a' Ca Kuan ? >a' Ca Llu
- Iap Tua- through a representati*e- filed a petition for the
pro.ate of the will of Tomasa &liHaga Iap Caong- the
deceased.
- The will dated 11 August 1@A@ was signed .y Tomasa and #
other witnesses.
- After due hearing- the Dudge ordered that Tomasa4s will .e
allowed and admitted to pro.ate.
- "ater- Iap Ca Fuan and Iap Ca "lu Gthe minorsE appeared
and were interested in the matters of the will. A guardian ad
lite6 G8a.rielE was then appointed.
- 8a.riel then filed a petition alleging that the will admitted to
pro.ate was null .ecause3
1. t was not e/ecuted in accordance with the law
Gspecifically with the signing of the witnessesE
2. Tomasa was not mentally capacitated to e/ecute the
will due to her sic+ness
!. Tomasa4s signature was o.tained through fraud and
illegal influence
#. Tomasa had earlier e/ecuted another will dated A(
August 1@A@ with all the formalities required .y law
- A rehearing was then ordered .y the Dudge.
5ON the will dated 11 August 1@A@ e/ecuted .y Tomasa was
*alid.
- I&'.
1. A plan of the room where the will was signed was
presented. t was shown that from the .ed where
Tomasa was lying- it was possi.le for her to see the
ta.le on which the witnesses signed the will.
2. As regard the issue of the soundness of Tomasa4s
mind when she e/ecuted the will- 'C held that in
*iew of the conflicting testimonies and the findings of
the lower court- it upheld the conclusion of the lower
court that Tomasa had clear +nowledge and +new
what she was doing at the time she signed the will.
!. Although it was contended that the signature of
Tomasa in the latter will *aried from the one found in
the earlier will- 'C held that if Tomasa signed any
portion of her name to the will- with the intention to
sign the same- that will amount to a signature. The
lower court found that no undue influence was
e/ercised o*er Tomasa when she e/ecuted the will.
The findings of the lower court- which had the
opportunity to see- hear and note the witnessed
during e/amination is accorded great weight. 'C
upheld the lower court4s findings.
#. On the issue of the e/ecution of an earlier will- the
'C held that the e/ecution of a former will is no proof
that she did not e/ecute a later one. 'he had the
perfect right to alter- modify- or re*o+e any and all of
her former wills and to ma+e a new one.
- 5hile it is an a.solute rule that one who ma+es a will must
sign the same in the presence of the witnesses and the
witnesses must sign in the presence of each other and of the
testator- yet the actual seeing of the signatures made ins not
necessary.
- t is sufficient if the signatures are made where it is possi.le
for the necessary parties- if they desire to see- may see the
signatures placed upon the will.
- A signature containing only the first name is ne*ertheless a
signature and is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the
law.
- f the writing of a mar+ simply upon a will is sufficient
indication of the intention of the person to ma+e and e/ecute
a will- then certainly the writing of a portion or all of the name
should .e accepted as a clear indication of an intention to
e/ecute the will.
Samson v. -an
- The Testator was suffering from dia.etes and had .een in a
comatose condition for se*eral days prior to his death. =e
died at a.out ?3AApm and the will is alleged to ha*e .een
e/ecuted in the noon of the same day.
- Oppositor in this case alleges that at the time of the
e/ecution of the will- testator is not of sound and disposing
mind.
5hether or not testator is of unsound mind
- 'C held that he was not. Although the attending physician
testified that he was in a state of coma- he also stated that
coma has *arying degrees of coma ad in its lighter forms the
patient may .e aroused and ha*e lucid inter*als.
- The petitioner presented % witnesses who all testified that he
was conscious and could her and understand what was said
to him and was a.le to indicate his desires. =e could spea+
distinctly or mo*e his head to answer questions. This was
gi*en greater weight .y the court as against the two
Ryan Ouan 22 22
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
witnesses presented .y oppositor- one of which was the
oppositor4s mother who was not considered as a
disinterested witness.
- Mere professional speculation cannot pre*ail o*er the
positi*e statements of % apparently credi.le witnesses
whose testimony does not seen unreasona.le.
-orres v. Lo'ez
- The contro*ersy on this case is centered on the allowance
or the disallowance of the will of Tomas 7odrigueH.
- Kicente "opeH acted as the administrator of the properties of
the decedent. A year .efore Tomas4s death- the latter was
also su.Dected to a guardianship proceeding- where the
court found the decedent incapacitated to ta+e care of
himself and his property. 1or this reason- Kicente was
named also as the guardian of the deceased.
- 2y *irtue of the court4s finding- the decedent was committed
in the )hilippine 8eneral =ospital where he e*entually died.
- Tomas e/pressed his desire to ma+e a will during one of the
*isits of 'antiago "opeH and accordingly- they
commissioned Atty. Mina to ascertain the wishes of the
decedent.
- The same will prepared .y the attorney was the same
document signed .y the testator and the other witnesses at
the 8eneral =ospital on Canuary !- 1@2#.
- After the decedent died- some of the relati*es of Tomas- the
Margarita "opeH faction- wanted the will in*alidated on the
ground that the testator was of unsound mind- and that the
latter was induced due to fraud on the e/ecution of the will.
- $uring the trial- the "uH "opeH faction presented doctors
whose medical findings re*eal that the testator was of sound
mind though wea+ on memory during the e/ecution of the
will. The doctors on the Margarita faction howe*er ha*e the
opposite conclusion- that in fact the decedent is suffering
from senile de.ility or of mental impairment.
5hether or not the will of Tomas 7odrigueH should .e allowed
- I&'. The 'C held that the will should .e allowed.
- The allegation of fraud was not pro*ed .y the e*idence.
- As to the soundness of the mind of Tomas- the Court first
declared that what is necessary is that the decedent must
ha*e a disposing mind. This means that the circumstances
of ad*anced age- health or wea+ memory alone are not
conclusi*e of the capacity of a person to ma+e a will.
- 1urthermore- the fact that a person is adDudged .y a court to
.e incapacitated in a guardianship proceeding is not
conclusi*e. Our laws do not ha*e any statute pro*iding for
the conclusi*eness of the Dudgments of a court on incapacity
of a person. A person placed under guardianship is
presumed to .e incapa.le .ut this presumption is refuta.le
.y contrary e*idence.
- n this case- since there were conflicting testimonies of well>
regarded physicians the court decided to .ase the capacity
of Tomas 7odrigueH to ma+e a will on the nature of the will
itself.
- As the will was simple and can .e easily understood.
- Also- the fact that the testator was a.le to confer with Atty.
Mina and disclose to him his interests- that he generally
remem.ered close relati*es and that he was still a.le to sign
the document properly shows that the deceased had
testamentary capacity.
- Testamentary capacity is the capacity to comprehend the
nature of the transaction in which the testator is engaged at
the time- to recollect the property to .e disposed of and the
persons who would naturally ha*e claims upon the testator-
and to comprehend the manner in which the instrument will
distri.ute his property.
San#@o v. Abella
- Matea A.ella- sometime prior to her death- as+ed her niece
to accompany her to a reputa.le physician for consultation.
- $uring her *isit- Matea stayed in one of the con*ents in 'an
1ernando "a Bnion.
- 'aid physician- $r. Antonio Querol- diagnosed her to .e
suffering from dyspepsia and cancer of the stomach.
- As such- Matea- immediately as+ed her attorney to come to
the con*ent so that she may ma+e her will. The will was
accordingly drafted and signed .y the testator in the
presence of the witnesses.
- Months after- Matea died.
- The opponent claims that Matea did not ha*e capacity to
ma+e the will at the time she e/ecuted the same as Mate
was deaf- has defecti*e eyesight and is suffering from
se*ere impairment of memory.
5hether or not Matea had testamentary capacity
- The 'c held in the affirmati*e.
- The mental capacity of the testator was esta.lished .y the
fact that she was a.le to lea*e home and tra*el to "A Bnion
to consult with the doctor- that she was a.le to gi*e her
medical history to her physician- that she in fact called an
attorney to ma+e her will- and that in fact she .rought with
her the deeds to her properties.
- All these show that Matea was intelligent enough to ma+e
the dispositions.
- The allegation that Mateo was induced .y the fact that she
donated one her properties to the .ishop of said diocese
was not sufficiently pro*en .y the e*idence.
- Neither senile de.ility- nor .lindness- nor poor memory- is .y
itself sufficient to incapacitate a person for ma+ing his will.
3onzales v. Carun#on)
- On No*em.er 27- 1@#?- Manuela .arra Kda. de 8onHales
Gtestatri/E died lea*ing fi*e children namely AleDandro
8onHales- Cr.- Manuel 8onHales- "eopoldo 8onHales-
Manolito 8onHales de Carungcong- and Cuan 8onHales. =er
estate is estimated at )1%A-AAA.
- Thereafter- one of the children of the testatri/- Manuel
8onHales filed in C1 7iHal for the pro.ate of an alleged will
.y the testatri/ e/ecuted on No*em.er 1(- 1@#2- de*ising to
Manuel 8onHales the greater portion of the estate wLo
impairing the legitimes of the other children.
- On the other hand- Manolita de Carungcong filed in the
same court a petition for the pro.ate of another alleged will
e/ecuted .y the testatri/ on May %- 1@#% de*ising to him the
greater portion of the estate.
- AleDandro 8onHales- Cr- one of the si.lings then sought the
disallowance of the wills presented .y his two other si.lings-
assuming that e*en if they are *alid- such were already
re*o+ed .y the testatri/ in an instrument e/ecuted .y her on
No*em.er 1?- 1@#? with the result that the testatri/4s estate
should .e distri.uted as if she died intestate.
- Thereafter- the C1 of 7iHal upheld the pro.ate of the will
presented .y Manolita Carungcong. And said that the will
Manuel 8onHales presented for pro.ate was re*o+ed
already .y the one Manolita presented and that the
instrument presented .y AleDandro was e/ecuted without the
+nowledge and testamentary capacity of the testatri/.
Ryan Ouan 23 23
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
5ON- the will presented .y Manolita Carungcong was *alid
despite the fact that it allegedly has no attestation clause
- The will is *alid.
- The appellants contest that the will is not *alid .ecause it
does not contain any attestation clause< that the concluding
paragraph to .e the attestation clause- it is not *alid
.ecause it is the act of the testatri/ and not of the witnesses-
and .ecause it does not state the num.er of sheets or pages
of the will.
- =owe*er- in a precedent case- the high court had already
sustained an attestation clause made .y the testator and
forming part of the .ody of the will.
- n that case- it was said that- ,The only apparent anomaly we
find is that it appears to .e an attestation made .y the
testator himself more than .y the instrumental witnesses.
This apparent anomaly howe*er is not in our opinion serious
nor su.stantial as to affect the *alidity of the will- appearing
that right under the signature of the testator- there appear
the signatures of the three instrumental witnesses.0
- And such is a sufficient compliance with requirements set
out .y the law. t is significant that the law does not require
the attestation to .e contained in a single clause. That
unsu.stantial departure from the usual forms should .e
ignored- especially where the authenticity of the will is not
assailed.
- Now- with respect to the instrument presented .y AleDandro
8onHales- it can .e shown that the instrument was prepared
when the testatri/ lac+ed the testamentary capacity as this
was pro*ed .y the attending physician. 5hen the alleged
instrument was prepared- the testatri/ was already suffering
and was in a comatose and unconscious state and could not
tal+ or understand.
- An attestation clause made .y the testator and signed .y the
witnesses su.stantially complies with law.
- 'tatement of sheets of pages in .ody of will held sufficient
when considered in connection with attestation clause.
He$naeK #. He$naeK
Subse#tion 5 1 (orms of 2ills
ART. <C4. E#e$" %i** mus !e in %$iin) and
e+ecued in a *an)ua)e o$ dia*ec 2no%n o
&e esao$.
Art?A# lays down Common 7equirements that apply
.oth to ATT&'T&$ and =O"O87A)=C wills.
Art?A%>?A? lays down special requirements for attested
wills. Articles ?1A>?1# lays down special requirements
for holographic wills.
T1O CO,,ON RE/0IRE,ENTS
#. *) 4&*,*)$
Oral wills :the testa6entu6 nuncupati8u6
of the nstitutes; are not recogniHed in the
Ci*il Code.
=owe*er- oral wills are allowed under the
Code of Muslim )ersonal "aws or )$1A?! in
relation to Art1A2G2E.
2. *) ( L()$.($% +& @*(L%C, M)+4) ,+
,!% ,%S,(,+&
The pro*isions of Article ?A# are
MAN$ATO7I and failure to comply with the
two requirements nullifies the will.
Neither the will nor the attestation clause
need state compliance with Art?A#. This can
.e pro*ed .y &/trinsic &*idence.
)resumption of Compliance 9 it may
sometimes .e presumed that the testator
+new the language in which the will was
written.
aE 5ill must .e in a language or dialect
generally spo+en in the place of
e/ecution- and
.E The testator must .e a nati*e or
resident of said locality.
CA'&'
Suroza v. Honrado
- This is a complaint against Cudge =onrado for admitting to
pro.ate a will which- on its face is *oid.
- Mauro 'uroHa- a corporal in the B' army married Marcelina
'al*ador. They reared a .oy named Agapito 'uroHa- who
considered them as his parents. Mauro died and Marcelina
got pension from the 1ederal go*4t.
- Agapito married Nenita and had a child named "ilia.
Agapito .ecame a soldier. 5hen he was disa.led Nenita
.ecame his guardian.
- Agapito allegedly had a girlfriend- Arsenia dela CruH who
also tried to .ecome his guardian .ut was denied .y the
court. A child- Marilyn 'y was thereafter entrusted to
Arsenia .y the 'pouses 'y. Arsenia deli*ered the child to
Marcelina 'al*ador- who .rought up the child as a supposed
daughter of Agapito and her granddaughter- .ut was ne*er
legally adopted .y Agapito.
- 5hen Marcelina died- her laundrywoman- Marina )eDe- filed
a petition for pro.ate of Marcelina4s will- which was written in
&nglish and thum. mar+ed .y Marcelina- naming Marina as
the e/ecutri/ and Marilyn as the sole heir.
- The case was assigned to =onrado who appointed Marina
as the administrator and allowed her to withdraw sums of
money from Marcelina4s sa*ing4s account. Bpon motion of
Marina- an order was issued to eDect the occupants of
Marcelina4s house. This order alerted Nenita to the
e/istence of the testamentary proceeding for the settlement
of Marcelina4s estate.
- Nenita opposed the proceedings .ut to no a*ail.
5hether disciplinary action should .e ta+en against =onrado
- Ies. The testatri/ was illiterate. n the opening paragraph
of the will- it was stated that &nglish was a language
understood and +now to the testatri/. 2ut in its concluding
paragraph- it was stated that the will was read to the testatri/
and translated into 1ilipino. That could only mean that the
will was written in a language not +nown to the illiterate and-
therefore- *oid .ecause of the mandatory pro*ision of art.
?A# of the CC that e*ery will must .e e/ecuted in a
language +nown to the testator.
- =ad =onrado .een careful and o.ser*ant- he could ha*e
noted not only the anomaly as to the language of the will .ut
also that there was something wrong in instituting the
supposed granddaughter as sole heiress and gi*ing nothing
at all to her supposed father who was still ali*e.
- =e should also ha*e noted that the notary was not
presented as witness.
Ryan Ouan 24 24
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- A will written in a language that is not +nown to the testator
is *oid.
Aban)an v. Aban)an
- The C1 admitted to pro.ate Ana A.angan4s will.
- The said document- duly pro.ated as Ana A.angan4s will-
consists of two sheets- the first of which contains all the
disposition of the testatri/- duly signed at the .ottom of
Martin Montal.an Gin the name and under the direction of the
testatri/E and .y ! witnesses.
- The second sheet contains only the attestation clause duly
signed at the .ottom .y the three instrumental witnesses.
- Neither of these sheets is signed on the left margin .y the
testatri/ and the three witnesses- nor num.ered .y letters.
5hether the a.sence of the signature on the left margin of will
in*alidate A.angan4s will.
- NO. The 'C held that in a will consisting of two sheets- the
first of which contains all the testamentary dispositions and
is signed at the .ottom .y the testator and ! witnesses and
the second contains only the attestation clause and is
signed also at the .ottom .y the ! witnesses- it is not
necessary that .oth sheets .e further signed on their
margins .y the testator and the witnesses- or .e paged.
5hether the failure to num.er .y the letters will in*alidate the
will of A.angan.
- NO. n requiring that each and e*ery page of a will must .e
num.ered correlati*ely in letters placed on the upper part of
the sheet- the o.Dect of the law is to +now whether any sheet
of the will has .een remo*ed.
- 2ut- when all the dispositi*e parts of a will are written on one
sheet only- the o.Dect of the statute disappears .ecause the
remo*al of this single sheet- although unnum.ered- cannot
.e hidden.
5hether the will was written in the dialect that the testatri/
+new.
- I&'. The circumstances appearing in the will itself that the
same was e/ecuted in Ce.u and in the dialect of this locality
where the testatri/ was a neigh.or is enough- in the
a.sence of any proof to the contrary- to presume that she
+new this dialect in which the will was written.
- The testator4s signature is not necessary in the attestation
clause .ecause this- as its name implies- appertains only to
the witnesses and not to the testator.
- n requiring the signature on the margin- the statute too+ into
consideration the case of a will written on se*eral sheets
and must ha*e referred to the sheets which the testator and
the witnesses do not ha*e to sign at the .ottom.
,endoKa # Pi*a'i*
ART. <C5. E#e$" %i**( o&e$ &an a &o*o)$a'&ic
%i**( mus !e su!sc$i!ed a &e end &e$eof !"
&e esao$ &imse*f o$ !" &e esao$:s name
%$ien !" some o&e$ 'e$son in &is '$esence(
and !" &is e+'$ess di$ecion( and aesed
and su!sc$i!ed !" &$ee o$ mo$e c$edi!*e
%inesses in &e '$esence of &e esao$ and
of one ano&e$.
T&e esao$ o$ &e 'e$son $equesed !"
&im o %$ie &is name and &e ins$umena*
%inesses of &e %i**( s&a** a*so si)n( as
afo$esaid( eac& and e#e$" 'a)e &e$eof(
e+ce' &e *as( on &e *ef ma$)in( and a** &e
'a)es s&a** !e num!e$ed co$$e*ai#e*" in
*ee$s '*aced on &e u''e$ 'a$ of eac& 'a)e.
T&e aesaion c*ause s&a** sae &e
num!e$ of 'a)es used u'on %&ic& &e %i** is
%$ien( and &e fac &a &e esao$ si)ned
&e %i** an e#e$" 'a)e &e$eof( o$ caused
some o&e$ 'e$son o %$ie &is name( unde$
&is e+'$ess di$ecion( in &e '$esence of &e
ins$umena* %inesses( and &a &e *ae$
%inessed and si)ned &e %i** and a** &e
'a)es &e$eof in &e '$esence of &e esao$
and of one ano&e$.
If &e aesaion c*ause is in a *an)ua)e
no 2no%n o &e %inesses( i s&a** !e
ine$'$eed o &em.
ART. <C8. E#e$" %i** mus !e ac2no%*ed)ed
!efo$e a noa$" 'u!*ic !" &e esao$ and &e
%inesses. T&e noa$" 'u!*ic s&a** no !e
$equi$ed o $eain a co'" of &e %i**( o$ fi*e
ano&e$ %i& &e Office of &e C*e$2 of Cou$.
SPECIAL RE/0IRE,ENTS .OR ATTESTE- I
OR-INARF I NOTARIAL 1ILLS >
0. Subs#ribed by t@e testator or @is a)ent in
@is 'resen#e and by @is e,'ress dire#tion at
t@e end t@ereof9 in t@e 'resen#e of t@e
Aitnesses
'u.scri.ed .y the testator 9 To su.scri.e
denotes writing- more precisely to write
under. To 'ign means to place a
distinguishing mar+.
Thus signing has a .roader meaning than
su.scri.ing. Not e*ery signature is a
su.scription and not e*ery distinguishing
mar+ is a writing.
T=BM2MA7F A' '8NATB7&
a) s the placing of the testator4s
thum.print a signature within the
contemplation of the article6 I&'- on the
authority of )ayad *. Tolentino and
Matias *. 'alud- the testator7s thu6bprint
is always a 8alid and sufficient signature
for the purpose of co6plying with the
re=uire6ent of (rtE0F.
.E There is no .asis for limiting the
*alidity of thum.prints only to cases of
illness or infirmity.
A C7O'' A' '8NATB7& 9 a sign of the
cross placed .y the testator does not comply
with the statutory requirement of signature-
Ryan Ouan 25 25
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
BN"&'' it is the testator4s usual manner of
signature or one of his usual styles of signing.
'8NN8 2I AN A8&NT O1 T=&
T&'TATO7 9
,wo &e=uisites
i. Must sign in the testator4s
presence- and
ii. 2y the testator4s e/press direction
5hat the agent must write 9 need not .e
alleged in the will itself that agent wrote
the testator4s name under the latter4s
e/press direction
The essential thing- for *alidity- is that the
agent write the testator7s na6e- nothing
more. t would .e a good thing- .ut not
required- for the agent to indicate the fact
of agency or authority.
May the agent .e one of the attesting
witnesses6
aE f there are more than ! witnesses 9
I&'
.E f there are only ! witnesses 9
Bncertain.
'8NN8 AT T=& &N$
f the will contains only dispositi*e
pro*isions- there will .e no am.iguity as
to where the end of the will is. f howe*er
the will contains non>dispositi*e
paragraphs after the testamentary
dispositions- one can refer to two +inds of
end 9
1. )hysical &nd 9 where the writing
stops
2. "ogical &nd 9 where the last
testamentary disposition ends
'igning at either the physical end or
logical end is equally permissi.le. The
non>dispositi*e portions are not essential
parts of the will.
Signing before the end in8alidates not
only the dispositions that co6e after< but
the entire will< because then one of the
statutory re=uire6ents would not ha8e
been co6plied with.
'8NN8 N T=& )7&'&NC& O1
5TN&''&'
Actual seeing is not required- .ut the
a.ility to see each other :the testator and
the witnesses; .y merely casting their
eyes in the proper direction.
+. Attested and subs#ribed by at least t@ree
#redible Aitnesses in t@e 'resen#e of t@e
testator and of one anot@er.
Two distinct things are required of the
witnesses here 9
aE Attesting 9 which is the act of
witnessing
.E 'u.scri.ing 9 which is the act of
signing their names in the proper
places of the will
2oth must .e done.
May the witness- li+e the testator- affi/ his
thum.mar+ in lieu of writing his name6 Art?2A
requires a witness to .e a.le to read and
write- .ut this does not answer the query
definiti*ely. The point is de.ata.le.
'igning in the presence of the testator and
of one another > Actual seeing is not required-
.ut the a.ility to see each other :the testator
and the witnesses; .y merely casting their
eyes in the proper direction.
5. -estator9 or @is a)ent9 must si)n every
'a)e9 e,#e't t@e last9 on t@e left mar)in in t@e
'resen#e of t@e Aitnesses
The last page need not .e signed .y the
testator on the margin .ecause- .eing the
page where the end of the will isit already
contains the testator4s signature.
There is a Mandatory and a $irectory part
to this requirement 9
aE MAN$ATO7I 9 the signing on e*ery
page in the witnesses4 presence
.E $7&CTO7I 9 place of the signing-
the left margin- the signature can .e
affi/ed anywhere on the page.
'igning in the presence > Actual seeing is
not required- .ut the a.ility to see each other
:the testator and the witnesses; .y merely
casting their eyes in the proper direction
%. -@e Aitnesses must si)n every 'a)e9
e,#e't t@e last9 on t@e left mar)in in t@e
'resen#e of t@e testator and of one anot@er.
Order of 'igning 9 immaterial- pro*ided
e*erything is done in a single transaction.
=owe*er- if the affi/ation of the signatures is
done in se*eral transactions- then it is
required for *alidity that the T&'TATO7 affi/
his signature ahead of the witnesses.
7. All 'a)es numbered #orrelatively in letters
on t@e u''er 'art of ea#@ 'a)e.
Mandatory and $irectory part
aE MAN$ATO7I 9 pagination .y means
of a con*entional system. The
purpose is to pre*ent insertion or
remo*al of pages
.E $7&CTO7I 9 pagination in letters
on the upper part of each page.
Ryan Ouan 26 26
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
;. Attestation #lause9 statin)B
aC /umber of 'a)es of t@e Aill
bC (a#t t@at t@e testator or @is a)ent
under @is e,'ress dire#tion si)ned t@e
Aill and every 'a)e t@ereof9 in t@e
'resen#e of t@e Aitnesses
#C -@e fa#t t@at t@e Aitnesses
Aitnessed and si)ned t@e Aill and every
'a)e t@ereof in t@e 'resen#e of t@e
testator and of one anot@er.
The attestation clause is the affair of
witnesses therefore- it need not .e signed .y
the testator.
The signatures of the witnesses must .e
at the 2OTTOM of the attestation clause.
f the entire document consists only of 2
sheets- the first containing the will and the
second the attestation clause- there need not
.e any marginal signatures at all :A.angan *.
A.angan;
The fact that the attestation clause was
written on a separate page has .een held to
.e a matter of minor importance and
apparently will not affect the *alidity of the
will.
$. A#knoAled)ement before a notary 'ubli#.
Code does not re=uire that the signing of
the testator< witnesses and notary should be
acco6plished in one single act.
All that is required in this article is that the
testator and witnesses should a*ow to the
notary the authenticity of their signatures and
the *oluntariness of their actions in e/ecuting
the testamentary disposition. :Ca*ellana *.
"edesma;
aE 7atio 9 Certification of
ac+nowledgement need not .e signed .y
notary in the presence of testator and
witnesses.
.E Art?A( does not require that testator
and witnesses must ac+nowledge on the
same day that it was e/ecuted.
cE "ogical nference 9 neither does the
article require that testator and witnesses
must ac+nowledge in one another4s
presence. f ac+nowledgement is done
.y testator and witness separately- all of
them must retain their respecti*e
capacities until the last one has
ac+nowledged.
)otary cannot be counted as one of the
attesting witnesses.
(ffi?ing of docu6entary sta6p is not
re=uired for 8alidity.
'ome $iscrepancies
)ar1 Art?A% 9 No statement that the testator must
sign in the presence of the witnesses
)ar2 Art?A% 9 No statement that the testator and
the witnesses must sign e*ery page in one
another4s presence.
2ut these two things are required to .e
stated in the attestation clause.
Conclusion is that they should .e
complied with as requirements.
Attestation clause is not required to state that the
agent signed in the testator4s presence > a
circumstance mandated .y the 1
st
and 2
nd
paragraphs of the article.
ndication of $ate 9 there is no requirement that an
attested will should .e dated- unli+e a holographic will.
CA'&
=ayad v. -olentino
- The lower court denied pro.ate on the will of deceased
Tolentino on the ground that the attestation clause was not
in conformity with the requirements of law in that it is not
stated therein that the testatri/ caused Atty. Almario to write
her name at her e/press direction.
- 5hether or not the will should .e denied pro.ate.
- 'C held that it should not .e denied .ecause3
1. The deceased placed her thum. mar+ on each and
e*ery page of the will and the attorney merely wrote
her name to indicate the place where she placed her
thum. mar+. Thus- the attorney did not really sign for
her.
2. t was not necessary that the attestation clause
should state that the testatri/ requested Atty.
Alamario to sign her name since she signed it in
accordance with law.
A statute requiring a will to .e signed is satisfied if the
signature is made .y the testator4s mar+.
:atias v. Salud
- The C1 denied pro.ate of the will of 8a.ina 7aquel.
- t must .e noted that 8a.ina 7aquel was suffering from
herpes 9oster that afflicted the right arm and shoulder of the
testatri/- which made writing difficult and a painful act.
- Thus- upon the insistence of the attorney- 8a.ina attempted
to sign- .ut since it was so painful she Dust managed to
thum.mar+ed the foot of the document and the left margin at
each page.
- The parties opposing the pro.ate of the will contended that
the will was *oid due to the irregularities in the e/ecution
thereof.
- One of the points raised .y the oppositors was that the
finger mar+ can not .e regarded as the decedent4s *alid
signature as it does not show distinct identifying ridgelines.
- And since the finger mar+ was an in*alid signature- there
must appear in the attestation clause that another person
wrote the testator4s name at his request.
5hether or not the will was *alid
- The 'C held that the will was *alid.
- As to the clarity of the ridge impressions- it is so dependent
on aleatory requirements as to require de/terity that can .e
Ryan Ouan 27 27
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
e/pected of *ery few persons< testators should not .e
required to possess the s+ill of trained officers.
- And as to the *alidity of the thum.prints as signature- the 'C
held that it has .een held in a long line of cases that a
thum.print is always a *alid and sufficient signature for the
purpose of complying with the requirement of the article.
- 1urthermore- the *alidity of thum.prints should not .e limited
in cases of illness or infirmity.
- A thum.print is considered as a *alid and sufficient
signature in complying with the requirements of the article.
3ar#ia v. La#uesta
- This case purports to the *alidity of the will e/ecuted .y
Antero Mercado.
- The will is said to .e irregularly e/ecute as the attestation
clause did not mention that it was Atty. Ca*ier who signed for
the decedent under the latter4s e/press direction.
- The other party howe*er argued that such fact need not .e
mentioned .ecause although Atty. Ca*ier wrote the name of
Mercado- Mercado ne*ertheless put a cross and that such
cross amounts to a signature .y the decedent himself.
5hether or not the will was *alid
- The 'C held that it was not.
- Although there ha*e .een cases considering mar+s- such as
a cross- as sufficient signature- there is nothing in the
records that shows that Mercado usually uses a cross as his
signature.
- As such- the will was disallowed.
- Mar+s- such as a cross- can only .e considered as a
signature if there is showing that the decedent was
accustomed to using such mar+ as signature.
Barut v. Caba#un)an
- 2arut applied for the pro.ate of the last will and testament of
Maria 'alomon.
- n the will- 'alomon re*o+ed all former wills she made. 'he
also stated that .eing una.le to read and write- she
instructed Concepcion and noselda to read the will to her.
'he also instructed Agayan to sign her G'alomonE name to it
as testator.
- The pro.ate court found that the will was not entitled to
pro.ate .ecause the signed name of the testatri/ on her
.ehalf loo+ed more li+e the handwriting of one of the other
witnesses that that of the person whose handwriting it was
alleged to .e.
5ON the will was *alid. 'pecifically- is the signature of the
person instructed .y the testator to sign the will *alid.
- I&'. 5ith respect to the *alidity of the will- it is unimportant
whether the person who writes the name of the testatri/
signs his name or not.
- The important thing is that it clearly appears that the name of
the testatri/ was signed at her e/press direction in the
presence of ! other witnesses and that they attested and
su.scri.ed it in her presence and in the presence of one
another. That is all the statute requires.
- The cases relied upon .y the oppositors are not in point. n
those cases- the reason for the in*alidation of the wills
concerned was that the persons instructed to sign for the
testator signed their own names instead of the names of the
testators in each case.
- The will must .e in writing and signed .y the testator- or the
testator4s name written .y some other person in his
presence- and .y his e/press direction- and attested and
su.scri.ed .y ! or more credi.le witnesses in the presence
of the testator and of each other.
- The fact that the testator signed the will or that he caused it
to .e signed .y another person at his e/press direction and
that the same was signed .y the witnesses must .e included
in the attestation.
/era v. !imando
- Only questioned raised .y the e*idence in this case as to
the due e/ecution of the instrument propounded as a will is
whether the one of the su.scri.ing witnesses was present in
the small room where the will was e/ecuted at the time
when the testator and the other su.scri.ing witnesses
attached their signatures.
5ON- the will was *alidly witnessed .y one of the su.scri.ing
witnesses to ma+e the will *alid.
- Ies. The su.scri.ing witness *alidly witnessed the signing.
- MaDority of the mem.ers of the court is of the opinion that the
su.scri.ing witness was indeed in the small room to .e a.le
to o.ser*e the signing of the will .e the testator and other
su.scri.ing witnesses.
- The trial court decided when it said that the fact that one of
the alleged witnesses signed the instrument in the outer
room when the others were inside would not .e sufficient in
itself to in*alidate the e/ecution of the will.
- 2ut this Court is of the opinion that had this su.scri.ing
witness .een pro*en to ha*e .een in the outer room- it
would ha*e .een in*alid as a will.
- 2ut it is especially to .e noted that the position of the parties
with relation to each other at the moment of the su.scription
of each signature must .e such that they may see each
other sign if they choose to do so.
- t is enough that when the witness- if he chose to loo+ at the
actual signing he could ha*e done so .y Dust merely casting
his eyes in the proper direction- such would .e considered
already as a proper witnessing of the said e/ecution of the
will.
- =owe*er- to e/tend to e/tend this doctrine further would
open the door to the possi.ility of all manner of fraud-
su.stitution and the li+e and would defeat the purpose for
which this particular condition is prescri.ed in the code as
one of the requisites in the e/ecution of a will.
- =ence the will is to .e admitted to pro.ate.
- Actual seeing is not required- .ut the a.ility to see each
other- i.e. the testator and the witnesses- ,.y merely casting
eyes in the proper direction.0
I#asiano v. I#asiano
- Cosefa Killacorte died in Manila on 'eptem.er 12- 1@%?< on
Cune 2- 1@%(- Killacorte e/ecuted a last will and testament in
duplicate at the house of her daughter Mrs. 1elisa casiano
Ryan Ouan 2 2
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
.efore three instrumental witnesses- namely< attorneys Custo
). Torres- Cr. and Cose K. Nati*idad- and $r. Kinicio 2. $iy.
- The records show that the original of the will- consists of fi*e
pages- and while signed at the end and in e*ery page- it
does not contain the signature of one of the attesting
witnesses- Atty. Cose K. Nati*idad- on page three G!E thereof<
.ut the duplicate copy attached to the amended and
supplemental petition is signed .y the testatri/ and her three
attesting witnesses in each and e*ery page.
- 4itness )ati8idad< who testified on his failure to sign page
three :2; of the original< ad6its that he 6ay ha8e lifted two
pages instead of one when he signed the sa6e< but affir6ed
that page three :2; was signed in his presence.
5hether or not the will is *oid Gsince one of the pages in the
original copy was not signed .y one of the witnessesE
- NO. The inad*ertent failure of one witness to affi/ his
signature to one page of a testament- due to the
simultaneous lifting of two pages in the course of signing- is
not per se sufficient to Dustify denial of pro.ate.
- mpossi.ility of su.stitution of this page is assured not only
the fact that the testatri/ and two other witnesses did sign
the defecti*e page- .ut also .y its .earing the coincident
imprint of the seal of the notary pu.lic .efore whom the
testament was ratified .y testatri/ and all three witnesses.
- The law should not .e so strictly and literally interpreted as
to penaliHe the testatri/ on account of the inad*ertence of a
single witness o*er whose conduct she had no control-
where the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of the
testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained-
no intentional or deli.erate de*iation e/isted- and the
e*idence on record attests to the full o.ser*ance of the
statutory requisites. Otherwise- witnesses may sa.otage the
will .y muddling or .ungling it or the attestation clauseN.
- That the failure of witness Nati*idad to sign page three G!E
was entirely through pure o*ersight is shown .y his own
testimony as well as .y the duplicate copy of the will- which
.ears a complete set of signatures in e*ery page. The te/t of
the attestation clause and the ac+nowledgment .efore the
Notary )u.lic li+ewise e*idence that no one was aware of
the defect at the time.
- The law should not .e so strictly and literally interpreted
where the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of the
testament and its component pages is sufficiently attained.
Notes on casiano 9 casiano holding cannot- and should not- .e
ta+en as a departure from the rule that the will should .e signed .y
the witnesses on e*ery page. The car.on duplicate- it will .e
noted- was regular in all respects. A ca*alier disregard of the
formal requirements of wills- in reliance on casiano- is not
recommended.
Ca)ro v. Ca)ro
- The pro.ate of the will allegedly e/ecuted .y Kicente Cagro
who died in "aoangan- )am.uDan- 'amar- is .eing opposed
on the ground that the will is fatally defecti*e- .ecause its
attestation clause is not signed .y the attesting witnesses.
- There is no question that the signature of the ! witnesses to
the will do not appear at the .ottom of the attestation clause-
although the page containing the same is signed .y the
witnesses on the left hand margin.
5hether the will is fatally defecti*e.
- Ies. The attestation clause is a ,memorandum of the facts
attending the e/ecution of the will0 required .y law to .e
made .y the attesting witnesses- and it must necessarily
.ear their signatures. An unsigned attestation clause cannot
.e considered as an act of the witnesses- since the omission
of their signatures at the .ottom thereof negati*es their
participation.
- $''&NT .y 2autista3 The li.eral trend of the NCC in the
interpretation of wills should not .e o*erloo+ed. n case of
dou.t- the interpretation that would ha*e the effect of
pre*enting intestacy pre*ails.
- CruH $issent .y Tuason3 The law on wills does not pro*ide
that the attesting witness should sign the clause at the
.ottom. n the a.sence of the such pro*ision- there is no
reason why signatures on the margin are not good.
- An unsigned attestation clause cannot .e considered as an
act of the witnesses- since the omission of their signatures at
the .ottom thereof negati*es their participation.
Cruz v. 4illasor
- This is a petition for re*iew on certiorari on the Dudgment of
the C1 allowing the pro.ate of the will of the late Kalente
CruH.
- The sur*i*ing spouse of Kalente opposed the allowance of
the will alleging that the will was e/ecuted through fraud-
deceit- misrepresentation and undue influence< that the said
instrument was e/ecuted without the testator ha*ing .een
fully informed of the contents thereof- particularly as to what
properties he was disposing< and that the supposed will was
not e/ecuted in accordance with law.
- t appears that of the ! instrumental witnesses- one of them-
is at the same time the Notary )u.lic .efore whom the will
was supposed to ha*e .een ac+nowledged.
5hether the supposed last will and testament of Kalente CruH
was e/ecuted in accordance with law- particularly Articles ?A%
and ?A( of the NCC- the first requiring at least ! credi.le
witnesses to attest and su.scri.e to the will- and the second
requiring the testator and the witnesses to ac+nowledge the
will .efore a notary pu.lic.
- NO. The notary pu.lic .efore whom the will was
ac+nowledge cannot .e considered as the third instrumental
witness since he cannot ac+nowledge .efore himself his
ha*ing signed the will.
- f the third witness were the notary pu.lic himself- he would
ha*e to a*ow- assent- or admit his ha*ing signed the will in
from of himself. This cannot .e done .ecause he cannot
split his personality into two so that one will appear .efore
the other to ac+nowledge his participation in the ma+ing of
the will.
- To allow the notary pu.lic to act as third witness- or one of
the attesting and ac+nowledging witnesses- would ha*e the
effect of ha*ing only two attesting witnesses to the will which
would .e in contra*ention of the pro*isions of Article ?A%
requiring at least ! credi.le witnesses to act as such and of
Article ?A( which requires that the testator and the required
num.er of witnesses must appear .efore the notary pu.lic to
ac+nowledge the will.
- The 'C declared the last will of Kalente in*alid.
- The notary pu.lic .efore whom the will was ac+nowledged
cannot .e considered as the third instrumental witness since
he cannot ac+nowledge .efore himself his ha*ing signed the
will.
- To ac2no%*ed)e !efo$e means to a*ow< to own as
genuine- to assent- to admit- and !efo$e means in front or
preceding in space or ahead of.
Ryan Ouan 2! 2!
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- The function of a notary pu.lic is- among others- to guard
against any illegal or immoral arrangements. This function
would .e defeated if the notary pu.lic were one of the
attesting witnesses.
-aboada v. !osal
- 5ritten in Ce.uano>Kisayan dialect- the will consists of 2
pages. The first page contains the entire testamentary
dispositions and is signed at the end or .ottom of the page
.y the testatri/ alone and at the left hand margin .y the !
witnesses. The second page which contains the attestation
clause and the ac+nowledgement is signed at the end of the
attestation clause .y the ! witnesses and at the left hand
margin .y the testatri/.
- The lower court denied pro.ate of deceased )ereH.
5hether or not the law requires that the testatri/ and !
witnesses sign at the end of the will and in the presence of the
testatri/ and of one another.
- 'C held that the will should .e admitted .ecause3
1. The signatures of the witnesses in the left hand
margin of the 1
st
page attested not only to the
genuineness of the signature of the testatri/ .ut also
the due e/ecution of the will as em.odied in the
attestation clause.
2. Bnsu.stantial departure from the usual forms should
.e ignored esp. where the authenticity of the will is
not assailed.
!. The o.Dects of the attestation and su.scription were
fully met when the witnesses signed at the sole page
where the testamentary
- $ispositions were contained- esp. so when the will was
properly identified .y the su.scri.ing witness to .e the same
will e/ecuted .y the testatri/. There was no question of fraud
or su.stitution .ehind the questioned order.
- 'C held that this would ha*e .een a fatal defect were it not
for the fact that- in this case- it is discerni.le from the entire
will that it is really and actually composed of only 2 pages
duly signed .y the testatri/ and her witnesses.
- The ac+nowledgement itself in the second page states that
,This "ast 5ill and Testament consists of two pages
including this page.0
5hether or not it should .e in*alidated due to the attestation
clause4s failure to state the num.er of pages used in writing the
will.
- Attestation consists in witnessing the testator4s e/ecution of
the will in order to see and ta+e note mentally that those
things are done which the statute requires for the e/ecution
of a will and that the signature of the testator e/ists as a fact.
- 'u.scription is the signing of the witnesses4 names upon the
same paper for the purpose of identification of such paper
as the will which was e/ecuted .y the testator.
ART. <C7. If &e esao$ !e deaf( o$ a deafGmue(
&e mus 'e$sona**" $ead &e %i**( if a!*e o do
so; o&e$%ise( &e s&a** desi)nae %o 'e$sons
o $ead i and communicae o &im( in some
'$acica!*e manne$( &e conens &e$eof.
ART. <C<. If &e esao$ is !*ind( &e %i** s&a** !e
$ead o &im %ice; once !" one of &e
su!sc$i!in) %inesses( and a)ain( !" &e
noa$" 'u!*ic !efo$e %&om &e %i** is
ac2no%*ed)ed.
'pecial 7equirements for =andicapped Testators
1or $eaf L $eaf>Mute testator
1. A.le to 7ead 9 must read the will personally
2. Bna.le to 7ead 9 must designate two persons
to read the will and communicate to him- in
some practica.le manner its contents.
$oes this mean the 2 persons must
perform each tas+ in turn6
1or 2lind Testator 9 to .e read to him twice- once
.y one of the su.scri.ing witnesses- and another
time .y the notary.
(rtE0E is '()@(,+&1
f art?A? is mandatory- .y analogy Art?A7 is also
mandatory. 1ailure to comply with either would
result in nullity and denial of pro.ate.
,he re=uire6ent has been liberally applied< SC
declaring substantial co6pliance to be sufficient.
Applies not only to .lind testators .ut also to those
who- for one reason or another- are incapa.le of
reading their wills.
'u.stantially complied with when documents were
read aloud to the testator with each of the !
instrumental witnesses and the notary following the
reading with their respecti*e copies.
Burden of proof is upon the proponent of the will that
the special re=uire6ent of the article was co6plied
with. (t the sa6e ti6e< there is no re=uire6ent that
co6pliance with the re=uire6ent be stated either in the
will or the attestation clause.
CA'&
3ar#ia v. 4as8uez
- This case pertains to the will of the late 8liceria A*elino del
7osario.
- Bpon the decedent4s death- her niece Consuelo )recilla-
filed a petition for the pro.ate of the decedent4s holographic
will and for the latter4s appointment as the special
administratri/ of the decedent4s estate.
- 5itnesses presented .y the proponents of the will testified
that the decedent was of sound mind when she e/ecuted
the will- and that the decedent first read the will silently
.efore she signed it.
- Oppositors of the will howe*er contended that it was
physically impossi.le for the decedent to ha*e read the will
as she had a se*erely impaired eyesight as testified .y $r.
Cesus Tamesis.
- The physician found out on March 1@(A that the decedent
had a cataract on the left eye and her right eye also had
difficulty seeing printed pages.
- The physician further testified that despite the operation and
remo*al of the cataract and the decedent4s .eing fitted with
apha+ic lens- the latter4s *ision remained capa.le of *iewing
Ryan Ouan 30 30
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
only distant o.Dects and is not capa.le of reading printed
articles.
5hether or not the decedent is considered ,.lind0 pursuant to
the pro*isions of Art ?A?
- Ies. The 'C held that for all intents and purposes of the
rules on pro.ate- the decedent is li+e a .lind testator- and
the due e/ecution of her will would ha*e required faithful
o.ser*ance of the pro*isions of Art ?A? of the CC.
- Also- The 'C found it worthy to mention the fact that that the
will was e/ecuted without any regard for the defecti*e *ision
of the decedent. The testament was cramped in a single
page and was a.undant with typographical errors. This only
strengthens the proposition that the decedent could not ha*e
read or understood the alleged testament.
5hether or not the will was duly e/ecuted
- No. Considering that the testator is within the term ,.lind0 as
contemplated under Art ?A?- the due e/ecution of the
decedent4s will would ha*e required the reading of the will
twice Gonce .y one of the witnesses- and once .y the
notaryE.
- =owe*er- no such reading was pro*ed or shown in this
case. Thus- the will should .e declared in*alid.
- The rationale .ehind the reading of the will to the .lind
testator is to ma+e the pro*isions thereof +nown to him- so
that he may .e a.le to o.Dect if they are not in accordance
with his wishes.
- A person who is not .lind .ut is similarly incapacitated to
read the will is within the am.it of Art ?A?.
Alvarado v. 3aviola9 Dr.
- On % No*em.er 1@77- 7@>year old 2rigido Al*arado
e/ecuted a notarial will entitled ,=uling =a.ilin0 wherein he
disinherited an illegitimate son- petitioner Cesar Al*arado-
and e/pressly re*o+ed a pre*iously e/ecuted holographic
will at the time awaiting pro.ate .efore the 7TC of "aguna.
- According to 2ayani Ma. 7ino- pri*ate respondent- he was
present when the said notarial will was e/ecuted- together
with three instrumental witnesses and the notary pu.lic-
where the testator did not read the will himself- suffering as
he did from glaucoma.
- 7ino- a lawyer- drafted the eight>page document and read
the same aloud .efore the testator- the three instrumental
witnesses and the notary pu.lic- the latter four following the
reading with their own respecti*e copies pre*iously
furnished them.
- Thereafter- a codicil entitled ,Fasulatan ng )ag.a.ago ng
lang )agpapasiya na Nasasaad sa =uling =a.ilin na May
)etsa No.iem.re %- 1@77 ni 2rigido Al*arado0 was e/ecuted
changing some dispositions in the notarial will to generate
cash for the testator4s eye operation.
- 'aid codicil was li+ewise not read .y 2rigido Al*arado and
was read in the same manner as with the pre*iously
e/ecuted will.
- 5hen the notarial will was su.mitted to the court for pro.ate-
Cesar Al*arado filed his opposition as he said that the will
was not e/ecuted and attested as required .y law< that the
testator was insane or mentally incapacitated due to senility
and old age< that the will was e/ecuted under duress- or
influence of fear or threats< that it was procured .y undue
pressure and influence on the part of the .eneficiary< and
that the signature of the testator was procured .y fraud or
tric+.
5hether or not notarial will of 2rigido Al*arado should .e
admitted to pro.ate despite allegations of defects in the
e/ecution and attestation thereof as testator was allegedly
.lind at the time of e/ecution and the dou.le>reading
requirement under Art. ?A? of the NCC was not complied with.
- I&'. The spirit .ehind the law was ser*ed though the letter
was not. Although there should .e strict compliance with the
su.stantial requirements of law in order to insure the
authenticity of the will- the formal imperfections should .e
.rushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and
which- when ta+en into account- may only defeat the
testator4s will.
- Cesar Al*ardo was correct in asserting that his father was
not totally .lind Gof counting fingers at ! feetE when the will
and codicil were e/ecuted- .ut he can .e so considered for
purposes of Art. ?A?.
- That Art. ?A? was not followed strictly is .eyond ca*il.
- =owe*er- in the case at .ar- there was su.stantial
compliance where the purpose of the law has .een satisfied3
that of ma+ing the pro*isions +nown to the esao$ %&o is
!*ind o$ inca'a!*e of $eadin) &e %i** &imse*f >as %&en
&e is i**ie$ae? and ena.ling him to o.Dect if they do not
accord with his wishes.
- 7ino read the testator4s will and codicil aloud in the presence
of the testator- his three instrumental witnesses- and the
notary pu.lic.
- )rior and su.sequent thereto- the testator affirmed- upon
.eing as+ed- that the contents read corresponded with his
instructions.
- Only then did the signing and ac+nowledgment ta+e place.
- There is no e*idence that the contents of the will and the
codicil were not sufficiently made +nown and communicated
to the testator.
- 5ith four persons- mostly +nown to the testator- following
the reading word for word with their own copies- it can .e
safely concluded that the testator was reasona.ly assured
that what was read to him were the terms actually appearing
on the typewritten documents.
- Art. ?A? of the New Ci*il Code pro*ides3 ,f the testator is
.lind- the will shall .e read to him twice< once- .y one of the
su.scri.ing witnesses- and again- .y the notary pu.lic
.efore whom the will is ac+nowledged.0
- The rationale .ehind the requirement of reading the will to
the testator if he is .lind or incapa.le of reading the will to
himself Gas when he is illiterateE- is to ma+e the pro*isions
thereof +nown to him- so that he may .e a.le to o.Dect if
they are not in accordance with his wishes.
- Although there should .e strict compliance with the
su.stantial requirements of law in order to insure the
authenticity of the will- the formal imperfections should .e
.rushed aside when they do not affect its purpose and
which- when ta+en into account- may only defeat the
testator4s will.
- 'ee (bangan 8. (bangan.
ART. <CB. In &e a!sence of !ad fai&( fo$)e$"( o$
f$aud( o$ undue and im'$o'e$ '$essu$e and
inf*uence( defecs and im'e$fecions in &e
fo$m of aesaion o$ in &e *an)ua)e used
&e$ein s&a** no $ende$ &e %i** in#a*id if i is
'$o#ed &a &e %i** %as in fac e+ecued and
Ryan Ouan 31 31
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
aesed in su!sania* com'*iance %i& a** &e
$equi$emens of A$ic*e <C5.
According to C2" 7eyes- ,"i.eraliHation 7unning 7iot-0
instead a possi.le rewording would .e 9
In the absence of bad fath, forgery, or
fraud, or undue and mproper pressure and
nfuence, defects and mperfectons n the
form of attestaton or n the anguage used
theren sha not render the w nvad f
such defects and imperfections can be
supplied by an examination of the will itself
and t s proved that the w was n fact
executed and attested n substanta
compance wth a the requrements of
Artce 805.
&/amples
1. A failure .y the attestation clause to state that
the testator signed e*ery page can .e li.erally
construed- since that fact can .e chec+ed .y a
*isual e/amination.
2. 1ailure .y the attestation clause to state that
the witnesses signed in one another4s
presence should .e considered a 1ATA"
1"A5 since the attestation clause is the only
te/tual guarantee of compliance.
The rule is that omission which can .e supplied .y an
e/amination of the will itself- without the need of
resorting to e/trinsic e*idence- will not .e fatal and-
correspondingly- would not o.struct the allowance to
pro.ate of the will .eing assailed.
=owe*er- those omissions which cannot .e supplied
e/cept .y e*idence aliunde would result in the
in*alidation of the attestation clause and ultimately- of
the will itself.
CA'&'
Caneda v. CA
- On $ecem.er %- 1@7?- Mateo Ca.allero- a widower without
any children and already in the twilight years of his life-
e/ecuted a last will and testament at his residence .efore !
witnesses.
- =e was assisted .y his lawyer- Atty. &milio "umontad.
- n the will- it was declared that the testator was lea*ing .y
way of legacies and de*ises his real and personal properties
to se*eral people all of whom do not appear to .e related to
the testator.
- # months later- Mateo Ca.allero himself filed a case see+ing
the pro.ate of his last will and testament- .ut numerous
postponements pushed .ac+ the initial hearing of the
pro.ate court regarding the will.
- On May 2@- 1@?A- the testator passed away .efore his
petition could finally .e heard .y the pro.ate court.
- Thereafter one of the legatees- 2enoni Ca.rera- sought his
appointment as special administrator of the testator4s estate.
- Thereafter- the petitioners- claiming to .e nephews and
nieces of the testator- instituted a second petition for
intestate proceedings. They also opposed the pro.ate of the
testator4s will and the appointment of a special administrator
for his estate.
- 2enoni Ca.rera died and was replaced .y 5illiam Ca.rera
as special administrator and ga*e an order that the testate
proceedings for the pro.ate of the will had to .e heard and
resol*ed first.
- n the course of the proceedings- petitioners opposed to the
allowance of the testator4s will on the ground that on the
alleged date of its e/ecution- the testator was already in
poor state of health such that he could not ha*e possi.ly
e/ecuted the same. Also the genuineness of the signature of
the testator is in dou.t.
- On the other hand- one of the attesting witnesses and the
notary pu.lic testified that the testator e/ecuted the will in
question in their presence while he was of sound and
disposing mind and that the testator was in good health and
was not unduly influenced in any way in the e/ecution of his
will.
- )ro.ate court then rendered a decision declaring the will in
question as the last will and testament of the late Mateo
Ca.allero.
- CA affirmed the pro.ate court4s decision stating that it
su.stantially complies with Article ?A%. =ence this appeal.
5ON- the attestation clause in the will of the testator is fatally
defecti*e or can .e cured under the art. ?A@.
- No. t does not comply with the pro*isions of the law.
- Ordinary or attested wills are go*erned .y Arts. ?A# to ?A@.
The will must .e ac+nowledged .efore a notary pu.lic .y the
testator and the attesting witnesses. The attestation clause
need not .e written in a language +nown to the testator or
e*en to the attesting witnesses.
- t is a separate memorandum or record of the facts
surrounding the conduct of e/ecution and once signed .y
the witnesses it gi*es affirmation to the fact that compliance
with the essential formalities required .y law has .een
o.ser*ed.
- The attestation clause- therefore- pro*ides strong legal
guaranties for the due e/ecution of a will and to insure the
authenticity thereof.
- t is contended .y petitioners that the attestation clause in
the will failed to specifically state the fact that the attesting
witnesses witnessed the testator sign the will and all its
pages in their presence and that they- the witnesses-
li+ewise signed the will and e*ery page thereof in the
presence of the testator and of each other. And the Court
agrees.
- The attestation clause does not e/pressly state therein the
circumstance that said witnesses su.scri.ed their respecti*e
signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of
each other.
- The phrase- ,and he has signed the same and e*ery page
thereof- on the space pro*ided for his signature and on the
left hand margin-0 o.*iously refers to the testator and not the
instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded .y the
words0 as his last will and testament.0
- Clearly lac+ing is the statement that the witnesses signed
the will and e*ery page thereof in the presence of the
testator and of one another. That the a.sence of the
statement required .y law is a fatal defect or imperfection
which must necessarily result in the disallowance of the will
that is here sought to .e pro.ated.
- Also- Art. ?A@ does not apply to the present case .ecause
the attestation clause totally omits the fact that the attesting
witnesses signed each and e*ery page of the will in the
presence of the testator and of each other. The defect in this
case is not only with respect to the form or the language of
the attestation clause. The defects must .e remedied .y
intrinsic e*idence supplied .y the will itself which is clearly
lac+ing in this case.
Ryan Ouan 32 32
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- Therefore- the pro.ate of the will is set aside and the case
for the intestate proceedings shall .e re*i*ed.
- Article ?A@ cannot .e used to cure the defects of the will
when it does not pertain to the form or language of the will.
This is .ecause there is not su.stantial compliance with
Article ?A%.
Cases for Arts. *<$&*<6
3il v. :ur#iano
- The C1 of Manila admitted to pro.ate the alleged will and
testament of the deceased Carlos 8il. The oppositor )ilar 8il
Kda. de Murciano appealed to the 'C- arguing that the will
was *oid since the attestation clause thereof does not state
that the alleged testator signed the will. t declares only that
it was signed .y the witnesses.
5hether or no the will is *alid.
- NO. This is a fatal defect- for the precise purpose of the
attestation clause is to certify that the testator signed the will-
this .eing the most essential element of the clause.
- 5ithout it there is no attestation at all. t is said that the court
may correct a mere clerical error.
- This is too much of a clerical error for it affects the *ery
essence of the clause. Alleged errors may .e o*erloo+ed or
corrected only in matters of form which do not affect the
su.stance of the statement.
- Correction may not .e cured .y inference considering the
clear- unequi*ocal- language of the statute as to how the
attestation clause should .e made. t is to .e supposed that
the drafter of the alleged will read the clear words of the
statute when he prepared it. 1or the court to supply alleged
deficiencies would .e against the e*ident policy of the law.
- n adopting li.eral construction of a will- e*idence aluinde is
not allowed to fill the *oid or supply missing details. 5hat is
permitted is a pro.e into the will- an e/ploration within its
confines- to ascertain its meaning or to determine the
e/istence or a.sence of the requisite formalities of the law.
- The right to ma+e a testamentary disposition of oneUs
property is purely of statutory creation- and is a*aila.le only
upon a compliance with the requirements of the statute. The
formalities which the "egislature has prescri.ed for the
e/ecution of a will are essential to its *alidity- and cannot .e
disregarded.
- The mode so prescri.ed is the measure for the e/ercise of
the right- and the heir can .e depri*ed of his inheritance only
.y a compliance with this mode.
- 1or the purpose of determining whether a will has .een
properly e/ecuted- the intention of the testator in e/ecuting it
is entitled to no consideration.
- 1or that purpose only the intention of the "egislature- as
e/pressed in the language of the statute- can .e considered
.y the court- and whether the will as presented- shows a
compliance with the statute.
Cuevas v. A#@a#oso
- Kalentina Cue*as- filed a petition for the pro.ate of the will
of Cose KenHon- her hus.and.
- )ilar Achacoso filed an alternati*e petition for the pro.ate of
a per*ious will praying that if the will su.mitted .y the widow
.e reDected- the other will .e admitted in lieu thereof.
- The pre*ious will names )ilar Achacoso as one of the heirs-
a statement a.sent in the 2
nd
will.
- )ilar opposes the pro.ate of the 2
nd
for lac+ of attestation
clause- or if there .e one that it is not signed .y the
instrumental witnesses- a defect which in*alidates the will.
- The will winds up with the ff. clause3 *n witness whereof< *
sign this testa6ent or last willN.in the presence of the 2
witnessesN
5hether the attestation clause is *alid.
- Ies. The only anomaly is that it appears to .e an attestation
made .y the testator himself more than .y the instrumental
witnesses. This- howe*er- is not serious or su.stantial as to
affect the *alidity of the will- it appearing that right under the
signature of the testator- there appear the signatures of the !
instrumental witnesses.
- nstrumental witness is one who ta+es part in the e/ecution
of an instrument or writing- he does not merely attest to the
signature of the testator .ut also to the proper e/ecution of
the will. The fact that the ! witnesses ha*e signed the will
immediately under the signature of the testator- show that
they ha*e in fact attested not only the genuineness of his
signature .ut also to the due e/ecution of the will as
em.odied in the attestation clause.
- The o.Dect of the solemnities surrounding the e/ecution of
the wills is to close the door against .ad faith and fraud- to
a*oid su.stitution of the wills and testament and to
guarantee their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on
this su.Dect should .e interpreted in such a way as to attain
these primordial ends. 2ut on the other hand also one must
not lose sight of the fact that it is not the o.Dect of the law to
restrain and curtail the e/ercise of the right to ma+e a will.
'o when an interpretation already gi*en assures such ends-
any other interpretation whatsoe*er- that adds nothing .ut
demands more requisites entirely unnecessary- useless and
frustrati*e of the testator4s will must .e disregarded.
Abada v. Aba"a
- 'pouses A.ada and Toray died without legitimate children.
- Alipio A.aDa filed with the C1 a petition for the pro.ate of the
will of A.ada. A.ada allegedly names his testamentary heirs
his natural children3 &ulogio and 7osario. Alipio is the son of
&ulogio.
- Caponong opposed the petition on the ground that A.ada
left no will when he died.
- Caponong alleged that the will should .e disallowed on the
following reasons3 G1E it was not e/ecuted and attested as
required .y law< G2E it was not intended as the last will of the
testator< and G!E it was procured .y undue and improper
pressure and influence on the part of the .eneficiaries.
- "ater- Caponong>No.le was named as 'pecial Administrati/
of the estate of A.ada and Toray. Caponong>No.le mo*ed
for the dismissal of the petition for pro.ate of the will of
A.ada .ut such motion was denied.
- 5hen the case was su.mitted for decision- a 7esolution
was rendered where it was held that there was a su.stantial
compliance with the formalities of the will. n the said
7esolution- the trial court only determined whether the will of
A.ada has an attestation clause as required .y law.
- Bpon appeal- the CA affirmed the trial court4s 7esolution.
=ence- this appeal.
Ryan Ouan 33 33
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
5hether the CA erred in sustaining the trial court in admitting
to pro.ate the will of A.ada.
- NO. The 'C affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
5hat laws apply to the pro.ate of the last will of A.ada6
- A.ada e/ecuted his will on Cune 1@!2. The laws in force at
that time are the Old Ci*il Code and the Code of Ci*il
)rocedure.
5hether the will of A.ada requires ac+nowledgement .efore a
notary pu.lic.
- NO. 5hat Caponong>No.le cited was Arts. ?A# V ?A( of the
NCC. n this case- the Code of Ci*il )rocedure applies
where the inter*ention of a notary is not necessary in the
e/ecution of an" will. Thus- A.ada4s will does not require
ac+nowledgment .efore a notary pu.lic.
5hether the will must e/pressly state that it is written in a
language or dialect +nown to the testator.
- NO. There is no statutory requirement to state in the will
itself that the testator +new the language or dialect used in
the will. This is a matter that a party may esta.lish .y proof
aliunde. n this case- Alipio4s testimony sufficiently pro*es
that A.ada spea+s the 'panish "anguage.
5hether the will has an attestation clause.
- I&'.
5hether the attestation clause states the num.er of pages on
which the will was written.
- I&'. t showed that the pages are num.ered correlati*ely
with the phrase containing ,BNO y $O'0 meaning ,ON&0
and ,T5O0.
5hether the attestation clause states that the testator signed
the will in its e*ery page in the presence of ! witnesses.
- The &nglish translation of the attestation clause clearly
states that A.ada signed the will and its e*ery page in the
presence of the witnesses.
- =owe*er- the 'C held that Caponong>No.le was correct is
saying that the attestation clause does not indicate the
num.er of witnesses. On this point- the Court agreed with
the CA in the application of the rule on su.stantial
compliance in determining the num.er of witnesses. 5hile
the attestation clause does not state the num.er of
witnesses- a close inspection of the will shows that !
witnesses signed it.
5hether the attestation clause states that the witnesses
witnessed and signed the will and all its pages in the presence
of the testator and each other.
- I&'. The last part of the attestation clause shows that the
attesting witnesses witnessed the signing of the will of the
testator- and that each signed the will in the presence of one
another and of the testator.
- The question on the num.er of witnesses is answered .y an
e/amination of the will itself and without the need for
presentation of e*idence aliunde.
- )recision of language in drafting an attestation clause is
desira.le. =owe*er- it is not imperati*e that a parrot>li+e
copy of the words of the state .e made. t is sufficient if from
the language employed it can reasona.le deduced that the
attestation clause fulfills what the law e/pects of it.
ART. <1C. A 'e$son ma" e+ecue a &o*o)$a'&ic
%i** %&ic& mus !e eni$e*" %$ien( daed( and
si)ned !" &e &and of &e esao$ &imse*f( I
is su!Jec o no o&e$ fo$m( and ma" !e made
in o$ ou of &e P&i*i''ines( and need no !e
%inessed.
'implicity of the holographic will is its o.*ious
ad*antage- along with other .enefits such as
1. 'ecrecy
2. ne/pensi*eness
!. 2re*ity
2ut that *ery simplicity .rings a.out disad*antages 9
1. $anger of forgery
2. 8reater difficulty of determining testamentary
capacity
!. ncreased ris+ of duress
RE/0IRE,ENTS O. A HOLOGRAPHIC 1ILL
#. C+'PL%,%L1 !()@4&*,,%) B1 ,!%
,%S,(,+&
f testator e/ecutes only part of the will in
his handwriting and other parts are not so
written- the &NT7& will is *oid .ecause the
article would .e *iolated.
2. @(,%@ B1 !*'
$ate 9 'pecification or mention- in a
written instrument- of the time :day- month
and year; it was made :e/ecuted;. 9 2lac+4s
"aw $ictionary
As a general rule- the date in a
holographic will should include the day-
month- and year of its e/ecution. =owe*er-
when there is no appearance of fraud- .ad
faith- undue influence and pressure and the
authenticity of the 5ill is esta.lished and the
only issue is whether or not the date 1&2.L(1
is a *alid compliance- pro.ate of the
holographic will should .e allowed under the
principle of su.stantial compliance.
A complete date is required to pro*ide
against such contingencies as 9
aE Two competing wills e/ecuted on the
same day- or
.E Of a testator .ecoming insane in the
day on which a will was e/ecuted.
The law does not specify a particular
location where the date should .e placed in
the will. The only requirements are that the
date .e in the will itself and e/ecuted in the
hand of the testator.
2. S*$)%@ B1 ,%S,(,+&
Must signature .e at the will4s end :at
least the logical end;6 I&'- article ?12 seems
to imply this.
May the testator sign .y means of a
thum.print6 NO- article says will must .e
Ryan Ouan 34 34
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
,entirely handwritten- dated and signed by the
hand of the testator himself.0
CA'&'
!o,as v. e Desus
- After the death of the de Cesus spouses- 'imeon 7o/as
G.rother of the deceased 2i.liana 7o/as de CesusE filed a
special proceeding to settle the intestate estate of the de
Cesus spouses.
- "ater- 'imeon deli*ered to the court a document purporting
to .e the holographic will of 2i.liana. =e stated that after
.eing appointed as administrator- he found a note.oo+ of
2i.liana which contained the letter>will addressed to her
children written and signed .y 2i.liana.
- The will was dated ,1&2.L(10 and this was confirmed .y the
testimonies of 'imeon as and the 2 children of 2i.liana.
- =enson- another compulsory heir- opposed the pro.ate of
the holographic will contending that it was not dated as
required .y Art. ?1A.
- 'he contends that the law requires that the will should
contain the day- month- and year of its e/ecution and this
should .e complied with.
5ON the holographic will dated as ,1&2.L(10 was properly
dated.
- I&'. f the testator attempts to comply with all the requisites-
although compliance is not literal- it is sufficient if the
o.Decti*e or purpose sought to .e accomplished .y such
requisite is actually attained .y the form followed .y the
testator.
- 'C found no e*idence of .ad faith and fraud in the e/ecution
of the will- nor was there su.stitution of wills. Neither is there
any question as to the genuineness and due e/ecution of
the will.
- The o.Dection put forth .y =enson is too technical to .e
entertained.
- 873 The date in a holographic will should include the day-
month and year of e/ecution.
- &3 n the a.sence of appearance of fraud- .ad faith- undue
influence- and pressure and the authenticity of the will is
esta.lished- and the only issue is the *alidity of the date
,1&2.(10 appearing on the will- the pro.ate should .e
allowed under the principle of su.stantial compliance.
Labrador v. CA
- Melecio died lea*ing .ehind a parcel of land to his heirs.
=owe*er- during pro.ate proceedings- Cesus and
8audencio filed an opposition on the ground that the will has
.een e/tinguished .y implication of law alleging that .efore
Melecio4s death- the land was sold to them e*idenced .y
TCT No. 2117?. Cesus e*entually sold it to Na*at.
- Trial court admitted the will to pro.ate and declared the TCT
null and *oid. =owe*er- the CA on appeal denied pro.ate on
the ground that it was undated.
5hether or not the alleged holographic will is dated- as
pro*ided for in Article ?1A of the Ci*il Code
- 'C held that it is dated .ecause3
- The law does not specify a particular location where the date
should .e placed in the will. The only requirements are that
the date .e in the will itself and e/ecuted in the hand of the
testator.
- The intention to show March 17 1@(? as the date of the
e/ecution is plain from the tenor of the succeeding words of
the paragraph. t states that ,this .eing in the month of
March 17
th
day- in the year 1@(?- and this decision and or
instruction of mine is the matter to .e followed. And the one
who made this writing is no other than Melecio "a.rador-
their father.0
- This clearly shows that this is a unilateral act of Melecio who
plainly +new that he was e/ecuting a will.
- Article ?1A of the Ci*il Code
ART. <11. In &e '$o!ae of a &o*o)$a'&ic %i**( i
s&a** !e necessa$" &a a *eas one %iness
%&o 2no%s &e &and%$iin) and si)nau$e of
&e esao$ e+'*ici*" dec*a$e &a &e %i** and
&e si)nau$e a$e in &e &and%$iin) of &e
esao$. If &e %i** is conesed( a *eas &$ee
of suc& %inesses s&a** !e $equi$ed.
In &e a!sence of an" com'een %iness
$efe$$ed o in &e '$ecedin) 'a$a)$a'&( and if
&e cou$ deem i necessa$"( e+'e$ esimon"
ma" !e $eso$ed o(
Article applies only to )O'T MO7T&M pro.ates- it
does not apply to Ante Mortem pro.ates since in such
cases the testator himself files the petition and will
identify the document itself.
,he three witness pro8ision in case of contested
holographic wills is @*&%C,+&1< not 6andatory.
Testamentary wills 9 mandatory
=olographic wills 9 directory
5itnesses must3
1. Fnow the handwriting and signature of the
testator
2. Truthfully declare that handwriting and
signature is that of the testator
*n the probate of a holographic will< the docu6ent itself
6ust be produced. ,herefore< a holographic will cannot
be probated.
The e/ecution and contents of a lost or destroyed
holographic will MAI NOT 2& )7OK&$ .y the .are
testimony of witnesses who ha*e seen andLor read
such will. =owe*er- attested wills MAI 2& )7OK&$ .y
testimonial e*idence.
5hy the difference in rules6
2ecause of the nature of the wills. n holographic
wills- the only guarantee of authenticity is the
handwriting itself. n attested wills- the testimony of
su.scri.ing or instrumental witnesses and of the
notary guarantees authenticity of the will.
"oss of the holographic will entails loss of the only
medium of proof while loss of the ordinary will
lea*es the su.scri.ing witnesses a*aila.le to
authenticate.
Ryan Ouan 35 35
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
n the case of ordinary wills- it would .e more
difficult to con*ince ! witnesses plus the notary to
deli.erately lie.
Considering the holographic will may consist of 2>!
pages and only one of them need .e signed- the
su.stitution of the unsigned pages may go
undetected.
n the case of a lost ordinary will- the ! su.scri.ing
witnesses would .e testifying as to a 1ACT which
they saw- namely the act of the testator of
su.scri.ing the will. 5hereas in the case of a lost
holographic will- the witnesses would testify as to
their O)NON of the handwriting which they
allegedly saw- an opinion which cannot .e tested in
court nor directly contradicted .y the oppositors
.ecause the handwriting itself is not at hand.
&PC&)TON 9 may .e pro*ed .y a photographic or
photostatic copy- e*en a mimeographed or car.on
copy- or .y other similar means- if anywhere.y the
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may .e
e/hi.ited and tested .efore the pro.ate court.
CA'&'
Azaola v. Sin)son
- The su.Dect of this case is the holographic will of 1otunata
Iance.
- 1rancisco AHaola su.mitted the said holographic will
where.y Maria AHaola was made the sole heir of the
deceased.
- The pro.ate of the will is contested on the ground that the
will was e/ecuted under undue influence- that the document
was not intended to .e the will of the deceased and that the
proponent of the will failed to present at least three
witnesses who could declare the will and the signature
therein to .e in the writing of the testatri/.
- n this case- the proponent of the will only presented one
witness to pro*e that the .ody of and signature in the will
was that of the testator
5hether or not the three>witness rule is mandatory and
applica.le in this case
- The 'C held that the petitioner is not .ound to produce more
than one witness as the authenticity of the will is not in
question.
- 8ranting also that the genuineness of the will is contested-
the pro*ision of Art ?11 should not .e interpreted to require
the compulsory presentation of the three witnesses.
- -irst< it should .e noted that in holographic wills- no witness
is required in the e/ecution thereof- thus the e/istence of the
witnesses possessing the requisite qualifications is a matter
.eyond the control of the proponent.
- Second< the law itself contemplates a situation where no
competent witness can .e produced thus allowing the court
to resort to e/pert e*idence to supply the deficiency.
- To clarify further- the option to require e/pert e*idence
depends on the discretion of the court. f the court is
con*inced .y the testimony of the witnesses- it may no
longer as+ for e/pert e*idence. =owe*er- if there is no
competent witness or if those produced were not con*incing-
the court may accordingly call for e/pert e*idence.
- Thus- the case is remanded to allow the parties to adduce
additional e*idence including e/pert testimony.
- Art ?11 requiring three witnesses in the pro.ate of a
contested holographic will is merely directi*e and not
mandatory.
Codoy v. Calu)ay
- On ( April 1@@A- &*angeline Calugay- Cosephine 'alcedo
and &ufemia )atigas- de*isees and legatees of the
holographic will of the deceased Matilde 'eSo Kda. de
7amonal- filed a petition for pro.ate of the said will.
- They attested to the genuineness and due e/ecution of the
will on !A August 1@7?.
- &ugenio 7amonal Codoy and Manuel 7amonal filed their
opposition claiming that the will was a forgery and that the
same is e*en illegi.le.
- They raised dou.ts as regards the repeated appearing on
the will after e*ery disposition- calling the same out of the
ordinary.
- f the will was in the handwriting of the deceased- it was
improperly procured.
- &*angeline Calugay- etc. presented ( witnesses and *arious
documentary e*idence.
- The first witness was the c*e$2 of cou$ of the pro.ate court
who produced and identified the records of the case .earing
the signature of the deceased.
- The second witness was e*ecion $e)is$a$ who was made
to produce and identify the *oter4s affida*it- .ut failed to as
the same was already destroyed and no longer a*aila.le.
- The third- the deceased:s niece- claimed that she had
acquired familiarity with the deceased4s signature and
handwriting as she used to accompany her in collecting
rentals from her *arious tenants of commercial .uildings and
the deceased always issued receipts.
- The niece also testified that the deceased left a holographic
will entirely written- dated and signed .y said deceased.
- The fourth witness was a fo$me$ *a%"e$ for the deceased in
the intestate proceedings of her late hus.and- who said that
the signature on the will was similar to that of the deceased
.ut that he can not .e sure.
- The fifth was an em'*o"ee of &e -ENR who testified that
she was familiar with the signature of the deceased which
appeared in the latter4s application for pasture permit.
- The fifth- $es'onden E#an)e*ine Ca*u)a"- claimed that
she had li*ed with the deceased since .irth where she had
.ecome familiar with her signature and that the one
appearing on the will was genuine.
- Codoy and 7amonal4s demurrer to e*idence was granted .y
the lower court. t was re*ersed on appeal with the Court of
Appeals which granted the pro.ate.
5hether or not Article ?11 of the Ci*il Code- pro*iding that at
least three witnesses e/plicitly declare the signature in a
contested will as the genuine signature of the testator- is
mandatory or directory.
- I&'. The word ,shall0 connotes a mandatory order- an
imperati*e o.ligation and is inconsistent with the idea of
discretion and that the presumption is that the word ,shall0-
when used in a statute- is mandatory.
- n the case at .ar- the goal to .e achie*ed .y the law- is to
gi*e effect to the wishes of the deceased and the e*il to .e
pre*ented is the possi.ility that unscrupulous indi*iduals
who for their .enefit will employ means to defeat the wishes
of the testator.
Ryan Ouan 36 36
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- The paramount consideration in the present petition is to
determine the true intent of the deceased.
5hether or not the witnesses sufficiently esta.lish the
authenticity and due e/ecution of the deceased4s holographic
will.
- NO. 5e cannot .e certain that the holographic will was in
the handwriting of the deceased.
- The cler+ of court was not presented to declare e/plicitly that
the signature appearing in the holographic will was that of
the deceased.
- The election registrar was not a.le to produce the *oter4s
affida*it for *erification as it was no longer a*aila.le.
- The deceased4s niece saw pre>prepared receipts and letters
of the deceased and did not declare that she saw the
deceased sign a document or write a note.
- The will was not found in the personal .elongings of the
deceased .ut was in the possession of the said niece- who
+ept the fact a.out the will from the children of the
deceased- putting in issue her moti*e.
- &*angeline Calugay ne*er declared that she saw the
decreased write a note or sign a document.
- The former lawyer of the deceased e/pressed dou.ts as to
the authenticity of the signature in the holographic will.
- GAs it appears in the foregoing- the three>witness
requirement was not complied with.E
- A *isual e/amination of the holographic will con*inces that
the stro+es are different when compared with other
documents written .y the testator.
- The records are $emanded to allow the oppositors to
adduce e*idence in support of their opposition.
- The o.Dect of solemnities surrounding the e/ecution of wills
is to close the door against .ad faith and fraud- to a*oid
su.stitution of wills and testaments and to guaranty their
truth and authenticity. Therefore- the laws on this su.Dect
should .e interpreted in such a way as to attain these
primordial ends. 2ut- on the other hand- also one must not
lose sight of the fact that it is not the o.Dect of the law to
restrain and curtail the e/ercise the right to ma+e a will.
- =owe*er- we cannot eliminate the possi.ility of a false
document .eing adDudged as the will of the testator- which is
why if the holographic will is contested- the law requires
three witnesses to declare that the will was in the
handwriting of the deceased.
- Article ?11- paragraph 1. pro*ides3 ,n the pro.ate of a
holographic will- it shall .e necessary that at least one
witness who +nows the handwriting and signature of the
testator e/plicitly declare that the will and the signature are
in the handwriting of the testator. f the will is contested- at
least three of such witnesses s&a** .e required.0
- The word ,shall0 connotes a mandatory order- an imperati*e
o.ligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion and
that the presumption is that the word ,shall0- when used in a
statute- is mandatory.
3an v. >a'
- On No*em.er 2A- 1@%1- 1elicidad &sguerra Alto Iap died of
heart failure in the B'T hospital lea*ing properties in
2ulacan and in Manila.
- On March 17- 1@%2- 1austo &. 8an initiated these
proceedings in C1 Manila for pro.ate the holographic will
e/ecuted allegedly .y the deceased.
- n opposition to said proceedings- the sur*i*ing hus.and
ldefonso Iap asserted that the deceased had not left any
will- nor e/ecuted any testament during her lifetime.
- After hearing the parties- the court refused to pro.ate the
alleged will. The will itself was not presented.
- 'ometime in 1@%A- 1elicidad &sguerra mentioned to her first
cousin Kicente &sguerra her desire to ma+e a will. =owe*er-
she wanted it to .e a secret .ecause she said that it would
.e useless if her hus.and disco*ered or +new a.out it.
- 'o Kicente consulted with the nephew of 1elicidad and
found out that it could .e done pro*ided that the document
was entirely in her handwriting- signed and dated .y her.
- As a result of this- 1elicidad proceeded with the ma+ing of
her will. Though it was a secret- she would show people who
would *isit her will.
- After e*aluating the pieces of e*idence presented .efore the
court- the trial Dudge had to accept the oppositor4s e*idence
that 1elicidad did not and could not ha*e e/ecuted such
holographic will.
5ON- a lost holographic will can .e admitted to pro.ate.
- No. Articles ?1A>?1# go*ern holographic wills. t is stated
that- ,A person may e/ecute a holographic will which must
.e entirely written- dated and signed .y the hand of the
testator himself. *t is sub>ect to no other for6 and 6ay be
6ade in our out of the Philippines< and need not be
witnessed.
- Bnli+e ordinary wills- holographic wills need not o.ser*e the
rules laid down in Art. ?A% for its compliance with the law. As
long as it is written entirely- dated and signed .y the testator
himself- then it will .e sufficient proof that it has .een
e/ecuted in accordance with law.
- =owe*er- witnesses may .e .rought in so as to *erify that
the will and the signature are in the handwriting of the
testator. The witnesses so presented do not need to ha*e
seen the e/ecution of the holographic will.
- n the case hand howe*er- the will holographic will was not
presented to the court. O.*iously- when the will itself is not
su.mitted- these means of opposition and- of assessing the
e*idence are not a*aila.le. And then the only guaranty of
authenticity 9 the testator4s handwriting 9 has disappeared.
- t is therefore to .e concluded that the e/ecution and the
contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may not .e
pro*ed .y the .are testimony of witnesses who ha*e seen
andL or read such will.
- This is .ecause the only guaranty of the authenticity is the
handwriting itself. The loss of the holographic will entails the
loss of the only medium of proof.
- That e*en if oral testimony were admissi.le to esta.lish and
pro.ate a lost holographic will- the e*idence su.mitted .y
the petitioner is so tainted with impro.a.ilities and
inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to that clear and
distinct proof required .y 7ule 77.
- 7eDection of the alleged will must .e sustained
- The e/ecution and the contents of a lost or destroyed
holographic will may not .e pro*ed .y .are testimony of
witnesses who ha*e seen andLor read such will. The will
itself must .e presented< otherwise- it shall produce no
effect. The law regards the document itself as material proof
of authenticity.
!odelas v. Aranza
- The pro.ate court ordered the dismissal of 7odelas4 petition
for the allowance of the holographic will of deceased
Ryan Ouan 37 37
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
7icardo 2. 2onilla on the ground that the alleged photostatic
copy of the will which was presented for pro.ate- cannot
stand in lieu of the lost original- for the law regards the
document itself as the material proof of the authenticity of
the said will.
5hether a holographic will which was lost or can not .e found
can .e pro*ed .y means of a photostatic copy
- )ursuant to Article ?11 of the Ci*il Code- pro.ate of
holographic wills is the allowance of the will .y the court
after its due e/ecution has .een pro*ed.
- The pro.ate may .e uncontested or not. f uncontested- at
least one identifying witness is required and- if no witness is
a*aila.le- e/perts may .e resorted to. f contested- at least
three identifying witnesses are required.
- =owe*er- if the holographic will has .een lost or destroyed
and no other copy is a*aila.le- the will can not .e pro.ated
.ecause the .est and only e*idence is the handwriting of the
testator in said will. t is necessary that there .e a
comparison .etween sample handwritten statements of the
testator and the handwritten will.
- 2ut- a photostatic copy or /ero/ copy of the holographic will
may .e allowed .ecause comparison can .e made with the
standard writings of the testator. &*en a mimeographed or
car.on copy< or .y other similar means- if anywhere.y the
authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may .e
e/hi.ited and tested .efore the pro.ate court- may .e
allowed.
- f the holographic will has .een lost or destroyed and no
other copy is a*aila.le- the Aill #an not be 'robated
.ecause the .est and only e*idence is the handwriting of the
testator in said will.
ART. <1@. In &o*o)$a'&ic %i**s( &e dis'osiions of
&e esao$ %$ien !e*o% &is si)nau$e mus
!e daed and si)ned !" &im in o$de$ o ma2e
&em #a*id as esamena$" dis'osiions.
ART. <1A. 1&en a num!e$ of dis'osiions
a''ea$in) in a &o*o)$a'&ic %i** a$e si)ned
%i&ou !ein) daed( and &e *as dis'osiion
&as a si)nau$e and a dae( suc& dae
#a*idaes &e dis'osiions '$ecedin) i(
%&ae#e$ !e &e ime of '$io$ dis'osiions.
1ormal 7equirements for Additional $ispositions in a
=olographic 5ill
1. 'ignature
2. $ate
5hen there are 'e*eral Additional $ispositions
1. 'ignature and date- or
2. &ach additional disposition signed and
undated- .ut the last disposition signed and
dated.
NOT&'
1. f se*eral additional dispositions- each of which
is dated- .ut only the last is dated and signed-
then only the last additional disposition is *alid.
2. f additional dispositions .efore the last are not
signed and not dated- .ut the last disposition is
signed and dated- what happens to the
intermediate ones6
f made on one occasion 9 last disposition
signed and dated *alidates all.
f on different occasions 9 intermediate
additions are *oid.
2ut distinction is practically worthless
.ecause circumstances of e/ecution of
holographic wills are often difficult to
pro*e.
ART. <14. In case of an" inse$ion( cance**aion(
e$asu$e o$ a*e$aion in a &o*o)$a'&ic %i**( &e
esao$ mus au&enicae &e same !" &is
fu** si)nau$e.
1ull signature does not mean testator4s full name- only
his usual and customary signature.
&ffect of non>compliance 9 the change :insertion-
cancellation- etc.; is simply considered NOT MA$&.
The will is not there.y in*alidated as a whole- .ut at
most only as regards the particular words erased-
corrected or inserted BN"&'' the portion in*ol*ed is
an essential part of the will- such as the date.
CA'&
KalaA v. !elova
- Nati*idad Falaw left a holographic will. t is not contested
that the will was in her handwriting as certified .y the N2.
The will howe*er has alterationsLinsertions. The will
originally named 7osa- the decedent4s sister as her sole heir
and administrator- .ut this was crossed out and changed to
her .rother 8regorio. 'uch alteration was howe*er not
authenticated .y the full signature of the decedent.
- =ence- the will was denied pro.ate .y the trial court
5hether the will is *alid or not.
- t is in*alid. Ordinarily- when a num.er of erasures-
corrections and interlineations made .y the testator in a
holographic sill ha*e not .een noted under his signature- the
will in not there.y in*alidated as a whole- .ut at most only as
respects the particular words erased- corrected or interline.
- =owe*er- in this case- the will in dispute had only one
su.stantial pro*ision- which was altered .y su.stituting the
original heir with another- .ut which alteration did not ha*e
the signature of the testator- the effect must .e that the
entire will is *oided for the reason that nothing remains in
the will after that which could remain *alid.
- To state that the will as first written should .e gi*en efficacy
is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatri/.
2ut that change of mind can neither .e gi*en effect .ecause
she failed to authenticate it in the manner required .y law .y
affi/ing her full signature.
- 5hen a num.er of unauthenticated erasures- corrections
and interlineations are made .y the testator in a holographic
will- the same is not there.y in*alidated as a whole- .ut at
most only as respects the particular words erased- corrected
Ryan Ouan 3 3
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
or interlined. E,#e't howe*er- if after all the alterations were
*oided- nothing remains in the will.
Comments 9 The holding that the insertion of the name of 8regorio
cannot .e gi*en effect for not ha*ing .een done in accordance with
the requirement of Art?1# is .eyond question. 5hy- howe*er- was
the cancellation of the original testamentary institution gi*en
effect6 That cancellation was not done in the way mandated .y the
article.
To say- as the decision does- that ,to state that the will as first
written should .e gi*en efficacy is to disregard the seeming
change of mind of the testatri/-0 is no argument- .ecause it is not
enough that the testator manifest his intent 9 he must manifest in a
manner required .y law.
ART. <15. 1&en a .i*i'ino is in a fo$ei)n coun$"(
&e is au&o$iKed o ma2e a %i** in an" of &e
fo$ms esa!*is&ed !" &e *a% of &e coun$" in
%&ic& &e ma" !e. Suc& %i** ma" !e '$o!aed
in &e P&i*i''ines.
ART. <18. T&e %i** of an a*ien %&o is a!$oad
'$oduces effec in &e P&i*i''ines if made
%i& &e fo$ma*iies '$esc$i!ed !" &e *a% of
&e '*ace in %&ic& &e $esides( o$ acco$din) o
&e fo$ma*iies o!se$#ed in &is coun$"( o$ in
confo$mi" %i& &ose %&ic& &is Code
'$esc$i!es.
ART. <17. A %i** made in &e P&i*i''ines !" a
ciiKen o$ su!Jec of ano&e$ coun$"( %&ic& is
e+ecued in acco$dance %i& &e *a% of &e
coun$" of %&ic& &e is a ciiKen o$ su!Jec(
and %&ic& mi)& !e '$o#ed and a**o%ed !"
&e *a% of &is o%n coun$"( s&a** &a#e &e
same effec as if e+ecued acco$din) o &e
*a%s of &e P&i*i''ines.
R0LES O. .OR,AL VALI-ITF
#. -*L*P*)+ (B&+(@
According to the law in the country in
which he may .e
And may .e pro.ated in the )hilippines
2. (L*%) (B&+(@
=as effect in the )hilippines if made
according to3
aE "aw of place where he resides
.E "aw of his own country
cE )hilippine law
2. (L*%) *) ,!% P!*LS.
Kalid in )hilippines L As if e/ecuted
according to )hilippine laws- if3
aE Made according to law of country
which he is a citiHen or su.Dect- and
.E May .e pro*ed and allowed .y law of
his own country
n relation to Articles 1% and 17 of the NCC
Art. 15. Laws reatng to famy rghts and
dutes, or to the status, condton and ega
capacty of persons are bndng upon ctzens of
the Phppnes, even though vng abroad.
NATONA"TI )7NC)"& 9 )hilippine law
follows 1ilipino citiHens where*er they may .e.
Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts-
wills and other pu.lic instruments shall .e go*erned .y
the laws of the country in which they are e/ecuted.
5hen the acts referred to are e/ecuted .efore the
diplomatic or consulate officials of the 7epu.lic of the
)hilippines in a foreign country- the solemnities
esta.lished .y )hilippine laws shall .e o.ser*ed in
their e/ecution.
)rohi.iti*e laws concerning persons- their acts or
property and those which ha*e for their o.Dect pu.lic
order- pu.lic policy and good customs shall not .e
rendered ineffecti*e .y laws or Dudgments promulgated
or .y determinations or con*entions agreed upon in a
foreign country.
"&P "OC C&"&27ATON' 9 contracts- wills
and other pu.lic instruments follow the formalities
of the law where they are e/ecuted.
&*ery testator- whether 1ilipino or Alien- where*er he
may .e- has fi*e choices as to what law to follow for the
form of his will3
1. "aw of his CitiHenship 9 Arts ?1(>?17 for Aliens-
Art1% for 1ilipinos
2. "aw of place of &/ecution 9 Art17
!. "aw of $omicile 9 Art?1( for aliens a.road-
applying to aliens in the )hilippines
and to 1ilipinos .y analogy
#. "aw of 7esidence > Art?1( for aliens a.road-
applying to aliens in the )hilippines
and to 1ilipinos .y analogy
%. )hilippine "aw 9 Arts ?1(>?17 for aliens- Art1% for
1ilipinos .y analogy
ART. <1<. T%o o$ mo$e 'e$sons canno ma2e a
%i** Join*"( o$ in &e same ins$umen( ei&e$
fo$ &ei$ $eci'$oca* !enefi o$ fo$ &e !enefi of
a &i$d 'e$son.
CONT 5"" 9 one document which constitutes the wills
of two or more indi*iduals.
f there are separate documents- each ser*ing as one
independent will e*en if written on the same sheet- they
are not Doint wills prohi.ited .y the article.
7eason for )rohi.ition of Coint 5ills
1. "imitation on modes of re*ocation
One of the testators would not .e a.le to
destroy the document without also re*o+ing it
as the will of the other testator- or in any
e*en- as to the latter- the pro.lem of
unauthoriHed destruction would come in
2. $iminution of testamentary secrecy
Ryan Ouan 3! 3!
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
!. $anger of undue influence
#. $anger of one testator +illing the other
5hen a will is made Dointly or in the same
instrument- the spouse who is more dominant
is lia.le to dictate the terms of the will for his
or her own .enefit or for that of the third
persons whom he or she desires to fa*or.
5here the will is not only Doint .ut
reciprocal- either one of the spouses who
may happen to .e unscrupulous- wic+ed-
faithless or desperate- +nowing as he or she
does the terms of the will where.y the whole
property of the spouses .oth conDugal and
paraphernal goes to the sur*i*or- may .e
tempted to +ill or dispose of the other.
n 8ermany- Doint wills are allowed .ut only .etween
spouses.
ART. <1B. 1i**s( '$o&i!ied !" &e '$ecedin)
a$ic*e( e+ecued !" .i*i'inos in a fo$ei)n
coun$" s&a** no !e #a*id in &e P&i*i''ines(
e#en &ou)& au&o$iKed !" &e *a%s of &e
coun$" %&e$e &e" ma" &a#e !een e+ecued.
Outline on Coint 5ills
1. 2y 1ilipinos in the )hilippines 9 KO$ Art?1?
2. 1ilipinos A.road 9 KO$ Art?1@- e*en if allowed
.y law in place of e/ecution. This is an
e/ception to the permissi*e pro*isions of
Arts17 and ?1%.
!. Aliens A.road 9 KA"$- Art?1(
#. Aliens in )hilippines 9 Contro*erted- on one *iew
it is *oid .ecause of pu.lic policy- another
*iew says it is *alid .ecause Art?17
go*erns.
%. 1ilipino and Alien 9 Always KO$ as to the
1ilipino- .ut either W! or W# go*erns-
depending if he is a.road or in the )hils.
Cases for Arts. *0<&*06
A"ero v CA
- The holographic will of Annie 'an was su.mitted for
pro.ate.
- )ri*ate respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that3
neither the testament4s .ody nor the signature therein was in
decedent4s handwriting< it contained alterations and
corrections which were not duly signed .y decedent< and-
the will was procured .y petitioners through improper
pressure and undue influence.
- The petition was also contested .y $r. ADero with respect to
the disposition in the will of a house and lot. =e claimed that
said property could not .e con*eyed .y decedent in its
entirety- as she was not its sole owner.
- =owe*er- the trial court still admitted the decedent4s
holographic will to pro.ate.
- The trial court held that since it must decide only the
question of the identity of the will- its due e/ecution and the
testamentary capacity of the testatri/- it finds no reason for
the disallowance of the will for its failure to comply with the
formalities prescri.ed .y law nor for lac+ of testamentary
capacity of the testatri/.
- On appeal- the CA re*ersed said $ecision holding that the
decedent did not comply with Articles !1! and !1# of the
NCC. t found that certain dispositions in the will were either
unsigned or undated- or signed .y not dated. t also found
that the erasures- alterations and cancellations made had
not .een authenticated .y decedent.
- =ence- this appeal.
5hether the CA erred in holding that Articles ?1! and ?1# of
the NCC were not complies with.
- I&'. The 'C re*ersed the decision of CA.
- A reading of Article ?1! shows that its requirement affects
the *alidity of the dispositions contained in the holographic
will- .ut not its pro.ate. f the testator fails to sign and date
some of the dispositions- the result is that these dispositions
cannot .e effectuated. 'uch failure- howe*er- does not
render the whole testament *oid.
- "i+ewise- a holographic will can still .e admitted to pro.ate
notwithstanding non>compliance with the pro*isions of
Article ?1#.
- Bnless the authenticated alterations- cancellations or
insertions were made on the date of the holographic will or
on testator4s signature- their presence does not in*alidate
the will itself. The lac+ of authentication will only result in
disallowance of such changes.
- t is also proper to note that he requirements of
authentication of changes and signing and dating of
dispositions appear in pro*isions GArticle ?1! and ?1#E
separate from that which pro*ides for the necessary
conditions for the *alidity of the holographic will GArticle ?1AE.
- This separation and distinction adds support to the
interpretation that only the requirements of Article ?1A of the
NCC 9 and not those found in Articles ?1! and ?1# 9 are
essential to the pro.ate of a holographic will.
- 'ection @- 7ule 7( of the 7ules of Court and Article ?!@ of
the Ci*il Code enumerate the grounds for disallowance of
wills. These lists are e/clusi*e< no other grounds can ser*e
to disallow a will.
- n a petition to admit a holographic will- the only issues to .e
resol*ed are3
o whether the instrument su.mitted is-
indeed- the decedent4s last will and
testament<
o whether said will was e/ecuted in
accordance with the formalities prescri.ed
.y law<
o whether the decedent had the necessary
testamentary capacity at the time the will
was e/ecuted< and
o whether the e/ecution of the will and its
signing were the *oluntary acts of the
decedent.
- The o.Dect of the solemnities surrounding the e/ecution of
wills is to close the door against .ad faith and fraud<
accordingly- laws on this su.Dect should .e interpreted to
attain these primordial ends.
- n the case of holographic wills- what assures authenticity is
the requirement that they .e totally authographic or
handwritten .y the testator himself. 1ailure to strictly o.ser*e
other formalities will no result in the disallowance of a
holographic will that is unquestiona.le handwritten .y the
testator.
Ryan Ouan 40 40
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
Subse#tion % 1 2itnesses to 2ills
ART. <@C. An" 'e$son of sound mind and of &e
a)e of ei)&een "ea$s o$ mo$e( and no !*ind(
deaf o$ dum!( and a!*e o $ead and %$ie( ma"
!e a %iness o &e e+ecuion of a %i**
menion in A$ic*e <C5 of &is Code.
ART. <@1. T&e fo**o%in) a$e disqua*ified f$om
!ein) %inesses o a %i**=
>1? An" 'e$son no domici*ed in &e
P&i*i''ines
>@? T&ose %&o &a#e !een con#iced of
fa*sificaion of a documen( 'e$Ju$" o$
fa*se esimon".
'P QBA"1CATON' O1 5TN&''&'
1. Of 'ound Mind
2. At "east 1? years of age
!. Not 2lind- $eaf or $um.
#. A.le to read and write
%. $omiciled in the )hilippines
(. Must not ha*e .een con*icted of falsification of
a document- perDury or false testimony.
As to applica.ility to wills e/ecuted a.road- testator may
resort to either e/ecuting a holographic will or following
the law of the place of e/ecution- if no such witnesses
are readily a*aila.le.
Competence *. Credi.ility
The competency of a person to .e an instrumental
witness to a will is determined .y the statute under
Arts ?2A>?21- whereas his credi.ility depends on
the appreciation of his testimony and arises from
the .elief and conclusion of the Court that said
witness is telling the truth.
CA'&'
3onzales v. CA
- 'antiago filed a petition with the C1 for the pro.ate of the
will allegedly e/ecuted .y the deceased 8a.riel.
- 8onHales opposed the pro.ate. Among other grounds- she
contends that the witnesses who attested to the due
e/ecution of the will were not qualified witnesses.
- 'he argues that the requirement in Art. ?A( of the NCC that
the witness must .e credi.le is an a.solute requirement
which must .e complied with .efore a last will and testament
may .e admitted.
- 'he claims that to .e ca credi.le witness- there must .e
e*idence on record that the witness has good standing in
the community- or that he is honest and upright- or reputed
to .e trustworthy and relia.le.
- 8onHales further contends that ,credi.le0 is not synonymous
with ,competent0 .ecause a witness may .e competent
under Arts. ?2A and ?21 of the NCC- and still not credi.le as
required .y Art. ?A%.
- 'he further asserts that ,credi.le0 in the NCC should recei*e
the same well>settled meaning it has under the
NaturaliHation "aw.
5ON the witnesses who attested to 8a.riel4s will are qualified
to .e such.
- I&'. t is enough that the qualifications in Art. ?2A are
complied with- such that the soundness of his mind can .e
shown .y or deduced from his answers to questions
propounded to him. And hi age is pro*en as well as the fact
that he is not deaf and dum. and that he is a.le to read and
write- and that he is not disqualified under Art. ?21.
- There is no mandatory requirement that the witness testify
initially or at any time during the trial as to his good standing
in the community- his reputation or trustworthiness and
relia.ility.
- =is honesty and uprightness in order that his testimony may
.e .elie*ed and accepted .y the trial court.
- The contention that the term ,credi.le0 should .e gi*en the
same meaning as that in the NaturaliHation "aw is
untena.le. n naturaliHation proceedings- the character
witnesses must pro*e their good standing- reputation and
relia.ility.
- n pro.ate proceedings- the instrumental witnesses are not
character witnesses for they merely attest the e/ecution of a
will or testament and affirm the formalities attendant to said
e/ecution.
- (rt. E20< )CC3 Any person of sound mind and of the age of
1? years or more- and not .lind- deaf or dum.- and a.le to
read and write- may .e a witness to the e/ecution of a will
mentioned in Art. ?A%.
- (rt. E2#< )CC3 The following are disqualified from .eing
witnesses to a will3
1. Any person not domiciled in the )hilippines
2. Those who ha*e .een con*icted of falsification of a
document- perDury or false testimony.
:+ther assign6ents of error discussed in the case are factual.
SC did not re8erse the findings of the C(.;
ART. <@@. If &e %inesses aesin) &e e+ecuion
of a %i** a$e com'een a &e ime of
aesin)( &ei$ !ecomin) su!sequen*"
incom'een s&a** no '$e#en &e a**o%ance
of &e %i**.
As in the case of testamentary capacity under Art?A1-
the time of the e/ecution of the will is the only rele*ant
temporal criterion in the determination of the
competence of the witnesses.
ART. <@A. If a 'e$son aess &e e+ecuion of a
%i**( o %&om o$ o %&ose s'ouse( o$ 'a$en(
o$ c&i*d( a de#ise o$ *e)ac" is )i#en !" suc&
%i**( suc& de#ise o$ *e)ac" s&a**( so fa$ on*"
as conce$ns suc& 'e$son( o$ s'ouse( o$
'a$en( o$ c&i*d of suc& 'e$son( o$ an" one
c*aimin) unde$ suc& 'e$son o$ s'ouse( o$
'a$en( o$ c&i*d( !e #oid( un*ess &e$e a$e
&$ee o&e$ com'een %inesses o suc& %i**.
Ho%e#e$( suc& 'e$son so aesin) s&a** !e
Ryan Ouan 41 41
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
admied as a %iness as if suc& de#ise o$
*e)ac" &ad no !een made o$ )i#en.
Article is misplaced here .ecause it tal+s a.out
CA)ACTI TO 'BCC&&$ and not capacity to .e a
witness.
Article ?2! lays down a disqualification of a witness to
succeed to a legacy or de*ise when there are only !
witnesses. Competence of the person as a witness is
NOT A11&CT&$.
Assuming all other requisites for formal *alidity are
met- the will is perfectly *alid .ut the witness :or
relati*es specified in the article; cannot inherit.
Article also applies to =&7'. The intent of the law is to
co*er all testamentary institutions.
$isqualification applies only to the testa6entary
disposition made in fa*or of the witness or the specified
relati*es. f the party is also entitled to a legitime or an
intestate share- that portion is not affected .y the
party4s witnessing the will.
Question 9 'upposing there are # witnesses- each a
recipient of a testamentary disposition- are the
dispositions to them *alid or *oid6
Argua.le
May say that dispositions are KA"$
.ecause the law only requires that there .e !
other co6petent witnesses to such will for the
disposition to .e *alid. 1or the witnesses to .e
competent- they need only meet the
qualifications in Art?2A and ha*e none of the
disqualifications in Art?21.
May also say that dispositions are
NKA"$ .ecause the intent of the law is to
a*oid witnesses from attesting to the will .ased
on the dispositions as a consideration for such
act. f all of the witnesses are recipients of
testamentary dispositions- then there is greater
chance that they are all witnessing .ecause a
consideration has .een gi*en to them.
ART. <@4. A me$e c&a$)e on &e esae of &e
esao$ fo$ &e 'a"men of de!s due a &e
ime of &e esao$:s dea& does no '$e#en
&is c$edio$s f$om !ein) com'een %inesses
o &is %i**.
2ecause the de.t or charge is not a testamentary
disposition.
Su!secion 5 9 Codici*s and Inco$'o$aion
E" Refe$ence
ART. <@5. A codici* is a su''*emen o$ addiion o
a %i**( made afe$ &e e+ecuion of a %i** and
anne+ed o !e a2en as a 'a$ &e$eof( !"
%&ic& dis'osiion made in &e o$i)ina* %i** is
e+'*ained( added o( o$ a*e$ed.
ART. <@8. In o$de$ &a a codici* ma" !e effeci#e(
i s&a** !e e+ecued as in &e case of a %i**.
Codicil *. 'u.sequent 5ill
Codicil 9 e/plains- adds to or alters a disposition in
a prior will.
'u.sequent will 9 ma+es independent and distinct
dispositions.
2ut the distinction is purely academic .ecause
Art?2( requires that the codicil .e in the form of a
will anyway.
Must the Codicil conform to the form of the will to which
it refers6 NO. A holographic will can ha*e an attested
codicil and *ice *ersa. 2oth may also .e of the same
+ind.
ART. <@7. If a %i**( e+ecued as $equi$ed !" &is
Code( inco$'o$aes ino ise*f !" $efe$ence
an" documen o$ 'a'e$( suc& documen o$
'a'e$ s&a** no !e conside$ed a 'a$ of &e
%i** un*ess &e fo**o%in) $equisies a$e
'$esen=
>1? T&e documen o$ 'a'e$ $efe$$ed o in
&e %i** mus !e in e+isence a &e
ime of &e e+ecuion of &e %i**;
>@? T&e %i** mus c*ea$*" desc$i!e and
idenif" &e same( sain) amon) o&e$
&in)s &e num!e$ of 'a)es &e$eof;
>A? I mus !e idenified !" c*ea$ and
saisfaco$" '$oof as &e documen o$
'a'e$ $efe$$ed o &e$ein; and
>4? I mus !e si)ned !" &e esao$ and
&e %inesses on eac& and e#e$"
'a)e( e+ce' in case of #o*uminous
!oo2s of accoun o$ in#eno$ies.
Article only refers to documents such as3
1. n*entories
2. 2oo+s of Accounts
!. $ocuments of Title
#. )apers of 'imilar Nature
$O&' NOT include documents that ma+e testamentary
dispositions- or else the formal requirements of a will
would .e circum*ented.
Can holographic wills incorporate documents .y
reference6
NO. )ar# of Art?27 requires signatures of the
testator and the witnesses on e*ery page of the
incorporated document :e/cept *oluminous
anne/es;. t seems therefore that only attested wills
Ryan Ouan 42 42
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
can incorporate documents .y reference- since
only attested wills are witnessed.
Bnless testator e/ecutes a holographic will and
superfluously has it witnessed.
Subse#tion ; 1 !evo#ation of 2ills
And -estamentary is'ositions
ART. <@<. A %i** ma" !e $e#o2ed !" &e esao$ a
an" ime !efo$e &is dea&. An" %ai#e$ o$
$es$icion of &is $i)& is #oid.
A will is essentially 7&KOCA2"& or AM2B"ATO7I.
This characteristic cannot .e wai*ed e*en .y the
testator. There is no such thing as an irre*oca.le will.
This characteristic is consistent with the principle in
Art777 that successional rights *est only upon death.
ART. <@B. A $e#ocaion done ouside &e
P&i*i''ines( !" a 'e$son %&o does no &a#e
&is domici*e in &is coun$"( is #a*id %&en i is
done acco$din) o &e *a% of &e '*ace %&e$e
&e %i** %as made( o$ acco$din) o &e *a% of
&e '*ace in %&ic& &e esao$ &ad &is
domici*e a &e ime; and if &e $e#ocaion
a2es '*ace in &is coun$"( %&en i is in
acco$dance %i& &e '$o#isions of &is Code.
R0LES .OR REVOCATION
&e8ocation 6ade in the Philippines.
)hilippine "aw
&e8ocation 6ade +utside Philippines.
1. Testator not do6iciled in )hils.
"aw of place where the 5"" was made
"aw of place where the testator was
domiciled at time of re*ocation.
2. Testator do6iciled in )hils. :Art?2@;
)hilippine "aw 9 consistent with
domiciliary principle followed .y this article
"aw of place of 7e*ocation 9 principle of
le? loci celebrationis
"aw of place where the 5"" was made 9
.y analogy with rules on re*ocation where
testator is a non>)hilippine domiciliary.
Curious that the law departs from the nationality theory
and adopts the domiciliary theory.
ART. <AC. No %i** s&a** !e $e#o2ed e+ce' in &e
fo**o%in) cases=
>1? E" im'*icaion of *a%; o$
>@? E" some %i**( codici*( o$ o&e$ %$iin)
e+ecued as '$o#ided in case of %i**s; o$
>A? E" !u$nin)( ea$in)( cance*in)( o$
o!*ie$ain) &e %i** %i& &e inenion of
$e#o2in) i( !" &e esao$ &imse*f( o$ !"
some o&e$ 'e$son in &is '$esence( and
!" &is e+'$ess di$ecion. If !u$ned( o$n(
cance**ed( o$ o!*ie$aed !" some o&e$
'e$son( %i&ou &e e+'$ess di$ecion of
&e esao$( &e %i** ma" si** !e
esa!*is&ed( and &e esae dis$i!ued in
acco$dance &e$e%i&( if is conens( and
due e+ecuion( and &e fac of is
unau&o$iKed des$ucion( cance**aion( o$
o!*ie$aion a$e esa!*is&ed acco$din) o
&e Ru*es of Cou$.
,O-ES O. REVODING A 1ILL 0N-ER
PHILIPPINE LA1
#. B1 +P%&(,*+) +- L(4
May .e total or partial
&/amples of re*ocation .y operation of
law
aE )reterition 9 Art?%#
.E "egal 'eparation 9 Art(! par# 1C
cE Bnworthiness to succeed 9 Art1A!2
dE Transformation- alienation or loss of
the o.Dect de*ised or .equeathed 9
Art@%7
eE Cudicial demand of a credit gi*en as a
legacy > Art@!(
2. B1 ( S.BS%O.%), 4*LL +& C+@*C*L
7equisites for *alid re*ocation .y a
su.sequent instrument 9
aE 'u.sequent instrument must comply
with formal requirements of a will
.E Testator must possess testamentary
capacity
cE 'u.sequent instrument must either
contain an e/press re*ocatory clause
or .e incompati.le with the prior will
dE 'u.sequent instrument must .e
pro.ated to ta+e effect
7e*ocation .y su.sequent will may .e
Total or )artial- &/press or mplied
aE Total 9 whole prior instrument is
re*o+ed
Ryan Ouan 43 43
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
.E )artial 9 only certain pro*isions or
dispositions of the prior instrument is
re*o+ed
cE &/press 9 re*ocation of prior
instrument is stated in the
su.sequent instrument
dE mplied 9 incompati.ility .etween
pro*isions of prior and su.sequent
instruments.
3. B1 P!1S*C(L @%S,&.C,*+)
1our ways to destroy 9
aE 2urning
.E Tearing
cE Cancelling
dE O.literating
)hysical destruction may .e done .y the
testator personally or .y another person
acting in his presence and .y his e/press
direction.
BnauthoriHed if without e/press
direction of testator. 2ut what if with
e/press direction .ut not in his
presence6
Argua.le. May say that it is authoriHed
and therefore the destroyed instrument
is re*o+ed .ecause of the intent and
consent of the testator to re*o+e and
destroy- and that the law does not
pro*ide that without the testator4s
presence- destruction will .ecome
unauthoriHed.
On the other hand- it may .e argued
that the testator4s presence is required
.ecause at any time during the actual
.urning- destroying- etc. he may put a
stop to the destruction if he changes
his mind- and that is precisely why his
presence is required6
&ffect of unauthoriHed destruction 9 5ill
may still .e pro*ed as lost or destroyed
:Art?!A NCC and 7ule 7( 7oC;
=owe*er- this is possi.le only if the will
is attested< if the will is holographic- it
cannot .e pro.ated if lost- e*en if the
loss or destruction was unauthoriHed-
unless a copy sur*i*es.
&lements of a Kalid 7e*ocation .y
)hysical $estruction
aE CO7)B' 9 physical destruction itself<
there must .e e*idence of physical
destruction
.E ANMB' 9
Capacity and intent to re*o+e
Testator must ha*e completed
e*erything he intended to do
2oth corpus an animus must concur.
"oss or una*aila.ility of a will may- under
certain circumstances- gi*e rise to the
presumption that it had .een re*o+ed .y
physical destruction
5here a will which cannot .e found is
shown to ha*e .een in the possession
of the testator when last seen- the
presumption isin the a.sence of other
competent e*idence- that the same
was cancelled or destroyed.
'ame presumption arises where it is
shown that testator had ready access
to the will and it cannot .e found after
his death.
2ut such presumptions may .e
o*ercome .y proof that the will was not
destroyed .y the testator with intent to
re*o+e it.
CA'&'
-estate Estate of Adriana :aloto v. CA
- The nieces and nephews of Adriana Maloto- including
Constancio Maloto and Aldina Casiano- thought that the
latter died intestate.
- Thus they filed an intestate proceeding for the settlement of
the decedent4s estate.
- n the course of the proceeding- the said relati*es e/ecuted
an e/traDudicial petition of the estate- where they adDudicated
among themsel*es the properties in the ratio of R each.
- Three years after- a document was deli*ered to the same
court- which was .elie*ed to .e the last will and testament of
Adriana Maloto.
- n the said will- Aldina and Constancio ha*e shares that are
.igger- different and more *alua.le than the one o.tained .y
them in the e/traDudicial partition. There were also other
legatees named in the will.
- Thus- Casiano and Aldina filed a petition for the allowance of
the will in the 'pecial )roceeding initially filed .y them.
- The C1 denied the motion to reopen the proceedings on the
ground that it has .een filed out of time.
5hether or Not the C1 correctly dismissed the petition.
- 'C held in the affirmati*e.
- The pro.ate court has no Durisdiction to entertain the petition
for the pro.ate of the alleged will of Adriana Maloto in the
prior ntestate )roceeding.
- 1irst- the motion to reopen the proceedings has .een filed
out of time.
- 'econd- it is not proper to ma+e a finding in an intestate
estate proceeding that the disco*ered will has .een re*o+ed.
- The more appropriate remedy for them is to initiate a
separate proceeding for the pro.ate of the alleged will.
- n this *iew- the order in the prior special proceeding is not a
.ar for the filing of a petition for the pro.ate of the will of
Adriana Maloto.
- t is not proper to ma+e a finding in an intestate proceeding
that a disco*ered will has .een re*o+ed. A separate petition
for pro.ate of the alleged will should .e ordered filed.
Ryan Ouan 44 44
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
ART. <A1. Su!sequen %i**s %&ic& do no $e#o2e
&e '$e#ious ones in an e+'$ess manne$(
annu* on*" suc& dis'osiions in &e '$io$ %i**s
as a$e inconsisen %i& o$ con$a$" o &ose
conained in &e *ae$ %i**s.
7e*ocation of a will .y a su.sequent will or codicil may
.e e/press :through a re*ocatory clause; or implied
:through incompati.ility;.
n the old Ci*il Code- mere fact of a su.sequent will-
pro*ided that it is *alid- re*o+ed the prior one- e?cept
only if the testator pro8ides in the posterior will that the
prior will was to subsists in whole or in part.
The present rule pro*ides that the e/ecution of a
su.sequent will does not ipso facto re*o+e a prior one.
ART. <A@. A $e#ocaion made in a su!sequen %i**
s&a** a2e effec( e#en if &e ne% %i** s&ou*d
!ecome ino'e$ai#e !" $eason of &e
inca'aci" of &e &ei$s( de#isees o$ *e)aees
desi)naed &e$ein( o$ !" &ei$ $enunciaion.
&fficacy of the re*ocatory clause does not depend on
the testamentary disposition of the re*o+ing will-
BN"&'' the testator so pro*ides. 7e*ocation is
generally spea+ing- an a.solute pro*ision- independent
of the acceptance or capacity of the new heirs.
An &PC&)TON is where the testator pro*ides in the
su.sequent will that the re*ocation of the prior one is
dependent on the Capacity or Acceptance of the heirs-
de*isees or legatees instituted in the su.sequent will.
$&)&N$&NT 7&"ATK& 7&KOCATON
-EPEN-ENT RELATIVE REVOCATION
5here the act of destruction is connected with the
ma+ing of another will as fairly to raise the
inference that the testator meant the re*ocation of
the old to depend upon the efficacy of the new
disposition intended to .e su.stituted- the
re*ocation will .e conditional and dependent upon
the efficacy of the new disposition< and if- for any
reason- the new will intended to .e made as a
su.stitute is inoperati*e- the re*ocation fails and
the original will remains in full force.
This is the doctrine of dependent relati*e
re*ocation. The failure of the new testamentary
disposition- upon whose *alidity the re*ocation
depends- is equi*alent to the non>fulfillment of a
suspensi*e condition- and hence pre*ents the
re*ocation of the original will. 2ut a mere intent to
ma+e at some time a will in place of that destroyed
will not render the destruction conditional. t must
appear that the re*ocation is dependent upon the
*alid e/ecution of a new will. :Molo *. Molo;
t must .e remem.ered that dependent relati*e
re*ocation applies only if it appears that the testator
intended his at of re8ocation to be conditioned on the
6aGing of a new will or on its 8alidity or efficacy.
n Molo *. Molo- the 'amson *. Na*al doctrine was
cited- pro*iding that ,A su.sequent will- containing a
clause re*o+ing a pre*ious will- ha*ing .een disallowed-
for the reason that it was not e/ecuted in conformity
with the pro*isions of the Code of Ci*il procedure as to
the ma+ing of wills- cannot produce the effect of
annulling the pre*ious will- inasmuch as said re*ocatory
clause is *oid.0
Question 9 supposing the institution of heirs- legatees
or de*isees in the su.sequent will is su.Dect to a
suspensi*e condition- is the re*ocation of the prior will
a.solute or conditional6
$epends on the testator4s intent.
f the su.sequent will contains a re*ocatory clause
which is a.solute or unconditional- the re*ocation
will .e a.solute regardless of the happening or
non>happening of the suspensi*e condition.
2ut if the testator states in the su.sequent will that
the re*ocation of the prior will is su.Dect to the
occurrence of the suspensi*e condition- or if the
will does not contain a re*ocatory clause- the
re*ocation will depend on whether the condition
happens or not.
f the suspensi*e condition does not
occur- the institution is deemed ne*er to
ha*e .een made and the prior institution
will .e gi*en effect. :i.e. no re*ocation of
prior will;
This is in accord with the Duridical nature
of suspensi*e conditions- and is an
instance of dependent relati*e re*ocation.
s the rule on dependent relati*e re*ocation applica.le if
the re*ocation of the will is .y physical destruction6
I&'. f testator e/ecutes a su.sequent will
re*o+ing the prior will .ut conditioned on the
*alidity of the su.sequent will- then if the
su.sequent will is declared in*alid- the prior will
su.sists.
n Molo *. Molo- in an o.iter- 'C held that the
physical destruction of the will $$ NOT re*o+e it-
.ased on the inference made .y the court in that
case- that the testator meant the re*ocation to
depend on the *alidity of a new will.
2ut apart from the fact that the statement is obiter
.ecause the facts did not clearly show that the will
had .een destroyed- it is argua.le whether the
prior will should .e deemed to su.sist despite its
physical destruction. Can it not .e argued that the
act of the testator in destroying the will in fact
confirmed his intent to re*o+e it6
n the case of $iaH *. $e "eon- the testator
e/ecuted a prior will .ut destroyed it and e/ecuted
another will re*o+ing the former. =owe*er- the
second will was found to .e not e/ecuted with all
Ryan Ouan 45 45
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
the necessary requisites to constitute sufficient
re*ocation. The court then held that the intention of
re*o+ing the will was manifest from the fact that the
testator was an/ious to withdraw or change the
pro*isions he had made in his first will. Therefore-
the court concluded that original will presented
ha*ing .een destroyed with ani6o re8ocandi- the
original will and last testament cannot .e pro.ated
and was effecti*ely re*o+ed.
n Molo- re*ocation of the prior will was not allowed
.ecause the court inferred that the testator meant
re*ocation to depend on the *alidity of the new will-
so in that case the rule on dependent relati8e
re8ocation was applied.
=owe*er- in $e "eon- court held that the testator4s
intent to re*o+e the prior will was not dependent on
the *alidity of the su.sequent will so e*en if the
second will was *oid and insufficient as re*ocation-
the prior will was still re*o+ed .ecause such
re*ocation was not dependent on the *alidity of the
second will :6XX;
ART. <AA. A $e#ocaion of a %i** !ased on a fa*se
cause o$ an i**e)a* cause is nu** and #oid.
5ills are re*oca.le ad nutu6 or at the testator4s
pleasure. The testator does not need to ha*e a reason
to re*o+e the will.
=owe*er- precisely .ecause the law respects the
testator4s true intent- this article sets aside a re*ocation
that does not reflect such intent.
RE/0ISITES .OR A .ALSE I ILLEGAL CA0SE TO
REN-ER REVOCATION VOI- 9
#. C(.S% '.S, B% C+)C&%,%< -(C,.(L
()@ )+, P.&%L1 S.BJ%C,*/%
f a testator re*o+ed on the stated ground
that the heir was locano and all locanos are
.ad- it would Dust .e preDudice and the
re*ocation is *alid .ecause it is .ased on a
su.Decti*e cause.
2. *, '.S, B% -(LS%
2. ,!% ,%S,(,+& '.S, )+, M)+4 +- *,S
-(LS*,1
C. *, '.S, (PP%(& -&+' ,!% 4*LL ,!(,
,!% ,%S,(,+& *S &%/+M*)$ B%C(.S% +-
,!% C(.S% 4!*C! *S -(LS%.
f the re*ocation is .y physical destruction- and the
re*o+ed will is holographic- then though the re*ocation
.e *oid- pro.ate will not .e possi.le- BN"&'' a copy of
the holographic will sur*i*es.
The rule regarding nullity of re*ocation for an illegal
cause limits the freedom of the testator to re*o+e .ased
on an illegal cause- .ut this is due to pu.lic policy
considerations.
t must .e noted that the illegal cause should be stated
in the will as the cause of the re8ocation.
ART. <A4. T&e $eco)niion of an i**e)iimae c&i*d
does no *ose is *e)a* effec( e#en &ou)& &e
%i** %&e$ein i %as made s&ou*d !e $e#o2ed.
The part of the will which recogniHes an illegitimate
child is NOT re*oca.le .ecause recognition is an
irre*oca.le act. Therefore- e*en if the will is re*o+ed-
the recognition remains effecti*e.
Bnder the 1amily Code- admission of illegitimate
filiation in a will would constitute proof of illegitimate
filiation. According to Article 17% of the 1amily Code 9
Art175. Iegtmate chdren may estabsh
ther egtmate faton n the same way and on
the same evdence as egtmate chdren.
The acton must be brought wthn the same
perod specfed n Art173, except when the
acton s based on the second paragraph of
Art172, n whch case the acton may be brought
durng the fetme of the aeged parent.
2asically- the principle laid down in Art?!# remains
unaltered regarding these admissions contained in
wills.
Subse#tion $ 1 !e'ubli#ation and
!evival of 2ills
ART. <A5. T&e esao$ canno $e'u!*is&( %i&ou
$e'$oducin) in a su!sequen %i**( &e
dis'osiions conained in a '$e#ious one
%&ic& is #oid as o is fo$m.
ART. <A8. T&e e+ecuion of a codici* $efe$$in) o a
'$e#ious %i** &as &e effec of $e'u!*is&in)
&e %i** as modified !" &e codici*.
f the testator wishes to repu.lish a will that is *oid as to
form- the only way to repu.lish it is to e/ecute a
Ryan Ouan 46 46
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
subse=uent will and reproduce :copy out; the
dispositions of the original will. Mere reference to the
prior will in the su.sequent will is not enough.
A will is *oid as to form if it does not comply with the
requirements of Arts?A#>?1?< ?1A>?1#< ?1?>?1@.
R R EG EG C C AP O. AP O. . . OR,AL OR,AL R R E/0IRE,ENTS E/0IRE,ENTS
O. A O. A 1 1 ILL ILL
+. $efects and imperfections in form of attestation and
language used shall not ma+e the will in*alid if
there is su.stantial compliance with requirements
of Art?A%.
l. "aw to .e followed
a. 1ilipino a.road
.. Alien a.road
c. Alien in the )hilippines
m. )rohi.ition on Doint wills- especially .y 1ilipinos
e*en if e/ecuted in foreign country allowing Doint
wills.
n. 5itnesses must possess all the qualifications in
Art?2A and none of the disqualifications in Art?21.
@. HOLOGRAPHIC 1ILL
a. Must .e entirely written
.. &/ecuted in a language or dialect +nown to testator
c. $ated .y the testator
d. 'igned .y the hand of the testator himself
e. 5itnesses required
aE Fnows the handwriting and signature of the
testator
.E &/plicitly declares that the will and the
signature are in the handwriting of the testator
f. $ispositions .elow testator4s signature must also .e
dated and signed.
g. 5hen se*eral additional dispositions are signed .ut
not dated- the last disposition must .e signed and
dated to *alidate the dispositions preceding it.
h. Any insertion- cancellation- erasure or alteration must
.e authenticated .y the testator4s full signature-
otherwise it shall .e deemed as not made.
i. )rohi.ition on Doint wills- especially .y 1ilipinos e*en if
e/ecuted in a foreign country where Doint wills are
allowed.
f the testator wishes to 7epu.lish a will that is either3
1. KO$ for a reason other than a formal defect-
or
2. )re*iously 7&KOF&$
The only thing necessary to repu.lish it is for the
testator to e/ecute a su.sequent will or codicil
referring to the pre*ious will. There is no need to
reproduce the pro*isions of the prior will in the
su.sequent instrument.
5hy the difference on the rules .etween nullity as to
form and nullity .ased on other grounds6 )rof. 2alane
says .ecause Art?!% is from Argentine "aw whole
Art?!( is from California "aw. 8o figure.
Ryan Ouan 47 47
R R EG EG C C AP O. AP O. . . OR,AL OR,AL R R E/0IRE,ENTS E/0IRE,ENTS
O. A O. A 1 1 ILL ILL
1. ATTESTE-IOR-INARF 1ILL
a. Must .e in writing
.. &/ecuted in a language or dialect +nown to testator
c. 'u.scri.ed .y the testator or his agent in his
presence and .y his e/press direction at the end
thereof- in the presence of the witnesses
d. Attested and su.scri.ed .y at least !
credi.le witnesses in presence of the testator V of
one another
e. Testator- or his agent- must sign e*ery page-
e/cept the last- on the left margin in the presence
of the witnesses
f. The witnesses must sign e*ery page- e/cept the
last- on the left margin in the presence of the
testator and of one another.
g. All pages num.ered correlati*ely in letters on the
upper part of each page.
h. Attestation clause- stating3
aE Num.er of pages of the will
.E 1act that the testator or his agent
under his e/press direction signed the will and
e*ery page thereof- in the presence of the
witnesses
c) 1act that the witnesses witnessed
and signed the will and e*ery page thereof in
the presence of the testator and of one
another.
i. Ac+nowledgement .efore a notary pu.lic .y the
testator and the witnesses.
D. =andicapped Testator
aE $eaf or deaf>mute 9 personally read the will if
a.le to do so- otherwise designate 2 persons
to read and communicate it to him.
.E 2lind 9 read to him twice- once .y a
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
ART. <A7. If afe$ ma2in) a %i**( &e esao$
ma2es a second %i** e+'$ess*" $e#o2in) &e
fi$s( &e $e#ocaion of &e second %i** does
no de$i#e &e fi$s %i**( %&ic& can !e $e#i#ed
on*" !" ano&e$ %i** o$ codici*.
llustration
n 1@?%- P e/ecuted will 1
n 1@?7- P e/ecuted will 2 and e/pressly re*o+ed
will 1
n 1@@A- P e/ecuted will !- re*o+ing will 2
> 5hen will ! re*o+ed will 2- it did not re*i*e will 1.
This article is .ased on the theory of INSTANT
REVOCATION
That the re*ocatory effect of the 2
nd
will is
immediate.
=owe*er- such theory is inconsistent with the
principle that wills ta+e effect mortis causa.
1urthermore- to .e effecti*e for the purpose of
re*o+ing the first will- the second will must .e
pro.ated. 2ut it has already .een re*o+ed .y the
third will. A re*o+ed will now has to .e su.mitted to
pro.ate6
Article applies only when the re*ocation of the first will
.y the second will is &P)7&''. f the re*ocation .y the
second will is implied due to incompati.le pro*isions-
the article will not apply and the effect will .e that the
first will is re*i*ed.
=owe*er- when will ! is itself inconsistent with will
1- there is still re*ocation.
Also +eep in mind Article ?!1 9 mplied
7e*ocations only annul such dispositions in the
prior wills as are inconsistent with or contrary to
those contained in the latter wills.
&PC&)TON 9 when the second will is holographic and
it is re8oGed by physical destruction< because then the
possibility of its probate is foreclosed< unless of course
a copy sur8i8es.
Cases for Arts. *+*&*5$
:olo v. :olo
- Mariano Molo died and was sur*i*ed .y his herein petitioner
wife and his herein oppositors nieces and nephews. =e left
two wills one dated 1@1? and the other 1@!@. The 2
nd
will
contains a clause which e/pressly re*o+es the former will.
- Bpon death- his wife filed a petition for pro.ate of the 1@!@
will which was later on admitted. =owe*er- oppositors
e*entually filed a petition which resulted to the denial of
pro.ate of the said will. )etitioner wife then filed a petition
for pro.ate of the 1@1? will- which was li+ewise denied .y
the oppositors in this case.
5hether or not petitioner *oluntarily and deli.erately frustrated
the pro.ate of the 1@!@ will.
- 'C held that she did not .ecause if it was indeed her
intention- she could ha*e accomplished her desire .y merely
suppressing the will or tearing or destroying it- and then ta+e
steps in leading to the pro.ate of the 1@1? will.
- =ad the oppositors in this case not filed an opposition and
had limited their o.Dection to the intrinsic *alidity of the will-
their plan to defeat the will and secure the intestacy of the
deceased would ha*e .een accomplished.
- f the said will was denied pro.ate- it is due to oppositor4s
fault and is unfair to impute .ad faith to petitioner simply
.ecause she e/erted effort to protect her own interest and
pre*ent the intestacy of the deceased.
5ON- notwithstanding the disallowance of the 1@!@ will- the
re*ocatory clause is *alid and still nullifies the 1@1? will.
- 'C held that the clause is li+ewise *oid .ecause3
- The Court held in 'amson *. Na*al that it cannot produce
the effect of annulling the pre*ious will since said re*ocatory
clause is *oid.
- f it was really the intention of the deceased to re*o+e the
first will- with the assumption that he in fact destroyed the
original copy of the 1@1? will since it cannot .e found at
present- he should also destroyed the duplicate copy of the
said will which he had gi*en to his wife. 2ut he did not do so.
=ence- it is possi.le that .ecause of the long lapse of 21 yrs
since the 1
st
will was e/ecuted- the original will had .een
misplaced or lost and forgetting there was a copy- he
deemed it wise to e/ecute another.
- 8ranting that he did destroy the 1
st
will- the 1@1? will can still
.e admitted under the principle of ,dependent relati*e
re*ocation-0 which is predicated on the theory that the
testator did not intend to die intestate.
- The doctrine of dependent relati*e re*ocation is esta.lished
where the act of destruction is connected with the ma+ing of
another will so as fairly to raise the inference that the
testator meant the re*ocation of the old to depend upon the
efficacy of the new disposition intended to .e su.stituted-
the re*ocation will .e conditional and dependent upon the
efficacy of the new disposition< and if- for any reason- the
new will intended to .e made as a su.stitute is inoperati*e-
the re*ocation fails and the original will remains in full force.
3a)o v. :amuya#
- On 27 Culy 1@1?- Miguel Mamuyac of Agoo- "a Bnion
e/ecuted a last will and testament.
- After his death- 1rancisco 8ago as+ed the court for the
pro.ate of the will .ut was opposed .y Cornelio Mamuyac-
Am.rosio "ariosa- 1eliciano 2auHon- and Catalina
Mamuyac.
- After the pro.ate of the said will was denied- another will
alleged to ha*e .een e/ecuted on 1( April 1@1@ was
presented for pro.ate to which the same oppositors resisted.
- The oppositors argued that such will was not the original and
was a mere copy< that the same had .een cancelled and
re*o+ed .y the testator< and that the same was not the last
will and testament of Mamuyac.
- The pro.ate of the second will was li+ewise turned down for
ha*ing .een cancelled and re*o+ed.
- According to witnesses- the original of the said will was in
the possession of Mamuyac .efore his death who re*o+ed
the same.
5ON Miguel Mamuyac4s last will has indeed .een cancelled
and re*o+ed and therefore not admissi.le to pro.ate.
Ryan Ouan 4 4
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- I&'. There is positi*e proof- not denied- that the will in
question had .een cancelled in 1@2A.
- The law does not require any e*idence of the re*ocation or
cancellation of a will to pro*e the same.
- The fact that such cancellation or re*ocation has ta+en place
must either remain unpro*ed or .e inferred from e*idence
showing that after due search the original will cannot .e
found. f it .e shown that the will was in the possession of
the testator when last seen- the presumption isin the
a.sence of other competent e*idence- that the same was
cancelled or destroyed.
- The same presumption go*erns when the testator had ready
access to the will and it cannot .e found after his death.
- No presumption of destruction .y any other person without
the +nowledge or authority of the testator.
- The force of presumption is ne*er conclusi*e .ut may .e
o*ercome .y proof that the will was not destroyed .y the
testator with intent to re*o+e it.
- Copies of wills should .e admitted .y courts with great
caution in *iew of the difficulty of finding witnesses and other
e*idence.
- The duplicate may .e admitted to pro.ate if it was in the
same manner e/ecuted with all formalities and requirements
of the law.
- The fact that such cancellation or re*ocation has ta+en place
must either remain unpro*ed or .e inferred from e*idence
showing that after due search the original will cannot .e
found.
- f it .e shown that the will was in the possession of the
testator when last seen- the presumption isin the a.sence
of other competent e*idence- that the same was cancelled
or destroyed.
- The same presumption go*erns when the testator had ready
access to the will and it cannot .e found after his death.
- No presumption of destruction .y any other person without
the +nowledge or authority of the testator.
- n a proceeding to pro.ate a will- the .urden of proof is upon
the proponent to esta.lish not only the e/ecution of the will
.ut also its e/istence.
iaz v. e Leon
- n this case- $iaH- the petitioner- denies that the will
e/ecuted .y the decedent Cesus de "eon.
- =owe*er- the contestant says otherwise and alleging that
the testator re*o+ed his will .y destroying it- and .y
e/ecuting another will e/pressly re*o+ing the former.
5ON- the will e/ecuted .y the Cesus de "eon- now deceased-
was re*o+ed .y him.
- The court finds that the will e/ecuted .y the deceased is not
clothed with all the necessary requisites to constitute a
sufficient re*ocation.
- 2ut according to the statute go*erning the su.Dect in this
Durisdiction- the destruction of a will with ani6o re8ocandi
constitutes- in itself- a sufficient re*ocation.
- 1rom the e*idence presented- the decedent as+ed that the
same .e returned to him.
- The instrument was returned to the testator who ordered his
ser*ant to tear the document. This was done in his presence
and .efore a nurse who testified to this effect.
- The intention of re*o+ing the will is manifest from the
esta.lished fact that the testator was an/ious to withdraw or
change the pro*isions he has made in his first will.
- The original will herein presented for pro.ate ha*ing .een
destroyed with ani6o re8ocandi cannot now .e pro.ated as
the will and last testament of Cesus de "eon.
- Cudgment affirmed.
- The destruction of a will with ani6o re8ocandi constitutes- in
itself- a sufficient re*ocation.
Subse#tion * 1 AlloAan#e and
isalloAan#e of 2ills
ART. <A<. No %i** s&a** 'ass ei&e$ $ea* o$
'e$sona* '$o'e$" un*ess i is '$o#ed and
a**o%ed in acco$dance %i& &e Ru*es of
Cou$.
T&e esao$ &imse*f ma"( du$in) &is
*ifeime( 'eiion &e cou$ &a#in) Ju$isdicion
fo$ &e a**o%ance of &is %i**. In suc& case( &e
'e$inen '$o#isions of &e Ru*es of Cou$ fo$
&e a**o%ance of %i**s afe$ &e esao$:s
dea& s&a** )o#e$n.
T&e Su'$eme Cou$ s&a** fo$mu*ae suc&
addiiona* Ru*es of Cou$ as ma" !e
necessa$" fo$ &e a**o%ance of %i**s on
'eiion of &e esao$.
Su!Jec o &e $i)& of a''ea*( &e
a**o%ance of &e %i**( ei&e$ du$in) &e *ifeime
of &e esao$ o$ afe$ &is dea&( s&a** !e
conc*usi#e as o is due e+ecuion.
)ro.ate of a will is MAN$ATO7I.
T1O DIN-S O. PROEATE
1. P+S, '+&,%' 9 after the testator4s death
2. (),% '+&,%' 9 during his lifetime- features3
&asier for the courts to determine mental
condition of a testator
1raud- intimidation and undue influence
are minimiHed
&asier correction of formal defects in the
will
Once a will is pro.ated ante mortem- the
only questions that may remain for the courts
to decide after the testator4s death will refer to
the intrinsic *alidity of the testamentary
dispositions.
7ules on )ro.ate for .oth post and ante mortem are
found in 7ule 7( of the 7ules of Court.
1inality of a )ro.ate $ecree
Once a decree of pro.ate .ecomes final in
accordance with the rules of procedure- it is res
Dudicata.
'cope of a 1inal $ecree of )ro.ate
A final decree of pro.ate is conclusi*e as to the
due e/ecution of the will- i.e. as to the will4s
e/trinsic and formal *alidity only.
Ryan Ouan 4! 4!
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
8allanosa *. Arcangel enumerates %&a a$e
co#e$ed !" &e e$m .o$ma* Va*idi" and
&e$efo$e conc*usi#e*" se*ed !" a fina* dec$ee
of '$o!ae 9
a; ,hat the testator was of sound and
disposing 6ind
b; ,hat his consent was not 8itiated
c; ,hat the will was signed by the
re=uired nu6ber of witnesses< and
That all the formal requirements of the
law ha*e .een complied with.
d; ,hat the will is genuine.
Another way of defining the scope of a final decree
of pro.ate is to refer to art?!@. (ny action based
on any of the grounds for disallowance of a will
enu6erated in (rticle E2B can no longer be
pursued once there is a final decree of probate.
8&N&7A" 7B"& 9 A decree of pro.ate- therefore does
not concern itself with the question of NT7N'C
*alidity and the pro.ate court should not pass upon that
issue.
&PC&)TON > 5hen the pro.ate of a will might .ecome
an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to .e
intrinsically *oid. 5here practical considerations
demand that the intrinsic *alidity of the will .e passed
upon- e*en .efore it is pro.ated- the court should meet
the issue.
On the authority of Nepomuceno *. Ca- a pro.ate court
may pass upon the issue of intrinsic *alidity if on the
face of the will- its intrinsic nullity is patent.
CA'&
3uevara v. 3uevara
- &rnesto M. 8ue*ara and 7osario 8ue*ara- legitimate son
and natural daughter- respecti*ely- of the deceased
Kictorino ". 8ue*ara- are litigating here o*er their
inheritance from the latter.
- Kictorino made a will distri.uting his estate to his children
and granting de*ises to certain indi*iduals. =e also set aside
1AA hectares of land either to .e disposed of .y him during
his lifetime or for the payment of all his pending de.ts and
e/penses up to the time of his death.
- Kictorino died. =is last will and testament- howe*er- was
ne*er presented to the court for pro.ate- nor has any
administration proceeding e*er .een instituted for the
settlement of his estate.
- 7osario 8ue*ara- who appears to ha*e had her fatherUs last
will and testament in her custody- did nothing Dudicially to
in*o+e the testamentary dispositions made therein in her
fa*or- where.y the testator ac+nowledged her as his natural
daughter and- aside from certain legacies and .equests-
de*ised to her a portion of the large parcel of land descri.ed
in the will.
- 2ut a little o*er four years after the testatorUs demise- she
commenced the present action against &rnesto<
- t was only during the trial of this case that she presented the
will to the court- not for the purpose of ha*ing it pro.ated .ut
only to pro*e that the deceased Kictorino had ac+nowledged
her as his natural daughter.
- Bpon that proof of ac+nowledgment she claimed her share
of the inheritance from him- .ut on the theory or assumption
that he died intestate- .ecause the will had not .een
pro.ated- for which reason- she asserted- the .etterment
therein made .y the testator in fa*or of his legitimate son
&rnesto should .e disregarded.
5hether the procedure adopted .y 7osario 8ue*ara is legal6
- f the decedent left a will and no de.ts and the heirs and
legatees desire to ma+e an e/traDudicial partition of the
estate- they must first present that will to the court for
pro.ate and di*ide the estate in accordance with the will.
- They may not disregard the pro*isions of the will unless
those pro*isions are contrary to law.
- Neither may they do away with the presentation of the will to
the court for pro.ate- .ecause such suppression of the will is
contrary to law and pu.lic policy.
- The law enDoins the pro.ate of the will and pu.lic policy
requires it- .ecause unless the will is pro.ated and notice
thereof gi*en to the whole world- the right of a person to
dispose of his property .y will may .e rendered nugatory- as
is attempted to .e done in the instant case.
- A.sent legatees and de*isees- or such of them as may ha*e
no +nowledge of the will- could .e cheated of their
inheritance thru the collusion of some of the heirs who might
agree to the partition of the estate among themsel*es to the
e/clusion of others.
- &*en if the decedent left no de.ts and no.ody raises any
question as to the authenticity and due e/ecution of the will-
none of the heirs may sue for the partition of the estate in
accordance with that will without first securing its allowance
or pro.ate of the court3
- The presentation of a will to the court for pro.ate is
mandatory and its allowance .y the court is essential and
indispensa.le to its efficacy.
- n fact- to ensure the presentation of the will to the court for
pro.ate the law punishes a person who neglects his duty to
present it to the court GwL a fine not e/ceeding )2AAAE and if
he should persist in not presenting it- he may .e committed
to prison and +ept there until he deli*ers the will.
- The law e/pressly pro*ides that Nno will shall pass either real
or personal estate unless it is pro*ed and allowed in the
proper courtN<
- The pro.ate of a will- which is a proceeding in rem- #annot
be dis'ensed Ait@ and substituted by any ot@er
'ro#eedin)9 "udi#ial or e,tra"udi#ial9 Ait@out offendin)
a)ainst 'ubli# 'oli#y desi)ned to effe#tuate t@e
testatorEs ri)@t to dis'ose of @is 'ro'erty by Aill in
accordance with law and to protect the rights of the heirs
and legatees under the will thru the means pro*ided .y law-
among which are the pu.lication and the personal notices to
each and all of said heirs and legatees.
e la Cerna v. =otot
Ryan Ouan 50 50
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- 'pouses 2erna.e de la 'erna and 8er*asia 7e.aca-
e/ecuted a Doint last will ad testament where they willed that
their 2 parcels of land .e gi*en to Manuela 7e.aca- their
niece and that while each of them are li*ing- heLshe will
continue to enDoy the fruits of the lands mentioned.
- 2erna.e died. 8er*asia su.mitted the will for pro.ated. 2y
order of Oct. !1- 1@!@- the Court admitted for pro.ate the
said will .ut only for the part of 2erna.e.
- 5hen 8er*asia died- another petition for pro.ate was
instituted .y Manuela- .ut .ecause she and her attorney
failed to appear in court- the petition was dismissed.
- 5hen the same was heard- the C1 declared the will *oid for
.eing e/ecuted contrary to the prohi.ition on Doint wills. On
appeal- the order was re*ersed.
5hether or not the will may .e pro.ated
- Admittedly the pro.ate of the will in 1@!@ was erroneous-
howe*er- .ecause it was pro.ated .y a court of competent
Durisdiction it has conclusi*e effect and a final Dudgment
rendered on a petition for the pro.ate of a will is .inding
upon the whole world. =owe*er- this is only with respect to
the estate of the hus.and .ut cannot affect the estate of the
wife< considering that a Doint will is a separate will of each
testator.
- The Doint will .eing prohi.ited .y law- its *alidity- in so far as
the estate of the wife is concerned- must .e ree/amine and
adDudicated de no*o.
- The undi*ided interest of the wife should pass upon her
death to her intestate heirs and not to the testamentary heir.
Thus as to the disposition of the wife- the will cannot .e
gi*en effect.
- A decree of pro.ate decree is conclusi*e on the due
e/ecution and the formal *alidity of the will su.Dect to such
pro.ate.
3allanosa v. Ar#an)el
- 1lorentino =itosis was a childless widower and was sur*i*ed
.y his .rother "ito.
- n his will- 1lorentino .equeathed his O share in the conDugal
estate to his second wife- Tecla- and- should Tecla
predecease him- as was the case- his O share would .e
assigned to spouses 8allanosa. )edro 8allanosa was
Tecla4s son .y her first marriage who grew up under the
care of 1lorentino. =is other properties were .equeathed to
his protYgY Adolfo 1ortaDada.
- Bpon his death- a petition for the pro.ate of his will was wile.
Opposition was registered .y 1lorentino4s .rother- nephews
and nieces.
- After a hearing- where the oppositors did not present any
e*idence- the Cudge admitted the will to pro.ate.
- The testator4s legal heirs did not appeal from the decree of
pro.ate and from the order of partition and distri.ution.
- "ater- the legal heirs filed a case for reco*ery of (1 parcels
of land against )edro alleging that they had .een in
continuous possession of those lands and praying that they
.e declared owners thereof.
- )edro mo*ed for a dismissal which was later granted .y the
Cudge on the ground of res >udicata.
- The legal heirs did not appeal from the order of dismissal.
- 1% years after the dismissal of the first ci*il case and 2?
years after the pro.ate of the will- the legal heirs filed a case
for ,annulment of the will0 alleging fraud and deceit.
- The court dismissed said action. =owe*er- the court set
aside the dismissal after the heirs filed a motion for
reconsideration. =ence- this appeal.
5hether the legal heirs ha*e a cause of action for the
,annulment0 of the will of 1lorentino and for the reco*ery of the
(1 parcels of land adDudicated under that will to the petitioners.
- NO. The 'C held that the lower court committed a gra*e
a.use of discretion in setting aside its order of dismissal and
ignoring the testamentary case and the first ci*il case which
is the same as the instant case. t is e*ident that second ci*il
case is .arred .y res >udicata and .y prescription.
- T&e dec$ee of '$o!ae is conc*usi#e as o &e due
e+ecuion o$ fo$ma* #a*idi" of &e %i**. That means that
the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time he
e/ecuted the will and was not acting under duress- menace-
fraud- or undue influence< that the will was signed .y him in
the presence of the required num.er of witnesses- and that
the will is genuine.
- Accordingly- these facts cannot again .e questioned in a
su.sequent proceeding- not e*en in a criminal action for the
forgery of the will.
- After the finality of the allowance of a will- the issue as to the
*oluntariness of its e/ecution cannot .e raised anymore.
- The 'C also held that the decree of adDudication- ha*ing
rendered in a proceeding in re6- is .inding upon the whole
world. Moreo*er- the dismissal of the first ci*il case- which is
a Dudgment in persona6- was an adDudication on the merits.
Thus. t constitutes a .ar .y former Dudgment under the
7ules of Court.
- The 'C also held that the lower court erred in saying that the
action for the reco*ery of the lands had not prescri.ed. The
'C ruled that the Art. 1#1A of NCC Gthe action or defense for
the declaration of the ine/istence of a contract does not
prescri.eE cannot apply to last wills and testaments.
- The 7ules of Court does not sanction an action for
,annulment0 of a will.
- A final decree of pro.ate is conclusi*e as to the due
e/ecution of the will.
- A decree of adDudication in a testate proceeding is .inding
on the whole world.
- After the period for see+ing relief from a final order or
Dudgment under 7ule !? of the 7ules of court has e/pired- a
final Dudgment or order can .e set aside only on the grounds
of3 GaE lac+ of Durisdiction or lac+ of due process of law or G.E
that the Dudgment was o.tained .y means of e/trinsic or
collateral fraud. n the latter case- the period for annulling
the Dudgment is four G#E years from the disco*ery of fraud.
- The Ci*il "aw rule that an action for declaration of
ine/istence of a contract does not prescri.e canno !e
a''*ied to last wills and testaments.
/e'omu#eno v. CA
- Martin Cugo died in 1@7#- lea*ing a last 5ill and Testament
signed .y him and ! other witnesses- in accordance with the
formalities prescri.ed .y the law.
- Martin named and appointed 'ofia Nepomuceno as his sole
and only e/ecutor of his estate.
- The will specifically stated that Cugo was legally married to
7ufina 8omeH- .y whom he has 2 children. 2ut since 1@(2-
they ha*e .een estranged and Martin had .een li*ing with
Ryan Ouan 51 51
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
'ofia as hus.and and wife. Martin and 'ofia were married in
Tarlac .efore the Custice of the )eace.
- Martin de*ised to his forced heirs G7ufina and their 2
childrenE his entire estate- and the free portion thereof to
'ofia.
- 'ofia filed a petition for the pro.ate of the last will and
testament of Martin.
- 7ufina and her children opposed.
- C1 denied pro.ate on the ground that Martin admitted in his
will that he had .een unlawfully coha.iting with 'ofia.
- CA re*ersed and admitted the will to pro.ate- .ut declared
that the de*ise in fa*or of 'ofia is *oid.
- 'ofia contends that the *alidity of the testamentary pro*ision
in her fa*or should .e assailed in another proceeding and
that the only purpose of the pro.ate is to conclusi*ely
esta.lish that will was e/ecuted with the formalities required
.y law and that the testator has the mental capacity to
e/ecute the same.
5ON the pro.ate court *alidly passed upon the intrinsic
*alidity of the testamentary pro*ision in fa*or of 'ofia.
- I&'.
- The general rule is that in pro.ate proceedings- the court4s
area of inquiry is limited to an e/amination and resolution of
the e/trinsic *alidity of the will.
- 'uch rule is not infle/i.le and a.solute. 8i*en e/ceptional
circumstances- the pro.ate court is not powerless to pass
upon certain pro*isions of the will.
- A will no matter how *alid it may appear e/trinsically may .e
*oid. A separate proceeding to determine its intrinsic *alidity
would .e superfluous.
- 'ofia cannot claim good faith. 'he +new that Martin had a
pre>e/isting marriage when they got married.
- 1urther- donations .etween persons li*ing in adultery or
concu.inage is prohi.ited .y the Ci*il Code.
- 873 n pro.ate proceedings- the pro.ate court is usually
limited to an e/amination and resolution of the e/trinsic
*alidity of the will.
- &3 1or ,practical considerations-0 the pro.ate court is not
powerless to pass upon certain pro*isions of the will e*en
.efore it is pro.ated.
ART. <AB. T&e %i** s&a** !e disa**o%ed in an" of
&e fo**o%in) cases=
>1? If &e fo$ma*iies $equi$ed !" *a% &a#e
no !een com'*ied %i&;
>@? If &e esao$ %as insane( o$
o&e$%ise mena**" inca'a!*e of
ma2in) a %i**( a &e ime of is
e+ecuion;
>A? If i %as e+ecued &$ou)& fo$ce o$
unde$ du$ess( o$ &e inf*uence of fea$(
o$ &$eas;
>4? If i %as '$ocu$ed !" undue and
im'$o'e$ '$essu$e and inf*uence( on
&e 'a$ of &e !eneficia$" o$ of some
o&e$ 'e$son;
>5? If &e si)nau$e of &e esao$ %as
'$ocu$ed !" f$aud;
>8? If &e esao$ aced !" misa2e o$ did
no inen &a &e ins$umen &e
si)ned s&ou*d !e &is %i** a &e ime of
affi+in) &is si)nau$e &e$eo.
An %?clusi8e %nu6eration of the grounds for
disallowance of a will.
These are matters in*ol*ed in formal *alidity. Once a
pro.ate decree is final- such decree forecloses any
su.sequent challenge on any of the matters
enumerated in this article.
f any of these grounds for disallowance are pro*en- the
will shall .e set aside as KO$.
A will is either *alid or *oid. f none of the defects
enumerated in this article are present- it is *alid< if
any one of these defects is present- the will is *oid.
The issue of formal *alidity or nullity is precisely
what the pro.ate proceedings will determine.
There is no such thing as a Koida.le 5ill.
GRO0N-S .OR -ISALLO1ANCE O. A 1ILL
#. -+&'(L*,*%S
Those referred to in Articles ?A#>?1?- ?1?>
?1@ and ?2@>?21
2. ,%S,(,+& *)S()% +& '%),(LL1
*)C(P(BL% (, ,*'% +- %D%C.,*+)
Articles 7@? 9 ?A1 on testamentary
capacity and intent
2. -+&C%< @.&%SS< *)-L.%)C% +-
-%(& +& ,!&%(,S
1orce or Kiolence 9 when in order to wrest
consent- serious or irresisti.le force is
employed.
$uress or ntimidation 9 when one of the
contracting parties is compelled .y a
reasona.le and well>grounded fear of
imminent and gra*e e*il upon his person or
property- or upon the person or property of
his spouse- descendants or ascendants- to
gi*e his consent. Age- se/ and condition of
the person are .orne in mind. Threat to
enforce a Dust or legal claim through
competent authority does not *itiate consent.
C. .)@.% P *'P&+P%& P&%SS.&% ()@
*)-L.%)C%
Bndue nfluence 9 when a person ta+es
improper ad*antage of his power o*er the will
of another- depri*ing the latter of a
reasona.le freedom of choice. Circumstances
such as the following shall .e considered3
confidential- family- spiritual and other
relations .etween parties- or fact that person
unduly influenced was suffering from mental
wea+ness or ignorant or in financial distress.
F. S*$)(,.&% P&+C.&%@ ,!&+.$! -&(.@
1raud 9 when through insidious words or
machinations of one of the contracting
parties- the other is induced to enter into a
contract which- without them- he would not
ha*e agreed to.
Ryan Ouan 52 52
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
. '*S,(M% +& ,%S,(,+& @*@ )+, *),%),
*)S,&.'%), ,+ B% !*S 4*LL 4!%) !%
(--*D%@ !*S S*$)(,.&% ,!%&%,+
Mista+e 9 must refer to su.stance of the
thing which is the o.Dect of the contract- or to
those conditions which ha*e principally
mo*ed one or .oth parties to enter into the
contract. Mista+e as to identity or
qualifications only *itiates consent when such
were the principal cause of the contract. A
simple mista+e of account gi*es rise to
correction.
Cases for Arts. *5*&*56
!eyes v. CA
- Torcuato 7eyes died and left all his property to his wife
Asuncion 7eyes.
- =is recogniHed natural children with 8alolo and his natural
children with Agape opposed the pro.ate of the will on the
ground that Asuncion is not the legal wife of Torcuato since
she was a relati*e within the fourth ci*il degree and she was
pre*iously married to a certain "upo &.arle.
5hether or not the will must .e denied pro.ate.
- 'C held that the will must .e admitted .ecause3
o The only issues decided during pro.ate are3
GaE whether the testator has animus testandi- G.E
whether *ices of consent attended the e/ecution of
the will- and GcE whether the formalities of the will
had .een complied with. =ence- the declaration of
the testator that Asuncion is his wife already
in*ol*es an inquiry on the intrinsic *alidity of the
will and need not .e inquired .y pro.ate court.
o There was ne*er an open admission in the
will of any illicit relationship which could .e a
reason for deciding on such issue during pro.ate.
GOne of the e/ceptions is when on the defect is
e*ident on the face of the will.E
o Testimonies of the witnesses against
Asuncion were merely hearsay and e*en uncertain
as to the wherea.outs of e/istence of "upo &.arle.
o A will is a testator spea+ing after death. All
dou.ts must .e resol*ed in fa*or of the testator4s
ha*ing meant Dust what he said.
- GR= Courts in pro.ate proceedings are limited to pass only
upon the e/trinsic *alidity of the will sought to .e pro.ated.
Thus- the court merely inquires on its due e/ecution-
whether or not it complies with the formalities prescri.ed .y
law- and the testamentary capacity of the testator. t does
not determine nor e*en .y implication preDudge the *alidity
or efficacy of the willUs pro*isions. The intrinsic *alidity is not
considered since the consideration thereof usually comes
only after the will has .een pro*ed and allowed.
- E+ce'ions=
1. 5hen the defect of the will is apparent on its face
and the pro.ate of the will may .ecome a useless
ceremony if it is intrinsically in*alid.
2. 5hen Npractical considerationsN demanded it as
when there is preterition of heirs
!. 5hen the testamentary pro*isions are of dou.tful
legality.
#. 5hen the parties agree that the intrinsic *alidity .e
first determined- the pro.ate court may also do so.
Balanay v. :artinez
.y her- disposing of her hus.andUs one>half share- and
pro*iding that the properties should not .e di*ided during
her hus.andUs lifetime .ut should remain intact and that the
legitimes should .e paid in cash to .e satisfied out of the
fruits of the properties.
of her children.
- Thereafter- 1eli/ Cr. su.mitted to the court a document
showing his fatherUs conformity to the testamentary
distri.ution- renouncing his hereditary rights in fa*or of his
children in deference to the memory of his wife.
- The Court ga*e effect to the affida*it and conformity of the
sur*i*ing spouse.
- Meanwhile- a certain Atty. $a*id MontaSa- 'r. mo*ed to
dismiss the pro.ate proceedings on the ground that the will
was *oid .ecause "eodegaria cannot *alidly dispose of her
hus.and4s share.
- 'aid motion was granted .y the pro.ate court.
- )etitioner impugned the order of dismissal claiming that Atty.
MontaSa had no authority to as+ for the dismissal of the
petition for allowance of will and that the court erred in
declaring the will *oid .efore resol*ing the question of its
formal *alidity.
are of du.ious legality- the trial court acted correctly in
passing upon the will4s intrinsic *alidity e*en .efore the
formal *alidity had .een esta.lished.
considerations demand that the intrinsic *alidity of the will .e
passed upon- e*en .efore it is pro.ated- the court should
meet the issue. Gn this case- the preterited heir was the
sur*i*ing spouseE
5hether the court erred in con*erting the testate proceeding
into an intestate proceeding
- I&'. The rule is that Nthe in*alidity of one of se*eral
dispositions contained in a will does not result in the
in*alidity of the other dispositions unless it is to he presumed
that the testator would not ha*e made such other
dispositions if the first in*alid disposition had not .een
madeN GArt. 7@2- Ci*il CodeE.
- N5here some of the pro*isions of a will are *alid and others
in*alid- the *alid parts will .e upheld if they can .e
separated from the in*alid without defeating the intention of
Ryan Ouan 53 53
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
scheme- or doing inDustice to the .eneficiariesN
- Koid pro*isions in the will3
1. The statement of the testatri/ that she owned the
Nsouthern halfN of the conDugal lands is contrary to law
.ecause- although she was a co>owner thereof- her
share was inchoate and pro indi*iso
2. that the properties of the testatri/ should not .e
di*ided among her heirs during her hus.andUs lifetime
.ut should .e +ept intact and that the legitimes
should .e paid in cash is contrary to article UA?A of
the Ci*il Code
5hether an heir may *alidly renounce his share
- I&'. 1eli/ 2alanay- 'r. could *alidly renounce his hereditary
rights and his one>half share of the conDugal partnership
GArts. U7@:U; and UA#U- Ci*il CodeE .ut insofar as said
renunciation parta+es of a donation of his hereditary rights
and his one>half share in the conDugal estate GArt. UA%A:U; Ci*il
CodeE- it should .e su.Dect to the limitations prescri.ed in
articles 7%A and 7%2 of the Ci*il Code. A portion of the
estate should .e adDudicated to the widower for his support
and maintenance. Or at least his legitime should .e
respected.
- 8enerally- the pro.ate of a will is mandatory and it is the
duty of the court to pass first upon its formal *alidity e/cept
in e/treme cases where the will is on its face intrinsically
*oid.
- A will is not rendered null and *oid .y reason of the
e/istence of some illegal or *oid pro*isions since the
in*alidity of one of se*eral dispositions contained in a will
does not result in the in*alidity of the other dispositions
unless it is to .e presumed that the testator would not ha*e
made such other dispositions if the first in*alid disposition
had not .een made<
- Testacy is fa*ored. $ou.ts are resol*ed in fa*or of testacy
the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate.
Coso v. aza
- The testator- a married man- had illicit relations with 7osario
"opeH in 'pain- ha*ing met her in 1?@?.
- 7osario "opeH too+ care of the testator in the said foreign
land when he had .een se*erely ill from 1@A@ to 1@1(- and
.ore an illegitimate son .y him.
- 5hen the testator came .ac+ to the )hilippines in 1@1?-
7osario followed- as her heart did dictate- and +ept close
until the testator4s death in 1@1@.
- Bndue influence is said to ha*e .een e/erted o*er the
testator4s mind .y 7osario as the will ga*e the tercio de libre
disposicion to their illegitimate son and pro*ided for the
payment to 7osario of 1-@AA 'panish duros .y way of
reim.ursement for the e/penses incurred .y 7osario in
ta+ing care of him.
5hether or not 7osario "opeH e/erted undue influence o*er
the testator of such character as to *itiate his will.
- NO. The parties challenging the will on the ground of undue
influence were not a.le to discharge the .urden of pro*ing
the same.
- 5hile it is shown that the testator entertained strong
affections for 7osario "opeH- it does not appear that her
influence so o*erpowered and su.Dugated his mind as to
,destroy his free agency and ma+e him e/press the will of
another rather than his own.0
- The testator was an intelligent man- a lawyer .y profession-
appears to ha*e his +nown his own mind- and may well ha*e
.een actuated only .y a legitimate sense of duty in ma+ing
pro*isions for the welfare of his illegitimate son and .y a
proper feeling of gratitude in repaying 7osario "opeH for the
sacrifices she had made for him.
- Mere affection- e*en if illegitimate- is not undue influence
and does not in*alidate a will.
- No imposition or fraud has .een shown in the present case.
- To .e sufficient to a*oid a will- the influence e/erted must .e
of a +ind that so o*erpowers and su.Dugates the mind of the
testator as to destroy his free agency and ma+e him e/press
the will of another- rather than his own.
- Mere affection- e*en if illegitimate- is not undue influence
and does not in*alidate a will.
- No imposition or fraud has .een shown in the present case.
- nfluence gained .y +indness and affection will not .e
regarded as Mundue4- if no imposition or fraud .e practiced-
e*en though it induces the testator to ma+e an unequal and
unDust disposition of his property in fa*or of those who ha*e
contri.uted to his comfort and ministered to his wants- if
such disposition is *oluntarily made.
:a#am v. 3atmaitan
- On March 27- 1@!!- Nicolasa Macam filed in the C1 a
petition for pro.ate of the will date Culy 12- 1@!2 and of the
codicil thereof dated 1e.ruary 17- 1@!!- e/ecuted .y
"eoanarda Macam who died on March 1?- 1@!!.
- 5ith the Dudge a.sent that there .eing no opposition to the
pro.ate of the will- upon the instructions of the Dudge- cler+ of
court too+ the e*idence relati*e to the pro.ate of the will.
- nasmuch as 8atmaitan opposed to the pro.ate of the
codicil- the cler+ of court deemed himself unauthoriHed to
ta+e e*idence relati*e thereto and refrained from doing so.
- The Dudge then entered an order allowing the pro.ate of the
will.
- =earing then was heard for the opposition on the pro.ate of
the codicil- which 8atmaitan filed- one of the legatees
instituted in the will which had already .een allowed .y final
and e/ecutory Dudgment.
- )ro.ate of the codicil was denied.
- =ence this petition.
5ON- the pro.ate of a will .y final Dudgment prior to that of a
codicil thereof a .ar to the pro.ate of said codicil. G5ith respect
to the appeal of Macam regarding the pro.ate of the will.E
- No- the fact that a will has .een allowed without any
opposition and the order allowing the same has .ecome
final and e/ecutory is not a .ar to the presentation and
pro.ate of a codicil- pro*ided it complies with all necessary
formalities for e/ecuting a will required .y the Ci*il Code.
- t is not necessary that the will and the codicil .e pro.ated
together- as the codicil may .e concealed .y an interested
party and it may not .e disco*ered until after the will has
already .een allowed.
- This is .ecause the purpose of the pro.ate is merely to
determine whether or not the will and the codicil meet all the
legal requisites.
Ryan Ouan 54 54
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
5ON- the failure to file the opposition to the pro.ate of a will
constitute a .ar to the presentation of the codicil for pro.ate.
G5ith respect to the opposition of 8atmaitan to the pro.ate of
the codicil.E
- No- the fact that 8atmaitan failed to file opposition to the
pro.ate of the will does not pre*ent her from filing opposition
to the pro.ate of the codicil thereof.
- This is .ecause the will may satisfy all the e/ternal
requisites necessary for its *alidity- .ut the codicil may- at
the time of is e/ecution- not .e in conformity therewith.
- =ence- the order appealed from is re*ersed and it is ordered
that the pro.ate for the codicil and the opposition thereto .e
reinstated.
- The fact that a will has .een pro.ated and the order allowing
the same has .ecome final and e/ecutory- is not a .ar to the
presentation and pro.ate of a codicil- although its e/istence
was +nown at the time of the pro.ate of the will.
- The failure of the oppositor to the pro.ate of a codicil to fill
opposition to the pro.ate of the will- ha*ing +nowledge of
such proceedings- does not constitute an a.andonment of a
right- nor does it depri*e someone of the right to oppose the
pro.ate of said codicil.
SEC-I./ + 1 I/S-I-U-I./ .( HEI!
ART. <4C. Insiuion of &ei$ is an ac !" #i$ue of
%&ic& a esao$ desi)naes in &is %i** &e
'e$son o$ 'e$son %&o a$e o succeed &im in
&is '$o'e$" and $ansmissi!*e $i)&s and
o!*i)aions.
7ules on institution of heir set forth in this section apply
as well to institution of $e*isees and "egatees.
ART. <41. A %i** s&a** !e #a*id e#en &ou)& i
s&ou*d no conain an insiuion of an &ei$( o$
suc& insiuion s&ou*d no com'$ise &e
eni$e esae( and e#en &ou)& &e 'e$son so
insiued s&ou*d no acce' &e in&e$iance
o$ s&ou*d !e inca'aciaed o succeed.
In suc& cases &e esamena$"
dis'osiions made in acco$dance %i& *a%
s&a** !e com'*ied %i& and &e $emainde$ of
&e esae s&a** 'ass o &e *e)a* &ei$s.
ART. <4@. One %&o &as no com'u*so$" &ei$s ma"
dis'ose !" %i** of a** &is esae o$ an" 'a$ of
i in fa#o$ of an" 'e$son &a#in) ca'aci" o
succeed.
One %&o &as com'u*so$" &ei$s ma"
dis'ose of &is esae '$o#ided &e does no
con$a#ene &e '$o#isions of &is Code %i&
$e)a$d o &e *e)iime of said &ei$s.
&*en if the will does not contain any testamentary
disposition- it will .e formally *alid pro*ided it complies
with all the formal requisites. This is in +eeping with the
character of wills as dispositi*e of property under
Art7?!.
HO1 ,0CH CAN EE -ISPOSE- O. EF 1ILLL
1. No Compulsory =eirs 9 &ntire hereditary
estate
2. There are Compulsory =eirs 9 the disposa.le
portion or the net hereditary estate minus the
legitimes.
The amount of the legitimes depends on the +inds
and num.er of compulsory heirs. Karious
com.inations are possi.le and so the amount of
disposa.le portion is also *aria.le.
f the testator disposes .y will of "&'' than he is
allowed to- there will .e MP&$ succession 9
Testamentary succession as to the part disposed
of .y will- and
ntestate succession as to the part not disposed of
.y the will.
The legitimes- of course- pass .y strict operation of
law.
ART. <4A. T&e esao$ s&a** desi)nae &e &ei$ !"
&is name and su$name( and %&en &e$e a$e
%o 'e$sons &a#in) &e same names( &e s&a**
indicae some ci$cumsance !" %&ic& &e
insiued &ei$ ma" !e 2no%n.
E#en &ou)& &e esao$ ma" &a#e
omied &e name of &e &ei$( s&ou*d &e
desi)nae &im in suc& manne$ &a &e$e can
!e no dou! as o %&o &as !een insiued(
&e insiuion s&a** !e #a*id.
ART. <44. An e$$o$ in &e name( su$name( o$
ci$cumsances of &e &ei$ s&a** no #iiae &e
insiuion %&en i is 'ossi!*e( in an" o&e$
manne$( o 2no% %i& ce$ain" &e 'e$son
insiued.
If amon) &e 'e$sons &a#in) &e same
names and su$names( &e$e is a simi*a$i" of
ci$cumsances in suc& a %a" &a( e#en %i&
&e use of &e o&e$ '$oof( &e 'e$son
insiued canno !e idenified( none of &em
s&a** !e an &ei$.
7&QB7&M&NT 1O7 $&'8NATON O1 =&7
The heir- legatee or de*isee must .e idenified in
&e %i** %i& sufficien c*a$i" to lea*e no dou.t
as to the testator4s intention.
The .asic rule in testamentary succession always
is respect for and compliance with the testator4s
wishes.
Ryan Ouan 55 55
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
,he designation of na6e and surna6e is @*&%C,+&1.
5hat is required is that the identity of the designated
successor .e sufficiently esta.lished. This is usually
done .y gi*ing the name and surname- .ut there are
other ways as can .e gleaned from Art?#! par2- such
as to one4s Meldest first cousin4.
*f there is any ('B*$.*,1 in the designation< it should
be resol8ed in light of (rtAEB L by the conte?t of the will
and any e?trinsic e8idence a8ailable< e?cept the
testator7s oral declarations.
f it is not possi.le to resol*e the am.iguity- the
testator4s intent .ecomes indetermina.le and
therefore intestacy as to that portion will result.
ART. <45. E#e$" dis'osiion in fa#o$ of an
un2no%n 'e$son s&a** !e #oid( un*ess !"
some e#en o$ ci$cumsance &is ideni"
!ecomes ce$ain. Ho%e#e$( a dis'osiion in
fa#o$ of a definie c*ass o$ )$ou' of 'e$sons
s&a** !e #a*id.
Bn+nown )erson
This article refers to a successor whose identity cannot
.e determined .ecause the designation in the will is so
unclear or so am.iguous as to .e incapa.le of
resolution.
This does not refer to one with whom the testator is not
personally acquainted. The testator may institute
some.ody who is a perfect stranger to him- pro*ided
the identity is clearly designated in the will
ART. <48. Hei$s insiued %i&ou desi)naion of
s&a$es s&a** in&e$i in equa* 'a$s.
8&N&7A" )7&'BM)TON
%=uality in cases of collecti8e designation.
f the testator intends an unequal apportionment-
he should so specify.
The article applies only in testa6entary succession-
and only among testamentary heirs or de*isees or
legatees.
t will NOT A))"I to an heir who is .oth a
compulsory and a testamentary heir- for in that
case the heir will get his legitime and his
testamentary portion.
Not e/plicitly co*ered .y this article is an instance
where the shares of some of the heirs are designated
and those of others are not.
&/ample 9 , institute to R of my estate A- 2- C and
$- of which A will get 1L! and 2 is to get R.0 The
shares of C and $ are unspecified. Are they to
di*ide equally the remaining portion of the R of the
estate- after deducting A4s and 24s portions :The
remainder is %L12 of R6;
I&'- .ecause the article tal+s a.out heirs instituted
without designation of shares. A and 2 ha*e .een
designated their shares- therefore Art?#( applied
to C and $.
ART. <47. 1&en &e esao$ insiues some &ei$s
indi#idua**" and o&e$s co**eci#e*" as %&en
&e sa"s( 6I desi)nate as my @eirs A and B9
and t@e #@ildren of C(7 &ose co**eci#e*"
desi)naed s&a** !e conside$ed as
indi#idua**" insiued( un*ess i c*ea$*"
a''ea$s &a &e inenion of &e esao$ %as
o&e$%ise.
&quality and ndi*iduality of $esignation
This article follows the .asic rule of equality in the
pre*ious article. n addition- it esta.lished the
)7&'BM)TON that &e &ei$s co**eci#e*" $efe$$ed o
a$e desi)naed 'er #a'ita a*on) %i& &ose
se'a$ae*" desi)naed.
f the testator intends a .loc+ designation- he should so
specify.
ART. <4<. If &e esao$ s&ou*d insiue &is
!$o&e$s and sise$s( and &e &as some of fu**
!*ood and o&e$s of &a*f !*ood( &e
in&e$iance s&a** !e dis$i!ued equa**" un*ess
a diffe$en inenion a''ea$s.
Once again- this article follows the general rule of
equality laid down in Art?#(.
Also- if the testator intends an unequal apportionment-
he should so specify.
$11&7&NT 7B"& N NT&'TACI
Art?#? only applies to testamentary succession-
wherein si.lings- regardless of whether full or half
.lood- get equal shares e/cept if a different
intention of the testator appears.
n NT&'TACI- the rule is different. The applica.le
pro*ision is Art 1AA( which esta.lishes a
'$o'o$ion of @=1 .etween full and half .lood
.rothers and sisters- .ut without preDudice to the
rule prohi.iting succession ab intestato .etween
legitimate and illegitimate si.lings. :Art@@2;
Art. 1006. Shoud brother and ssters of
the fu bood survve together wth brothers
and ssters of the haf bood, the former
sha be entted to a share doube that of
the atter.
Art. 992. An egtmate chd has no
rght to nhert ab intestate from the
egtmate chdren and reatves of hs
father or mother; nor sha such chdren or
reatves nhert n the same manner from
the egtmate chd.
7&>CA)
Ryan Ouan 56 56
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
Testamentary 'uccession 9 equality in shares of
full and half .lood .rothers and sisters unless the
testator pro*ides otherwise :Art?#?;
ntestacy 9 )roportion of 231 .etween full and half
.lood .rothers and sisters :Art1AA(;- and only if the
disqualification in Art@@2 does not apply.
Question 9 $oes Art?#? apply e*en to illegitimate
.rothers and sisters- in cases where the testator is of
legitimate status and *ice *ersa6 I&'. Art?#? does not
distinguish.
ART. <4B. 1&en &e esao$ ca**s o &e
succession a 'e$son and &is c&i*d$en &e" a$e
a** deemed o &a#e !een insiued
simu*aneous*" and no successi#e*".
Article lays down the same rule as Arts. ?#( and ?#7.
&quality and ndi*iduality of institution are presumed.
f the testator desires a different mode of
apportionment- he should so specify.
ART. <5C. T&e saemen of a fa*se cause fo$ &e
insiuion of an &ei$ s&a** !e conside$ed as
no %$ien( un*ess i a''ea$s f$om &e %i**
&a &e esao$ %ou*d no &a#e made suc&
insiuion if &e &ad 2no%n &e fa*si" of suc&
cause.
8&N&7A" 7B"& 9 the falsity of the stated cause for
the testamentary institution $O&' NOT A11&CT the
*alidity or efficacy of the institution.
7eason 9 testamentary disposition is ultimately
.ased on li.erality.
&PC&)TON 9 the falsity of the stated cause for
institution will set aside the institution if the following
factors are present3
1. Cause for institution is stated in the will
2. Cause must .e shown to .e false
!. t appears on the face of the will that if the
testator had +nown of the falsity of such cause-
he would not ha*e instituted the heir.
CA'&
Austria v. !eyes
- 2asilia Austria filed a petition for pro.ate- ante mortem- of
her last will and testament. The pro.ate was opposed .y the
petitioners 7u.en- Consuelo and "auro Austria- and still
others who- li+e the petitioner- are nephews and nieces of
2asilia. This opposition was- howe*er- dismissed and the
pro.ate of the will allowed
- The .ul+ of the estate of 2asilia- admittedly- was destined
under the will to pass on to the respondents )erfecto CruH-
2enita CruH>MeSeH- sagani CruH- Al.erto CruH- and "uH
CruH>'alonga- all of whom had .een assumed and declared
.y 2asilia as her own legally adopted children.
- More than two years after her will was allowed to pro.ate-
2asilia died.
- The petitioners filed in the same proceedings a petition in
inter*ention for partition alleging in su.stance that they are
the nearest of +in of 2asilia- and that the fi*e respondents
)erfecto CruH- et al.- had not in fact .een adopted .y the
decedent in accordance with law- in effect rendering these
respondents mere strangers to the decedent and without
any right to succeed as heirs. According to petitioners- the
language used in the will gi*es rise to the inference that the
late 2asilia was decei*ed into .elie*ing that she was legally
.ound to .equeath one>half of her entire estate to the
respondents )erfecto CruH- et al. as the latterUs legitime.
5hether or not the institution of heirs would retain efficacy in
the e*ent there e/ists proof that the adoption of the said heirs
.y the decedent is false.
- I&'. f the impelling reason or cause for the institution of the
respondents as her heirs was the testatri/Us .elief that under
the law she could not do otherwise- she did not ma+e it
+nown in her will. 'urely if she was aware that succession to
the legitime ta+es place .y operation of law- independent of
her own wishes- she would not ha*e found it con*enient to
name her supposed compulsory heirs to their legitimes. =er
e/press adoption of the rules on legitimes should *ery well
indicate her complete agreement with that statutory scheme.
2ut e*en this- li+e the petitionersU own proposition- is highly
speculati*e of what was in the mind of the testatri/ when she
e/ecuted her will.
- One fact pre*ails- howe*er- and it is the decedentUs will does
not state in a specific or unequi*ocal manner the cause for
such institution of heirs. 5e cannot annul the same on the
.asis of guesswor+ or uncertain implications. Such
institution 6ay be annulled only when one is satisfied< after
an e?a6ination of the will< that the testator clearly would not
ha8e 6ade the institution if he had Gnown the cause for it to
be false.
- Testacy is fa*ored and dou.ts are resol*ed on its side-
the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate- as was
done in this case.
- The legality of the adoption of the respondents .y the
testatri/ can .e assailed only in a separate action .rought
for that purpose- and cannot .e the su.Dect of a collateral
attac+.
- 2efore the institution of heirs may .e annulled under article
?%A of the Ci*il Code- the following requisites must concur3
1irst- the cause for the institution of heirs must .e stated in
the will< second- the cause must .e shown to .e false< and
third- it must appear from the face of the will that the testator
would not ha*e made such institution if he had +nown the
falsity of the cause.
- 'o compelling is the principle that intestacy should .e
a*oided and the wishes of the testator allowed to pre*ail-
that we could e*en *ary the language of the will for the
purpose of gi*ing it effect. 5here the testator was
possessed of testamentary capacity and her last will
e/ecuted free from falsification- fraud- tric+ery or undue
influence this Court held- it is its duty to gi*e full e/pression
to her will.
Ryan Ouan 57 57
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
ART. <51. If &e esao$ &as insiued on*" one
&ei$( and &e insiuion is *imied o an a*iquo
'a$ of &e in&e$iance( *e)a* succession a2es
'*ace %i& $es'ec o &e $emainde$ of &e
esae.
T&e same $u*e a''*ies if &e esao$ &as
insiued se#e$a* &ei$s( eac& !ein) *imied o
an a*iquo 'a$( and a** &e 'a$s do no co#e$
&e %&o*e in&e$iance.
The wording of the article- according to )rof. 2alane- is
erroneous .ecause legal succession does not taGe
place with respect to the re6ainder of the estate but to
the re6ainder of the dis'osable 'ortion.
There may after all .e compulsory heirs whose
legitimes will therefore co*er part of the estate- the and
the legitimes do not pass .y legal or intestate
succession.
'uggested 7ewording 9
Art. 851. If the testator has nsttuted ony
one her, and the nsttuton s mted to an
aquot part of the nhertance, less than the
entire disposable portion, ega successon takes
pace wth respect to the remander of the
estate.
The same rue appes f the testator has
nsttuted severa hers, each beng mted to an
aquot part, and a the parts do not cover the
whoe nhertance.
Moreo*er- this article states e/actly the same rule laid
down in Art?#1. there is a.solutely no need for the
redundancy.
ART. <5@. If i %as &e inenion of &e esao$
&a &e insiued &ei$s s&ou*d !ecome so*e
&ei$s o &e %&o*e esae( o$ &e %&o*e f$ee
'o$ion( as &e case ma" !e( and eac& of &em
&as !een insiued o an a*iquo 'a$ of &e
in&e$iance and &ei$ a*iquo 'a$s o)e&e$ do
no co#e$ &e %&o*e in&e$iance( o$ &e %&o*e
f$ee 'o$ion( eac& 'a$ s&a** !e inc$eased
'$o'o$iona**".
ART. <5A. If eac& of &e insiued &ei$s &as !een
)i#en an a*iquo 'a$ of &e in&e$iance( and
&e 'a$s o)e&e$ e+ceed &e %&o*e
in&e$iance( o$ &e %&o*e f$ee 'o$ion( as &e
case ma" !e( eac& 'a$ s&a** !e $educed
'$o'o$iona**".
n .oth articles 9
1. There are more than 1 instituted heir
2. Testator intended them to get the whole estate
or the whole disposa.le portion
!. Testator designated a definite portion for each.
A7T. ?%2 9 the total of all the portions is less than the
whole estate or the whole disposa.le portion.
Therefore- a proportionate increase is necessary.
The difference cannot pass .y intestacy .ecause
the testator4s intention is clear to gi*e the instituted
heirs the entire amount.
A7T. ?%! 9 the re*erse occurs- the total e/ceeds the
whole estate or the whole disposa.le portion. Thus a
proportionate reduction must .e made.
FORMULA FOR PROPOR!O"A#
!"$R#A%# OR &#$R#A%#
" #EIR$S S#%RE & '
(
" TOT%L DIS"OSED " TOT%L EST%TE
DIS"OS%)LE
ART. <54. T&e '$ee$iion o$ omission of one(
some( o$ a** of &e com'u*so$" &ei$s in &e
di$ec *ine( %&e&e$ *i#in) a &e ime of &e
e+ecuion of &e %i** o$ !o$n afe$ &e dea& of
&e esao$( s&a** annu* &e insiuion of &ei$;
!u &e de#ises and *e)acies s&a** !e #a*id
insofa$ as &e" a$e no inofficious.
If &e omied com'u*so$" &ei$s s&ou*d
die !efo$e &e esao$( &e insiuion s&a** !e
effecua*( %i&ou '$eJudice o &e $i)& of
$e'$esenaion.
)7&T&7TON 9 means omission- .ut from what6 The
answer to that question is the .asic pro.lem in
preterition.
Manresa4s $efinition 9 ,)reterition consists in the
omission of an heir in the will- either .ecause he is not
named- or- although he is named as a father- son- etc.-
he is neither instituted as an heir or e/pressly
disinherited- nor assigned any part of the estate- thus
.eing tacitly depri*ed of his right to the legitime.
Castan4s $efinition 9 ,2y preterition is meant the
omission in the will of any of the compulsory heirs-
without .eing e/pressly disinherited. t is thus a tacit
depri*ation of the legitime- as distinguished from
disinheritance- which is an e/press depri*ation.0
O,ISSION THAT CONSTIT0TES PRETERITION
*f the heir in =uestion is instituted in the
will but the portion gi8en to hi6 by the will is less
than his legiti6e L there is no preterition.
n the case of 7eyes *. 2aretto>$atu3
1. There was a compulsory heir in the
direct line
2. 'uch heir was instituted in the will
!. The testamentary disposition gi*en
to such heir was less than her
legitime
Ryan Ouan 5 5
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
2ased on these- the holding was that there
was NO )7&T&7TON.
The reason was there was no TOTA"
OM''ON- inasmuch as the heir recei*ed
something from the inheritance. The heir4s
remedy is not found in Art?%# .ut in Arts.
@A( and @A7 for Completion of "egitime.
Art. 906. Any compusory her to
whom the testator has eft by any tte
ess than the egtme beongng to
hm may demand that the same may
be fuy satsfed.
Art. 907. Testamentary dspostons
that mpar or dmnsh the egtme of
the compusory hers sha be reduced
on petton of the same, nsofar as
they may be noffcous or excessve.
*f the heir is gi8en a legacy or de8ise<
there is no preterition.
'hould the *alue of the legacy or de*ise .e
less than the recipient4s legitime- his
remedy is only for completion of legitime
under Articles @A( and @A7.
*f the heir recei8ed a donation inter 8i8os
fro6 the testator L the better 8iew is that there is
no preterition
7eason 9 donation inter *i*os is treated as
an ad*ance on the legitime under Articles
@A(- @A@- @1A and 1A(2.
Art. 909. Donatons gven to chdren
sha be charged to ther egtme.
Donatons made to strangers sha be
charged to that part of the estate of whch
the testator coud have dsposed by hs
ast w.
Insofar as they may be noffcous or
may exceed the dsposabe porton, they
sha be reduced accordng to the rues
estabshed by ths Code.
Art. 910. Donatons whch an
egtmate chd may have receved
durng the fetme of hs father or mother,
sha be charged to hs egtme.
Shoud they exceed the porton that
can be freey dsposed of, they sha be
reduced n the manner prescrbed by ths
Code.
Art. 1062. Coaton sha not take
pace among compusory hers f the
donor shoud have so expressy provded,
or f the donee shoud repudate the
nhertance, uness the donaton shoud be
reduced as noffcous.
*f the heir is not 6entioned in the will nor
was a recipient of a donation inter 8i8os fro6 the
testator< but not all of the estate is disposed of by
the will L there is no preterition.
The omitted heir in this instance would
recei*e something .y intestacy- from the
portion not disposed of .y the will :the
*acant portion;. The right of the heir- should
the *acant portion .e less than his legitime-
will simply .e to demand completion of his
legitime- under Articles @A( and @A7.
1or there to .e preterition- therefore- the heir in
question must ha*e recei*ed NOT=N8 from the
testator .y way of3
1. Testamentary succession
2. "egacy or de*ise
!. $onation inter *i*os- or
#. ntestacy
)reterition means therefore 9 TOTA" OM''ON N
T=& N=&7TANC&.
1HO ARE INCL0-E- 1ITHIN THE TER,S O. THE
ARTICLEL
A compulsory heir in the direct line- whether li*ing
at the time of the e/ecution of the will or .orn after
the death of the testator.
1. COM)B"'O7I =&7' N T=& $7&CT "N&
9
Co*ers children or descendants- and in
proper cases :in default of children or
descendants; parents or ascendants
'ur*i*ing 'pouse 9 does not fall within the
pur*iew of this article .ecause although a
compulsory heir- is not in the direct line.
Bnder Art@(# par2- direct line is that
constituted .y the series of degrees
among ascendants and descendants.
2. Are ""&8TMAT& $&'C&N$ANT' O7
A'C&N$ANT' within the co*erage of
,compulsory heirs in the direct line06
Manresa 9 I&'- 'cae*ola 9 NO.
Manresa4s seems to .e the .etter opinion-
since the law does not distinguish.
!. QBA'>)O'T=BMOB' C="$7&N 9
There is a flaw in the wording of the
article. The phrase ,whether li*ing at the
time of the e/ecution of the will or .orn
after the death of the testator0 does not-
.y its terms- include those compulsory
heirs in the direct line born after the
e?ecution of the will but before the
testator7s death 3los cuasi posthu6ous5.
=owe*er- such children are- without
dou.t- to .e included within the pur*iew of
the protection of this article.
#. )7&$&C&A'& O1 )7&T&7T&$
COM)B"'O7I =&7 9
Ryan Ouan 5! 5!
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
2
nd
paragraph of Art ?%# pro*ides3 f the
omitted compulsory heirs should die
.efore the testator- the institution shall .e
effectual- without preDudice to the right of
representation.
'hould the preterited heir predecease or
.e unworthy to succeed the testator- the
question of preterition of that heir
.ecomes moot.
=owe*er- should there .e a descendant of
that heir who is himself preterited- then
the effects of preterition will arise.
&/ample 9 P has 2 legit +ids3 A and 2. P
ma+es a will which results in preterition of
A. A dies .efore P .ut lea*es a legit child-
A>1- who is himself completely omitted
from the inheritance :A>1 .eing entitled to
succeed P .y representation;. Art?%# will
apply- not .ecause A was preterited .ut
.ecause A>1 was preterited.
%. A$O)T&$ C="$7&N
Case of Acain *. AC answers the
question of whether an adopted child is
within the contemplation of this article as
,compulsory heir in the direct line0 and
rules in fa*or of the adopted child4s
inclusion in the phrase.
An adopted child therefore- if totally
omitted in the inheritance- is preterited
within the contemplation of Art?%# and
can in*o+e its protection and
consequences.
Acain4s logic is that since an adopted child
is gi*en .y law the same rights as a
legitimate child- *is>Z>*is the adopter- then
the adopted child can- in proper cases-
in*o+e Art?%# in the same manner that a
legitimate child can.
The law cited was Art!@ of )$(A! or the
Child and Iouth 5elfare Code as
supplanted .y Art1?@:1; of the 8amily
Code- li+ewise supplanted .y 'ecs 17 and
1? of 7A?%%2 or the $omestic Adoption
Act of 1@@?.
E..ECT O. PRETERITION
Annulment of the institution of an heir .ut *alidity of
legacies and de*isees to the e/tent that these
latter do not impair legitimes.
$istinction .etween heirs and legateesLde*isees 9
This in the only instance when there is still a
practical effect in the distinction .etween an heir
and a legatee or de*isee in Art7?2.
According to the case of Nuguid *. Nuguid-
annulment of institution of heir means only the
legacies and de*ises will merit consideration if
e/pressly gi*en in the will. Art?%# does not mean
that the mere institution of a uni*ersal heir in a will
9 *oid .ecause of preterition 9 would gi*e the heir
so instituted a share in the inheritance. (s to the
heir< the will is ine?istent.
n that case- the only pro*ision in the will was the
institution of the petitioner a uni*ersal heir. That
institution- .y itself- was held null and *oid.
Therefore- intestate succession ensued.
=owe*er- this was muddled in the case of 'olano
*. CA wherein it was ruled that the preterition of
illegitimate children should annul the institution of
the heir ,only insofar as the legitime of the omitted
heirs is impaired0.
)rof. 2alane says this is not annul6ent .ut
reduction- and this would erase the distinction
.etween the effect of preterition on the institution of
the heir and its effect on legacies and de*ises.
1ortunately- this was cleared up in Acain *. CA
wherein it was held that ,)reterition annuls the
institution of an heir and annulment throws open to
intestate succession the entire inheritance. The
only pro*isions which do not result in intestacy are
the legacies and de*ises made in the will for they
should stand *alid and respected- e/cept insofar as
the legitimes are concerned.0
7&>CA) 9 the correct rule of preterition is that3
)reterition a.rogates the institution of heir .ut
respects legacies and de*ises insofar as these do
not impair the legitimes. Thus- if the will contains
only institutions of heirs and there is preterition-
,+,(L *),%S,(C1 will result.
f there are legacies or de*ises and there is
preterition- the legacies or de*ises will stand- to the
e/tent of the free portion :merely to .e reduced and
not set aside- if the legitimes are impaired; .ut the
institution of heirs- if any- will .e swept away.
)7&T&7TON *. N&11&CTK& $'N=&7TANC&
)reterition is total omission from the inheritance-
without the heir .eing e/pressly disinherited. The
implied .asis of the rule is inad8ertent omission .y
the testator.
Thus- if the testator e/plicitly disinherits the heir-
this article will not apply.
'hould the disinheritance .e ineffecti*e- for
a.sence of one or other of the requisites for a *alid
disinheritance- the heir is simply entitled to demand
his rightful share.
CA'&'
!eyes v. Baretto&atu
- 2i.iano 2arretto- married to Maria 8erardo- died and left his
properties to his daughters 'alud and Milagros- e/cept for
the usufruct of a fishpond which he reser*ed for his widow.
- Maria 8erardo as administratri/- .y a proDect of partition-
distri.uted the estate and deli*ered the shares of the heirs.
'alud too+ immediate possession of her share and procured
the issuance of land titles to her name.
Ryan Ouan 60 60
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- Bpon Maria 8erardo4s death- it was disco*ered that she
e/ecuted 2 wills- in the first she instituted .oth 'alud and
Milagros as heirs and in the second she re*o+ed the same
and left all her properties to Milagros alone. The 2
nd
will was
pro.ated and it was pro*ed that 'alud was not the daughter
of Maria.
- =a*ing lost her share in the estate of Maria- 'alud went after
the remnant of 2i.iano4s estate- which was gi*en in usufruct
to Maria- .y filing an action for the reco*ery of O thereof.
- This action afforded Milagros an opportunity to set up her
right of ownership not only of the fishpond .ut sought
reco*ery of all the properties acquired .y 'alud from
2i.iano- .ecause 'alud is a spurious heir not entitled to any
share.
- Milagros also alleged that since what was allotted in her
father4s will to her was smaller than her legitime- then there
is preterition- thus annulling the institution of heirs in the will.
5hether 'alud may inherit from 2i.iano
- Ies. 'alud admittedly has .een instituted heir in the
2i.iano4s will together with Milagros. =ence- the partition
had .etween them could not .e one such had with a party
who was not .elie*ed to .e an heir without really .eing one-
and was not null and *oid. The legal precept does not
spea+ of children or descendants .ut of heirs- and the fact
that 'alud happened not to .e a daughter of the testator
does not preclude her .eing one of the heirs e/pressly
named in his testament< 1or 2i.iano was at li.erty to assign
the free portion of his estate to whomsoe*er he choose.
5hile the O share assigned to 'alud impinged on the
legitime of Milagros- 'alud did not for that reason cease to
.e a testamentary heir of 2i.iano.
5hether there was preterition
- None. There was no preterition e*en if Milagros was allotted
a smaller share than her legitime .ecause there was no total
omission of a forced heir.
- f the heir in question is instituted in the will .ut the portion
gi*en to him .y the will is less than his legitime- there is no
preterition.
Aznar v. un#an
- &dward Christensen- a citiHen of California with domicile in
the )hilippines- died lea*ing a will.
- The will was admitted to pro.ate. n the same decision- the
court declared that Maria =elen Christensen 8arcia was a
natural child of &dward.
- n his will- &dward e/pressly mentioned that he .equeath
unto =elen 8arcia )hp !-(AA notwithstanding the fact she is
not in any way related to him- nor has she .een at any time
adopted .y him.
- The court then issued an order appro*ing the proDect
partition su.mitted .y the e/ecutor wherein the properties of
the estate were di*ided equally .etween Maria "ucy
Christensen $uncan- whom the testator had e/pressly
recogniHed in his will as his natural daughter and =elen
8arcia- who had .een Dudicially declared as such after his
death.
- The said order was .ased on the proposition that since
8arcia had .een preterited in the will- the institution of
$uncan as heir was annulled- and hence the properties
passed to .oth of them as if the deceased had died
intestate. Thus- $uncan appealed.
5hether the estate should pertain to $uncan and 8arcia in
equal shares or whether the inheritance of $uncan as
instituted heir should .e merely reduced to the e/tent
necessary to co*er the legitime of 8arcia- equi*alent to R of
the entire estate.
- n order that the right of a forced heir may .e limited only to
the completion of his legitime Ginstead of the annulment of
the institution of heirsE is it necessary that he should .e
recogniHed or referred to in the will as heir6
- The 'C set aside the proDect of partition. t remanded the
case with instruction to partition the hereditary estate .y
gi*ing to 8arcia no more than the portion corresponding to
her legitime- equi*alent to R of the hereditary estate.
- The case is not a case of preterition .ut a case of
completion of legitime. The institution in the will not .e
annulled. There would .e no intestacy.
- The Court mentioned Manresa and ! decisions of the 'C of
'pain. n each of those case- the testator left to one who
was a forced heir a legacy worth less than the legitime- .ut
without referring to the legatee as an heir or e*en as a
relati*e- and will the rest of the estate to other persons. t
was held that in such cases- the heir could not as+ that the
institution of heirs .e annulled entirely- .ut only that the
legitime .e completed.
- The Court *iewed such as in consonance with the
e/pressed wishes of &dward as may .e o.ser*ed from the
pro*isions of his will. =e refused to ac+nowledge 8arcia as
his natural daughter and limited her share to a legacy of )hp
!(AA. The fact that she was su.sequently declared Dudicially
to possess such status is no reason to assume that had the
Dudicial declaration come during his lifetime his su.Decti*e
attitude towards her would ha*e undergone any change and
that he would ha*e will his estate equally to her and to
$uncan- who alone was e/pressly recogniHed .y him
- There is no preterition if the heir is gi*en a legacy or de*ise.
- Art. ?%# of the NCC3 The preterition or omission of one-
some- or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line-
whether li*ing at the time of the e/ecution of the will or .orn
after the death of the testator- shall annul the institution of
heir< .ut the de*ises and legacies shall .e *alid insofar as
they are not inofficious.
- Art. @A( of the NCC3 Any compulsory heir whom the testator
has left .y any title less than the legitime .elonging to him
may demand that the same .e fully satisfied.
- P$ee$iion is the omission of the heir in the will- either .y
not naming him at all or- while mentioning him as father-
son- etc.- .y not instituting him as heir without disinheriting
him e/pressly- nor assigning to him some part of the
properties.
- 5hether the testator ga*e a legacy to a person- whom he
characteriHed in the testamentary pro*ision as not related to
him- .ut later his person was Dudicially declared to .e his
ac+nowledged natural child- the case is not a case of
preterition .ut a case of completion of legitime. The
institution in the will not .e annulled. There would .e no
intestacy.
A#ain v. IAC
- Constantino Acain filed with the 7TC a petition for the
pro.ate of the will of the late Nemesio Acain.
- n the said will- Nemesio instituted his .rother 'egundo as
the heir. n case 'egundo pre>deceased him- 'egundo4s
children GConstantino and his .rothers V sistersE would
Ryan Ouan 61 61
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
recei*e Nemesio4s share in the conDugal property of
Nemesio and 7osa.
- 'egundo pre>deceased Nemesio. Now- the children of
'egundo are claiming to .e heirs of Nemesio.
- 7osa Gthe widowE and Kirginia 1ernandeH Ga legally adopted
daughter of NemesioE opposed the pro.ate.
5ON 7osa and Kirginia were preterited.
- As to the widow G7osaE- Art. ?%# does not apply- although
she is a compulsory heir.
- &*en if the sur*i*ing spouse is a compulsory heir- there is no
preterition e*en if she is omitted from the inheritance- as she
is not in the direct line.
- As to the adopted child GKirginiaE- there is preterition since
she was totally omitted in the inheritance.
- The Child and Iouth 5elfare Code gi*es an adopted
person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate
child of the adopter and ma+es the adopted person a legal
heir of the adopter.
- 'ince preterition annuls the institution of heir and no de*ises
or legacies ha*ing .een pro*ided in the will- the pro.ate of
the will must .e denied. An intestate settlement of the estate
should proceed.
- (rt. EFC< )CC3 The preterition or omission of compulsory
heirs in the direct line- whether li*ing at the time of the
e/ecution of the will or .orn after the death of the testator-
shall annul the institution of heir< .ut the de*ises and
legacies shall .e *alid insofar as they are not inofficious.
- P$ee$iion consists in the omission in the testator4s will of
the forced heirs .ecause they were not mentioned therein-
or though mentioned- they are neither instituted as heirs not
are e/pressly disinherited.
/u)uid v. /u)uid
- 7osario Nuguid died- single without descendants .ut was
sur*i*ed .y her legitimate parents and ( legitimate si.lings.
- One of which was instituted as the uni*ersal heir and he filed
an action for pro.ate of the decedent4s will which was
opposed .y her parents on the ground that they were
preterited and thus the institution of the uni*ersal heir is
*oid.
5hether or not the will is *oid.
- I&'. 'C held that it is .ecause3 The will completely omits
the parents< thus- depri*ing them of their legitime. This is a
clear case of preterition.
- )etitioner herein was instituted as the uni*ersal heir and no
specific legacies or .equests are pro*ided for< hence- nullity
of the will is complete.
- &*en if Art. 1?%# pro*ides that notwithstanding the
annulment- the de*ises and legacies shall .e *alid insofar as
they are not officious- the will is ine/istent since there was
no testamentary disposition separate from the nullified
institution of the heir. =ence- intestate succession ensues.
- This is a case of preterition and not disinheritance since the
will does not e/pressly disinherits the forced heirs. t simply
omits their names.
- To consider the institution of an heir to .e the same as
legacy will defeat the purpose of Art. ?%# on total or partial
nullity.
- )reterition Nconsists in the omission in the testatorUs will of
the forced heirs or anyone of them- either .ecause they are
not mentioned therein- or- though mentioned- they are
neither instituted as heirs nor are e/pressly disinherited.N
$isinheritance- in turn- Nis a testa6entary disposition
depri*ing any compulsory heir of his share in the legiti6e for
a cause authoriHed .y law.N
- )reterition under Article ?%# of the Ci*il Code- we repeat-
Nshall annul the institution of heirN. This annulment is in toto-
unless in the will there are- in addition- testamentary
dispositions in the form of de*ises or legacies. n ineffecti*e
disinheritance under Article @1? of the same Code- such
disinheritance shall also Nannul the institution of heirsN- put
only Ninsofar as it may preDudice the person disinheritedN-
which last phrase was o6itted in the case of preterition.
2etter stated yet- in disinheritance the nullity is li6ited to that
portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs ha*e
.een illegally depri*ed.
ART. <55. T&e s&a$e of a c&i*d o$ descendan
omied in a %i** mus fi$s !e a2en f$om &e
'a$ of &e esae no dis'osed of !" &e %i**(
if an"; if &a is no sufficien( so muc& as ma"
!e necessa$" mus !e a2en '$o'o$iona**"
f$om &e s&a$es of &e o&e$ com'u*so$"
&ei$s.
Article is redundant and completely unnecessary of it is
made to apply to cases of preterition. f there is
preterition- only Art?%# need .e applied.
)roper Application of Art?%% 9 in cases where a
compulsory heir is not preterited .ut left something
:.ecause not all the estate is disposed of .y will; less
than his legitime. Art?%% really tal+s of a completion of
legitime.
HO1 TO .ILL 0P CO,P0LSORF HEIR:S I,PAIRE-
LEGITI,EL
1rom the portion of the estate left undisposed of .y
will.
1rom the shares of the testamentary heirs-
legatees and de*isees- proportionally.
'uperfluity and naccuracy of Art?%% 9
'uperfluity 9 article- properly understood- does not
apply to preterition .ut to completion of legitime- it
is redundant- .ecause the rules and manner of
completing impaired legitimes are laid down with
greater detail in Articles @A(- @A7- @A@- @1A and
@11.
naccuracy 9 two inaccuracies
1. Co*erage should e/tend not only to children
and descendants .ut to all compulsory heirs.
As su.sequent articles :@A(- etc.; mandate-
any compulsory heir whose legitime is
impaired may demand that the same .e fully
satisfied.
2. )roportionate reductions :after consuming the
undisposed portion; should .e .orne not by
the co6pulsory heirs as such but by the
testa6entary heirs< including the de8isees and
legatees.
Ryan Ouan 62 62
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
To ma+e the compulsory heirs qua
compulsory heirs .ear the reduction would
mean reducing their own legitimes 9 a
patent a.surdity.
That would .e sol*ing one pro.lem .y
creating another.
As correctly stated .y Art@A7- it is
testa6entary dispositions that must .e
reduced if they impair or diminish the
legitimes of compulsory heirs.
'enator Tolentino comments that article should .e
rephrased as follows >
The share of the compulsory heir
omtted n a w must frst be taken from the
part of the estate not dsposed of by the w,
f any; f that s not suffcent, so much as
may be necessary must be taken
proportonay from the shares of the other
heirs 'i(en to them by will)
ART. <58. A #o*una$" &ei$ %&o dies !efo$e &e
esao$ $ansmis no&in) o &is &ei$s.
A com'u*so$" &ei$ %&o dies !efo$e &e
esao$( a 'e$son inca'aciaed o succeed(
and one %&o $enounces &e in&e$iance( s&a**
$ansmi no $i)& o &is o%n &ei$s e+ce' in
cases e+'$ess*" '$o#ided fo$ in &is Code.
O.ser*ations on the Article
naccurate and misleading .ecause it suggests that
there are e/ceptions to the rule that an heir- in
case of predecease- incapacity or renunciation-
transmits nothing to his own heirs.
This rule of non>transmission is
A2'O"BT& and there is no e/ception to it.
7epresentation does not constitute an
e/ception .ecause in representation the
person represented does not transmit
anything to his heirs. 7epresentation is rather
a form of subrogation.
t says too much .ecause the article is in the
chapter on testamentary succession under
institution of heir- therefore it should spea+ only of
*oluntary or testamentary heirs.
t says too little .ecause it does not mention legal
or intestate heirs nor does it pro*ide for cases of
disinheritance.
7ather- the complete statement of the rule is 9
An heir- whether compulsory- *oluntary or legal-
transmits NOT=N8 to his heirs in case of
predecease- incapacity- renunciation or
disinheritance. =owe*er- in case of predecease or
incapacity of compulsory or legal heirs- as well as
disinheritance of compulsory heirs- the rules on
representation shall apply.
Outline of 7ules
*+n, o-
#e+.
"RE-
DECE%S
E
INC%-
"%CIT/
RENUN-
CI%TIO
N
DISIN#E
RI-
T%NCE
TN R TN R TN R TN R
COM"UL
-SOR/

VOLUNT
%R/

NA NA
LE0%L

NA NA
TN 9 Transmits nothing
7 > 7epresentation
Cases for Arti#les *7%&*7;
!abadilla v. CA
- AleDa 2elleHa- in a codicil appended to her "ast 5ill and
Testament- .equeathed a lot to $r. Corge 7a.adilla su.Dect
to certain conditions3
A.E That should Corge die .efore the testator- the
property shall .e inherited .y the latter4s spouse and
children
2.E That if the ownership of the property is finally
transmitted to Corge- he shall .e lia.le to deli*er until
he dies 7% piculs of sugar a year to Maria 2elleHa
while she is still ali*e.
C.E That in case of Corge4s death- his heirs shall also .e
imposed the same o.ligation.
D.) And that if the heir shall later sell- lease- mortgage
this said "ot- the .uyer- lessee- mortgagee- shall
ha*e also the o.ligation to deli*er yearly 1AA piculs of
sugar to Maria 2elleHa- pro*ided that the .uyer-
lessor or mortgagor .e near descendants and sister
of the testator.
- The will also pro*ided that in case the .uyer- lessor or
mortgagor fails to fulfill said o.ligations- Maria 2elleHa is
entitled to forfeit the lots in fa*or of the testator4s
descendants.
- Corge 7a.adilla died- and his spouse and children
succeeded him.
- Now- Maria 2elleHa filed a complaint against Corge4s heirs
due to alleged *iolations of the Codicil and as+ed for the
property to .e recon*eyed to the near descendants of AleDa
2elleHa on the ground that3
A.E the lot was mortgaged to )N2- not a near
descendant of the testator-
2.E that the heirs failed to deli*er the piculs of sugar .eg.
1@?%-
C.E that )N2 also did not comply with the o.ligation to
deli*er 1AA piculs of sugarLyear.
- 7TC dismissed the claim. On Appeal- the CA ruled that
indeed the heirs *iolated the o.ligations imposed upon them
and therefore the land should .e seiHed and recon*eyed to
the estate of AleDa. =owe*er- they should file a separate
proceeding to re>open the estate and ha*e it distri.uted to
AleDa4s heirs.
Ryan Ouan 63 63
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
- 2elleHa Appealed.
5hether or not the Article ??2 of the CC on modal institutions
go*ern the disposition rather than the pro*isions on institution
through simple su.stitution.
- The 'C affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in
applying Art ??2 of the Ci*il Code.
- The Court held that the disposition in question in fa*or of
Corge 7a.adilla could neither .e simple su.stitution or
fideicommissary.
- n simple su.stitutions- the second heir ta+es the inheritance
in default of the first heir .y reason of incapacity-
predecease or renunciation.
- n the case under consideration- the pro*isions of su.Dect
Codicil do not pro*ide for said ! conditions. 5hat the Codicil
pro*ides is that- should $r. Corge 7a.adilla or his heirs not
fulfill the conditions imposed in the Codicil- the property
referred to shall .e seiHed and turned o*er to the testatri/Us
near descendants.
- t could not also .e a fideicommissary .ecause the element
that the first heir is o.liged to '$ese$#e and $ansmi the
property to a second heir is not present.
- n this case- the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the
Codicil to a*ienae the property pro*ided the negotiation is
with the near descendants or the sister of the testatri/.
5ithout the duty to preser*e- there is no fideicommissary
su.stitution.
- Also- the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the
property is transmitted must not .e .eyond one degree from
the first heir or the fiduciary.
- n this case- the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom
the property is transmitted must not .e .eyond one degree
from the first heir or the fiduciary.
- The disposition was in the nature of modal institutions. =ere-
the testator imposes a charge upon the instituted heir
without- howe*er- affecting the efficacy of such institution.
- n conditional su.stitution howe*er- the efficacy of the
inheritance is su.Dect to the condition.
- n case of dou.t- the institution must .e considered as modal
and not institutional.
- n simple su.stitutions- the second heir ta+es the inheritance
in default of the first heir .y reason of incapacity-
predecease or renunciation.
- &lements in 1ideicommissary 'u.3
A) the first heir is o.liged to '$ese$#e and $ansmi the
property to a second heir
2E the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the
property is transmitted must not .e .eyond one
degree from the first heir or the fiduciary.
- n modal institution- the testator states G1E the o.Dect of the
institution- G2E the purpose or application of the property left
.y the testator- or G!E the charge imposed .y the testator
upon the heir. A NmodeN imposes an o.ligation upon the heir
or legatee .ut it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to
the succession.
/on v. CA
- $eceased spouses Culian and Kirginia Kiado owned se*eral
properties- among them a house and lot located at sarog
't.- "a "oma- QueHon City< they had four children.
- "eah Kiado Caco.s and Nilo Kiado .oth died in 1@?7- with
Nilo lea*ing .ehind his wife- Alicia- and two children- herein
respondents.
- The other two si.lings- 7e.ecca Kiado>Non and $elia Kiado
are the petitioners in this case.
- As the two parties li*ed in the sarog property- Alicia and her
two children demanded 7e.ecca and $elia to *acate<
7e.ecca and $elia raised co>ownership as a defense.
- Alicia claimed a.solute ownership as e*inced .y a deed of
donaion in which the late Culian Kiado donated his conDugal
share of the property to Alicia4s deceased hus.and.
- There was also a deed of e+$aJudicia* se*emen where
Re!ecca ViadoGNon and the late Lea& Viado Gwithout $elia
Kiado4s participationE wai*ed their rights and interests o*er
their share of the property inherited from their mother
Kirginia.
- Thus- the property was titled in the name of the heirs of Nilo
Kiado.
- An action for partition was .rought .y 7e.ecca Kiado>Non
and $elia Kiado in which the court ruled in fa*or of Alice and
her children.
5hether or not the deeds were *alid despite allegations of
fraud- forgery and undue influence.
- I&'- on account of the following3
- -irst< while asserting the employment of fraud- forgery and
undue influence in procuring the signatures of the parties to
the deeds of donation and of e/traDudicial settlement-
7e.ecca Kiado>Non and $elia Kiado are #a)ue on how and
in what manner those supposed *ices occurred.
- 'econd- there no proof shown as to why Culian Kiado should
.e held incapa.le of e/ercising sufficient Dudgment in ceding
his rights and interest o*er the property to Nilo Kiado.
- ,hird< the fact alone that the two deeds were registered only
fi*e G%E years after their e/ecution would not affect their
*alidity or point to fraud.
5hether or not there was preterition in the deed of e/traDudicial
settlement with respect to the retardate $elia Kiado.
- I&'. The e/clusion of $elia Kiado has the effect of
preterition.
- This +ind of preterition- howe*er- in the a.sence of fraud and
.ad faith- does not Dustify a collateral attac+ on the new title.
- Article 11A# pro*ides the remedy3 where the preterition is
not attended .y .ad faith and fraud- the partition shall not .e
rescinded .ut the preterited heir shall .e paid the *alue of
the share pertaining to her.
- Article 11A# pro*ides3 where the preterition is not attended
.y .ad faith and fraud- the partition shall not .e rescinded
.ut the preterited heir shall .e paid the *alue of the share
pertaining to her.
SEC-I./ 5 1 SUBS-I-U-I./ .( HEI!S
A$. <57. Su!siuion is &e a''oinmen of
ano&e$ &ei$ so &a &e ma" ene$ ino &e
in&e$iance in defau* of &e &ei$ o$i)ina**"
insiued.
The definition of su.stitution is incomplete .ecause it
co*ers only simple su.stitution and e/cludes the
fideicommissary. n the fideicommissary- the 2
nd
heir
does not succeed in default- .ut A1T&7 the first.
Ryan Ouan 64 64
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
The complete definition of su.stitution should .e 9
,'u.stitution is the appointment of another heir so that
he may enter into the inheritance in default of- or
su.sequent to- the heir originally su.stituted.0
5ith respect to 'imple 'u.stitution- this section is
properly a part of the ne/t section on conditional
testamentary dispositions.
Sim'*e su!siuion is $ea**" a fo$m of condiiona*
insiuion.
The right to pro*ide for su.stitutions is .ased on
testamentary freedom.
n simple su.stitutions- the testator simply ma+es a
second choice- in case the first choice does not inherit.
n fideicommissary su.stitutions- the testator imposes
what is essentially a 7&'T7CTON O7 2B7$&N on
the first heir- coupled with a selection of a su.sequent
recipient of the property.
A$. <5<. Su!siuion of &ei$s ma" !e=
>1? Sim'*e o$ common;
>@? E$ief o$ com'endious;
>A? Reci'$oca*; o$
>4? .ideicommissa$".
Bnder the old 'panish Code- in addition to the #
enumerated- there were pupilar and e>e6plar
su.stitutions under Arts. 77% and 77(- pro*iding that an
ascendant or the parent may su.stitute the descendant
.elow 1# years old in case the descendant should die
.efore age 1#< and that a su.stitute may .e designated
.y an ascendant for a descendant who is o*er 1# .ut
has .een declared incompetent .y reason of mental
incapacity- .ut such su.stitution shall .e ineffecti*e .y a
will e/ecuted .y the incompetent during a lucid inter*al
or after he ahs reco*ered his mental faculties.
DIN-S O. S0ESTIT0TION 0N-ER ART<5<
1. 'imple or Common :8ulgar; 9 Art?%@
2. 2rief or Compendious :bre8ilocua Q
co6pendiosa5 9 Art?(A
3. 7eciprocal :reciproca; 9 Art?(1
4. 1ideicommissary :fideico6isaria; 9 Art?(!
n reality- there are only 2 +inds of su.stitutions 9 the
simple or common and the fideicommissary. These two
are MBTBA""I &PC"B'K&- a su.stitution must .e
one or the other and cannot .e .oth at the same time.
2rief or compendious and reciprocal su.stitutions are
merely *ariations of either the simple or
fideicommissary.
ART. <5B. T&e esao$ ma" desi)nae one o$
mo$e 'e$sons o su!siue &e &ei$ o$ &ei$s
insiued in case suc& &ei$ o$ &ei$s s&ou*d
die !efo$e &im( o$ s&ou*d no %is&( o$ s&ou*d
!e inca'aciaed o acce' &e in&e$iance.
A sim'*e su!siuion( %i&ou a saemen
of &e cases o %&ic& i $efe$s( s&a** com'$ise
&e &e$e menioned in &e '$ecedin)
'a$a)$a'&( un*ess &e esao$ &as o&e$%ise
'$o#ided.
This article pro*ides for 'M)"& or KB"8A7
su.stitution.
CA0SES O. SI,PLE S0ESTIT0TION
1. )redecease of the first heir
2. 7enunciation of the first heir
!. ncapacity of the first heir
=O5 T&'TATO7 MAI )7OK$& 1O7 'M)"&
'B2'TTBTON 5T= A"" ! CAB'&'
1. 2y specifying all ! causes
2. 2y merely pro*iding for a simple su.stitution
7estricted 'imple 'u.stitution 9 the testator may limit
the operation of simple su.stitution .y specifying only
one or two of the ! causes.
QB&'TON' 9
May the testator pro*ide for a su.stitution on
grounds other than those pro*ided in this article6
n case of renunciation .y the first heir- must the
su.stitute ha*e capacity at the time of the
renunciation6 'upposing the su.stitute dies .efore
the first heir manifests his renunciation- may the
successors of the su.stitute acquire the
testamentary disposition6
Must ha*e capacity 9 Art1A!# par !
pro*iding that ,f the institution- de*ise or
legacy should .e conditional- the time of the
compliance with the condition shall also .e
considered.0 As a simple su.stitution is a
form of conditional su.stitution- therefore
Art1A!# can .e applied.
Need not ha*e capacity 9 Art1A#2 and
%!! par2 which pro*ides that the effects of
the acceptance or repudiation of the
inheritance shall always retroact to the
moment of the death of the decedent0 and
that ,one who *alidly renounces an
inheritance is deemed ne*er to ha*e
possessed the same.0
5ill the su.stitute .e disqualified if the cause of the
first heir4s predecease is that the su.stitute +illed
him6
Ryan Ouan 65 65
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
ART. <8C. T%o o$ mo$e 'e$sons ma" !e
su!siued fo$ one; and one 'e$son fo$ %o
o$ mo$e &ei$s.
2rief or Compendious su.stitution is a possi.le
*ariation of either a simple or fideicommissary
su.stitution.
$istinctions
2rief 9 2 or more su.stitutes for 1 original heir
Compendious 9 1 su.stitute for 2 or more orig.
=owe*er- most commentators use the terms
interchangea.ly.
f 1 is su.stituted for 2 or more original heirs 9
&ffect of default of one .ut not all of the original
heirs is that su.stitution will NOT ta+e place .ut the
share left *acant will accrue to the sur*i*ing original
co>heir or co>heirs.
Su!siuion %i** a2e '*ace on*" if ALL &e
o$i)ina* &ei$s a$e disqua*ified.
The e/ception is where the testator pro*ides for
su.stitution in the e*ent of the death or
renunciation or incapacity of any one of the original
heirs.
ART. <81. If &ei$s insiued in unequa* s&a$es
s&ou*d !e $eci'$oca**" su!siued( &e
su!siue s&a** acqui$e &e s&a$e of &e &ei$
%&o dies( $enounces( o$ is inca'aciaed(
un*ess i c*ea$*" a''ea$s &a &e inenion of
&e esao$ %as o&e$%ise. If &e$e a$e mo$e
&an one su!siue( &e" s&a** &a#e &e same
s&a$e in &e su!siuion as in &e insiuion.
7eciprocal su.stitution is a possi.le *ariation of the
simple or fideicommissary su.stitution.
f the heirs in a will are gi*en unequal shares- and they
are reciprocal su.stitutes of each other- the su.stitute
shall- in addition to his gi*en share- acquire the share of
the heir who he is su.stituting for due to predecease-
renunciation or incapacity.
&/ample- A gets R and 2 gets R. They are
reciprocally su.stituted. f A predeceases the
testator- 2 will su.stitute and get the share of A :R;
in addition to his share- so in total he gets O.
The second sentence of Art?(1 pro*ides for
)roportionate Accrual. f there are more than 1 heir
instituted- and they are reciprocally su.stituted- the
su.stitutes will acquire the share of the original heir in
the same proportion as they were gi*en in the
testamentary disposition.
&/ample- A gets O- 2 gets 1L! and C gets 1L(. f a
predeceases the testator- 2 and C will acquire A4s
O share in the proportion of 231 .ecause their
respecti*e testamentary shares are O and 1L(.
'hould 2 predecease- A and C will get his portion
in the proportion of !31 .ecause their respecti*e
shares are O and 1L(. 'hould C predecease- A
and 2 will get C4s 1L( portion in the proportion of
!32 for the same reason.
ART. <8@. T&e su!siue s&a** !e su!Jec o &e
same c&a$)es and condiions im'osed u'on
&e insiued &ei$( un*ess &e esao$ &as
e+'$ess*" '$o#ided &e con$a$"( o$ &e
c&a$)es o$ condiions a$e 'e$sona**"
a''*ica!*e on*" o &e &ei$ insiued.
The su.stitute merely ta+es the place of the original
heir- so the former is also su.Dected to all the lia.ilities
as well as rights of the latter- including charges and
conditions imposed upon the original heir.
ART. <8A. A fideicommisa$" su!siuion !" #i$ue
of %&ic& &e fiducia$" o$ fi$s &ei$ insiued is
en$used %i& &e o!*i)aion o '$ese$#e and
o $ansmi o a second &ei$ &e %&o*e o$ 'a$
of &e in&e$iance( s&a** !e #a*id and s&a**
a2e effec( '$o#ided suc& su!siuion does
no )o !e"ond one de)$ee f$om &e &ei$
o$i)ina**" insiued( and '$o#ided fu$&e$( &a
&e fiducia$" o$ fi$s &ei$ and &e second &ei$
a$e *i#in) a &e ime of &e dea& of &e
esao$.
1irst heir 9 fiduciary < 'econd heir 9 fideicommissary
ELE,ENTS O. .I-EICO,ISARIA
1. ( #
st
heir who taGes the property upon the
testator7s death
1iduciary enters upon the inheritance- li+e
e*ery other heir- upon the opening of the
succession- which is when the testator
dies.
2. ( 2
nd
heir who taGes the property subse=uently
fro6 the fiduciary
The fideicommissary heir does not recei*e
the property until the fiduciary4s right
e/pires.
2OT= heirs enter into the inheritance- one
after the other- each in his own turn. This
distinguishes the fideicomisaria from the
*ulgar- in which the su.stitute inherits only
if the first heir fails to inherit.
NOT& 9 though the fideicommissary heir
does not recei*e the property upon the
testator4s death- his right thereto K&'T'
at that time and merely .ecomes su.Dect
Ryan Ouan 66 66
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
to a period- and that right passes to his
own heirs should he die .efore the
fiduciary4s right e/pires.
3. ,he 2
nd
heir 6ust be # degree fro6 the first
heir
Means 2 things
aE Only one transmissionLtransfer is
allowed- from the first heir to the
second heir
.E 'econd heir must .e in the first
degree of relationship with the first
heir. The second heir must either .e
a child or parent of the first heir
4. @ual obligation i6posed upon the #
st
heir toI
a; Preser8e the property< and
b; ,o trans6it it after the lapse of the
period to the fideico66issary heir.
This requisite is the essence of the
fideicomisaria. This ma+es the position of
the fiduciary .asically that of a
usufructuary- with the right to use and
enDoy the property .ut 5T=OBT J.S
@*SP+)%)@*.
f there is no a.solute o.ligation to
preser*e and transmit- there is no
fideicommissary su.stitution.
The institution is not necessarily *oid- it
may .e *alid as some other disposition
.ut it is not a fideicomisaria.
n )C2 *. &scolin- the institution was held
to .e a simultaneous institution- a
resolutory condition on the part of the
hus.and while su.Dect to a suspensi*e
condition on the part of the .rothers> and
sisters>in>law and not a fideicomisaria
.ecause no o.ligation is imposed upon
the hus.and to preser*e the estate or any
part thereof for anyone else.
f the testator $$ NOT specify a day
when the fiduciary will deli*er the property
to the fideicomissary- or when the time of
deli*ery is in dou.t- it shall .e understood
to ha*e .een left to the fiduciary4s
discretion- which means the deli*ery
should .e upon the 1$BCA7I4'
$&AT=. This is .ased on the presumption
that the testator intended the fiduciary to
enDoy the property during his lifetime.

F. Both heirs 6ust be li8ing and dis=ualified to
succeed at the ti6e of the testator7s death.
Li#in) 9 acco$din) o A$ic*es 4CG41
Art. 40. Brth determnes personaty; but the
conceved chd sha be consdered born for a
purposes that are favorabe to t, provded t be
born ater wth the condtons specfed n the
foowng artce.
Art. 41. For cv purposes, the fetus s consdered
born f t s ave at the tme t s competey
devered from the mother's womb. However, f
the fetus had an ntra-uterne fe of ess than
seven months, t s not deemed born f t des
wthn twenty-four hours after ts compete
devery from the materna womb.
/ua*ified 9 acco$din) o A$ic*es 1C@4G
1CA4.
Art. 1024. Persons not ncapactated by aw may
succeed by w or ab ntestato.
The provsons reatng to ncapacty by w are
equay appcabe to ntestate successon.
Art. 1025. In order to be capactated to nhert, the
her, devsee or egatee must be vng at the
moment the successon opens, except n case of
representaton, when t s proper.
A chd aready conceved at the tme of the
death of the decedent s capabe of succeedng
provded t be born ater under the condtons
prescrbed n artce 41.
Art. 1026. A testamentary dsposton may be made to
the State, provnces, muncpa corporatons,
prvate corporatons, organzatons, or
assocatons for regous, scentfc, cutura,
educatona, or chartabe purposes.
A other corporatons or enttes may succeed
under a w, uness there s a provson to the
contrary n ther charter or the aws of ther
creaton, and aways sub|ect to the same.
Art. 1027. The foowng are ncapabe of succeedng:
(1) The prest who heard the confesson of the
testator durng hs ast ness, or the mnster
of the gospe who extended sprtua ad to hm
durng the same perod;
(2) The reatves of such prest or mnster of the
gospe wthn the fourth degree, the church,
order, chapter, communty, organzaton, or
nsttuton to whch such prest or mnster may
beong;
(3) A guardan wth respect to testamentary
dspostons gven by a ward n hs favor before
the fna accounts of the guardanshp have
been approved, even f the testator shoud de
after the approva thereof; nevertheess, any
provson made by the ward n favor of the
guardan when the atter s hs ascendant,
descendant, brother, sster, or spouse, sha be
vad;
(4) Any attestng wtness to the executon of a
w, the spouse, parents, or chdren, or any
one camng under such wtness, spouse,
parents, or chdren;
(5) Any physcan, surgeon, nurse, heath offcer
or druggst who took care of the testator durng
hs ast ness;
(6) Indvduas, assocatons and corporatons not
permtted by aw to nhert.
Art. 1028. The prohbtons mentoned n artce 739,
concernng donatons nter vvos sha appy to
testamentary provsons.
Art. 1029. Shoud the testator dspose of the whoe or
part of hs property for prayers and pous works
for the beneft of hs sou, n genera terms and
wthout specfyng ts appcaton, the executor,
wth the court's approva sha dever one-haf
thereof or ts proceeds to the church or
Ryan Ouan 67 67
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
denomnaton to whch the testator may beong,
to be used for such prayers and pous works, and
the other haf to the State, for the purposes
mentoned n Artce 1013.
Art. 1030. Testamentary provsons n favor of the
poor n genera, wthout desgnaton of partcuar
persons or of any communty, sha be deemed
mted to the poor vng n the domce of the
testator at the tme of hs death, uness t shoud
ceary appear that hs ntenton was otherwse.
The desgnaton of the persons who are to be
consdered as poor and the dstrbuton of the
property sha be made by the person apponted
by the testator for the purpose; n defaut of such
person, by the executor, and shoud there be no
executor, by the |ustce of the peace, the mayor,
and the muncpa treasurer, who sha decde by
a ma|orty of votes a questons that may arse.
In a these cases, the approva of the Court of
Frst Instance sha be necessary.
The precedng paragraph sha appy when the
testator has dsposed of hs property n favor of
the poor of a defnte ocaty.
Art. 1031. A testamentary provson n favor of a
dsquafed person, even though made under the
guse of an onerous contract, or made through an
ntermedary, sha be vod.
Art. 1032. The foowng are ncapabe of succeedng
by reason of unworthness:
(1) Parents who have abandoned ther chdren or
nduced ther daughters to ead a corrupt or
mmora fe, or attempted aganst ther vrtue;
(2) Any person who has been convcted of an
attempt aganst the fe of the testator, hs or
her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
(3) Any person who has accused the testator of a
crme for whch the aw prescrbes
mprsonment for sx years or more, f the
accusaton has been found groundess;
(4) Any her of fu age who, havng knowedge of
the voent death of the testator, shoud fa to
report t to an offcer of the aw wthn a month,
uness the authortes have aready taken
acton; ths prohbton sha not appy to cases
wheren, accordng to aw, there s no
obgaton to make an accusaton;
(5) Any person convcted of adutery or
concubnage wth the spouse of the testator;
(6) Any person who by fraud, voence,
ntmdaton, or undue nfuence shoud cause
the testator to make a w or to change one
aready made;
(7) Any person who by the same means prevents
another from makng a w, or from revokng
one aready made, or who suppants, conceas,
or aters the atter's w;
(8) Any person who fasfes or forges a supposed
w of the decedent.
Art. 1033. The cause of unworthness sha be wthout
effect f the testator had knowedge thereof at
the tme he made the w, or f, havng known of
them subsequenty, he shoud condone them n
wrtng.
Art. 1034. In order to |udge the capacty of the her,
devsee or egatee, hs quafcaton at the tme of
the death of the decedent sha be the crteron.
In cases fang under Nos. 2, 3, or 5 of Artce
1032, t sha be necessary to wat unt fna
|udgment s rendered, and n the case fang
under No. 4, the expraton of the month aowed
for the report.
If the nsttuton, devse or egacy shoud be
condtona, the tme of the compance wth the
condton sha aso be consdered.
NOT& 9 this 2>fold requirement is to .e
met only upon the testator4s death- and this applies not
only to the fiduciary .ut to the second heir as well.
Thus- the 2
nd
heir need not sur*i*e the first
heir- if the 2
nd
heir dies .efore the first heir- the 2
nd
heir4s own heirs merely ta+e his place.
ART. <84. A fideicommissa$" su!siuion can
ne#e$ !u$den &e *e)iime.
"egitime passes .y strict operation of law- therefore the
testator has no power o*er it.
ART. <85. E#e$" fideicommisa$" su!siuion
mus !e e+'$ess*" made in o$de$ &a i ma"
!e #a*id.
T&e fiducia$" s&a** !e o!*i)ed o de*i#e$
&e in&e$iance o &e second &ei$( %i&ou
o&e$ deducions &an &ose %&ic& a$ise f$om
*e)iimae e+'enses( c$edis and
im'$o#emens( sa#e in &e case %&e$e &e
esao$ &as '$o#ided o&e$%ise.
1$&COM'A7A '=OB"$ 2& EHPRESSLF
M)O'&$.
@ %a"s of ma2in) an e+'$ess im'osiion 9
1. 2y the use of the term fideico66issary or
2. 2y imposing upon the first heir the absolute
o.ligation to preser*e and to transmit to the
second heir.
Allowa.le $eductions
1. 87 9 fiduciary should deli*er property NTACT
and BN$MN'=&$ to the fideicommissary heir
upon the arri*al of the period.
2. The only $eductions allowed- in the a.sence
of a contrary pro*ision in the will are 9
aE "egitimate e/penses 9 only
necessary and useful e/penses and NOT
ornamental e/penses
.E Credits
cE mpro*ements > only necessary and
useful impro*ements and NOT ornamental
impro*ements
$amage or $eterioration to )roperty
f caused .y a fortuitous e*ent or ordinary wear and
tear 9 fiduciary is not lia.le
Ryan Ouan 6 6
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
f caused .y fiduciary4s fault or negligence 9
fiduciary is lia.le.
ART. <88. T&e second &ei$ s&a** acqui$e a $i)& o
&e succession f$om &e ime of &e esao$:s
dea&( e#en &ou)& &e s&ou*d die !efo$e &e
fiducia$". T&e $i)& of &e second &ei$ s&a**
'ass o &is &ei$s.
n connection with Art?(! on element of
fideicommissary that .oth heirs must .e li*ing and
disqualified to succeed at the time of the testator4s
death.
The second heir4s right *ests upon the testator4s death-
conforma.ly with Art777 and Art?7? since as far as the
second heir is concerned- the institution of him is one
su.Dect to a suspensi*e term.
Thus- the second heir does not ha*e to sur*i*e the first
heir in order for the su.stitution to .e effecti*e. The
second heir4s own heirs simply ta+e his place .y
succeeding to the *ested right already possessed .y
the second heir.
ART. <87. T&e fo**o%in) s&a** no a2e effec=
>1? .ideicommissa$" su!siuions %&ic&
a$e no made in an e+'$ess manne$(
ei&e$ !" )i#in) &em &is name( o$
im'osin) u'on &e fiducia$" &e
a!so*ue o!*i)aion o de*i#e$ &e
'$o'e$" o a second &ei$;
>@? P$o#isions %&ic& conain a 'e$'eua*
'$o&i!iion o a*ienae( and e#en a
em'o$a$" one( !e"ond &e *imi fi+ed
in a$ic*e <8A.
>A? T&ose %&ic& im'ose u'on &e &ei$ &e
c&a$)e of 'a"in) o #a$ious 'e$sons
successi#e*"( !e"ond &e *imi
'$esc$i!ed in a$ic*e <8A( a ce$ain
income o$ 'ension;
>4? T&ose %&ic& *ea#e o a 'e$son &e
%&o*e 'a$ of &e &e$edia$" '$o'e$"
in o$de$ &a &e ma" a''*" o$ in#es
&e same acco$din) o sec$e
ins$ucions communicaed o &im !"
&e esao$.
)ro*isions that shall NOT TAF& &11&CT
1. 1ideicommissary su.stitutions which are not
made in an e/press manner
"ac+ of this element does not- .y that fact
alone- nullify the institution. t only means
that the institution is not a fideicomisaria.
2. )erpetual prohi.ition to alienate- and e*en a
temporary one- .eyond the limit fi/ed in article
?(!.
f there is a fideicomisaria- the limit is the
first heir4s lifetime.
f there is no fideicomisaria- the limit is 2A
years.
!. mposes upon the heir the charge of paying a
certain income or pension to *arious persons
successi*ely- .eyond the limit prescri.ed in article
?(!
There can only .e 2 .eneficiaries of the
pension- one after the other- and the
second must .e one degree from the first.
2ut there is no prohi.ition on
simultaneous .eneficiaries.
#. "ea*e to a person the whole part of the
hereditary property in order that he may apply or
in*est the same according to secret instructions
communicated to him .y the testator.
The ostensi.le heir here is in reality only a
dummy- .ecause in reality- the person
intended to .e .enefited is the one to
whom the secret instructions refer. The
purpose of such a surreptitious disposition
is to circum*ent some prohi.ition or
disqualification
This paragraph ma+es the &NT7&
)7OK'ON KO$. The pro.lem is the
difficulty of esta.lishing the fact of
circum*ention. 'upposing the ostensi.le
heir conceals or destroys the secret
instructions and claims as heir under the
testamentary pro*ision as worded6
ART. <8<. T&e nu**i" of &e fideicommissa$"
su!siuion does no '$eJudice &e #a*idi" of
&e insiuion of &e &ei$s fi$s desi)naed;
&e fideicommissa$" c*ause s&a** sim'*" !e
conside$ed as no %$ien.
f the fideicommissary su.stitution is *oid or ineffecti*e-
the institution of the first heir simply .ecomes pure and
unqualified.
Nullity or ineffecti*ity of the institution of the first heir 9
article does not pro*ide for a case where it is the
institution of the first heir that is *oid or ineffecti*e. 5hat
is the rule in such a case6
ART. <8B. A '$o#ision %&e$e!" &e esao$ *ea#es
o a 'e$son &e %&o*e o$ 'a$ of &e
in&e$iance( and o ano&e$ &e usuf$uc( s&a**
!e #a*id. If &e fi#es &e usuf$uc o #a$ious
'e$sons( no simu*aneous*"( !u
successi#e*"( &e '$o#isions of A$ic*e <8A
s&a** a''*".
f the testator institutes successi*e usufructuaries- there
can only .e two usufructuaries- one after the other- and
Ryan Ouan 6! 6!
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
as to the two of them- all the requisites of Art?(! must
.e present.
ART. <7C. T&e dis'osiions of &e esao$
dec*a$in) a** o$ 'a$ of &e esae ina*iena!*e
fo$ mo$e &an %en" "ea$s a$e #oid.
f the testator imposes a longer period than 2A years-
the prohi.ition is *alid only for 2A years.
f there is a fideicommissary su.stitution- this time
limitation will not apply. 7ather- Art?(! applies- which
allows as a period- the lifetime of the first heir.
D D IN-S IN-S O O . . S S 0ESTIT0TIONS 0ESTIT0TIONS
1. SI,PLE o$ CO,,ON
Causes of 'imple 'u.stitution
1E )redecease of the first heir
2E 7enunciation of the first heir
!E ncapacity of the first heir
@. ERIE. o$ CO,PEN-IO0S
$istinctions
o2rief 9 2 or more su.stitutes for 1 orig. heir
o Compendious 9 1 su. for 2 or more orig.
o =owe*er- most commentators use the
terms interchangea.ly.
f 1 is su.stituted for 2 or more original
heirs- default of one .ut not all of the original
heirs does not lead to su.stitution .ut the share
left *acant will accrue to the sur*i*ing original
co>heir or co>heirs.
A. RECIPROCAL
f the heirs in a will are gi*en unequal
shares- and they are reciprocal su.stitutes of
each other- the su.stitute shall- in addition to his
gi*en share- acquire the share of the heir who
he is su.stituting for due to predecease-
renunciation or incapacity.
The second sentence of Art?(1 pro*ides
for )roportionate Accrual. f there are more than
1 heir instituted- and they are reciprocally
su.stituted- the su.stitutes will acquire the
share of the original heir in the same proportion
as they were gi*en in the testamentary
disposition.
4. .I-EICO,,ISSARF
&lements of a 1ideicommissary
1) A 1
st
heir who ta+es the property
upon the testator4s death
2) A 2
nd
heir who ta+es the property
su.sequently from the fiduciary
3) The 2
nd
heir must .e 1 degree
from the first heir
4) $ual o.ligation imposed upon the
1
st
heir to3
a. )reser*e the property- and
.. To transmit it after the lapse of the
period to the fideicommissary heir.
%E 2oth heirs must .e li*ing and
disqualified to succeed at the time of the
testator4s death.
1ideicommissary su.stitution should .e
Cases for Arti#les *7$&*$<
!amirez v. !amirez
- Cose &ugenio 7amireH- a 1ilipino national- died in 'pain on
$ec. 11- 1@(# with his only his widow as compulsory heir.
- =is will was admitted .y the C1 and Maria "uisa )alacios
was appointed administratri/ of the estate. And she
Ryan Ouan 70 70
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
su.mitted an in*entory of the estate. Gloo+ at the case for the
in*entoryE
- The administratri/ then su.mitted a proDect of partition. The
property of the deceased shall .e di*ided to two parts.
- One part shall go to the widow as part of her legitime< the
other part or free portion shall go to Corge and 7o.erto
7amireH. 1urthermore- 1L! of the free portion is charged with
the widow4s usufruct and the remaining 2L! with a usufruct in
fa*or of 5anda.
- Corge and 7o.erto opposed the proDect of partition saying
that3 GaE pro*isions for *ulgar su.stitution in fa*or of 5anda
with respect to the usufructs are in*alid .ecause the first
heirs sur*i*ed the testator< G.E the fideicommissary
su.stitutions are also in*alid .ecause 1
st
heirs not related to
second heirs within the 1
st
degree< GcE that the grant of the
usufruct to 5anda *iolates the constitution.
- Notwithstanding their o.Dections- the lower court appro*ed
the proDect of partition. =ence this appeal.
5ON- the *ulgar su.stitution in fa*or of 5anda in relation to
the usufructs are *oid.
- No. 5ith respect to the *ulgar su.stitution in fa*or of 5anda
in relation to the usufructs- the said su.stitutions are not
*oid. Although- 5anda sur*i*ed the testator or stated
differently .ecause she did not predecease the testator- this
does not a*oid the su.stitution.
- $ying .efore the testator is not the only case for *ulgar
su.stitution for it also includes refusal or incapacity to accept
the inheritance as pro*ided in Art. ?%@.
- =ence the *ulgar su.stitution is *alid.
5ON- the fideicommissary su.stitutions are *alid.
- No. 5ith respect to the fideicommissary- the appellants were
correct in their claim that is *oid.
- The su.stitutes are not related to 5anda- the heir originally
instituted. The Ci*il Code specifically pro*ides that to .e
*alid- the su.stitution should not go .eyond one degree from
the heir originally instituted.
- 1urthermore- there is no a.solute duty imposed on 5anda
to transmit the usufruct to the su.stitutes as required .y
Arts. ?(% and ?(7.
- n fact- the testator contradicts the esta.lishment of a
fideicommissary su.stitution when he permits the proper
su.Dect of the usufruct to .e sold upon mutual agreement of
the usufructuaries and na+ed owners.
5ON- the grant of the usufruct to 5anda is *oid under the
constitution.
- No. 5ith respect to the usufruct in fa*or of 5anda- al.eit a
real right- does not *est title to the land in the usufructuary
and it is the *esting of title to land in fa*or of aliens which is
proscri.ed .y the Constitution. n this case- no title *ests
upon 5anda.
- A *ulgar su.stitution of heirs is *alid e*en if the heir
designated sur*i*es the testator< inasmuch as *ulgar
su.stitution can ta+e place also .y refusal or incapacity to
inherit of the first heir.
- A fideicommissary su.stitution is *oid if first heir is not
related in the 1
st
degree to the 2
nd
heir.
- The constitutional pro*ision which allows aliens to acquire
lands .y succession does not apply to testamentary
succession.
- An alien may .e .estowed usufructuary rights o*er a parcel
of land in the )hilippines.
Araas v. Araas
- 1r. Teodoro Aranas- a priest of the 7oman Catholic Church-
died on Canuary 1@- 1@%!. =e had e/ecuted on Cune (- 1@#(
his "ast 5ill and Testament which was admitted to pro.ate
on August !1- 1@%(.
- n said "ast 5ill and Testament- 1r. Teodoro Aranas
directed that certain properties acquired .y him during his
lifetime .e gi*en to his .rothers Aniceto and Carmelo.
- =e li+ewise appointed as special administration of the
remainder of the estate Kicente Aranas- a faithful and
ser*icea.le nephew- and designated him also as recipient of
1L2 of the produce of the properties Gthose parcels of land to
.e gi*en to 1r. Aranas4 .rothersE after deducting the
e/penses for the administration and the other 1L2 of the
produce to .e gi*en to the Catholic Church for the eternal
repose of the testatorUs soul.
- Kicente4s right to enDoy the fruits of the property was to end
upon his death or his refusal to act as administrator.
- =erein )etitioners challenged the *alidity of the disposition-
relying on Art. ?7A- which pro*ides3 ,The dispositions of the
testator declaring all or part of the estate inaliena.le for
more than twenty years are *oid.0
s the disposition in fa*or of Kicente *alid6
- I&'. Kicente Aranas as a usufructuary has the right to enDoy
the property of his uncle with all the .enefits which result
from the normal enDoyment Gor e/ploitationE of anotherUs
property- with the o.ligation to return- at the designated time-
either the same thing- or in special cases its equi*alent.
- This right of Kicente to enDoy the fruits of the properties is
temporary and therefore not perpetual as there is a limitation
namely his death or his refusal. "i+ewise his designation as
administrator of these properties is limited .y his refusal
andLor death and therefore it does not run counter to Art.
?7A of the Ci*il Code.
- 2e it noted that Kicente Aranas is not prohi.ited to dispose
of the fruits and other .enefits arising from the usufruct.
Neither are the na+ed owners Gthe other heirsE of the
properties- the usufruct of which has .een gi*en to Kicente
prohi.ited from disposing of said na+ed ownership without
preDudice of course to KicenteUs continuing usufruct.
- To *oid the designation of Kicente as usufructuary andLor
administrator is to defeat the desire and the dying wish of
the testator to reward him for his faithful and unselfish
ser*ices rendered during the time when said testator was
seriously ill or .ed>ridden.
- The pro*iso must .e respected and .e gi*en effect until the
death or until the refusal to act as such of the instituted
usufructuaryLadministrator- after which period- the property
can .e properly disposed of- su.Dect to the limitations
pro*ided in Art. ?(! of the Ci*il Code concerning a
fideicommissary su.stitution.
- Article ?(!3 NA fideicommissary su.stitution .y *irtue of
which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the
o.ligation to preser*e and to transmit to a second heir the
whole or part of the inheritance- shall .e *alid and shall ta+e
effect- pro*ided such su.stitution does not go .eyond one
degree from the heir originally instituted- and pro*ided
further- that the fiduciary or first heir and the second heir are
li*ing at the time of the death of the testator.N
Ryan Ouan 71 71
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
=CIB v. Es#olin
- "innie Cane =odges died in loilo lea*ing a will wherein she
.equeathed all of her propertied to her hus.and- Charles
Newton =odges.
- The will contained a disposition saying ,at the death of my
said hus.and- gi*e- de*ise and .equeath all of the rest-
residue and remainder of my estate- .oth real and personal-
where*er situation to .e equally di*ed among my .rothers
and sisters- share and share ali+e.
- Charles was appointed e/ecutor- when he died Coe =odges
and 1ernando Mirasol replaced him- which in turn was
replaced .y )C2 pursuant to an agreement of all the heirs
of =odges.
- The =igdons- composed of .rothers and sisters of "innie
now claims their share to her estate.
- )C2- howe*er- contends that there was no su.stitution in
this case and that the testamentary disposition in fa*or of the
.rothers and sisters are inoperati*e and in*alid.
5hether there is su.stitution.
- None. There is no *ulgar su.stitution .ecause there is not
pro*ision in the will for either3 1. predecease of the testator
.y the designated heir- 2. refusal or !. incapacity of the latter
to accept the inheritance as required .y art. ?%@.
- There is neither a fideicommissary su.stitution .ecause no
o.ligation is imposed there.y upon Charles to preser*e the
estate or any part thereof for anyone else.
5hether the disposition in fa*or of the .rothers and sisters is
inoperati*e
- No. The .rothers and sisters of Mrs. =odges are not
su.stitutes for Charles .ecause- under her will- they are not
to inherit what =odges cannot- would no or may not inherit-
.ut would inherit what he would not dispose of from his
inheritance.
- Therefore- they are also heirs instituted simultaneously with
Charles- su.Dect to certain conditions- partially resolutory
insofar as =odges was concerned and correspondingly
suspensi*e with reference to his .rothers and sisters>in>law.
- =ence- while Charles could completely and a.solutely
dispose of her estate during his lifetime- all his rights to what
may remain upon his death would then go his .rothers and
sisters>in>law.
- f no o.ligation is imposed upon the first heir to preser*e the
property and to transmit it to the second heir- then there is
no fideicomisaria.
SEC-I./ % 1 C./I-I./AL -ES-A:E/-A!>
IS=.SI-I./S A/ -ES-A:E/-A!>
IS=.SI-I./S 2I-H A -E!:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
ART. <71. T&e insiuion of an &ei$ ma" !e made
condiiona**"( o$ fo$ a ce$ain 'u$'ose o$
cause.
A DIN-S O. TESTA,ENTARF -ISPOSITIONS
1. Conditional dispositions
2. $ispositions with a term
!. $ispositions with a mode :modal dispositions;
naccuracies in 'ection heading and wording of this
article
ncomplete 'ection =eading 9 should include#
modal dispositions
ncomplete wording of Article 9 does not include
dispositions with a term
$efinitions
CON$TON 9 defined o.liquely in Art117@ par1.
Art. 1179. Every obgaton whose
performance does not depend upon a
future or uncertan event, or upon a past
event unknown to the partes, s
demandabe at once.
Every obgaton whch contans a
resoutory condton sha aso be
demandabe, wthout pre|udce to the
effects of the happenng of the event.
T&7M 9 defined o.liquely in Art117! pars 1 V !
Art. 1193. Obgatons for whose fufment a
day certan has been fxed, sha be
demandabe ony when that day comes.
Obgatons wth a resoutory perod
take effect at once, but termnate upon
arrva of the day certan.
A day certan s understood to be that
whch must necessary come, athough t
may not be known when.
If the uncertanty conssts n whether
the day w come or not, the obgaton s
condtona, and t sha be reguated by
the rues of the precedng Secton.
MO$& 9 defined o.liquely in Art??2.
Art. 882. The statement of the ob|ect of the
nsttuton, or the appcaton of the
property eft by the testator, or the charge
mposed by hm, sha not be consdered
as a condton uness t appears that such
was hs ntenton.
That whch has been eft n ths
manner may be camed at once provded
Ryan Ouan 72 72
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
that the nsttuted her or hs hers gve
securty for compance wth the wshes of
the testator and for the return of anythng
he or they may receve, together wth ts
fruts and nterests, f he or they shoud
dsregard ths obgaton.
)roper Order of )ro*isions in this 'ection
1. 8eneral pro*isions 9 Arts ?71 and ?72
2. Conditions 9 Arts ?7!- ?7#- ?7%- ?7(- ?77- ??!
par. 2- ?7@- ??A- ??1 and ??#
!. Terms 9 Arts ?7? and ??%
#. Modes 9 Arts ??2 and ??! par.1
8&N&7A" )7OK'ON'
Art?71 9 The right of the testator to impose conditions-
terms or modes springs from testamentary freedom. f
he has the right to dispose of his estate mortis causa-
then he has the right to ma+e the disposition su.Dect to
a condition- term or mode.
ART. <7@. T&e esao$ canno im'ose an" c&a$)e(
condiion o$ su!siuion %&asoe#e$ u'on
&e *e)iimes '$esc$i!ed in &is Code. S&ou*d
&e do so( &e same s&a** !e conside$ed as no
im'osed.
The legitime passes .y strict operation of law-
independent of the testator4s will. This article is a logical
consequence of that principle.
This article is echoed .y Art@A# par2.
-ISPOSITION 1ITH CON-ITIONS
9 ,AF EE EOTH RESOL0TORF
OR S0SPENSIVE.
ART. <7A. Im'ossi!*e condiions and &ose
con$a$" o *a% o$ )ood cusoms s&a** !e
conside$ed as no im'osed and s&a** in no
manne$ '$eJudice &e &ei$( e#en if &e esao$
s&ou*d o&e$%ise '$o#ide.
The impossi.le or illegal condition is simply considered
as not written. The testamentary disposition itself is not
annulled< on the contrary it .ecomes )B7&.
The rule on $onations is the same. 9 considered as not
imposed
Art. 727. llegal or impossi.le conditions in simple
and remuneratory donations shall .e considered as
not imposed.
On the other hand- the rule in O.ligations is different. 9
annuls the o.ligation
Art. 11?!. mpossi.le conditions- those contrary to
good customs or pu.lic policy and those prohi.ited
.y law shall annul the o.ligation which depends
upon them. f the o.ligation is di*isi.le- that part
thereof which is not affected .y the impossi.le or
unlawful condition shall .e *alid.
The condition not to do an impossi.le thing
shall .e considered as not ha*ing .een agreed
upon.
7eason for difference in rule
Testamentary dispositions and donations are .oth
gratuitous and spring from the grantor4s li.erality.
The imposition of a condition does not displace
li.erality as the .asis of the grant.
On the other hand- in o.ligations which are
onerous- the condition that is imposed .ecomes an
integral part of the causa of the o.ligation. The
elimination of that condition for .eing impossi.le or
illegal results in a failure of cause.
ART. <74. An a!so*ue condiion no o con$ac a
fi$s o$ su!sequen ma$$ia)e s&a** !e
conside$ed as no %$ien un*ess suc&
condiion &as !een im'osed on &e %ido% o$
%ido%e$ !" &e deceased s'ouse o$ !" &e
*ae$:s ascendans o$ descendans.
Ne#e$&e*ess( &e $i)& of usuf$uc( o$ an
a**o%ance o$ some 'e$sona* '$esaion ma"
!e de#ised o$ !equea&ed o an" 'e$son fo$
&e ime du$in) %&ic& &e o$ s&e s&ou*d
$emain unma$$ied o$ in %ido%&ood.
Conditions prohi.iting marriage
f a first marriage is prohi.ited 9 condition always
considered as not imposed
f su.sequent marriage is prohi.ited
1. f imposed .y the deceased spouse or .y
hisLher ascendants or descendants 9 *alid
2. f imposed .y anyone else 9 considered as not
written
The 2
nd
paragraph of the article may pro*ide the
testator- if he so desires- a means of terminating the
testamentary .enefaction should the heir contract
marriage- e*en a first one. The wording of the
disposition will .e crucial- it should not .e so worded as
to constitute a prohi.ition for.idden in the first
paragraph.
Necessity of Cauci[n Muciana 9 since this condition-
assuming it is *alidly imposed- is N&8ATK& in nature-
a Cauci[n Muciana is required- as in Art?7@.
Condition to contract marriage 9 This article does not
prohi.it the imposition of a condition to marry- either
with reference to a particular person or not.
)either does this article declare 8oid a relati8e
prohibition.
ART. <75. An" dis'osiion made u'on &e
condiion &a &e &ei$ s&a** ma2e some
Ryan Ouan 73 73
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
'$o#ision in fa#o$ of &e *ae$ of &e esao$
o$ of an" o&e$ 'e$son s&a** !e #oid.
Scriptura Captatoria 9 "egacy>hunting dispositions-
whether to heirs or legatees- are *oid.
7easons for the )rohi.ition
1. The captatoria con*erts testamentary grants
into contractual transactions
2. t depri*es the heir of testamentary freedom
3. t gi*es the testator the power to dispose
6ortis causa not only of his property .ut also
of his heir4s.
5hat is declared *oid 9 it is not merely the condition
that is declared *oid .ut the testamentary disposition
itself which contains the condition.
ART. <78. An" 'u$e*" 'oesai#e condiion
im'osed u'on an &ei$ mus !e fu*fi**ed !" &im
a soon as &e *ea$ns of &e esao$:s dea&.
T&is $u*e s&a** no a''*" %&en &e
condiion( a*$ead" com'*ied %i&( canno !e
fu*fi**ed a)ain.
ART. <77. If &e condiion is casua* o$ mi+ed( i
s&a** !e sufficien if i &a''en o$ !e fu*fi**ed a
an" ime !efo$e o$ afe$ &e dea& of &e
esao$( un*ess &e &as '$o#ided o&e$%ise.
S&ou*d i &a#e e+ised o$ s&ou*d i &a#e
!een fu*fi**ed a &e ime &e %i** %as e+ecued
and &e esao$ %as una%a$e &e$eof( i s&a**
!e deemed as com'*ied %i&.
If &e &ad 2no%*ed)e &e$eof( &e condiion
s&a** !e conside$ed fu*fi**ed on*" %&en i is of
suc& a nau$e &a i can no *on)e$ e+is o$ !e
com'*ied %i& a)ain.
A!-. **59 'ar. +. If &e 'e$son ine$esed in &e
condiion s&ou*d '$e#en is fu*fi**men(
%i&ou &e fau* of &e &ei$( &e condiion
s&a** !e deemed o &a#e !een com'*ied %i&.
ART. <7B. If &e 'oesai#e condiion im'osed
u'on &e &ei$ is ne)ai#e o$ consiss in no
doin) o$ no )i#in) some&in)( &e s&a**
com'*" !" )i#in) a secu$i" &a &e %i** no do
o$ )i#e &a %&ic& &as !een '$o&i!ied !" &e
esao$( and &a in case of con$a#enion &e
%i** $eu$n %&ae#e$ &e ma" &a#e $ecei#ed(
o)e&e$ %i& is f$uis and ine$ess.
These articles go*ern )OT&'TATK&- CA'BA" and
MP&$ conditions.
1. )otestati*e Conditions 9 one that depends
solely on the will of the heirLde*iseeLlegatee.
2. Casual Condition 9 one that depends on the
will of a third person or on chance
!. Mi/ed Condition 9 one that depends partly on
the will of the heirLde*iseeLlegatee and partly
either on the will of a third person or chance.
R0LES ON POTESTATIVE( CAS0AL AN- ,IHE-
CON-ITIONS
A. )OT&'TATK&
Positi8e L to do so6ething
aE 87 9 must .e fulfilled as soon as the
heir learns of the testator4s death
.E & 9 if the condition was already
complied with at the time the heir learns
of the testator4s death- and the condition
is of such a nature that it cannot .e
fulfilled again.
cE Constructi*e compliance 9 Art??!
par2 9 condition is deemed fulfilled.
Negati*e 9 not to do something
aE =eir must gi*e security to guarantee
:caucion muciana; the return of the *alue
of the property- fruits- and interests- in
case of contra*ention.
.E ! nstances when a Caucion Muciana
is 7equired
Art?7@ 9 if the potestati*e
conditions is negati*e
Art??% par2 > The designation of
the day or the time when the
effects of the institution of an heir
shall commence
Art??2 9 5hen there is a
statement of the o.Dect of the
institution- or the application of the
property left .y the testator- or the
charge imposed .y him.
2. CA'BA" or MP&$
87 9 may .e fulfilled at any time- .efore
or after the testator4s death- unless the
testator pro*ides otherwise.
QBA"1CATON' 9 if already fulfilled at
the time of the e/ecution of the will
aE f testator BNA5A7& of fulfillment 9
deemed fulfilled
.E f testator was A5A7& of fulfillment
Can no longer .e fulfilled again 9
deemed fulfilled
Can .e fulfilled again 9 must .e
fulfilled again
Constructi*e Compliance > Art??! par2
aE f casual 9 not applica.le
.E f mi/ed
f dependent partly on chance 9
not applica.le
f dependent partly on will of a
third party
f interested !
rd
party 9
applica.le
Ryan Ouan 74 74
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
f not an interested party 9 not
applica.le
ART. <<C. If &e &ei$ !e insiued unde$ a
sus'ensi#e condiion o$ e$m &e esae s&a**
!e '*aced unde$ adminis$aion uni* &e
condiion is fu*fi**ed( o$ uni* i !ecomes
ce$ain &a i canno !e fu*fi**ed( o$ uni* &e
a$$i#a* of &e e$m.
T&e same s&a** !e done if &e &ei$ does
no )i#e &e secu$i" $equi$ed in &e
'$ecedin) a$ic*e.
ART. <<1. T&e a''oinmen of &e adminis$ao$
of &e esae menioned in &e '$ecedin)
a$ic*e( as %e** as &e manne$ of
adminis$aion and &e $i)&s and o!*i)aions
of &e adminis$ao$ s&a** !e )o#e$ned !" &e
Ru*es of Cou$.
2etween the time of the testator4s death and the time of
the fulfillment of the suspensi*e condition or of the
certainty of its non>occurrence 9 property is to .e
placed under administration.
1. f condition happens 9 the property will .e
turned o*er to the instituted heir
2. f it .ecomes certain that condition will not
happen 9 property will .e turned o*er to a
secondary heir :if there is one; or to the
intestate heirs- as the case may .e.
Not applica.le to institutions with a T&7M 9 despite the
wording of the article- it should not .e applied to
institutions with a term- which are go*erned .y Art??%
par 2. Otherwise- there will .e an irreconcila.le conflict
with that article- which mandates that .efore the arri*al
of the term- the property should .e gi*en to the legal
heirs.
2
nd
paragraph 9 the property shall .e in the e/ecutor4s
or administrator4s custody until the heir furnishes the
caucion muciana.
)rocedural rules go*erning appointment of
administrator 9 7ules 77>@A 7oC.
A!-. **%. Condiions im'osed !" &e esao$
u'on &e &ei$s s&a** !e )o#e$ned !" &e $u*es
esa!*is&ed fo$ condiiona* o!*i)aions in a**
mae$s no '$o#ided fo$ !" &is Secion.
'uppletorily go*erning conditional institutions are
Articles 117@ and 11@2 on conditional o.ligations.
Art. 1179. Every obgaton whose performance does
not depend upon a future or uncertan event, or
upon a past event unknown to the partes, s
demandabe at once.
Every obgaton whch contans a resoutory
condton sha aso be demandabe, wthout
pre|udce to the effects of the happenng of the
event.
Art. 1180. When the debtor bnds hmsef to pay when
hs means permt hm to do so, the obgaton sha
be deemed to be one wth a perod, sub|ect to the
provsons of Artce 1197.
Art. 1181. In condtona obgatons, the acquston of
rghts, as we as the extngushment or oss of
those aready acqured, sha depend upon the
happenng of the event whch consttutes the
condton.
Art. 1182. When the fufment of the condton
depends upon the soe w of the debtor, the
condtona obgaton sha be vod. If t depends
upon chance or upon the w of a thrd person, the
obgaton sha take effect n conformty wth the
provsons of ths Code.
Art. 1183. Impossbe condtons, those contrary to
good customs or pubc pocy and those prohbted
by aw sha annu the obgaton whch depends
upon them. If the obgaton s dvsbe, that part
thereof whch s not affected by the mpossbe or
unawfu condton sha be vad.
The condton not to do an mpossbe thng sha
be consdered as not havng been agreed upon.
Art. 1184. The condton that some event happen at a
determnate tme sha extngush the obgaton as
soon as the tme expres or f t has become
ndubtabe that the event w not take pace.
Art. 1185. The condton that some event w not
happen at a determnate tme sha render the
obgaton effectve from the moment the tme
ndcated has eapsed, or f t has become evdent
that the event cannot occur.
If no tme has been fxed, the condton sha be
deemed fufed at such tme as may have probaby
been contempated, bearng n mnd the nature of
the obgaton.
Art. 1186. The condton sha be deemed fufed
when the obgor vountary prevents ts fufment.
Art. 1187. The effects of a condtona obgaton to
gve, once the condton has been fufed, sha
retroact to the day of the consttuton of the
obgaton. Nevertheess, when the obgaton
mposes recproca prestatons upon the partes, the
fruts and nterests durng the pendency of the
condton sha be deemed to have been mutuay
compensated. If the obgaton s unatera, the
debtor sha approprate the fruts and nterests
receved, uness from the nature and crcumstances
of the obgaton t shoud be nferred that the
ntenton of the person consttutng the same was
dfferent.
In obgatons to do and not to do, the courts sha
determne, n each case, the retroactve effect of
the condton that has been comped wth.
Art. 1188. The credtor may, before the fufment of
the condton, brng the approprate actons for the
preservaton of hs rght.
Ryan Ouan 75 75
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
The debtor may recover what durng the same
tme he has pad by mstake n case of a suspensve
condton.
Art. 1189. When the condtons have been mposed
wth the ntenton of suspendng the effcacy of an
obgaton to gve, the foowng rues sha be
observed n case of the mprovement, oss or
deteroraton of the thng durng the pendency of
the condton:
(1) If the thng s ost wthout the faut of the
debtor, the obgaton sha be extngushed;
(2) If the thng s ost through the faut of the
debtor, he sha be obged to pay damages; t
s understood that the thng s ost when t
pershes, or goes out of commerce, or
dsappears n such a way that ts exstence s
unknown or t cannot be recovered;
(3) When the thng deterorates wthout the faut
of the debtor, the mparment s to be borne by
the credtor;
(4) If t deterorates through the faut of the
debtor, the credtor may choose between the
rescsson of the obgaton and ts fufment,
wth ndemnty for damages n ether case;
(5) If the thng s mproved by ts nature, or by
tme, the mprovement sha nure to the
beneft of the credtor;
(6) If t s mproved at the expense of the debtor,
he sha have no other rght than that granted
to the usufructuary. (1122)
Art. 1190. When the condtons have for ther purpose
the extngushment of an obgaton to gve, the
partes, upon the fufment of sad condtons, sha
return to each other what they have receved.
In case of the oss, deteroraton or mprovement
of the thng, the provsons whch, wth respect to
the debtor, are ad down n the precedng artce
sha be apped to the party who s bound to return.
As for the obgatons to do and not to do, the
provsons of the second paragraph of Artce 1187
sha be observed as regards the effect of the
extngushment of the obgaton.
Art. 1191. The power to rescnd obgatons s mped
n recproca ones, n case one of the obgors
shoud not compy wth what s ncumbent upon
hm.
The n|ured party may choose between the
fufment and the rescsson of the obgaton, wth
the payment of damages n ether case. He may
aso seek rescsson, even after he has chosen
fufment, f the atter shoud become mpossbe.
The court sha decree the rescsson camed,
uness there be |ust cause authorzng the fxng of
a perod.
Ths s understood to be wthout pre|udce to the
rghts of thrd persons who have acqured the thng,
n accordance wth Artces 1385 and 1388 and the
Mortgage Law.
Art. 1192. In case both partes have commtted a
breach of the obgaton, the abty of the frst
nfractor sha be equtaby tempered by the courts.
If t cannot be determned whch of the partes frst
voated the contract, the same sha be deemed
extngushed, and each sha bear hs own damages.
-ISPOSITION 1ITH TER,S
A!-. *$*. A dis'osiion %i& a sus'ensi#e e$m
does no '$e#en &e insiued &ei$ f$om
acqui$in) &is $i)&s and $ansmiin) &em o
&is &ei$s e#en !efo$e &e a$$i#a* of &e e$m.
5hen the heir4s right *ests 9 in dispositions with a term-
the heir4s right *ests upon the testator4s death-
conforma.ly with Art777. Therefore- should the heir die
.efore the arri*al of the suspensi*e term- he merely
transmits his right to his own heirs who can demand the
property when the term arri*es.
The rule in this article is similar to Art?(( in
fideicommissary su.stitutions.
The rule in conditional institutions 9 what is the rule if
the instituted heir dies .efore the happening of the
condition6 The section is silent on this matter. 2ut
under Art1A!#- par!- ,if the institution- de*ise or legacy
should .e conditional- the time of the compliance with
the condition shall also .e considered.
The import is that in conditional institutions- the heir
should .e "i*ing and Qualified to succeed 2OT= at
the time of the testator4s death and at the time of
the happening of the condition.
A!-. **7. T&e desi)naion of &e da" o$ &e ime
%&en &e effecs of &e insiuion of an &ei$
s&a** commence o$ cease s&a** !e #a*id.
In !o& cases( &e *e)a* &ei$ s&a** !e
conside$ed as ca**ed o &e succession uni*
&e a$$i#a* of &e 'e$iod o$ is e+'i$aion. Eu
in &e fi$s case &e s&a** no ene$ ino
'ossession of &e '$o'e$" uni* afe$ &a#in)
)i#en sufficien secu$i"( %i& &e ine$#enion
of &e insiued &ei$.
f term is 'uspensi*e 9 .efore the arri*al of the term-
the property should .e deli*ered to the intestate heirs.
A caucion muciana has to .e posted .y them. This is
the 2
nd
instance where a caucion muciana is required to
.e posted.
f term is 7esolutory 9 .efore the arri*al of the term- the
property should .e deli*ered to the instituted heir. No
caucion muciana is required.
-ISPOSITION 1ITH ,O-ES
ART. <<@. T&e saemen of &e o!Jec of &e
insiuion( o$ &e a''*icaion of &e '$o'e$"
*ef !" &e esao$( o$ &e c&a$)e im'osed !"
Ryan Ouan 76 76
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
&im( s&a** no !e conside$ed as a condiion
un*ess i a''ea$s &a suc& %as &is inenion.
T&a %&ic& &as !een *ef in &is manne$
ma" !e c*aimed a once '$o#ided &a &e
insiued &ei$ o$ &is &ei$s )i#e secu$i" fo$
com'*iance %i& &e %is&es of &e esao$
and fo$ &e $eu$n of an"&in) &e o$ &e" ma"
$ecei#e( o)e&e$ %i& is f$uis and ine$ess(
if &e o$ &e" s&ou*d dis$e)a$d &is o!*i)aion.
The 1
st
paragraph defines a mode o.liquely. A mode is
an o.ligation imposed upon the heir- without
suspending the effecti*ity of the institution :which a
condition does;.
A mode must .e clearly imposed as an o.ligation
in order to .e considered as one. Mere preferences
or wishes e/pressed .y the testator are not modes.
A mode functions similarly to a resolutory condition.
n fact- modes could *ery well ha*e .een a.sor.ed
.y the concept of resolutory conditions.
Caucion Muciana 9 should .e posted .y the instituted
heir :!
rd
instance of caucion muciana;
CA'&
!abadilla v. CA
- n the codicil of AleDa 2elleHa- appended to her last will and
testament- $r. Corge 7a.anilla was instituted as a de*isee
of parcel of land.
- The said codicil contained the following pro*isions3
o That should Corge die ahead of the testator- the property
shall .e inherited .y the children and spouse<
o That if ownership of the property is transmitted to Corge-
he shall ha*e the o.ligation until he dies to gi*e to Maria
2elleHa 7% piculs of e/port sugar and 2% piculs of
domestic sugar until the said Maria dies<
o That in case of Corge4s death- his hears shall .e imposed
the same o.ligation<
o That if the heir shall later sell- lease- mortgage the said
lot- the .uyer- lessee- mortgagee shall ha*e also the
o.ligation to deli*er yearly 1AA piculs of sugar to Maria<
and
o That should the .uyer- lessee or the mortgagee fails to
respect AleDa4s command- Maria shall immediately seiHe
the lot and turn it o*er to AleDa4s near descendants and
the latter shall ha*e the same o.ligation of deli*ering 1AA
piculs of sugar to Maria.
- 1or alleged *iolations of the codicil- Maria filed a complaint
against Corge4s heirs and as+ed for the property to .e
recon*eyed to the near descendants of AleDa on that
ground that3
o the lot was mortgaged to )N2 and 7epu.lic )lanters
2an+- not a near descendant of AleDa<
o the heirs failed to deli*er the sugar< and
o the .an+s failed to comply with the o.ligation to deli*er
sugar to Maria.
- The 7TC dismissed the case.
- On appeal- CA set aside the decision of 7TC and ordered
that the heirs of Corge recon*ey title o*er the lot with its
fruits and interests.
5hether Article ??2 applies in this case. GPetitioner 6aintains
that (rticle EE2 does not apply as there was no 6odal
institution and the testatri? intended a 6ere si6ple substation
9 Jorge was to be substituted by (le>a7s near descendants
should there be nonco6pliance with the obligation to deli8er
the sugar to 'aria.E
- I&'. The 'C held that the CA erred in not ruling that the
institution of Corge under the codicil is in the nature of a
modal institution.
- The codicil does not imply su.stitution. n simple
su.stitutions- the 2
nd
heir ta+es the inheritance in default of
the first heir .y reason of incapacity- predecease or
renunciation. n this case- the pro*isions of the codicil do
not pro*ide that should Corge default due to predecease-
incapacity or renunciation- the testatri/4s near descendants
would su.stitute him. 5hat the codicil pro*ides is that
should Corge or his heirs not fulfill the conditions imposed-
the property shall .e seiHed and turned o*er to AleDa4s near
descendants.
- n this case- AleDa did not ma+e Corge4s inheritance and the
effecti*ity of his institution as a de*isee dependent upon on
the performace of the said o.ligation.
- t is clear- though- that should the o.ligation .e not
complied with- the property shall .e turned o*er to the
AleDa4s near descendants.
- The manner of institution of Corge is e*idently moda* in
nau$e .ecause it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir
without- howe*er- affecting the efficacy of such institution.
- Also- since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of
li.erality- an o.ligation imposed upon the heir should not .e
considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the
5ill itself that such was the intention of the testator. In case
of dou!( &e insiuion s&ou*d !e conside$ed as moda*
and no condiion.
- The 'C affirmed the decision of the CA.
- Articles ??2 and ??! of the NCC.
- The institution of an heir in the manner prescri.ed in Article
??2 is what is +nown in the law of succession as an
institucion sub 6odo or modal institution.
- n a moda* insiuion- the testator states3
o the o.Dect of the institution<
o the purpose or application of the property left .y the
testator< or
o the charge imposed .y the testator upon the heir.
- A ,mode0 imposes an o.ligation upon the heir or legatee
.ut it does not affect the efficacy of his rights to the
succession.
- n a condiiona* esamena$" dis'osiion- the condition
must happen or .e fulfilled in order for the heir to .e entitled
to succeed the testator. The condition suspends .ut does
not o.ligate< and the mode o.ligates .ut does not suspend.
To some e/tent- it is similar to a resolutory condition.
- 'ince testamentary dispositions are generally acts of
li.erality- an o.ligation imposed upon the heir should not .e
considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the
5ill itself that such was the intention of the testator. In case
of dou!( &e insiuion s&ou*d !e conside$ed as moda*
and no condiion.
- A will cannot .e su.Dect of a compromise agreement which
would there.y defeat the *ery purpose of ma+ing a will.
Ryan Ouan 77 77
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
A!-. **5 'ar0. 1&en %i&ou &e fau* of &e &ei$(
an insiuion $efe$$ed o in &e '$ecedin)
a$ic*e canno a2e effec in &e e+ac manne$
saed !" &e esao$( i s&a** !e com'*ied
%i& in a manne$ mos ana*o)ous o and in
confo$mi" %i& &is %is&es.
The intention of the testator should always .e the
guiding norm in determining the sufficiency of the
analogous performance.
SEC-I./ 7 1 LE3I-I:E
'ystem of "egitimes 9 our successional system- closely
patterned after that of the 'panish Code- reser*es a
portion of the net estate of the decedent in fa*or of
certain heirs- or groups of heirs or com.ination of heirs.
The portion that is so reser*ed is called the "&8TM&.
The portion that is left a*aila.le for testamentary
disposition after the legitimes ha*e .een co*ered is the
free or disposable portion.
The heirs for whom the law reser*es a portion are
called compulsory heirs.
Nature of "egitimes 9 the legitimes are set aside .y
mandate of law. Thus- the testator is required to set
aside or reser*e them. Otherwise stated- the testator is
prohi.ited from disposing .y gratuitous title- either inter
*i*os or mortis causa- of these legitimes. $ispositions
.y onerous title are not prohi.ited .ecause in theory-
nothing is lost from the estate in an onerous disposition-
since there is merely an e/change of *alues.
2ecause the testator is compelled to set aside the
legitimes- the heirs in whose fa*or the legitimes are set
aside are called co6pulsory heirs. The compulsion is
not on the part of the heirs- who are free to accept or
reDect the inheritance- .ut on the part of the testator.
MaDor changes in the law of legitimes
1. A.olition of the maDor or .etterment in the
'panish Code
2. The sur*i*ing spouse4s share is upgraded from
a usufructuary interest to full ownership- al.eit a
*ery *aria.le share.
!. The grant of legitimary rights to children
classified under the New Ci*il Code as illegitimate
other than natural or spurious- and further change
under the 1amily Code a.olishing the distinction
.etween natural and spurious children and gi*ing
all illegitimate children the same legitimary shares.
Case for Arts *$0&**7
:i#iano v. Brimo
- The su.Dect of this case is the partition of the estate of the
late Coseph 2rimo.
- Miciano- the appointed Dudicial administrator- filed a partition
scheme.
- Andre 2rimo- one of Coseph4s .orthers- opposed stating that
the partition was not in accordance with Tur+ish laws-
Cospeh .eing a Tur+ish citiHen.
- Andre contends that this was *oid .ecause the Ci*il Code
states that legal and testamentary successions shall .e
go*erned .y the national law of the person whose
succession is in question.
- Andre was e/cluded from as a legatee .ecause of a clause
in the will where Coseph wished that his property .e
distri.uted in accordance with )hilippine laws- and any
legatee who fails to comply with this would .e pre*ented
from recei*ing his legacy.
- 'ince the institution of legatees was conditioned upon
Coseph4s wish- it is claimed that Andre is e/cluded .y
questioning the *alidity of applying )hilippine laws in the
partition of the estate Gwhich was against his .rother4s wishE.
5ON Andre 2rimo can .e *alidly e/cluded as a legatee.
- NO. The condition imposed .y the will of the testator is
contrary to law .ecause it ignores the testator4s national
law- when according to the Ci*il Code- such national law of
the testator is to go*ern his testamentary dispositions.
- As such- the condition is considered unwritten and the
institution of legatees in the will is unconditional and
consequently *alid and effecti*e e*en as to Andre.
- The remaining clauses of the will are *alid despite the nullity
of the clause stating that the testator4s testamentary
dispositions .e go*erned .y )hilippine laws.
- Art. 7@2- GOldE Ci*il Code3 mpossi.le conditions and those
contrary to law or good morals shall .e considered as not
imposed and shall not preDudice the heir or legatee in any
manner whatsoe*er- e*en should the testator otherwise
pro*ide.
ART. <<8. Le)iime is &a 'a$ of &e esao$Ms
'$o'e$" %&ic& &e canno dis'ose of !ecause
&e *a% &as $ese$#ed i fo$ ce$ain &ei$s %&o
a$e( &e$efo$e( ca**ed com'u*so$" &ei$s.
This article gi*es the statutory definition of legitime.
Ryan Ouan 7 7
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
ART. <<7. T&e fo**o%in) a$e com'u*so$" &ei$s=
1? Le)iimae c&i*d$en and
descendans( %i& $es'ec o &ei$
*e)iimae 'a$ens and ascendans;
@? In defau* of &e fo$e)oin)(
*e)iimae 'a$ens and ascendans( %i&
$es'ec o &ei$ *e)iimae c&i*d$en and
descendans;
A? T&e %ido% o$ %ido%e$;
4? Ac2no%*ed)ed nau$a* c&i*d$en(
and nau$a* c&i*d$en !" *e)a* ficion;
5? O&e$ i**e)iimae c&i*d$en $efe$$ed
o in A$ic*e @<7.
Com'u*so$" &ei$s menioned in Nos. A( 4(
and 5 a$e no e+c*uded !" &ose in Nos. 1 and
@; nei&e$ do &e" e+c*ude one ano&e$.
In a** cases of i**e)iimae c&i*d$en( &ei$
fi*iaion mus !e du*" '$o#ed.
T&e fa&e$ o$ mo&e$ of i**e)iimae
c&i*d$en of &e &$ee c*asses menioned( s&a**
in&e$i f$om &em in &e manne$ and o &e
e+en esa!*is&ed !" &is Code.
This article enumerates the compulsory heirs. The
enumeration is &PC"B'K& and may .e classified as
follows3
1. Pri6ary co6pulsory heirs 9 legitimate children
and L or descendants
'o called .ecause they are preferred
o*er- and e/clude the secondary heirs.
2. Secondary co6pulsory heirs 9 legitimate
parents and L or ascendants < illegitimate parents
'o called .ecause they recei*e legitimes
only in default of the primary heirs.
"egitimate parentsLascendants 9 only in
default of legitimate childrenL
descendants.
llegitimate parents 9 only in default of any
+inds of childrenLdescendants.
3. Concurring co6pulsory heirs 9 sur*i*ing
spouse< illegitimate children and L or descendants
'o called .ecause they succeed as
compulsory heirs together with primary or
secondary heirs- e/cept only that
illegitimate children L descendants e/clude
illegitimate parents.
THE CO,P0LSORF HEIRS
"&8TMAT& C="$7&N L $&'C&N$ANT'
1. Legiti6ate Children 9 specified in Arts1(# and
%# of the 1amily Code. "egitimated children
fall under this classification :Art17@ 1C;. The
law does not specify how the legitimate
children should share in the legitime. =owe*er-
they will share &QBA""I regardless of age-
se/ or marriage of origin.
2. Legiti6ate @escendants 9 the 87 is the
nearer e/clude the more remote. Thus-
children- if all qualified- will e/clude
grandchildren and so on. The qualification to
this rule is representation when proper.
"&8TMAT& )A7&NT' L A'C&N$ANT'
#. Legiti6ate Parents
2. Legiti6ate (scendants 9 Only in default of
parents. The rule 9 a.solute in the ascending
line 9 is that the nearer e/clude the more
remote. :Arts??@>?@A;
'B7KKN8 ')OB'&
1. The spouse of the decedent- not the spouse of
a child who has predeceased the decedent.
2. Marriage .etween the decedent and hisLher
sur*i*ing spouse must .e either KA"$ or
KO$A2"&. f *oida.le- there should ha*e
.een no final decree of annulment at the time
of the decedent4s death.
Question 9 if the consort dies during the
pendency of a petition for declaration of
nullity under Art!( or for nullity under
Art#A of the 1C- should the proceedings
.e dismissed or should they proceed6
Mere estrangement is not a ground for the
disqualification of the sur*i*ing spouse as
heir.
&ffect of $ecree of Legal Separation
aE On the offending spouse 9
disqualification
.E On the innocent spouse > nothing
$eath of either spouse during pendency
of a petition for Legal Separation 9
$ismissal of the Case.
""&8TMAT& C="$7&N L $&'C&N$ANT'
1. *llegiti6ate Children 9 1amily Code has
a.olished the distinction .etween natural and
spurious children and gi*es all of them 9
indiscriminately called illegitimate children 9
equal legitimary portions. =owe*er- pursuant
to Art777- if death occurred .efore effecti*ity of
the 1amily Code on August !- 1@??- the old
distinctions will apply and the spurious child
gets only #L% of the share of the natural child.
:Art?@%;
2. *llegiti6ate @escendants 9 'ame rule applies
as in the legitimate descending line- the nearer
e/clude the more remote- without preDudice to
representation when proper.
t should .e noted that the illegitimate
child can .e represented .y .oth legitimate
and illegitimate descendants- as distinguished
from the legitimate child- who can .e
Ryan Ouan 7! 7!
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
represented only .y legitimate descendants.
:Art@A2 and @@2;
""&8TMAT& )A7&NT'
1. Bnli+e the legiti6ate ascending line- which
includes ascendants in whate*er degree- the
illegiti6ate ascending line only includes the
parents- it does not go .eyond the parents.
2. The illegitimate parents are secondary heirs of
a lower category that legitimate parents-
.ecause the illegitimate parents are e/cluded
.y legitimate and illegitimate children :Art@A!;
whereas legitimate parents are e/cluded only
.y legitimate childrenL descendants.
Kariations in the "egitimary )ortions
The legitimary system of the )hilippine Code rests
on a dou.le foundation 9 &PC"B'ON and
CONCB77&NC&.
8&N&7A" 7B"& 9 there is a .asic amount of O that is
gi*en to one heir or one group of heirs. This 8eneral
7ule admits only of ! &PC&)TON'3
1. Art?@# 9 sur*i*ing spouse and illegitimate
children
2. Art@AA par2 9 sur*i*ing spouse in a marriage
in articulo 6ortis- with the conditions specified
in that article
!. Art@A! 9 sur*i*ing spouse and illegitimate
parents.
The term ,legitimate child0 or ,legitimate children0
includes a legally adopted child under 'ec1? of
7A?%%2 or the $omestic Adoption Act of 1@@?.
Question 9 s an adopted child entitled to a legitime
from his .iological parents or ascendants6 Bncertain.
Art1?@:!; of the 1C pro*ides that the adopted shall
remain an intestate heir of his parents and other
.lood relati*es.
Thus- the adopted child was entitled to a legitime
2OT= from his adopter and his .iological parents.
2ut now- the law is silent and it neither gi*es nor
denies an adopted child the right to a legitime from
his .iological parents.
'ec1( of the law pro*ides that ,all legal ties
.etween the .iological parents and the adoptee
shall .e se*ered0 .ut that is una*ailing to answer
the question .ecause sec1( only has to do with
parental authority.
The term ,legitimate child0 or ,legitimate children0 shall-
in proper cases- include legitimate descendants other
than children.
The term ,legitimate parents0 includes- in proper cases-
legitimate ascendants other than parents.
Ryan Ouan 0 0
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
-I..ERENT CO,EINATIONS O. CO,P0LSORF HEIRS
C.E C.:BI/A-I./ SHA!E C.AL =!.4ISI./ /.-ES
LC "egitimate
Children Alone
of estate
dvded equay
|Art888|
Art. 888. The egtme of
egtmate chdren and
descendants conssts of one-
haf of the heredtary estate of
the father and of the mother.
The atter may freey dspose of
the remanng haf, sub|ect to
the rghts of egtmate
chdren and of the survvng
spouse as herenafter provded.
Adopted Chd has the same
rghts as LC
If there s more than 1 egtmate
chd, the of the estate sha
be dvded equay among them.
If there are egtmate chdren
and grandchdren, the nearer
descendants excude the farther,
so as ong as there are
egtmate chdren, the
grandchdren cannot nhert.
If egtmate chdren
PREDECEASE the testator or are
INCAPACITATED to nhert, the
grandchdren get ther
respectve parents |the
egtmate chdren| shares by
vrtue of REPRESENTATION.
But f ALL the egtmate chdren
RENOUNCE, the grandchdren
nhert n ther own rght and the
estate s dvded equay
among them.
But f ony a few of the egtmate
chdren RENOUNCE or not a
renounce, the share of those
who renounce accrue to the
other egtmate chdren.
1LCSS One "egitimate
Child and
'ur*i*ing
'pouse
of the estate
to the
egtmate chd
V of the estate
to the survvng
spouse |taken
from the free
dsposabe
porton of the
estate|
|Art892 par1|
Art. 892. If ony one egtmate
chd or descendant of the
deceased survves, the wdow
or wdower sha be entted to
one-fourth of the heredtary
estate. In case of a ega
separaton, the survvng
spouse may nhert f t was the
deceased who had gven cause
for the same.
If there are two or more
egtmate chdren or
descendants, the survvng
spouse sha be entted to a
porton equa to the egtme of
each of the egtmate chdren
or descendants.
In both cases, the egtme of
the survvng spouse sha be
taken from the porton that can
be freey dsposed of by the
testator.
LCSS "egitimate
Children and
'ur*i*ing
'pouse
of estate to
egtmate
chdren
Share equa to
that of 1 chd
Art. 892. If ony one egtmate
chd or descendant of the
deceased survves, the wdow
or wdower sha be entted to
LEGAL SEPARATION between the
testator and the survvng
spouse
If there s a fna decree of ega
separaton
Ryan Ouan 1 1
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
for the
survvng
spouse |taken
from the free
dsposabe
porton of the
estate|
|Art892par2|
estate. In case of a ega
separaton, the survvng
spouse may nhert f t was the
deceased who had gven cause
for the same.
If there are two or more
egtmate chdren or
descendants, the survvng
spouse sha be entted to a
porton equa to the egtme of
each of the egtmate chdren
or descendants.
In both cases, the egtme of
the survvng spouse sha be
taken from the porton that can
be freey dsposed of by the
testator.
1. survvng spouse s
the nnocent party - he/she
gets her egtme |Art63
par4 FC|
2. survvng spouse s
the offendng spouse -
he/she s dsquafed from
nhertng |Art63 par4 FC|
If after the fna decree of ega
separaton there was a
reconcaton between the
partes, the recproca rght to
succeed s restored because
reconcaton sets asde the
decree |Art66 par2 FC|
LCIC "egitimate
Children and
llegitimate
Children
of estate to
the egtmate
chdren
of the share
of 1 egtmate
chd to the
egtmate
chdren
|Art176 FC|
Iegtmate chd ony gets haf
the share of a egtmate chd. In
case tota of the shares of a
egtmate chdren exceed the
amount of the estate, ther
shares sha be reduced equay.
The shares of the egtmate
chdren cannot be reduced.
1LCICSS One legitimate
child- illegitimate
children and
sur*i*ing
spouse
of estate to
egtmate
chdren
Each
egtmate
chd w get
of the share of
a egtmate
chd
V of estate to
the survvng
spouse, whose
share s
preferred over
those of the
egtmate
chdren, whch
sha be
reduced f
necessary
|Art895|
Art. 895. The egtme of each of
the acknowedged natura
chdren and each of the natura
chdren by ega fcton sha
consst of one-haf of the
egtme of each of the egtmate
chdren or descendants.
The egtme of an egtmate
chd who s nether an
acknowedged natura, nor a
natura chd by ega fcton,
sha be equa n every case to
four-ffths of the egtme of an
acknowedged natura chd.
The egtme of the egtmate
chdren sha be taken from the
porton of the estate at the free
dsposa of the testator, provded
that n no case sha the tota
egtme of such egtmate
chdren exceed that free
porton, and that the egtme of
the survvng spouse must frst
be fuy satsfed.
In case tota of the shares of a
chdren and the survvng
spouse cannot be reduced.
LCICSS "egitimate
children-
illegitimate
children and
sur*i*ing
spouse
of estate to
egtmate
chdren
Each
egtmate
chd w get
of the share of
Art. 895. The egtme of each of
the acknowedged natura
chdren and each of the natura
chdren by ega fcton sha
consst of one-haf of the
egtme of each of the egtmate
chdren or descendants.
The egtme of an egtmate
In case tota of the shares of a
chdren and the survvng
spouse cannot be reduced.
Ryan Ouan 2 2
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
one egtmate
chd
A share equa
to that of 1
egtmate chd
for the
survvng
spouse, whose
share s
preferred over
those of the
egtmate
chdren whch
sha be
reduced f
necessary.
|Art895|
chd who s nether an
acknowedged natura, nor a
natura chd by ega fcton,
sha be equa n every case to
four-ffths of the egtme of an
acknowedged natura chd.
The egtme of the egtmate
chdren sha be taken from the
porton of the estate at the free
dsposa of the testator, provded
that n no case sha the tota
egtme of such egtmate
chdren exceed that free
porton, and that the egtme of
the survvng spouse must frst
be fuy satsfed.
LP "egitimate
parents alone
of estate
|Art889|
Art. 889. The egtme of
egtmate parents or ascendants
conssts of one-haf of the
heredtary estates of ther
chdren and descendants.
The chdren or descendants may
freey dspose of the other haf,
sub|ect to the rghts of
egtmate chdren and of the
survvng spouse as herenafter
provded.
There s NO RIGHT OF
REPRESENTATION n the
Ascendng Lne.
If the one of the egtmate
parents PREDECEASE or s
INCAPACITATED to nhert,
hs/her share accrues to the
other parent |tama ba?|
LPIC "egitimate
parents and
illegitimate
children
of estate to
egtmate
parents
V of estate to
egtmate
chdren
Art. 896. Iegtmate chdren
who may survve wth egtmate
parents or ascendants of the
deceased sha be entted to
estate to be taken from the
porton at the free dsposa of
the testator.
For the egtmate chdren or
descendants, the sharng sha
depend on whether death
occurred before or durng the
effectvty of the Famy Code.
LPSS "egitimate
parents and
sur*i*ing
spouse
of estate to
egtmate
parents
V of estate to
survvng
spouse
Art. 893. If the testator eaves no
egtmate descendants, but
eaves egtmate ascendants,
the survvng spouse sha have a
rght to one-fourth of the
heredtary estate.
Ths fourth sha be taken from
the free porton of the estate.
LPICSS "egitimate
parents
illegitimate
children and
sur*i*ing
spouse
of estate
to the
egtmate
parents
V of estate
to the
egtmate
chdren
1/8 of estate
to the
Art. 899. When the wdow or
wdower survves wth egtmate
parents or ascendants and wth
egtmate chdren, such
survvng spouse sha be entted
to one-eghth of the heredtary
estate of the deceased whch must
be taken from the free porton, and
the egtmate chdren sha be
entted to one-fourth of the estate
Ryan Ouan 3 3
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
survvng
spouse
whch sha be taken aso from the
dsposabe porton. The testator
may freey dspose of the
remanng one-eghth of the
estate.
SS 'ur*i*ing
spouse alone
O of the estate
or 1L! if the
marriage-
.eing in
articulo mortis-
falls under
Art@AA par 2
:Art@AApar1;
Art. 900. If the ony survvor s the
wdow or wdower, she or he sha
be entted to one-haf of the
heredtary estate of the deceased
spouse, and the testator may
freey dspose of the other haf.
If the marrage between the
survvng spouse and the testator
was soemnzed n artcuo morts,
and the testator ded wthn three
months from the tme of the
marrage, the egtme of the
survvng spouse as the soe her
sha be one-thrd of the heredtary
estate, except when they have
been vng as husband and wfe
for more than fve years. In the
atter case, the egtme of the
survvng spouse sha be that
specfed n the precedng
paragraph.
SSIC 'ur*i*ing
spouse and
illegitimate
children
1L! of estate to
sur*i*ing
spouse
1L! of estate to
illegitimate
children
Art. 894. If the testator eaves
egtmate chdren, the survvng
spouse sha be entted to one-
thrd of the heredtary estate of
the deceased and the egtmate
chdren to another thrd. The
remanng thrd sha be at the free
dsposa of the testator.
SSIP 'ur*i*ing
spouse and
illegitimate
parents
R of estate to
sur*i*ing
spouse
R of estate to
illegitimate
parents
:Art@A!;
Art. 903. The egtme of the
parents who have an egtmate
chd, when such chd eaves
nether egtmate descendants,
nor a survvng spouse, nor
egtmate chdren, s one-haf of
the heredtary estate of such
egtmate chd. If ony egtmate
or egtmate chdren are eft, the
parents are not entted to any
egtme whatsoever. If ony the
wdow or wdower survves wth
parents of the egtmate chd,
the egtme of the parents s one-
fourth of the heredtary estate of
the chd, and that of the survvng
spouse aso one-fourth of the
estate.
IC llegitimate
children alone
O of estate
:Art@A1;
Art. 901. When the testator des
eavng egtmate chdren and no
other compusory hers, such
egtmate chdren sha have a
rght to one-haf of the heredtary
estate of the deceased.
The other haf sha be at the free
dsposa of the testator.
IP llegitimate
parents alone
O of estate
:Art@A!;
Art. 903. The egtme of the
parents who have an egtmate
chd, when such chd eaves
nether egtmate descendants,
nor a survvng spouse, nor
Ryan Ouan 4 4
ST ST
SEM 2006-2007 SEM 2006-2007
egtmate chdren, s one-haf of
the heredtary estate of such
egtmate chd. If ony egtmate
or egtmate chdren are eft, the
parents are not entted to any
egtme whatsoever. If ony the
wdow or wdower survves wth
parents of the egtmate chd,
the egtme of the parents s one-
fourth of the heredtary estate of
the chd, and that of the survvng
spouse aso one-fourth of the
estate.
Ryan Ouan 5 5
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER S0CCESSION REVIE1ER 1 1
ST ST
SE, @CC8G @CC7 SE, @CC8G @CC7
CA'&
Baritua v. CA
- The tricycle .eing dri*en .y 2ien*enido Nacario met an
accident with a .us- dri*en .y &dgar 2itancor and owned
and operated .y Cose 2aritua.
- The accident caused the death of Nacario.
- No ci*il or criminal case was filed against the dri*er and
2aritua. nstead- an e/tra>Dudicial settlement was entered
into .etween Nacario4s spouse Alicia 2aracena and the
petitioners and the .us4 insurer G)hilippine 1irst nsurance
CompanyE.
- n that settlement- the spouse was gi*en )1?-%AA and in
consideration for what she recei*ed- the widow e/ecuted
an affida*it of desistance in filing any case against the
petitioners.
- A year after- the parents of Nacario filed a complaint for
damages against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners
promised to indemnify for the death of their son- the funeral
e/penses and the damages caused to the tricycle .ut
instead the petitioners paid to the estranged wife.
- The C1 ruled in fa*or of 2aritua and the dri*er .ut the CA
re*ersed the decision upon appeal. =ence- this petition.
5hether or Not CA erred in ruling that the petitioners are still
lia.le to pay to the Nacarios4 parents
- 'C held that this ruling is erroneous.
- The Court recogniHed that payment is one of the
recogniHed modes in e/tinguishing o.ligations.
- According to Art 12#A of the CC- to effect e/tinguishment-
payment must .e made either to the person to whom the
o.ligation is made- to his successors0in0interest- or to
anyone authoriHed.
- t is clear under Article ??7 that a sur*i*ing spouse and the
legitimate children are the compulsory heirs of a decedent.
- As such- the petitioners correctly paid Alicia and her son-
who are the successors>in>interest of Nacario.
- On the other hand- the parents of the deceased succeed
only when the latter dies without any legitimate
descendants. 'ince Nacario and Alicia .egot a son- the
legitimate ascendants are e/cluded from succession.
- This is so e*en if Alicia had .een estranged from
2ien*enido. Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for
the disqualification of a sur*i*ing spouse as an heir of the
deceased spouse.
- "egitimate ascendants succeed only in default of legitimate
descendants whereas a spouse is a concurring heir and
succeeds together with all classes of heirs.
- Mere estrangement is not a legal ground for the
disqualification of a sur*i*ing spouse as an heir of the
deceased spouse.
!osales v. !osales
Rosa*es #. Rosa*es
- Mrs. )etra 7osales died intestate. 'he was sur*i*ed .y her
hus.and and her two children. =er son predeceased her
.ut left a grandchild and his widow- who is the petitioner
herein.
- The trial court awarded R each to the deceased hus.and-
two daughters and grandchild.
- )etitioner daughter>in>law now see+s reconsideration.
5LN a widow is an intestate heir of a mother>in>law.
- 'C held that no pro*ision in the Ci*il Code states that a
widow is an intestate heir of a mother>in>law since she does
not inherit .y right or .y right of representation.
5LN the decision of the TC is final as to the widow.
- 'C held that the decision is final .ecause3
- 1. The widow is considered a third person as regards the
estate of the parent>in>law.
- 2. The pro*ision in Art. ??7 refers to the estate of the
deceased spouse in which case the sur*i*ing spouse is a
compulsory heir. t does not apply to the estate of the
parent>in>law
- !. )etitioner cannot assert the same rights as that of the
grandchild .ecause she has no filiation .y .lood with her
mother>in>law.
- #. The right of the widow4s hus.and was e/tinguished at the
time of his death< thus- grandchild succeeded from
decedent .y right of representation and not from his
deceased father.
- Art. ??7 of the Ci*il Code3 ntestate or legal heirs are
classified into two groups namely those who inherit .y their
right and those who inherit .y the right of representation.
GArt. @?1E
La'uz v. Eufemio
Note 9 under the "apuH ruling- it does not matter who dies-
whether it .e the offending or innocent spouse.
e A'ari#io v. =ara)uya
- Trinidad Motilde had a lo*e affair with a priest- 1r. 1elipe
"umain and in the process she concei*ed.
- 5hen Trinidad was almost four months and in order to
conceal the affair- Trinidad decided to marry Anastacio
MAm.urao.
- 5hen 1r. "umain died- he left a last will and testament
wherein he ac+nowledged Consolacion as his daughter and
instituted her as the sole and uni*ersal heir of all his
property rights and interests.
- 'oon after reaching the age of maDority- Consolacion filed
an action for the reco*ery of certain parcels of land and for
damages against =ipolito )araguya.
- Motilde claims that she has inherited these lands from her
.iological father.
- $uring the trial- it was found that the su.Dect of the action
were the three parcels of land originally owned .y the
)arents of 1r. "umain- the spouses 7oman "umain and
and 1ilomena Cesare.
- )araguya claims ownership o*er the second parcel of land
.y *irtue of a )acto de retro sale e/ecuted .y 7oman
"umain and the former.
- )araguya also claimed another portion of the lands in
question- descri.ed as portion 8- which he said he .ought
from )elagio Torrefranca.
- A.o*e all this- )araguya also contended that Motilde had
no right o*er the properties of 1r. "umain.
- =e a*erred that .y *irtue of Art 2%% of the 1amily Code-
children .orn after 1?Adays of the marriage are presumed
to a legitimate child.
- )araguya further a*erred that the e/ceptions to the rule
were not duly pro*ed .y Consolacion.
- 1inally- he contended that the ac+nowledgement .y 1r.
"umain that Consolacion was his child cannot pre*ail o*er
the said presumption of legitimacy.
Nen La")o A-Dgests c/o 3C 06-07: Avn Saga, Cece Natvdad, C| Tan, |ue Domngo, Mars Rongo, Lea Mateo, Nna Rances &
Ryan Ouan 86
ST ST
5hether or Not )araguya is entitled to the lot su.Dect to a
right of repurchase
- 'C held that )araguya is entitled to the 2
nd
parcel of land
su.Dect of the )acto de retro sale. t is e*ident that the
period to redeem the property- which is four years from the
date of the contract- has already e/pired.
- )araguya is also entitled to the land descri.ed as section 8
with all the impro*ements thereon.
- The e*idence adduced shows that this 'ection is outside
the land of 7oman "umain.
5hether or Not )araguya is entitled to the land descri.ed as
'ection 8
- 'C held in the affirmati*e.
- )araguya questions the right of Consolacion o*er the
properties of 1r. "umain on the premise that she is the
legitimate spouses of the mam.uraos.
5hether or Not Consolacion is entitled to inherit from 1r.
"umain
- The 'C held that it is unnecessary to esta.lish the paternity
of Consolacion in this case.
- This is .ecause- in the "ast 5ill and Testament of 1r.
"umain- he did not only ac+nowledge Consolacion as his
daughter .ut also instituted her as his sole heir.
- As 1r. "umain died without no compulsory heir-
Concolacion as the sole heir is entitled to all the properties
of the former.
- One who has no compulsory heir may dispose .y will of all
of his estate or any part of it in fa*or of any person ha*ing
the capacity to succeed.
- One who has no compulsory heir may dispose .y will of all
of his estate or any part of it in fa*or of any person ha*ing
the capacity to succeed.
ARTICLES GOVERNING THE
PARTIC0LAR CO,EINATIONS
ART. <<<. T&e *e)iime of *e)iimae c&i*d$en and
descendans consiss of oneG&a*f of &e
&e$edia$" esae of &e fa&e$ and of &e
mo&e$.
T&e *ae$ ma" f$ee*" dis'ose of &e
$emainin) &a*f( su!Jec o &e $i)&s of
i**e)iimae c&i*d$en and of &e su$#i#in)
s'ouse as &e$einafe$ '$o#ided.
&qual sharing 9 the legitimate children share the O in
equal parts- regardless of age- sec or marriage of
origin. The pro*ision should ha*e .een e/plicit a.out
this. The counterpart pro*ision in intestacy :Art@7@ par1
and Art@?A; is quite e/plicit on this.
$escendants other than children 9 the 87 is that the
nearer e/clude the more remote. =ence- grandchildren
cannot inherit- since the children will .ar the- unless all
the children renounce- in which case the grandchildren
.ecome the nearest in degree. The rule goes on down
the tine- great grandchildren cannot inherit unless all
the children and grandchildren renounce.
The only qualification to the rule that the nearer e/clude
the more remote in the descending line is
representation when proper :Arts@7A>@77;
There is no limit to the num.er of degrees in the
descending line that may .e called to succeed- whether
in their own right or .y representation.
ART. <<B. T&e *e)iime of *e)iimae 'a$ens o$
ascendans consiss of oneG&a*f of &e
&e$edia$" esaes of &ei$ c&i*d$en and
descendans.
T&e c&i*d$en o$ descendans ma" f$ee*"
dis'ose of &e o&e$ &a*f( su!Jec o &e $i)&s
of i**e)iimae c&i*d$en and of &e su$#i#in)
s'ouse as &e$einafe$ '$o#ided.
ART. <BC. T&e *e)iime $ese$#ed fo$ &e *e)iimae
'a$ens s&a** !e di#ided !e%een &em
equa**"; if one of &e 'a$ens s&ou*d &a#e
died( &e %&o*e s&a** 'ass o &e su$#i#o$.
If &e esao$ *ea#es nei&e$ fa&e$ no$
mo&e$( !u is su$#i#ed !" ascendans of
equa* de)$ee of &e 'ae$na* and mae$na*
*ines( &e *e)iime s&a** !e di#ided equa**"
!e%een !o& *ines. If &e ascendans s&ou*d
!e of diffe$en de)$ees( i s&a** 'e$ain eni$e*"
o &e ones nea$es in de)$ee of ei&e$ *ine.
"egitimate parentsLascendants as secondary
compulsory heirs 9 the legitimate ascending line
succeeds only in default of the legitimate descending
line.
A EASIC R0LES ON S0CCESSION IN THE
ASCEN-ING LINE
#. ,he nearer e?clude the 6ore re6ote.
This rule in the ascending line admits of
no qualification- since there is no
representation in the ascending line.
:Art@72 par1;
2. @i8ision by line.
This rule will apply if there are more than
one ascendant in the nearest degree. The
legitime shall then .e di*ided in equal
parts .etween the paternal line and the
maternal line.
2. %=ual di8ision within the line.
After the portion corresponding to the line
has .een assigned- there will .e equal
apportionment .etween or among the
recipients within the line- should there .e
more than one.
Ryan Ouan 87
ST ST
Note 9 also< there is no right of representation in the
ascending line.
The operation of the principles of $i*ision 2y "ine and
&qual $i*ision within the "ine may cause inequality of
shares among ascendants of identical degrees.
1or e/ample- if .oth legitimate parents of testator
predecease him and testator has no other
legitimate descendants- if there are 2 sur*i*ing
maternal grandparents .ut only 1 sur*i*ing
paternal grandparent 9 the O estate is di*ided
equally .etween the maternal and paternal lines-
.ut the 2 maternal grandparents must share the R
portion of the maternal line :they get 1L? each;
while the sole paternal grandparent gets the whole
R portion of the paternal line.
ART. <B@. If on*" one *e)iimae c&i*d o$
descendan of &e deceased su$#i#es( &e
%ido% o$ %ido%e$ s&a** !e eni*ed o oneG
fou$& of &e &e$edia$" esae. In case of a
*e)a* se'a$aion( &e su$#i#in) s'ouse ma"
in&e$i if i %as &e deceased %&o &ad )i#en
cause fo$ &e same.
If &e$e a$e %o o$ mo$e *e)iimae
c&i*d$en o$ descendans( &e su$#i#in)
s'ouse s&a** !e eni*ed o a 'o$ion equa* o
&e *e)iime of eac& of &e *e)iimae c&i*d$en
o$ descendans.
In !o& cases( &e *e)iime of &e
su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e a2en f$om &e
'o$ion &a can !e f$ee*" dis'osed of !" &e
esao$.
1 LEGITI,ATE CHIL- I S0RVIVING SPO0SE 9 the
sharing is O for the legitimate child and R for the
sur*i*ing spouse.
f there has .een "&8A" '&)A7ATON .etween the
testator and the sur*i*ing spouse
f there is a final decree of legal separation
1. sur*i*ing spouse is the innocent party 9 heLshe
gets her legitime :Art(! par# 1C;
2. sur*i*ing spouse is the offending spouse 9
heLshe is disqualified from inheriting :Art(!
par# 1C;
f after the final decree of legal separation there
was a reconciliation .etween the parties- the
reciprocal right to succeed is restored .ecause
reconciliation sets aside the decree :Art(( par2 1C;
$&AT= )&N$&NT& "T& 9 if either spouse dies during
the pendency of the proceedings for legal separation-
the proceedings are T&7MNAT&$ and the sur*i*ing
spouse inherits from the deceased spouse- no matter
which spouse died.
Termination of Marriage .y 7&A))&A7ANC& of prior
'pouse L $ecree of ANNB"M&NT or A2'O"BT&
NB""TI of marriage
Arts #1>#! of 1C go*ern a su.sequent marriage
contracted .y a party whose spouse has .een
a.sent for the specified period and lay down the
requisites therefor.
The reappearance of the prior spouse
T&7MNAT&' the second marriage. One of the
effects of the termination as gi*en in Art#!:%; is 9
,The spouse who contracted the su.sequent
marriage in 2A$ 1AT= shall .e disqualified to
inherit from the innocent spouse .y testate and
intestate succession.
The implication of Art#! is that 9
1. f .oth consorts in the second marriage were in
8OO$ 1AT=- they continue to .e heirs of
each other.
2. f only one of said consorts acted in .ad faith-
the innocent one will continue .y testate and
intestate succession.
)7O2"&M 9 A and 2 are married. A disappears
and is a.sent for the required period. 2 then
contracts a second marriage with C- .oth in good
faith. Out of nowhere- A reappears :surpriseX;- and
so the marriage .etween 2 and C is terminated.
Bnder Art#!:%; the reciprocal right of succession
.etween A and 2 as the original spouses remains.
5hat if 2 dies6 Can A and C inherit from himLher6
The same pro.lem arises in cases of marriages
Dudicially annulled or declared *oid a. initio-
.ecause of the pro*isions of Art%A par1 of the
1amily Code 9 ,The effects pro*ided for .y
paragraphs 2-!-# and % of article #! and .y article
## shall also apply in the proper cases to
marriages which are *oid a. initio or annulled .y
final Dudgment under Articles #A and #%.
The pro.lem here will arise should either or .oth
partners in the defecti*e marriage remarry later.
2alane says that prescinding from the practical
pro.lem of ha*ing 2 hus.ands :or 2 wi*es; claiming
the right to a legitime- the *ery principle underlying
the rule is questiona.le 9 why should consorts of a
terminated marriage- or an annulled one- or one
declared *oid a. initio continue to .e heirs of each
other6 The marriage 9 which forms the .asis of the
right of succession no longer e/ists.
LEGITI,ATE CHIL-REN I S0RVIVING SPO0SE 9
The sharing is O for the children collecti*ely and for the
spouse- equi*alent to that of each of the legitimate
children or descendants.
$etermination of sur*i*ing spouse4s share
1. As long as at least 1 of se*eral children
inherits in his own right- the determination of
the share of the sur*i*ing spouse presents no
pro.lem. t will always .e equi*alent of one
child4s share.
Ryan Ouan 88
ST ST
2. 2ut supposing A"" the children predecease or
are disinherited or are unworthy to succeed6
'ince all the grandchildren would then inherit
2I 7&)7&'&NTATON and therefore in
different amounts- the practical solution will still
.e to gi*e the spouse the share that each child
would ha*e gotten if qualified.
!. 'upposing A"" the Children 7&NOBNC&- the
grandchildren would inherit )&7 CA)TA or in
their own right and therefore equally. 'hould
the spouse4s share still .e computed on the
.asis of the children4s share had they
accepted6 f so- then when will the word ,or
descendants0 in the second paragraph of this
article e*er .e operati*e6
ART. <BA. If &e esao$ *ea#es no *e)iimae
descendans( !u *ea#es *e)iimae
ascendans( &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** &a#e
a $i)& o oneGfou$& of &e &e$edia$" esae.
T&is fou$& s&a** !e a2en f$om &e f$ee
'o$ion of &e esae.
LEGITI,ATE ASCEN-ANTS I S0RVIVING SPO0SE
> the sharing is O for the ascendants collecti*ely and R
for the sur*i*ing spouse.
1or the parents or ascendants- the sharing will .e in
accordance with Articles ??@>?@A. :"egitimate
parentsLascendants as secondary compulsory heirs 9
the legitimate ascending line succeeds only in default of
the legitimate descending line.;
ART. <B4. If &e esao$ *ea#es i**e)iimae
c&i*d$en( &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e
eni*ed o oneG&i$d of &e &e$edia$" esae of
&e deceased and &e i**e)iimae c&i*d$en o
ano&e$ &i$d. T&e $emainin) &i$d s&a** !e a
&e f$ee dis'osa* of &e esao$.
ILEGITI,ATE CHIL-REN I S0RVIVING SPO0SE 9
the sharing is 1L! for the illegitimate children or
descendants collecti*ely and 1L! for the sur*i*ing
spouse.
'haring among illegitimate children
1. f the decedent died during the effecti*ity of the
1AM"I CO$& 9 the sharing will .e equal-
inasmuch as the 1amily Code has a.olished
the old distinction .etween natural and
illegitimate children other than natural or
spurious :Arts 1(!- 1(% and 17? of 1C;
2. f the decedent died 2&1O7& the effecti*ity of
the 1amily Code- the old distinctions must .e
o.ser*ed.
The legitime of the spurious child will only
.e #L% that of a natural child- according to
the ratio esta.lished in Art?@% par2.
This ratio of %3# among natural and
spurious children should .e o.ser*ed in
all cases under the Ci*il Code where they
concur.
ART. <B5. T&e *e)iime of eac& of &e
ac2no%*ed)ed nau$a* c&i*d$en and eac& of
&e nau$a* c&i*d$en !" *e)a* ficion s&a**
consis of oneG&a*f of &e *e)iime of eac& of
&e *e)iimae c&i*d$en o$ descendans.
T&e *e)iime of an i**e)iimae c&i*d %&o is
nei&e$ an ac2no%*ed)ed nau$a*( no$ a
nau$a* c&i*d !" *e)a* ficion( s&a** !e equa* in
e#e$" case o fou$Gfif&s of &e *e)iime of an
ac2no%*ed)ed nau$a* c&i*d.
T&e *e)iime of &e i**e)iimae c&i*d$en
s&a** !e a2en f$om &e 'o$ion of &e esae a
&e f$ee dis'osa* of &e esao$( '$o#ided &a
in no case s&a** &e oa* *e)iime of suc&
i**e)iimae c&i*d$en e+ceed &a f$ee 'o$ion(
and &a &e *e)iime of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse
mus fi$s !e fu**" saisfied.
This article has .een pro tanto amended .y Articles
1(!- 1(% and 17( of the 1amily Code.
ONE LEGITI,ATE CHIL- I ILLEGITI,ATE
CHIL-REN I S0RVIVING SPO0SE 9 the sharing is O
for the illegitimate child- R for the sur*i*ing spouse- and
R for each illegitimate child. These sharings are .ased
on Art.?@2 of NCC and Art17( of 1C.
LEGITI,ATE CHIL-REN I ILLEGITI,ATE CHIL-REN
I S0RVIVING SPO0SE > the sharing is O for the
legitimate children collecti*ely- a share equal to that of
one legitimate child for the sur*i*ing spouse- and O the
share of one legitimate child for each illegitimate child.
'=A7N8 )7O7 TO T=& 1AM"I CO$&
f death occurred .efore the effecti*ity of the 1amily
Code- this article will go*ern 9 consequently-
should the natural and spurious children concur in
the succession- each spurious child will get #L% the
share of one natural child- and each natural child
gets O the share of one legitimate child. &/ample >
% legitimate children and total estate is
1M. O of estate :%AA-AAA; di*ided .y % so
1 "egit child 9 1AA-AAA
Natural child 9 %A-AAA
'purious child 9 #A-AAA
Ryan Ouan 89
ST ST
'hould there .e no natural children .ut only
spurious children- each spurious child will get 2L%
share of one legitimate child.
1 legit child 9 1AA-AAA
No natural children
'purious child 9 #A-AAA
7&$BCTON O1 '=A7&'
$epending on the num.er of legitimate and
illegitimate children- the possi.ility e/ists that the
total legitimes will e/ceed the entire estate.
7eductions- therefore will ha*e to .e made in
accordance with the following rules 9
1. The legitimes of the legitimate children should
ne*er .e reduced- they are )7MA7I and
)7&1&77&$ compulsory heirs
2. The legitime of the sur*i*ing spouse should
ne*er .e reduced- this article prohi.its this.
3. The legitimes of the illegitimate children will .e
reduced pro rata and without preference
among them.
ART. <B8. I**e)iimae c&i*d$en %&o ma" su$#i#e
%i& *e)iimae 'a$ens o$ ascendans of &e
deceased s&a** !e eni*ed o oneGfou$& of &e
&e$edia$" esae o !e a2en f$om &e 'o$ion
a &e f$ee dis'osa* of &e esao$.
ILLEGITI,ATE CHIL-REN I LEGITI,ATE PARENTS
the sharing is O for the legitimate parents collecti*ely
and R for the illegitimate children collecti*ely.
1or the parents or ascendants- the sharing will .e
in accordance with the rules laid down in Articles
??@>?@A.
1or the illegitimate children or descendants- the
sharing shall depend on whether death occurred
.efore or during the effecti*ity of the 1amily Code.
ART. <B7. 1&en &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es
%i& *e)iimae c&i*d$en o$ descendans( and
ac2no%*ed)ed nau$a* c&i*d$en( o$ nau$a*
c&i*d$en !" *e)a* ficion( suc& su$#i#in)
s'ouse s&a** !e eni*ed o a 'o$ion equa* o
&e *e)iime of eac& of &e *e)iimae c&i*d$en
%&ic& mus !e a2en f$om &a 'a$ of &e
esae %&ic& &e esao$ can f$ee*" dis'ose
of.
ART. <B<. If &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es %i&
*e)iimae c&i*d$en o$ descendans( and %i&
i**e)iimae c&i*d$en o&e$ &an ac2no%*ed)ed
nau$a*( o$ nau$a* c&i*d$en !" *e)a* ficion(
&e s&a$e of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e &e
same as &a '$o#ided in &e '$ecedin)
a$ic*e.
The 2 articles are merely reiterations of the rules
already laid down in Articles ?@2 and ?@% and need not
.e e/plained.
ART. <BB. 1&en &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es
%i& *e)iimae 'a$ens o$ ascendans and
%i& i**e)iimae c&i*d$en( suc& su$#i#in)
s'ouse s&a** !e eni*ed o oneGei)&& of &e
&e$edia$" esae of &e deceased %&ic& mus
!e a2en f$om &e f$ee 'o$ion( and &e
i**e)iimae c&i*d$en s&a** !e eni*ed o oneG
fou$& of &e esae %&ic& s&a** !e a2en a*so
f$om &e dis'osa!*e 'o$ion. T&e esao$ ma"
f$ee*" dis'ose of &e $emainin) oneGei)&& of
&e esae.
LEGITI,ATE PARENTS I ILLEGITI,ATE
CHIL-REN I S0RVIVING SPO0SE 9 the sharing is O
for the legitimate parents collecti*ely- R for the
illegitimate children collecti*ely and 1L? for the sur*i*ing
spouse.
1or the parents or ascendants- the sharing will .e
in accordance with the rules laid down in Articles
??@>?@A.
1or the illegitimate children or descendants- the
sharing shall depend on whether death occurred
.efore or during the effecti*ity of the 1amily Code.
ART. BCC. If &e on*" su$#i#o$ is &e %ido% o$
%ido%e$( s&e o$ &e s&a** !e eni*ed o oneG
&a*f of &e &e$edia$" esae of &e deceased
s'ouse( and &e esao$ ma" f$ee*" dis'ose
of &e o&e$ &a*f.
If &e ma$$ia)e !e%een &e su$#i#in)
s'ouse and &e esao$ %as so*emniKed in
a$icu*o mo$is( and &e esao$ died %i&in
&$ee mon&s f$om &e ime of &e ma$$ia)e(
&e *e)iime of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse as &e
so*e &ei$ s&a** !e oneG&i$d of &e &e$edia$"
esae( e+ce' %&en &e" &a#e !een *i#in) as
&us!and and %ife fo$ mo$e &an fi#e "ea$s. In
&e *ae$ case( &e *e)iime of &e su$#i#in)
s'ouse s&a** !e &a s'ecified in &e
'$ecedin) 'a$a)$a'&.
S0RVIVING SPO0SE AS SOLE CO,P0LSORF HEIR
9
$eneral rule L O of the estate
%?ception 9 1L! of the estate- if the following
circumstances are present 9
a) The marriage was in articulo 6ortis
.E The testator died within ! months
from the time of the marriage
Ryan Ouan 90
ST ST
cE The parties did not coha.it for more
than % years- and
d) The spouse who died was the party in
articulo 6ortis at the time of the marriage.
NOT& 9 the last requisite is not e/plicit in the article .ut
can .e deri*ed from the sense and intent of the
pro*ision. The law does not regard such marriages with
eager appro*al.
ART. BC1. 1&en &e esao$ dies *ea#in)
i**e)iimae c&i*d$en and no o&e$ com'u*so$"
&ei$s( suc& i**e)iimae c&i*d$en s&a** &a#e a
$i)& o oneG&a*f of &e &e$edia$" esae of &e
deceased.
T&e o&e$ &a*f s&a** !e a &e f$ee dis'osa*
of &e esao$.
ILLEGITI,ATE CHIL-REN ALONE 9 they get O of the
estate collecti*ely. The sharing among the illegitimate
children or descendants will depend on whether death
occurred .efore or during the effecti*ity of the 1amily
Code.
ART. BC@. T&e $i)&s of i**e)iimae c&i*d$en se
fo$& in &e '$ecedin) a$ic*es a$e $ansmied
u'on &ei$ dea& o &ei$ descendans(
%&e&e$ *e)iimae o$ i**e)iimae.
7ight of representation to the legitimate and illegitimate
descendants of an illegitimate child.
7ule of Article @A2 compared with 7ule of Article @@2 9
n the case of descendants of legitimate children- the
right of representation is gi*en only to legitimate
descendants- .y *irtue of Art@@2.
The net effect of all this is that the right of
representation gi*en to descendants of illegitimate
children is 27OA$&7 than the right of representation
gi*en to descendants of legitimate children. Thus- an
illegitimate child of a predeceased legitimate child
cannot inherit .y representation :Art@@2;- while an
illegitimate child of an illegitimate child can :Art@A2;. A
classic instance of unintended consequence.
ART. BCA. T&e *e)iime of &e 'a$ens %&o &a#e
an i**e)iimae c&i*d( %&en suc& c&i*d *ea#es
nei&e$ *e)iimae descendans( no$ a
su$#i#in) s'ouse( no$ i**e)iimae c&i*d$en( is
oneG&a*f of &e &e$edia$" esae of suc&
i**e)iimae c&i*d. If on*" *e)iimae o$
i**e)iimae c&i*d$en a$e *ef( &e 'a$ens a$e
no eni*ed o an" *e)iime %&asoe#e$. If on*"
&e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es %i& 'a$ens
of &e i**e)iimae c&i*d( &e *e)iime of &e
'a$ens is oneGfou$& of &e &e$edia$" esae
of &e c&i*d( and &a of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse
a*so oneGfou$& of &e esae.
ILLEGITI,ATE PARENTS ALONE 9 they get O of the
estate. Note that in the illegitimate ascending line- the
right $O&' NOT go .eyond the parents.
ILLEGITI,ATE PARENTS I S0RVIVING SPO0SE 9
the sharing is R for the parents collecti*ely and R for
the spouse.
llegitimate parents &PC"B$&$ .y all +inds of children
9 as secondary compulsory heirs- the illegitimate
parents are inferior to legitimate parents. 5hereas
legitimate parents are e/cluded only .y legitimate
children- illegitimate parents are e/cluded .y all +inds of
children- legitimate or illegitimate.
End of ,ide$ms Co#e$a)e

Ryan Ouan 91
ST ST
RESERVA TRONCAL
A$. <B1. T&e ascendan %&o in&e$is f$om &is
descendan an" '$o'e$" %&ic& &e *ae$ ma"
&a#e acqui$ed !" )$auious i*e f$om ano&e$
ascendan( o$ a !$o&e$ o$ sise$( is o!*i)ed o
$ese$#e suc& '$o'e$" as &e ma" &a#e
acqui$ed !" o'e$aion of *a% fo$ &e !enefi of
$e*ai#es %&o a$e %i&in &e &i$d de)$ee and
%&o !e*on) o &e *ine f$om %&ic& said
'$o'e$" came.
,he &eser8a ,roncal
The )repositus inherits a piece
of land from his father- the Origin. 'u.sequently- the
)repositus dies intestate- single and without issue-
and the land is in turn inherited .y his mother- the
7eser*ista. The 7eser*ista is then required to
reser*e the property in fa*or of the )repositus4
paternal relati*es within the !
rd
degree
G7eser*atariosE.
7eser*as and 7e*ersiones in the 'panish Code
1. 7eser*a Kiudal
2. 7eser*a Troncal
!. 7e*ersion "egal
#. 7e*ersion Adopti*a
)urpose of the 7eser*a Troncal
The reser*e troncal is a special
rule designed primarily to assure the return of the
reser*a.le property to the !
rd
degree relati*es
.elonging to the line from which the property
originally came- and to a*oid its .eing dissipated .y
the relati*es of the inheriting ascendant :the
reser*ista;.
Also to a*oid the danger that
property e/isting for many years in a family4s
patrimony might pass gratuitously to outsiders
through the accident of marriage and untimely
death.
PROCESS 9 A T$ansmissions In#o*#ed
1. -irst ,ransfer 9 .y
gratuitous title- from a person to his descendant-
.rother or sister.
2. Second ,ransfer 9 .y
operation of law- from the transferee in the first
transfer :prepositus; to another ascendant
:reser*ista;. t is this second transfer that creates
the reser*a.
3. ,hird ,ransfer 9 from
the transferee in the second transfer :reser*ista; to
the relati*es within the !
rd
degree of the
)repositus- coming from the line of the Origin.
f there are only two
transmissions- there is no reser*a :$on9ales 8 C-*;
Ryan Ouan 92
O$i)in Rese$#isa Rese$#aa$ios
G7elati*e wLin
!
rd
degree of
)repositusE
By $ratuitous By +peration
,itle of Law
P$e'osius
ST ST
R E/0ISITES O . R ESERVA T RONCAL
1. T&a &e
'$o'e$" %as acqui$ed !" a descendan
3're'ositus4 f$om an ascendan o$ f$om a
!$o&e$ o$ sise$ 3ori)in4 !" )$auious i*e.
oThe term descendant should read person
.ecause if the grantor is a .rother or sister-
the one acquiring o.*iously is not a
descendant.
o Acquisition is .y gratuitous title when the
recipient does not gi*e anything in return. t
encompasses transmissions .y donation or
.y succession of whate*er +ind.
2. T&a said
descendan 3're'ositus4 died %i&ou an
issue.
o'hould read 9 ,that said person died without
legitimate issue- .ecause only legiti6ate
descendants will pre*ent the property from
.eing inherited .y the legitimate ascending
line .y operation of law.
3. T&a &e
'$o'e$" is in&e$ied !" ano&e$ ascendan
3reservista4 !" o'e$aion of *a%; and
o Transmission .y operation of law is limited
.y succession- either to the legitime or .y
intestacy.
4. T&a &e$e a$e
$e*ai#es %i&in &e A
$d
de)$ee !e*on)in) o
&e *ine f$om %&ic& said '$o'e$" came
3reservatarios4.
@ EASIC R0LES
I. No
inqui$" is o !e made !e"ond &e O$i)inI
,ediae Sou$ce. I does no mae$ %&o &e
o%ne$ of &e '$o'e$" %as !efo$e i %as
acqui$ed !" &e O$i)in.
II. A** &e
$e*aions&i's amon) &e 'a$ies mus !e
*e)iimae. T&e '$o#isions of A$<B1 on*" a''*"
o *e)iimae $e*ai#es.
4 PARTIES TO THE RESERVA TRONCAL
1. ORIGIN OR THE
,E-IATE SO0RCE
o=e is either the ascendant or a .rother or sister
of the )repositus.
oAscendant from any degree of ascent.
o2rotherL'ister 9 2 'chools of Thought
aE 7elationship must .e of =A"1
2"OO$ 9 .ecause otherwise the
property would not change lines. This
means that if the relationship is 1ull
2lood- there is no reser*e .ecause then
it would not .e possi.le to identify the
line of origin.
.E t does not matter whether the
fraternal relationship is of the full or half>
.lood. n either case- a reser*e may
arise. 'ince the law ma+es no distinction-
we should not ma+e one.
2. PREPOSIT0S
o =e is either the descendant or a .rotherL sister
of the Origin who recei*es the property from the
Origin .y gratuitous title. Thus- in the scheme of
the reser*a troncal- he is the 17'T transferee
of the property.
o 5hile the property is still with the )repositus-
there is yet NO 7&'&7KA. The reser*a arises
only upon the second transfer.
o Consequently- while the property is owned .y
the )repositus- he has all the rights of
ownership o*er it and may e/ercise such rights
in order to pre*ent a reser*a from arising. =e
can do this .y 9
aE 'u.stituting or alienating the property
b) 2equeathing or de*ising it either to the
potential reser*ista or to !
rd
persons
:su.Dect to constraints of the legitime;
cE )artitioning in such a way as to assign
the property to parties other than the
potential reser*ista :again su.Dect to the
constraints of the legitime;.
o n this sense- the )repositus is deemed the
Ar.iter of the 7eser*a Troncal.
3. RESERVISTA
3RESERVOR4
o=e is an ascendant of the )repositus- of
whate*er degree. The 7eser*ista must .e an
ascendant other than the OriginL Mediate
'ource :if the latter is also an ascendant;.
o The law is clear > it refers to the OriginL Mediate
'ource as another ascendant. f these two
parties are the same person- there would .e no
reser*a troncal.
o 'hould the OriginLMediate 'ource and the
7eser*ista .elong to $ifferent "ines6
- &/ample3 A recei*es .y donation a parcel
of land from his paternal grandfather P.
Bpon A4s death- the parcel passes .y
intestacy to his father I :P4s son;. The
Ryan Ouan 93
ST ST
property ne*er left the line- is I o.liged to
reser*e6
- One Kiew 9 NO- .ecause another
ascendant is one .elonging to a line other
than that of the reser*ista.
- Another Kiew 9 I&'- .ecause :1; the law
ma+es no distinction- and :2; the purpose of
the reser*e is not only curati*e .ut also
pre*enti*e- i.e. to pre*ent the property from
lea*ing the line.
4. RESERVATARIOS
3RESERVEES4
o The reser*a is in fa*or of a class- collecti*ely
referred to as the 7eser*atarios :reser*ees;.
o RE/0IRE,ENTS TO EE A RESERVATARIO=
1) He mus !e %i&in &e A
$d
de)$ee of consan)uini" f$om &e
P$e'osius.
@? He mus !e*on) o &e *ine
f$om %&ic& &e '$o'e$" came. T&is is
dee$mined !" &e O$i)inI,ediae
Sou$ce.
- f an ascendant- the Mediate 'ource is
either of the paternal or maternal line.
- f a half>.rother or half>sister- the same
is true.
- f howe*er- it is a .rother or sister of
the full .lood- it would not .e possi.le
to distinguish the lines.
- To those who hold the opinion that a
reser*a would not e/ist in such case of
full .lood si.lings- Manresa4s comment
should .e the norm3 ,that the question
of line would .e indifferent.0
o Ouestion L 6ust the &eser8atario also be
related to the 'ediate SourceH
- ,an$esa sa"s NO- the article spea+s
solely of 2 lines- the paternal and the
maternal of the descendant- without regard
to su.di*isions.
- 'ancheH 7oman says I&'- otherwise
results would arise completely contrary to
the purpose of this reser*a- which is to
pre*ent the property from passing to
persons not of the line of origin.
o7eser*a in fa*or of reser*atarios as a C"A'' >
to be =ualified as a reser8atario< is it necessary
that one 6ust already be L*/*)$ when the
prepositus diesH
- NO- .ecause the reser*a is esta.lished in
fa*or of a 87OB) or C"A''- the relati*es
within the !
rd
degree- and not in fa*or of
specific indi*iduals.
- As long- therefore- as the reser*atario is
ali*e at the time of the reser*arista4s death-
he qualifies as such- e8en if he was
concei8ed and born after the Prepositus7
death.
o P$efe$ence Amon) &e Rese$#aa$ios
- Bpon death of the ascendant reser*ista-
the reser*a.le property should pass- not to
all the reser*atorios as a class- .ut only to
those N&A7&'T in degree to the
descendant :prepositus;- e/cluding those
reser*atarios of more remote degree.
:Padura 8. Baldo8ino;
- n other words- the reser*e troncal merely
determines the group of relati*es
:reser*atarios; to whom the property should
.e returned< .ut within that group- the
indi*idual right to the property should .e
decided .y the applica.le rules of ordinary
intestate succession- since Art?@1 does not
specify otherwise.
- Thus- according to the )adura ruling- which
su.Dects the choice of reser*atarios to the
rules of intestate succession- those
reser*atarios nearer in degree of
relationship to the )repositus will e/clude
those more remotely related.
o Re'$esenaion Amon) &e Rese$#aa$ios
- As in intestate succession- the rule of
preference of degree among reser*atarios
is qualified .y the rule of representation.
- The right of representation cannot .e
alleged when the one claiming the same as
a reser*atario of the reser*a.le property is
not among the relati*es within the !
rd
degree .elonging to the line from which
such property came- inasmuch as the right
granted .y the Ci*il Code in Art?11 is in the
highest degree personal and for the
e/clusi*e .enefit of designated persons
who are the relati*es withint the !
rd
degree
of the person from whm the reser*a.le
property came. Therefore- relati*es of the
#
th
degree and the succeeding degrees can
ne*er .e considered as reser*atarios since
the law does not recogniHe them as such.
- Ne*ertheless- there is a right of
representation on the part of the
reser*atarios who are within the !
rd
degree
mentioned .y law- as in the case of
nephews of the deceased person from
whom the reser*a.le property came. These
reser*atarios ha*e the right to represent
their ascendants :fathers and mothers; who
are the .rothers of the said deceased
person and relati*es within the !
rd
degree in
accordance with Art?11. :-lorentino 8.
-lorentino;
- Actually- there will only .e 1 instance of
representation among the reser*atarios-
which is in case of the Prepositus being
sur8i8ed by brothersQsisters and children of
Ryan Ouan 94
ST ST
a predeceased or incapacitated brother or
sister.
Nu$idica* Nau$e of Rese$#a T$onca*
The Duridical nature of the
reser*e troncal may .e *iewed from 2 aspects 9
from that of the reser*ista and that of the
reser*atarios.
1. Nu$idica* Nau$e f$om
&e #ie%'oin of &e RESERVISTA
- Manresa says that ,the ascendant is in the
first place a B'B17BCTBA7I who should
use and enDoy the things according to their
nature- in the manner and form already set
forth in the Code referring to use and
usufruct.0
- 2ut since in addition to .eing the
usufructuary- he is- e*en though
CON$TONA""I- the owner in fee simple
of property- he CAN $')O'& of it in the
manner pro*ided in Articles @7# and @7( of
the Code.
- The conclusion is that the person required
.y Art?11 to reser*e the right has- .eyond
any dou.t at all- the rights of use and
usufruct. =e has- moreo*er- the "&8A"
TT"& and $OMNON- although under a
CON$TON su.sequent :whether or not
there e/ist at the time of his death relati*es
within the !
rd
degree of the descendant
from whom they inherit in the line whence
the property proceeds;.
- Clearly- he has- under an e/press pro*ision
of law- the right to dispose of the property
reser*ed- and to dispose of is to alienate-
although under a condition. =e has the
right to reco*er it- .ecause he is the one
who possesses or should possess it and
ha*e title to it- although a limited and
re*oca.le one. n a word- the legal title and
dominion- e*en though under a condition-
reside in him while he li*es. After the right
required .y law to .e reser*ed has .een
assured- he can do anything that a genuine
owner can do. :%droso 8 Sablan;
1rom %droso- the following may
.e deri*ed3
A. The reser*ista4s right o*er the reser*ed
property is one of ownership.
B. The ownership is su.Dect to a
&%S+L.,+&1 C+)@*,*+)- i.e. the
e/istence of reser*atorias at the time of the
reser*ista4s death.
C. The right of ownership is aliena.le- .ut
su.Dect to the same resolutory condition.
$. The reser*ista4s right of ownership is
registera.le.
@. Nu$idica* Nau$e f$om &e #ie%'oin of &e
RESERVATARIOS
- The nature of the reser*atarios4 right is-
Manresa says- that ,during the whole
period .etween the constitution in legal
form of the right required .y law to .e
reser*ed and the e/tinction thereof- the
relati*es within the !
rd
degree- after the
right that in their turn may pertain to them
has .een assured- ha*e only an
&P)&CTATON and therefore they do not
e*en ha*e the capacity to transmit that
e/pectation to their heirs.0
- The relati*es within the !
rd
degree in whose
fa*or the right is reser*ed cannot dispose
of the property- first .ecause it is in no way-
either actually- constructi*ely or formally- in
their possession< and- moreo*er- .ecause
they ha*e no title of ownership or of fee
simple which they can transmit to another-
on the hypothesis that only when the
person who must reser*e the right should
die .efore them will they ta+e their place in
the succession of the descendant of whom
they are relati*es within the !
rd
degree- that
is to say- a second contingent place in said
legitimate succession in the fashion of
aspirants to a possi.le future legacy.
:%droso 8. Sablan;
- The reser*a instituted .y law instituted .y
law in fa*or of the heirs within the !
rd
degree .elonging to the line from which the
reser*a.le property came- constitutes a
7&A" 78=T which the reser*e may
alienate and dispose of- al.eit conditionally-
the CON$TON .eing that the alienation
shall transfer ownership to the *endee only
if an when the reser*e sur*i*es the person
o.liged to reser*e. :Sienes 8. %sparcia;
1rom Sienes- the following may
.e deri*ed3
A. The reser*atarios ha*e a right of
e?pectancy o*er the property.
B. The right is su.Dect to a S.SP%)S*/%
C+)@*,*+)- i.e. the e/pectancy ripens into
ownership if the reser*atarios sur*i*e the
reser*ista.
C. The right is aliena.le- .ut su.Dect to the
same suspensi*e condition.
$. The right is registera.le.
Ryan Ouan 95
ST ST
1lorentino *. 1lorentino also
held that the reser*ista has NO )O5&7 to appoint-
.y will- which specific indi*idual of the reser*atarios
were to get the reser*ed property. :As also held in
8onHales *. C1;.
The reser*ees do not inherit
from the reser*oir .ut from the )7&)O'TB'- of
whom the reser*ees are the heirs mortis causa
su.Dect to the condition that they must sur*i*e the
reser*or. :Padura 8. Baldo8ino as cited in $on9ales
8. C-*;
T&e $u*e in &is Ju$isdicion(
&e$efo$e( is &a u'on &e $ese$#isa:s dea&( &e
'$o'e$" 'asses !" s$ic o'e$aion of *a%
3acco$din) o &e $u*es of inesae succession(
as &e*d in Padu$a4( o &e '$o'e$ $ese$#aa$ios.
T&us( &e se*ecion of %&ic& $ese$#aa$ios %i**
)e &e '$o'e$" is made !" *a% and no !" &e
$ese$#isa.
T&e P$o'e$" Rese$#ed
Any +ind of property is
reser*a.le. A sugar quota allotment- as incorporeal
property- was held to .e reser*a.le in &odrigue9 8.
&odrigue9.
&ffect of 'u.stitution
o The *ery same property must go through the
process of transmissions- in order for the
reser*a to arise. Thus- the same property must
come from the Mediate 'ource- to the
)repositus .y gratuitous title- and to the
reser*ista .y operation of law.
of the prepositus su.stitutes the property .y
selling- .artering or e/changing it- the su.stitute
cannot be reser8ed.
o Note that while the property is with the
)repositus- there is yet no reser*a- which
commences when the property id recei*ed .y
the reser*ista.
oConsequently- the )repositus has- o*er the
property- plenary powers of ownership- and he
may e/ercise these powers to thwart the
potential reser*a. The )repositus is the ar.iter
of the reser*a.
QB&'TON 9 would there .e a
reser*a if the )repositus sold the property under
pacto de retro and then redeemed it6
7eser*ed )roperty $oes Not
1orm )art of the 7eser*ista4s &state Bpon his $eath
o The contention that an intestacy proceeding is
still necessary rests upon the assumption that
the reser*atario will succeed in- or inherit- the
reser*a.le property from the reser*ista. This is
not true. The reser*atario is not the reser*ista4s
successor mortis causa nor is the reser*a.le
property part of the reser*ista4s estate< the
reser*atario recei*es the property as a
conditional heir of the )repositus- said property
merely re*erting to the line of origin from which
it had temporarily and accidentally strayed
during the reser*ista4s lifetime.
ot is a consequence of these principles that
upon the death of the reser*ista- the
reser*atario nearest to the prepositus .ecomes-
automatically and .y operation of law- the
owner of the reser*a.le property. As already
stated- that property is no part of the estate of
the reser*ista- and does not e*en answer for
the de.ts of the latter. =ence- its acquisition .y
the reser*atario may .e entered in the property
records without necessity of estate proceedings-
since the .asic requisites therefor appear of
record. :Cano 8. @irector;
o Of course- where the registration decree merely
specifies the reser*a.le character of the
property- without determining the identity of the
reser*atario or where se*eral reser*atarios
dispute the property among themsel*es- further
proceedings are una*oida.le.
oAs a consequence of &e $u*e *aid do%n in
Cano( since &e $ese$#ed '$o'e$" is no
com'ued as 'a$ of &e $ese$#isa:s esae(
i is no a2en ino accoun in dee$minin)
&e *e)iimes of &e $ese$#isa:s com'u*so$"
&ei$s.
7&'&7KA MAPMA 9
7&'&7KA MNMA
o )ro.lem3 if 2 circumstances occur
- The prepositus ma+es a will instituting the
ascendant>reser*ista to the whole or a part
of the free portion- and
- There is left in the )repositus4 estate- upon
his death- in addition to the reser*ed
property- property not reser*a.le.
o 2 Theories ha*e .een Ad*anced
- 7eser*a Ma/ima 9 as much of the
potentially reser*a.le property as possi.le
must .e deemed included in the part that
passes .y operation of law. This
,ma/imiHes0 the scope of the reser*a.
- Rese$#a ,inima 9 e*ery single property in
the )repositus4 estate must .e deemed to
pass- partly .y will and partly .y operation
of law- in the same proportion that the part
gi*en .y will .ears to the part not so gi*en.
o 7eser*a Minima is more widely accepted.
Ri)&s and O!*i)aions
Ryan Ouan 96
ST ST
There are no specific
implementing articles on the reser*a troncal.
Bnder the Old Code- the
pro*isions 8iudal were e/tended to the troncal- thus
the rights of the reser*atarios and the corresponding
o.ligations of the reser*ista were3
a. To in*entory the reser*ed properties
.. To annotate the reser*a.le character :if
registered immo*a.les; in the 7egistry of
)roperty within @A days from acceptance .y
the reser*ista.
c. To appraise the immo*a.les
d. To secure .y means of mortgage3 :i; the
indemnity for any deterioration of or damage
to the property occasioned .y the reser*ista4s
fault or negligence- and :ii; the payment of the
*alue of such reser*ed mo*a.les as may
ha*e .een alienated .y the reser*ista
onerously or gratuitously.
The a.olition of the reser*a
*iudal has caused some uncertainty whether these
requirements still apply.
t was held in Su6aya 8. *(C
that the requirement of annotation remains- despite
the a.olition of reser*a *iudal- as .ased on 'ec%1 of
)$1%2@ pro*iding for con*eyance and other
dealings .y registered owners.
Su6aya is howe*er- silent on 2
points3
1. 5ithin what period
must the annotation .e made- and
2. 5hether the other
requirements of the old *iudal also remain.
E+in)uis&men of &e Rese$#a T$onca*
The reser*e troncal is
e/tinguished .y3
1. $eath of the
7eser*ista
2. $eath of A"" the
7eser*atarios
!. 7enunciation .y A""
the 7eser*atarios- pro*ided that no other
reser*atario is .orn su.sequently
#. Total fortuitous loss of
the reser*ed property
%. Confusion or merger of
rights- as when the reser*atarios acquire the
reser*ista4s right .y a contract inter *i*os
(. )rescription or ad*erse
possession
CASES
$on9ales 8. C-*
- This is an appeal .y 2eatriH 8onHales from the decision of
the C1 of Manila for dismissing her complaint for partition-
accounting- recon*eyance- damages- and holding as not
sub>ect to reser8a troncal< the properties which her 6other
inherited in #BC2 fro6 -ilo6ena.
- 2enito "egarda y $e la paH- the son of 2enito "egarda y
Tuason died in 1@!! and was sur*i*ed .y widow 1ilomena
and their se*en children.
- n 1@!@- real properties left .y 2enito "egarda y Tuason
were partitioned in three equal portions .y his daughters
and the heirs of the deceased son who were represented
.y 2enito "egarda.
- Mrs. "egarda then e/ecuted in 1@#7 an affida*it
adDudicating e/traDudicially to herself the properties which
she inherited from her deceased daughter- 1ilomena
"egarda.
- As a result of the affida*it of adDudication- 1ilomena 7oces
succeeded her deceased daughter 1ilomena "egarda as
co>owner of the properties held proindi*iso .y her other si/
children.
- Then in 1@%!- Mrs. "egarda e/ecuted two handwritten
identical documents wherein she disposed of the properties
which she inherited from her daughter- in fa*or of the
children of her sons.
- Then from the period of 1@%? to 1@%@- Mrs. "egarda and
her children partitioned the properties consisting of the one>
third share in the estate of 2enito "egarda y Tuason which
the children inherited in representation of their father-
2enito "egarda y $e la )aH.
- On 1@(7- Mrs. "egarda died and on 1@(? her holographic
will was admitted to pro.ate.
- $uring such proceeding- 2eatriH 8onHales filed a motion to
e/clude from the in*entory of her mother4s estate the
properties which she inherited from her deceased daughter-
1ilomena on the ground that such properties are reser*a.le
properties which should .e inherited .y 1ilomena "egarda4s
three sisters and three .rothers and not .y the children of
2enito- AleDandro and Cose. This was opposed .y the
administrator.
- 'he then filed an ordinary ci*il action for the purpose of
securing a declaration that the said properties are
reser*a.le properties which Mrs. "egarda could not
.equeath in her will. This was dismissed.
5ON- the properties in question are su.Dect to reser*e troncal
under Article ?@1 of the Ci*il Code.
- Ies- the properties in the instant case were reser*a.le
properties in the hands of Mrs. "egarda. Bndou.tedly she
was a reser*oir.
- The reser*ation .ecame a certainty when at the time of her
death the reser*es or relati*es within the third degree of the
prepositus 1ilomena "egarda were li*ing or they sur*i*ed
Mrs. "egarda.
5ON- Mrs. "egarda as reser*or can con*ey the reser*a.le
properties .y will or mortis causa to the reser*es within the !
rd
degree to the e/clusion of the reser*es in the 2
nd
degree- her
daughters and sons.
- No- she cannot con*ey these as they ne*er really formed
part of her estate.
- The reser*or cannot ma+e a disposition morits causa of the
reser*a.le properties as long as the reser*es sur*i*ed the
reser*oir.
- The nearest relati*es should .e the one who will inherit the
property and Mrs. "egarda could not choose to whom the
Ryan Ouan 97
ST ST
reser*a.le property should .e gi*en and depri*e the other
reser*ees of their share therein.
- gnoring the second degree reser*ees would .e a glaring
*iolation of Article ?@1.
- =ence- the reser*a.le properties should go to Mrs.
"egarda4s children and not to the grandchildren.
- n reser*a troncal-l G1E a descendant inherited or acquired
.y gratuitous title property from an ascendant or from a
.rother or sister< G2E the same property is inherited .y
another ascendant or is acquired .y him .y operation of law
from the said descendant- and G!E the said descendant
should reser*e the said property for the .enefit of relati*e
who are within the third degree from the deceased
descendant and who .elong to the line from which the said
property came. Three transmissions are in*ol*ed.
- 7eser*a contemplates legitimate relationship
Soli8io 8. C(
- As &ste.an4s parents died while he was still young- 'alustia
and her sister- Celedonia .rought up &ste.an- Cr. 'alustia-
&ste.an4s mother- .rought to her marriage paraphernal
properties- .ut no conDugal property was acquired during
her short>li*ed marriage to &ste.an- 'r.
- 'alustia died- lea*ing all her properties to her only child-
&ste.an- Cr.-
- &ste.an died of a heart attac+. =is only sur*i*ing relati*es
are3 G1E his maternal aunt- petitioner Celedonia 'oli*io- the
spinster half>sister of his mother- 'alustia 'oli*io< and G2E
the pri*ate respondent- Concordia Ca*ellana>Killanue*a-
sister of his deceased father- &ste.an Ca*ellana- 'r.
- Celedonia told Concordia a.out &ste.anUs desire to place
his estate in a foundation to .e named after his mother-
from whom his properties came- for the purpose of helping
indigent students in their schooling. Concordia agreed to
carry out the plan of the deceased.
- The pro.ate court declared Celdonia as sole heir of the
estate of &ste.an. Thereafter- she sold properties of the
estate to pay the ta/es and other o.ligations of the
deceased and proceeded to set up the N'A"B'TA
'O"KO K$A. $& CAK&""ANA 1OBN$ATONN.
- 1our months later- Concordia filed a motion for
reconsideration of the courtUs order declaring Celedonia as
Nsole heirN of &ste.an- Cr.- .ecause she too was an heir of
the deceased.
5hether the decedentUs properties were su.Dect to reser*a
troncal in fa*or of Celedonia- his relati*e within the third
degree on his motherUs side from whom he had inherited
them<
- NO. Clearly- the property of the deceased- &ste.an
Ca*ellana- Cr.- is not reser*a.le property- for &ste.an- Cr.
was not an ascendant- .ut the descendant of his mother-
'alustia 'oli*io- from whom he inherited the properties in
question.
- Therefore- he did not hold his inheritance su.Dect to a
reser*ation in fa*or of his aunt- Celedonia 'oli*io- who is
his relati*e within the third degree on his motherUs side. The
reser*a troncal applies to properties inherited .y an
ascendant from a descendant who inherited it from another
ascendant or a .rother or sister. t does not apply to
property inherited .y a descendant from his ascendant- the
re*erse of the situation co*ered .y Article ?@1.
- 'ince the deceased- &ste.an Ca*ellana- Cr.- died without
descendants- ascendants- illegitimate children- sur*i*ing
spouse- .rothers- sisters- nephews or nieces- what should
apply in the distri.ution of his estate are Articles 1AA! and
1AA@ of the Ci*il Code. Gsee $octrine portionE
- 2oth plaintiff>appellee and defendant>appellant .eing
relati*es of the decedent within the third degree in the
collateral line- each- therefore- shall succeed to the su.Dect
estate Uwithout distinction of line or preference among them
.y reason of relationship .y the whole .lood-U and is entitled
to one>half G1L2E share and share ali+e of the estate.
- As regards Concordia4a O share>>inasmuch as Concordia
had agreed to deli*er the estate of the deceased to the
foundation in honor of his mother- 'alustia. she is .ound .y
that agreement. t is true that .y that agreement- she did
not wai*e her inheritance in fa*or of Celedonia- .ut she did
agree to place all of &ste.anUs estate in the N'alustia
'oli*io Kda. de Ca*ellana 1oundationN which &ste.an- Cr.-
during his lifetime- planned to set up to honor his mother.
- The persons in*ol*ed in reser*a troncal are3
N1. The person o.liged to reser*e is the reser*or
Greser*istaE \ the ascendant who inherits .y operation of
law property from his descendants.
N2. The persons for whom the property is reser*ed are
the reser*ees Greser*atoriosE \ relati*es within the third
degree counted from the descendant GpropositusE- and
.elonging to the line from which the property came.
N!. The propositus \ the descendant who recei*ed .y
gratuitous title and died without issue- ma+ing his other
ascendant inherit .y operation of law.
> NA7T. 1AA!. f there are no descendants- ascendants-
illegitimate children- or a sur*i*ing spouse- the collateral
relati*es shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased
in accordance with the following articles.
> NA7T. 1AA@. 'hould there .e neither .rothers nor
sisters- nor children of .rothers or sisters- the other
collateral relati*es shall succeed to the estate.
- NThe latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or
preference among them .y reason of relationship .y the
whole .lood.N
)ie8a 8. (lcala
- Culiana Nie*a married 1rancisco $eocampo and with whom
she .egot a son named Alfeo $eocampo. Culiana died
intestate and her son Alfeo inherited from her se*eral
parcels of land. =owe*er- Alfeo died intestate and without
issue- so the aforementioned parcels of land passed to his
father 1rancisco. 1rancisco su.sequently married Manuela
Alcala- with whom he had a son- Cose $eocampo. 5hen
1rancisco died- his widow and his son too+ possession of
the said lands.
- 'egunda Maria Nie*a sought to reco*er the parcels of land
in question- as she is the ac+nowledged natural daughter of
Culiana. According to her .irth records- Culiana ga*e .irth
to her and li*ed with her .efore Culiana4s marriage to
1rancisco. 'egunda was treated and pu.licly e/hi.ited as
Culiana4s legitimate daughter.
5hether or not the law on reser*a troncal applies to
illegitimate relati*es.
No. 5hile there are no pre*ious cases on the su.Dect- the
Court thought it proper to adopt the writings of Manresa and
'cae*ola on the matter.
Ryan Ouan 98
ST ST
- 5hile the pro*ision of law does not ma+e a distinction- it
has to .e recogniHed that this is so .ecause the legitimate
relationship forms the general rule and the natural
relationship the e/ception< which is the reason why- the law
in many articles- spea+s only of children or parents- or
ascendants and descendants- and in them reference is of
course made to those who are legitimate< and when it
desires to ma+e a pro*ision applica.le only to natural
relationship- it does not say father or mother- .ut natural
father or natural mother< it does not spea+ of ascendants-
.rothers or parents .ut of natural ascendants- natural
.rothers or natural parents. Thus- as the law does not
qualify- the general rule applies that it only refers to
legitimate ascendants.
- The pro*ision on reser*a troncal treats of legitimate
relationship. The person o.liged to reser*e is a legitimate
ascendant who inherits from a descendant property which
proceeds from the same legitimate family- and this .eing
true- there can .e no question- .ecause the line from which
the properties proceed must .e the line of that family and
only in fa*or of that line is the reser*ation esta.lished.
7emem.er3 the o.Dect is to protect the patrimony of the
legitimate family.
Padura 8. Baldo8ino
- Agustin )adura contracted 2 marriages during his lifetime.
5ith his first wife- 8er*acia- he had one child whom they
named Manuel )adura. 5ih his second wife- 2enita- he
had two children named 1ortunator and Candelaria )adura
2aldo*ino.
- Bpon his death- the properties were left among his children
and sur*i*ing spouse- 2enita.
- 1ortunato was adDudicated # parcels of land.
- 1ortunato died unmarried without ha*ing e/ecuted a will.
Thus- the parcels of land were inherited e/clusi*ely .y his
mother- 2enita.
- 'he applied for and later was issued a TCT in her name-
.ut su.Dect to the condition that the properties were
reser*a.le in fa*or of relati*es within the !
rd
degree
.elonging to the line from which said property came.
- Candelaria died lea*ing as her only heirs her four legitimate
children-
- Iears later- Manuel also died. 'ur*i*ing him are his
legitimate children.
- Bpon the death of 2enita Gthe reser8istaE- appellants and
appellees too+ possession of the reser*a.le properties.
- n a resolution of the C1- the legitimate children of the
deceased Manuel and Candelaria were declared to .e the
rightful reser*es and as such- entitled to the reser*a.le
properties.
- The instant petitioner filed .y the heirs of Candelaria see+s
to ha*e this properties partitioned- such that O of the same
.e adDudicated to them- and the other half to the appellees-
allegedly on the .asis that they inherited .y right of
representation from their respecti*e parents- the original
reser*es.
- On the other hand- appellees maintained that they should
all Gthe ele*en reser*eesE .e deemed as inheriting in their
own right- under which- they claim each should ha*e an
equal share.
- The lower court declared all the reser*ees Gwithout
distinctionE co>owners- pro>indi*iso- in equal shares of the
parcels of land.0
n a case of reser8e troncal where the only reser*es sur*i*ing
the reser*ista and .elonging to the line of origin- are nephews
of the descendants .ut some are nephews for the half .lood
and the otheres are nephews of the whole .lood- should the
reser*ed properties .e apportioned among them equally or
should the nephews of the whole .lood ta+e a share twice as
large as that of the nephews of the half .lood6
- The 'C held that the reser*es nephews of the whole .lood
are entitled to s share twice as large that of the others.
- The stated purpose of the reser*a is accomplished once
the property has de*ol*ed to the specified relati*es of the
line of origin. 2ut from this time on- there is no further
occasion for its application.
- n the relations .etween one reser*atorio and another of
the same degree- there is no call for applying Art. ?@1 any
longer. Thus- the respecti*e share of each in the
re*ersionary property should .e go*erned .y the ordinary
rules of intestate succession.
- Bpon the death of the ascendant reser8ista- the reser*a.le
property should pass- not to all reser*atorios as a class- .ut
only to those nearest in degree to the descendant
GprepositusE- e/cluding those reser*atorios of the more
remote degree.
- The reser8a troncal merely determines the group of
relati*es Greser*atoriosE to whom the property should .e
returned< .ut within that group the indi*idual right to the
property should .e decided .y the applica.le rules of
ordinary intestate succession.
- 7eser*atorios nearer in degree of relationship to )repositus
will e/clude those more remotely related.
- )ro/imity of degree and right of representation are .asic
principles of ordinary intestate succession< so is the rule
that whole .lood .others and nephews are entitled to a
share dou.le that of .rothers and nephews of half .lood. f
in determining the rights of the reser8atorios inter se-
pro/imity of degree and the right of representation of
nephews are made to apply- the rule dou.le share for
immediate collaterals- of the whole .lood should li+ewise .e
operati*e.
-lorentino 8. -lorentino
- Apolonio married Antonia with whom he has @ children
G&ncarnacion- et. al. 9 the plaintiffs in this caseE. Antonia
died.
- Apolonio again married. This time with 'e*erina and had
2 children- Mercedes and Apolonio - the latter .eing .orn
after the father4s death.
- The father left a will instituting all his children from .oth
marriages and 'e*erina as the uni*ersal heirs.
- Apolonio died ahead of his mother and the latter
succeeded to all the son4s property. Bpon the death of
'e*erina- Mercedes succeeded her and the property she
recei*ed included those which her mother recei*ed from
Apolonio .
- The plaintiffs Gwhich include the children of the deceased
.rothers and sisters of &ncarnacion who inherit .y *irtue of
their right to representationE now claim that the property
Ryan Ouan 99
ST ST
recei*ed .y 'e*erina from her son was reser*a.le property
and thus- they are each entitled to 1L7 of the fruits of the
reser*a.le property.
- $efendants demurred claiming that the o.Dect of the law is
to a*oid the transfer of the reser*a.le property to those
e/traneous to the family of the owner. They claim that since
the property was transferred to Mercedes Gwho was part of
the familyE- the o.Dect of the law has not .een *iolated and
thus the property has lost its reser*a.le character.
5ON the property was reser*a.le.
- I&'. &*en if 'e*erina left in her will said property- together
with her own- to her only daughter and forced heiress-
Mercedes- ne*ertheless this property had not lost its
reser*a.le nature inasmuch as it originated from the
common ancestor of the litigants- Apolonio sa.elo< was
inherited .y his son Apolonio < was transmitted .y same
G.y operation of lawE to his legitimate mother and
ascendant- 'e*erina.
- 'e*erina was duty .ound- according to article ?11 of the
Ci*il Code- to reser*e the property thus acquired for the
.enefit of the relati*es- within the third degree- of the line
from which such property came.
- As to the children of the .rothers and sisters of
&ncarnacion- 'C held that there is right of representation
on the part of reser8atarios who are within the third degree
mentioned .y law- as in the case of nephews of the
deceased person from whom the reser*a.le property came.
These reser8atarios ha*e the right to represent their
ascendants Gfathers and mothersE who are the .rothers of
the said deceased person and relati*es within the third
degree.
- f this property was in fact clothed with the character and
condition of reser*a.le property when 'e*erina inherited
same from her son Apolonio - she did not there.y acquire
the dominion or right of ownership .ut only the right of
usufruct or of fiduciary with the necessary o.ligation to
preser*e and to deli*er or return it as such reser*a.le
property to her deceased sonUs relati*es within the third
degree- among whom is her daughter- Mercedes.
- According to the pro*isions of law- ascendants do not inherit
the reser*a.le property- .ut its enDoyment- use or trust-
merely for the reason that said law imposes the o.ligation to
reser*e and preser*e same for certain designated persons
who- on the death of the said ascendants reser*ists acquire
the ownership of said property
- 'aid property re*erts to said line as long as the
aforementioned persons who- from the death of the
ascendant>reser*ists- acquire in fact the right of
reser8atarios Gperson for whom property is reser*edE- and
are relati*es- within the third degree- of the descendant from
whom the reser*a.le property came.
- 7eser*a.le property neither comes- nor falls under- the
a.solute dominion of the ascendant who inherits and
recei*es same from his descendant- therefore it does not
form part of his own property nor .ecome the legitimate of
his forced heirs. t .ecomes his own property only in case
that all the relati*es of his descendant shall ha*e died
Greser*istaE in which case said reser*a.le property losses
such character.
%droso 8. Sablan
Sienes 8. %sparcia
- "ot !!(? originally .elonged to 'aturnino Iaeso.
- 'aturnino had four children with his first wife Teresa
7uales> Agaton- 1ernando- )aulina and Cipriana.
- 'aturnino also had a second wife- Andrea 8utang-
with whom he had an only son named 1rancisco.
- 5hen 'aturnino died- 1rancisco inherited the
western portion of "ot !!(?. hence- it was accordingly
transferred in the name of 1rancisco.
- After reaching the age of 2A- still .eing single-
1rancisco died with no other heir e/cept his mother Andrea.
- Andrea- then e/ecuted an e/tra>Dudicial settlement
and sale- where he sold the land to appellants. Thus- the
*endees demanded from )aulina Iaeso the surrender of
the OCT co*ering the said land- .ut the latter refused.
- 'u.sequently- Cipriana and )aulina Iaeso- the
sur*i*ing half>sisters of 1rancisco- declared the property in
their name and e/ecuted a deed of sale in fa*or of the
spouses 1idel &sparcia and )aulina 'ienes. The spouses
procured a TCT o*er the land in their name.
- Andrea 8utang died in $ecem.er 1@%1 while .eing
sur*i*ed .y Cipriano Iaeso.
5hether or not there was 7eser*a Troncal
- 'C held that there is 7eser*a Tronacal.
- t is clear from the facts that 1rancisco Iaeso
inherited .y operation of law from his father 'aturnino.
Bpon 1rancisco4s death- unmarried and without
descendants- Andrea 8utang as the sole heir inherited the
land from the former.
- =ence she is under o.ligation to reser*e it for the
.enefit of relati*es within the third degree .elonging to the
line from which said property came.
5hether or Not the 'pouses &sparcia are entitle to the land
sold to them .y Cipriana yaeso
- As .etween the transfer made .y Andrea 8utang and
the transfer made .y Cipriana- the latter is the only one
deemed *alid and .inding.
- 1irst- although Andrea 8utang inherited the land- she
only inherits it as a reser*ista. 'he therefore has the
o.ligation to preser*e the property for the reser*atorios or
reser*ees. n this case- these are the half>sisters of
1rancisco.
- 'econd- the transferee in the sale made .y Andrea
only acquires the latter4s re*oca.le and conditional
owenership of the property. =ence- if Andrea dies and she
is sur*i*ed .y the reser*ees- title pass to the latter .y
operation of law.
- Cipriana- ha*ing sur*i*ed 8utang- now o.tains
e/clusi*e ownership o*er the land and the sale made .y
8utang is of no legal effect.
- Third- Cipriana as the reser*ee- had the right to
alienate the property e*en .efore 8utang4s death. n which
case- the sale .ecomes a.solute if the reser*ee sur*i*es
the reser*ista. The sale therefore made .y Cipriana and
)ualina is deemed effecti*e.
- =owe*er- in so much as the &sparcia spouses did
not appeal the decision re*erting the property in the estate
of Cipriano- they can not reco*er the same.
- The reser*ed property is su.Dect to two suspensi*e
conditions3 aE death of the ascendant o.liged to reser*e- .E
the sur*i*al- at the time of death- or relati*es within the third
degree .elong to the line from which the property came.
- The reser*atorios ha*e a right of e/pectancy o*er the
property. The e/pectancy ripens into ownership if the
reser*atorios sur*i*e the reser*ists.
Ryan Ouan 100
ST ST
- The right is aliena.le .ut su.Dect to the same suspensi*e
condition. The right is registra.le.
Cano 8. @irector
- n a "and 7egistration case- a final decree and title
o*er a parcel of land was adDudicated in fa*or of Maria
Cano- su.Dect to 7eser*a Troncal in fa*or of &ustaqia
8uerrero.
- t appears from the stipulation of facts in the
registration case that the su.Dect lot was acquired .y Maria
Cano from her deceased daughter- who in turn inherited the
same from her father &*aristo 8uerrero. =ence- falling
squarely under Art ?@1.
- t was found that &ustaquia 8uerrero was of the
nearest +in of &*aristo- hence the former e/cludes all other
relati*es.
- Thereafter the counsel of &ustaqia fileda motion with
the Cadastral Court alleging the death of maria Cano- the
reser*ista-a nd hat the Oct therefore .e cancelled and a
new one issued in fa*or of &ustaqia 8uerrero.
- $espite opposition- the lower court granted the
petition for the new issuance of a new certificate.
- The oppositors- heirs of Maria Cano- insisted that the
ownership of the reser*atorio requires a separate Dudicial
administration proceeding Gintestestate proceedingE- where
there will .e first a declaration that the elements of reser*e
troncal are e/isting.
5hether or not a separate Dudicial proceeding is required
- There is no need for a separate intestate proceeding.
- 1irst- the stipulation of facts in the registration
proceedings already manifests the e/istence of reser*e
troncal infa*or of &suataqia. The proceeding .eing final- the
oppositors are .arred from questioning the e/istence
thereof.
- The contention that there is a need for a separate
proceeding rests upon the assumption that the reser*atorio
will succeed or inherit the reser*ed property from the
reser*ista- which is not the case.
- Bpon the death of the reser*ista- the reser*atario
.ecomes- auomaica**" and !" o'e$aion of *a%( the
owner of the reser*ed property.
- The property is no part of the estate of the reser*ista-
hence its acquisition .y the reser*atario may .e entered in
the property records without the necessity of estate
proceedings.
- The reser*ed property is not part of the reser*ista4s estate
and the reser*atario acquires the property automatically and
.y operation of law.
@e Papa 8. Ca6acho
- $efendant Camacho and )laintiffs are legitimate relati*es-
plaintiffs .eing the grandaunt and granduncles of the
defendant.
- They ha*e a common ancestor the late 2al.ino Tioco-
father of the plaintiffs and great grandfather of defendant.
- 7omana Tioco- the sister of 2al.ino gratuitously donated to
the legitimate sister of plaintiffs # parcels of land.
- And that sister died intestate in 1@1%- sur*i*ed .y her
hus.and and 2 legit children and lea*ing the four parcels of
land as the inheritance of her said 2 children in equal pro
indi*iso shares.
- That 2al.ino died intestate suri*i*ed .y his legit children .y
his wife and legit grandchildren.
- n the partition of his estate- ! parcels of land were
adDudicated as the inheritance of the late Tori.ia Tioco- .ut
as she had predeceased her father- the ! parcels of land
de*ol*ed upon her 2 legit children one of which is 1austino
$iHon.
- 1austino then died intestate lea*ing his O share in the 7
parcels of land to his father &ustacio su.Dect to reser*e
troncal.
- Trinidad $iHon>Tong+o died intestate and her rights and
interests in the parcels of land were inherited .y her only
child- $alisay Camacho.
- &ustacio then died sur*i*ed only .y his only legit
descendant - the child mentioned a.o*e.
- $alisay now owns O of all the 7 parcles of land. 'he now
also claims the other half the said parcels of land .y *irtue
of the reser*e troncal upon the death of 1austino $iHon.
- The lower court declared the plaintiffs 1rancisco Tioco-
Manuel Tioco and Nicolas Tioco as well as $alisay
Camacho- entitled as reser*atorios- to one>half of the se*en
parcels of land in dispute.
5ON- all relati*es of the praepositus within the !
rd
degree in
the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the
reser*a.le property upon the death of the reser*ista
- Ies- they succeed without distinction. And the rules on
intestacy shall go*ern as held in a pre*ious decision .y this
Court.
- Nephews and nieces of whole .lood were each entitled to a
share dou.le that of each of the nephews and nieces of half
.lood in accordance with the Ci*il Code.
- 7eser*a merely determines the group of relati*es to whom
the property should .e returned< .ut within that group- the
indi*idual right to the property should .e decided .y the
applica.le rules of ordinary intestate succession since Art.
?@1 does not specify otherwise.
- 7e*ersion of the reser*a.le property .eing go*erned .y the
rules on intestate succession- the plaintiffs>appelless must
.e held without any right thereto .ecause- as aunts and
uncles- respecti*ely of 1austino $iHon- they are e/cluded
from the succession .y his niece- the defendant>appellant-
although they are related to him within the same degree as
the latter.
- =ad the property .een passed directly- there is no dou.t
that they would ha*e .een e/cluded .y the defendants>
appellees under the rules of intestate succession. There is
no reason why a different rule would apply in this case.
- The $efendant>appellee $alisay Camacho is entitled to the
entirety of the re*ersionary property to the e/clusion of the
plaintiffs>appellees.
- "ower court Dudgment is re*ersed and the complaint is
dismissed.
> n reser*a troncal- the successional rights of the relati*es of
the praepositus within the !
rd
degree are determined .y-
and su.Dect to the rules of intestate succession< so as to
e/clude uncles and aunts of the descendant from the
reser*a.le property .y his niece or nephew.
-rias 8. C-(
- n the first marriage of Cose 1rias Chua with )atricia
'. Militar- he sired three children- namely3 gnacio- "orenHo
and Manuel. 5hen Militar died- Cose contracted a second
Ryan Ouan 101
ST ST
marriage with Consolacion de la Torre with whom he had a
child .y the name of Cuanito. Manuel died without lea*ing
any issue. Then Cose died intestate lea*ing his widow
Consolacion and his son Cuanito- gnacio- and "orenHo. n
the ntestate )roceeding- the court issued an
orderadDudicating- among others- the one>half G1L2E portion
of "ot No. !@@ and the sum of )?-AAA.AA in fa*or of
Consolacion- the other half in fa*or of Cuanito- )!-AAA.AA in
fa*or of "orenHo< and )1-%%A.AA in fa*or of gnacio.
- Cuanito died intestate without any issue. After his
death- is mother Consolacion succeeded to his pro>indi*iso
share of her son Cuanito. Consolacion then died intestate
lea*ing no direct heir either in the descending or ascending
line e/cept her .rother and sisters.
- n the Nntestate &state of Consolacion de la TorreN-
the petitioners herein- gnacio- and $ominador and
7emedios Chua- the supposed legitimate children of the
deceased "orenHo filed the complaint praying that the one>
half G1L2E portion of "ot No. !@@ which formerly .elonged to
Cuanito 1rias Chua .ut which passed to Consolacion- .e
declared as reser*a.le property for the reason that the lot
in question was su.Dect to reser*a troncal pursuant to
Article @?1 of the New Ci*il
- The C1 rendered a decision dismissing the
complaint of petitioners. According to it- the property in
question was not acquired .y Consolacion and Cuanito
gratuitously .ut for a consideration- namely- that the
legatees were to pay the interest and cost and other fees
resulting from Ci*il Case No. %!AA to 'tandard Oil Co. of
New Ior+ the amount of )!-@71.2A
5hether the property in question as acquired .y Cuanito 1rias
Chua from his father- Cose 1rias Chua- gratuitously or not.
> t is e*ident from the record that the transmission of the
property in question to Cuanito upon the death of his father
Cose was .y means of a hereditary succession and
therefore gratuitous.
> The o.ligation of paying the 'tandard is imposed upon
Consolacion and Cuanito not personally .y the deceased
Cose in his last will and testament .ut .y an order of the
court. As long as the transmission of the property to the
heirs is free from any condition imposed .y the deceased
himself and the property is gi*en out of pure generosity- it is
gratuitous. The order of the court does not change the
gratuitous nature of the transmission of the property to him.
As far as the deceased Cose is concerned the transmission
of the property to his heirs is gratuitous. This .eing the case
the lot in question is su.Dect to reser*a troncal under Art.
?@1 of the New Ci*il Code.
> n order that a property may .e impressed with a
reser*a.le character the following requisites must e/ist- to
wit3 G1E that the property was acquired .y a descendant
from an ascendant or from a .rother or sister .y gratuitous
title< G2E that said descendant died without an issue3 G!E that
the property is inherited .y another ascendant .y operation
of law< and G#E that there are relati*es within the third
degree .elonging to the line from which said property
came.
> The transmission is gratuitous or .y gratuitous title when
the recipient does not gi*e anything in return t matters not
whether the property transmitted .e or .e not su.Dect to any
prior charges< what is essential is that the transmission .e
made gratuitously- or .y an act of mere li.erality of the
person ma+ing it- without imposing any o.ligation on the
part of the recipient< and that the person recei*ing the
property gi*es or does nothing in return< the essential thing
is that the person who transmits it does so gratuitously-
from pure generosity- without requiring from the transferee
any prestation.
@e Los &eyes 8. Paterno
- The su.Dect properties were the conDugal property of
Tomas 8. $el 7osario and his wife- Cuana 7eyes. Cuana
died and her daughter Concepcion was declared to .e her
sole heir. =owe*er- Concepcion died at the age of @ and all
her rights to the half of the property passed to her father-
Tomas- who was then already the owner of the other half.
Tomas registered the properties and after a year his title
thereto .ecame a.solute and complete.
- After ( years- plaintiff in this case see+s to reco*er
one half of the su.Dect properties- on the .asis of reser*a
troncal.
5hether or not the plaintiff may still reco*er the property after
the lapse of one year from the finality of the registration
proceedings on the ground of reser*e troncal.
- No.
- The reser*a.le right may .e lost to the holder when
he fails or neglects to oppose the registration of the land in
which such right e/ists under the Torrens 'ystem.
> Bnless a reser*a.le right is protected during the pendency
of the action for the registration of land- or within the
allowa.le period to contest such as prescri.ed .y law- such
right is lost fore*er.
Su6aya 8. *(C
- 7aul 2alanta+.o inherited 1L! interest in a parcel of land
from his father G1st propertyE and a 1L7 interest in 1A
parcels of lands from his maternal grandmother G2nd
propertyE.
- 7aul died intestate- single- and lea*ing only his mother-
Consuelo- as his sole sur*i*ing heir to the real properties.
- 'u.sequently- Consuelo adDudicated unto herself the said
properties .y way of an affida*it.
- Consuelo sold the first property to 'umaya. 'umaya sold it
Killa =onorio which transferred and assigned it in fa*or of
Agro>ndustrial.
- The documents were registered in the 7$ of "aguan and
corresponding certificates of titles were issued.
- Consuelo later sold the 2
nd
property to Killa =onorio which
later transferred and assigned the same to "aguna Agro>
ndustrial.
- The parties admit that the certificates of titles co*ering
these properties do not contain any annotation of its
reser*a.le character.
- 5hen Consuelo died- the .rothers in full .lood of 7aul and
the sur*i*ing children of another .rother of 7aul filed a case
to reco*er the properties which they claimed were su.Dect
to reser8a troncal in their fa*or.
- The trial court ordered the petitioners to return the parcels
of land the plaintiffs and to account and pay for the
produces from the said properties.
- The CA affirmed the decision.
- =ence- this petition.
5hether the defendants were innocent purchasers for *alue.
- NO. The fact remains that the affida*it of self>adDudication
e/ecuted .y Consuelo stating the source of the properties
Ryan Ouan 102
ST ST
there.y showing the reser*a.le nature thereof was
registered with the 7$ of "aguna. This is sufficient notice to
the whole world.
- t was clearly stated in the affida*it that the properties were
inherited .y 7aul from his father and maternal grandmother
respecti*ely.
- n this case- the affida*it e/ecuted .y Conseulo which
contained a statement that the property was inherited from
a descendant- 7aul- which has li+ewise inherited .y the
latter from another descendant- was registered with the 7$.
The failure of the 7$ to annotate the reser*a.le character
of the property in the certificate of title cannot .e attri.uted
to Consuelo.
- Moreo*er- there is sufficient proof that the petitioners had
actual +nowledge of the reser*a.le character of the
properties .efore they .ought the same from Consuelo.
- Moreo*er- the court found that the the partiers were long
time acquaintances. They +new all along that the properties
litigated in this case were inherited .y 7aul from his father
and from his maternal grandmother and that Consuelo
inherited these from his son 7aul.
5hether the cause of action of pri*ate respondents has
prescri.ed.
- No. The cause of action of the reser*ees did not commence
upon the death of the propositus 7aul 2alanta+.o .ut upon
the death of the reser*or Consuelo. The reser*a is
e/tinguished upon the death of the reser*or- as it then
.ecomes a right of full ownership on the part of the
reser*atarios- who can .ring a rei*indicatory suit therefor.
- 5hen a con*eyance has .een properly recorded- such
record is constructi*e notice of its contents and all interests-
legal and equita.le- included therein.
- Bnder the rule of notice- it is presumed that the purchaser
has e/amined e*ery instrument of record affecting the title.
'uch presumption is irre.uta.le.
- Consistent with the rule in reser8a 8iudal where the person
o.liged to reser*e Gthe widowed spouseE had the o.ligation
to annotate in the 7egistry of )roperty the reser*a.le
character of the property- in reser8a troncal< the reser*or
Gthe ascendant who inherited from a descendant property
which the latter inherited from another descendantE has the
duty to reser*e and therefore- the duty to annotate also.
- The Durisprudential rule requiring annotation in the 7egistry
of )roperty of the right reser*ed in real property su.Dect of
reser*a *iudal insofar as it is applied to reser*a troncal
stays despite the a.olition of reser*a *iudal in the New Ci*il
Code. This rule is consistent with the rule pro*ided in the
second paragraph of 'ection %1 of ).$. 1%2@- which
pro*ides that3 NThe act of registration shall .e the operati*e
act to con*ey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned.N
&ioso 8. &ocha
- Maria was married to Mariano. They had ! children-
'antiago- Cose- 'e*erina. 'e*erina died during infancy.
- 'antiago Gnow deceasedE was married to 1rancisca and
had 2 children- Magin and Consolacion.
- Cose married Marcelina and had one child who died .efore
Cose.
- Mariano left a will di*iding his property .etween 'antiago
and Cose- gi*ing the latter 11 parcels of land. Bpon Cose4s
death- he named his wife Marcelina as his only heir.
- 5hen Cose4s will was going to .e pro.ated- Marcelina and
Maria Gthe motherE entered into a contract where they
di*ided the property left .y Cose .etween themsel*es.
- Maria later sold parcels 1>(- 1A and 11 to Marcelina- who
later sold them to )a.lo 7ocha. )a.lo later returned
parcels 1>( to Maria saying that they were erroneously
included in the sale made .y Maria to Marcelina.
- Magin Gthe daughter of 'antiagoE is now claiming that she
and her sister Consolacion had a share in the 11 parcels
passed on to Marcelina .y Cose.
5ON the 11 parcels were reser*a.le properties.
- I&'. The 11 parcels of land were acquired .y Cose .y
lucrati*e title from his father Mariano and that after the
death of Cose- they passed on to Maria .y operation of law.
- Magin and Consolacion were the nearest relati*es within
the !
rd
degree of the line from which the property came.
- Maria was ordered to ac+nowledge the right of Magin and
Consolacion to the reser*ation of the parcels of land- which
was to .e recorded in the 7$.
- As to Marcelina and )a.lo- they could not ha*e acquired a
.etter title than that held .y Maria Corral and if the latterUs
title was limited .y the reser*ation and the o.ligation to
note it in the registry of deeds.
- )a.lo was also ordered to register parcels 1A and 11 as
reser*a.le property in the 7$ since he +new that the
property was reser*a.le. =e was a legatee in the will.
- 1or purposes of reser*ation and the rights and o.ligations
created there.y- in connection with the relati*es .enefited-
the property must not .e deemed transmitted to the heirs
from the time the e/traDudicial partition was made- .ut from
the time said partition was appro*ed .y the court.
- The reser*oir is .ound to register the reser*ation within @A
days from the date of adDudication of the property to the
heirs .y the court.
- 5here a reser*a.le property is sold .y the reser*oir- without
ha*ing registered its reser*a.le character- the o.ligation to
register the same is transferred to the purchaser- if the latter
+new of the reser*a.le character of the property.
A$. BC4. T&e esao$ canno de'$i#e &is
com'u*so$" &ei$s of &ei$ *e)iime( e+ce' in
cases e+'$ess*" s'ecified !" *a%.
Ryan Ouan 103
ST ST
Nei&e$ can &e im'ose u'on &e same an"
!u$den( encum!$ance( condiion( o$
su!siuion of an" 2ind %&asoe#e$.
As already laid down in Art??(- the legitime is not within
the testator4s control. t passes to the compulsory heirs
.y strict operation of law.
Tesao$ -e#oid of Po%e$ o -e'$i#e Com'u*so$"
Hei$s of Le)iime
t is the law- not the testator-
which determines the transmission of the legitimes.
Consequently- it is not within the testator4s power to
depri*e the compulsory heirs of their legitime.
&PC&)TON 9 the only instance
in which the law allows the testator to depri*e the
compulsory heirs of their legitimes is
-ISINHERITANCE under Arts@1%>@2!- the grounds
.eing set forth under Arts@1@>@21.
Tesao$ -e#oid of Po%e$ o Im'ose Eu$dens on
Le)iime
As also reiterated in Art?72- the
testator cannot impair the legitime- as a
consequence of the principle that the legitime
passes .y strict operation of law.
EHCEPTIONS 9 1&en &e La% )$ans &e Tesao$
Some Po%e$ o#e$ &e Le)iime
1. Article 1A?A par2 9
,A parent who- in the interest of his or her
family- desires to +eep any agricultural- industrial-
or manufacturing enterprise intact- may a*ail
himself of the right granted him in this article- .y
ordering that the legitime of the other children to
whom the property is not assigned- .e paid in
cash.0
2. Article 1A?! par1 9
,&*ery co>heir has a right to demand the
di*ision of the estate unless the testator should
ha*e e/pressly for.idden its partition- in which
case the period of indi*ision shall not e/ceed 2A
years as pro*ided in article #@#. This power of the
testator to prohi.it di*ision applies to the legitime.0
Res$icions on Le)iime Im'osed !" La%
A. Article 1%@- 1amily Code
,The 1amily =ome shall continue despite the
death of one or .oth spouses or of the unmarried
head of the family for a period of 1A years or for
as long as there is a minor .eneficiary- and the
heirs cannot partition the same unless the court
finds compelling reasons therefor. This rule shall
apply regardless of whoe*er owns the property or
constituted the family home.0
2. The 7eser*a Troncal
A$. BC5. E#e$" $enunciaion o$ com'$omise as
$e)a$ds a fuu$e *e)iime !e%een &e 'e$son
o%in) i and &is com'u*so$" &ei$s is #oid( and
&e *ae$ ma" c*aim &e same u'on &e dea&
of &e fo$me$; !u &e" mus !$in) o co**aion
%&ae#e$ &e" ma" &a#e $ecei#ed !" #i$ue of
&e $enunciaion o$ com'$omise.
7eason for the 7ule
2efore the predecessor4s death-
the heir4s right is simply inchoate.
$uty to Collate
Any property which the
compulsory heir may ha*e gratuitously recei*ed
from his predecessor .y *irtue of the renunciation or
compromise will .e considered an ad*ance on his
legitime and must .e duly credited.
'cope of )rohi.ition
This article applies only to
transactions of compromise or renunciation .etween
the predecessor and the prospecti*e compulsory
heir.
QB&'TON 9 s a transaction .etween the prospecti*e
compulsory heir and another prospecti*e compulsory
heir- or .etween a prospecti*e compulsory heir and a
stranger- interdicted6
I&' under Article 1!#7 par23
,No contract may .e entered into upon future
inheritance e/cept in cases e/pressly pro*ided .y
law.0
A$. BC8. An" com'u*so$" &ei$ o %&om &e
esao$ &as *ef !" an" i*e *ess &an &e
*e)iime !e*on)in) o &im ma" demand &a
&e same !e fu**" saisfied.
78=T O1 COM)"&TON O1 "&8TM&
This rule applies only to
transmissions .y gratuitous title.
Cross>7eferences- related articles
Art?%% 9 if the title .y which the
testator transmitted property is intestate succession
Art. 855. The share of a chd or descendant
omtted n a w must frst be taken from the
part of the estate not dsposed of by the w, f
any; f that s not suffcent, so much as may be
necessary must be taken proportonay from the
shares of the other compusory hers.
n relation to Arts@A@ and @1A
Ryan Ouan 104
ST ST
T&e '$inci'*e unde$*"in) &is $u*e on com'*eion of
*e)iime is &a an"&in) &a a com'u*so$" &ei$
$ecei#es !" )$auious i*e f$om &e '$edecesso$ is
conside$ed an advan#e on le)itime and is deduced
&e$ef$om
&PC&)TON'
1. Art1A(2 9 if the predecessor ga*e the
compulsory heir a donation inter *i*os and
pro*ided that it was not to .e charged against
the legitime.
2. Art1A(! 9 testamentary dispositions
made .y the predecessor to the compulsory
heir- unless the testator pro*ides that it
should .e considered part of the legitime.
A$. BC7. Tesamena$" dis'osiions &a im'ai$ o$
diminis& &e *e)iime of &e com'u*so$" &ei$s
s&a** !e $educed on 'eiion of &e same(
insofa$ as &e" ma" !e inofficious o$
e+cessi#e.
2ased on the same principle as art@A#. f the
testamentary dispositions e/ceed the disposa.le portion-
the compulsory heirs may demand their reduction to the
e/tent hat the legitimes ha*e .een impaired. To allow the
testator to ma+e testamentary dispositions that impair the
legitime would in effect allow him to depri*e the
compulsory heirs of part of their legitime 9 an act which
is prohi.ited .y Art@A#.
This article should .e read together with Art@11.
A$. BC<. To dee$mine &e *e)iime( &e #a*ue of
&e '$o'e$" *ef a &e dea& of &e esao$
s&a** !e conside$ed( deducin) a** de!s and
c&a$)es( %&ic& s&a** no inc*ude &ose
im'osed in &e %i**.
To &e ne #a*ue of &e &e$edia$" esae(
s&a** !e added &e #a*ue of a** donaions !"
&e esao$ &a a$e su!Jec o co**aion( a &e
ime &e made &em.
The N&T =&7&$TA7I &'TAT&
Articles ???>@A! set forth the
legitimes of the compulsory heirs- either inheriting
alone or in *arious com.inations. Those articles
ga*e the legitimes in the form of fractions- or
proportions of the decedent4s estate.
This article ma+es possi.le the
computation of the a.solute amounts of the
legitimes .y laying down the manner of computing
the net *alue of the estate :the net hereditary
estate;- on which the proportions are .ased.
, ANNER O . C O,P0TING T HE
H ERE-ITARF E STATE
1. In#eno$" a** &e E+isin) Asses
aE This will in*ol*e appraisalL*aluation
of the e/isting assets at the time of the
decedent4s death
.E These assets include only those
properties that sur*i*e the decedent- i.e.
those which are not e/tinguished .y his
death :in relation to articles 77# and 777;.
c) The *alue determined .y this
in*entory will constitute the $&+SS
(SS%,S.
@. -educ 0n'aid -e!s and C&a$)es
aE All unpaid o.ligations of the
decedent should .e deducted from the
gross assets.
.E Only those o.ligations with
monetary *alue which are not e/tinguished
.y death are considered. Thus- those
o.ligations which are purely personal are
not ta+en into account.
c) The difference .etween the gross
assets and the unpaid o.ligations will .e
the (/(*L(BL% (SS%,S.
A. Add &e Va*ue of -onaions Ine$ Vi#os
a) To the a*aila.le assets should .e
added all the inter 8i8os donations made
.y the decedent.
b) The donations inter 8i8os shall .e
*alued as of the time they were
respecti*ely made. Any increase or
decrease in *alue from the time they were
made to the time of the decedent4s death
shall .e for the account of the donee- since
the donation transfers ownership to the
donee.
c) The sum of the a*aila.le assets and
all the donations inter 8i8os is the )%,
!%&%@*,(&1 %S,(,%.
C+LL(,*+)
Collation is the act .y *irtue of
which descendants or other forced heirs who
inter*ene in the di*ision of the inheritance of an
ascendant .ring into the common mass- the property
which they recei*ed from him- s that the di*ision
Ryan Ouan 105
ST ST
may .e made according to law and the will of the
testator.
Collation is only required of
compulsory heirs succeeding with other compulsory
heirs and in*ol*es property or rights recei*ed .y
donation or gratuitous title during the lifetime of the
decedent.
The purpose is to attain equality
among the compulsory heirs in so far as possi.le for
it is presumed that the intention of the testator or
predecessor in interest in ma+ing a donation or
gratuitous transfer to a forced heir is to gi*e him
something in ad*ance on account of his share in the
estate- and that the predecessor4s will is to treat all
his heirs equally- in the a.sence of any e/pression
to the contrary.
Collation does not impose any
lien on the property or the su.Dect matter of
collationa.le donation. 5hat is .rought to collation is
not the property donated itself- .ut rather the *alue
of such property at the time it was donated- the
rationale .eing that the donation is a real alienation
which con*eys ownership upon its acceptance-
hence any increase in *alue or any deterioration or
loss thereof is for the account of the heir or donee.
:/i9conde 8 C(;
A$. BCB. -onaions )i#en o c&i*d$en s&a** !e
c&a$)ed o &ei$ *e)iime.
-onaions made o s$an)e$s s&a** !e
c&a$)ed o &a 'a$ of &e esae of %&ic& &e
esao$ cou*d &a#e dis'osed !" &is *as %i**.
Insofa$ as &e" ma" !e inofficious o$ ma"
e+ceed &e dis'osa!*e 'o$ion( &e" s&a** !e
$educed acco$din) o &e $u*es esa!*is&ed !"
&is Code.
A$. B1C. -onaions %&ic& an i**e)iimae c&i*d
ma" &a#e $ecei#ed du$in) &e *ifeime of &is
fa&e$ o$ mo&e$( s&a** !e c&a$)ed o &is
*e)iime.
S&ou*d &e" e+ceed &e 'o$ion &a can
!e f$ee*" dis'osed of( &e" s&a** !e $educed in
&e manne$ '$esc$i!ed !" &is Code.
$onations nter Ki*os to Compulsory =eirs
$onations inter *i*os to a
compulsory heir shall .e imputed to his legitime- i.e.
considered as an ad*ance on his legitime.
Co*erage of 7ule
o Applies to A"" compulsory heirs
oNote that these 2 articles omit :inad*ertently;
ascendants who succeed as compulsory heirs.
This rule applies to them as well.
o1or o.*ious reasons- this rule has no
application to a sur8i8ing spouse.
&/ception
o This rule of imputation to the legitime will not
apply if the donor pro*ided otherwise :in relation
to Article 1A(2;- in which case the donation will
.e imputed to the disposa.le portion of the
estate.
$onations nter Ki*os to 'trangers
A stranger is anyone who does
not succeed as a compulsory heir.
$onations inter *i*os to
strangers are necessarily imputed to the
$')O'A2"& )O7TON.
A$. B11. Afe$ &e *e)iime &as !een dee$mined
in acco$dance %i& &e &$ee '$ecedin)
a$ic*es( &e $educion s&a** !e made as
fo**o%s=
>1? -onaions s&a** !e $es'eced as *on) as
&e *e)iime can !e co#e$ed( $educin) o$
annu**in)( if necessa$"( &e de#ises o$
*e)acies made in &e %i**;
>@? T&e $educion of &e de#ises o$ *e)acies
s&a** !e '$o $aa( %i&ou an" disincion
%&ae#e$.
If &e esao$ &as di$eced &a a
ce$ain de#ise o$ *e)ac" !e 'aid in
'$efe$ence o o&e$s( i s&a** no suffe$
an" $educion uni* &e *ae$ &a#e !een
a''*ied in fu** o &e 'a"men of &e
*e)iime.
>A? If &e de#ise o$ *e)ac" consiss of a
usuf$uc o$ *ife annui"( %&ose #a*ue ma"
!e conside$ed )$eae$ &an &a of &e
dis'osa!*e 'o$ion( &e com'u*so$" &ei$s
ma" c&oose !e%een com'*"in) %i& &e
esamena$" '$o#ision and de*i#e$in) o
&e de#isee o$ *e)aee &e 'a$ of &e
in&e$iance of %&ic& &e esao$ cou*d
f$ee*" dis'ose.
This pro*ision implements the principle laid down in
Articles ?72- ??( and @A# > the in*iola.ility of the
legitime.
Thus- if the legitimes are impaired- the gratuitous
dispositions of the testator :either inter 8i8os or 6ortis
causa; ha*e to .e set aside or reduced as may .e
required to co*er the legitimes.
,e&od of Reducion
There is an order of priorities to
.e o.ser*ed in the reduction of the testator4s
gratuitous dispositions- thus 9
A. 1irst- reduce pro rata the non>preferred legacies
and de*ises :Art@11 G2E;- and the testamentary
Ryan Ouan 106
ST ST
dispositions :Art@A7;. Among these legacies-
de*ises and testamentary dispositions- there is
no preference.
B. 'econd- reduce pro rata the preferred legacies
and de*ises :Art@11- last par.;
C. Third- reduce the donations inter 8i8os
according to the in*erse order of their dates :i.e.
the oldest is the most preferred; :Art77!;.
These reductions shall .e to the
e/tent required to complete the legitimes- e*en if in
the process the disposition is reduced to nothing.
An a''a$en conf*ic e+iss
!e%een &is a$ic*e and A$B5C( $e)a$din) &e
o$de$ of '$efe$ence amon) *e)acies and de#ises(
s&ou*d $educions !e necessa$". :'ee discussions
under Art@%A;
-EVISESILEGACIES O. 0S0.R0CTI LI.E
ANN0ITIESI PENSIONS 0N-ER PAR. A
The following principles shall .e
.orne in mind3
A. f- upon .eing capitaliHed according to
actuarial standards- the *alue of the grant
e/ceeds the free portion :i.e. it impairs the
legitime;- it has to .e reduced- .ecause the
legitime cannot .e impaired.
2. The testator can impose no usufruct or
any other encum.rance on the part that passes
as legitime.
C. 'u.Dect to the 2 rules stated- the
compulsory heirs may elect .etween3
i. Ceding to the de*iseeLlegatee
the free portion:or the proportional part
thereof corresponding to the said
legacyLde*ise- in case there are other
dispositions;- or
ii. Complying with the terms of the
usufruct or life annuity or pension.
A$. B1@. If &e de#ise su!Jec o $educion s&ou*d
consis of $ea* '$o'e$"( %&ic& canno !e
con#enien*" di#ided( i s&a** )o o &e
de#isee if &e $educion does no a!so$! oneG
&a*f of is #a*ue; and in a con$a$" case( o &e
com'u*so$" &ei$s; !u &e fo$me$ and &e
*ae$ s&a** $eim!u$se eac& o&e$ in cas& fo$
%&a $es'eci#e*" !e*on)s o &em.
T&e de#isee %&o is eni*ed o a *e)iime
ma" $eain &e eni$e '$o'e$"( '$o#ided is
#a*ue does no e+ceed &a of &e dis'osa!*e
'o$ion and of &e s&a$e 'e$ainin) o &im as
*e)iime.
This rule co*ers cases where3
1E The de*ise has to .e reduced- and
2E The thing gi*en as a de*ise is indi*isi.le
R0LES
1. If &e e+en of $educion is LESS THAN O of
&e #a*ue of &e &in) 9 i s&ou*d !e )i#en o
&e devisee.
2. If &e e+en of $educion is O OR ,ORE of &e
#a*ue of &e &in) 9 i s&ou*d !e )i#en o &e
#om'ulsory @eir.
n either case- there should .e pecuniary reim.ursement
to the party who did not get his physical portion of the
thing de*ised.
A$. B1A. If &e &ei$s o$ de#isees do no c&oose o
a#ai* &emse*#es of &e $i)& )$aned !" &e
'$ecedin) a$ic*e( an" &ei$ o$ de#isee %&o did
no &a#e suc& $i)& ma" e+e$cise i; s&ou*d
&e *ae$ no ma2e use of i( &e '$o'e$" s&a**
!e so*d a 'u!*ic aucion a &e insance of
an" one of &e ine$esed 'a$ies.
This article applies if neither party :the compulsory heirLs
and the de*isee; elects to e/ercise his right under
Art@12.
=ow the Thing $e*ised 'hould .e $isposed Of3
A. Any other heir or de*isee- who elects to do so-
may acquire the thing and pay the parties :the
compulsory heir and the de*isee in question; their
respecti*e shares in money.
B. f no heir or de*isee elects to acquire it- it shall .e
sold at public auction and the net proceeds
accordingly di*ided .etween the parties
concerned.
Note 9 this rule of constructi*e partition is similar to that
in co>ownership :Art#@?; and in partition of the
decedent4s estate :Art1A?(;- e/cept that- in these two
latter cases- the acquisition .y one of the co>owners or
co>heirs can .e done only if all the co>owners or co>heirs
agree to such acquisition.
A$. B14. T&e esao$ ma" de#ise and !equea&
&e f$ee 'o$ion as &e ma" deem fi.
'imply a re>statement of Art?#2.
CASES
/i9conde 8. C(
/da. @e ,upas 8. &,C
- The petition is .rought .y )aternHa "ucerna- wife of
&pifanio Tupas- as the sole heir to the estate of the latter.
- t was found that a year .efore &pifanio4s death- he donated
some three parcels of land in fa*or of Tupas 1oundation-
nc.
Ryan Ouan 107
ST ST
- The wife is contending that the donationw as inofficious as
it left her destitute of any inheritance.
- =ence- she prayed to ha*e the donation declared
inofficious insofar as it preDudiced her legitime- therefore
reduci.le .y such proportion as might .e deemed Dustified
and the resulting deduction deli*ered to her.
- The lower court contended that aE Article @AA relied upon
.y plaintiff is not applica.le .ecause the properties which
were disposed of .y way of donation were no longer part of
his hereditary estate at the time of his death .E the donated
properties were &pifanioUs capital or separate estate< and
G!E Tupas 1oundation- nc. .eing a stranger and not a
compulsory heir- the donation inter 8i8os made in its fa*or
was not su.Dect to collation under Art. 1A( 1.
5hether or not the lower court decided correctly.
- 'C held in the negati*e.
- 1irst- although the court recogniHed the right of indi*iduals
to donate- the same is su.Dect to certain limitations- one of
which is that he cannot gi*e .y donation more than he can
gi*e .y will
- f he does- so much of what is donated as e/ceeds what he
can gi*e .y will is deemed inofficious and the donation is
reduci.le to the e/tent of such e/cess- though without
preDudice to its ta+ing effect in the donorUs lifetime or the
doneeUs appropriating the fruits of the thing donated
- 'econd- such a donation is- moreo*er- collationa.le. The
*alue of the thing donated is imputa.le into the hereditary
estate of the donor at the time of his death for the purpose
of determining the legitime of the forced or compulsory
heirs and the freely disposa.le portion of the estate. :,his
is true liGewise with respect to donations 6ade to strangers
as in gifts 6ade to co6pulsory heirs< although the
language of (rticle #0# of the Ci8il Code would see6 to
li6it collation to the latter class of donations.E
- The said properties .eing collationa.le- the 'C ordered the
case remanded for further determination as to whether the
donation is inofficious insofar as it is in e/cess of the
disposa.le free portion of the deceased4s estate and should
there.y .e reduced to the amount of such e/cess.
- A personUs prerogati*e to ma+e donations is su.Dect to
certain limitations- one of which is that he cannot gi*e .y
donation more than he can gi*e .y will.
- f he does- so much of what is donated as e/ceeds what he
can gi*e .y will is deemed inofficious and the donation is
reduci.le to the e/tent of such e/cess- though without
preDudice to its ta+ing effect in the donorUs lifetime or the
doneeUs appropriating the fruits of the thing donated.
SEC-I./ ;. 1
ISI/HE!I-A/CE

A$. B15. A com'u*so$" &ei$ ma"( in consequence
of disin&e$iance( !e de'$i#ed of &is *e)iime(
fo$ causes e+'$ess*" saed !" *a%.
Art@A# sets forth the rule that the testator cannot depri*e
the compulsory heirs of the legitime. The sole e/ception
to this rule is $'N=&7TANC&. Thus- disinheritance is
the only instance in which the testator may depri*e his
compulsory heirs of their legitime.
R E/0ISITES O . A V ALI- - ISINHERITANCE
1. t must .e made in a 1i**
- Must .e formally *alid and admitted to pro.ate
2. t must .e for a Cause specified .y law under
Articles @1( in relation to Articles @1@>@21
- -or @escendants 3(rticle B#B5
aE 8uilty of an Attempt Against the "ife of
the Testator or the latter4s spouse-
descendants or ascendants
.E Accused Testator of Crime punisha.le
.y ( years or more- and the accusation is
found to .e 8roundless
cE Con*icted of Adultery or Concu.inage
with 'pouse of the Testator
dE 2y 1raud- Kiolence- ntimidation or
Bndue nfluence causes Testator to Ma+e
5ill or Change 1 already made.
eE 7efusal without Dustifia.le cause to
support the parent or ascendant who
disinherits
fE Maltreatment of testator .y wordLdeed
gE "eads dishonora.le or disgraceful life
Ryan Ouan 108
ST ST
- -or (scendants 3(rticle B205
aE A.andoned children or induced
daughters to li*e corrupt or immoral life or
attempted against their *irtue
.E Con*icted of attempt against life of
testator- his or her spouse- descendant or
ascendants
cE Accused testator of a Crime
punisha.le .y mprisonment for ( years or
more- if the accusation has .een found to
.e 1alse
dE Con*icted of adultery L concu.inage
with the spouse of the testator
eE 2y 1raud- Kiolence- ntimidation or
Bndue nfluence causes testator to Ma+e a
5ill or Change one already made.
fE "oss of )arental Authority for
causes specified in this Code
gE 7efusal to support Children or
$escendants 5LO Dustifia.le cause
hE Attempt .y 1 of the parents against
the life of the other- unless there has .een
reconciliation .etween them
- -or Sur8i8ing Spouse 3(rticle B2#5
a) Con*icted of Attempt against life of
Testator- hisLher descendantsLascendants.
.E Accused Testator of a Crime
punisha.le with imprisonment for ( years or
more- and the accusation is fond to .e
1alse.
cE 'pouse- .y 1raud- Kiolence-
ntimidation- or Bndue nfluence causes the
testator to ma+e a 5ill or change one
already made.
dE =as gi*en cause for legal separation
eE =as gi*en grounds for loss of
parental authority
fE BnDustifia.le refusal to support the
children or the other spouse
- f this is not present- or the cause specified is
not among those set forth in the Code- there is
ineffecti*e disinheritance under article @1?.
3. t must S'ecif" the cause :Arts @1( and @1?;
- f this is not present- there is ineffecti*e
disinheritance under article @1?.
4. t must .e 0ncondiiona*
5. t must .e Toa*
6. The cause must .e T$ue
7. f the truth of the cause is $enied- it must .e
P$o#ed .y the proponent.
- f the contro*erted cause is not pro*ed- there
Note 9 the strictness of the requisites indicates the policy
of the law. t regards disinheritance with disfa*or and will
grant it only with reluctance- .ecause disinheritance
results in depri*ation of legitime.
E..ECT O. -ISINHERITANCE
The effect of disinheritance is
not Dust depri*ation of the leigtime- .ut total
e?clusion of the disinherited heir from the
inheritance. Thus- the disinherited heir forfeits3
A. =is legitime-
2. =is intestate portion- if any- and
C. Any testamentary disposition made in a
prior will of the disinheriting testator.
A$. B18. -isin&e$iance can !e effeced on*"
&$ou)& a %i** %&e$ein &e *e)a* cause
&e$efo$ s&a** !e s'ecified.
Made in a 5ill 9 the 1
st
clause of this article constitutes
the first requisite of disinheritance- that it must .e made
in a will.
The will o.*iously- must .e
1O7MA""I KA"$ and must .e admitted to
)7O2AT&.
"egal Cause 9 is the 2
nd
requisite for a *alid
disinheritance. The causes allowed .y law are
enumerated in Articles @1@ :for descendants;- @2A :for
ascendants; and @21 :for the sur*i*ing spouse;.
A$. B17. T&e !u$den of '$o#in) &e $u& of &e
cause fo$ disin&e$iance s&a** $es u'on &e
o&e$ &ei$s of &e esao$( if &e disin&e$ied
&ei$ s&ou*d den" i.
7
T=
requisite 9 it must .e noted that the truth here is not
presumed- it must .e pro*ed. All the disinherited heir
need do is deny the cause and the .urden is thrown
upon those who would uphold the disinheritance.
A$. B1<. -isin&e$iance %i&ou a s'ecificaion of
&e cause( o$ fo$ a cause &e $u& of %&ic&( if
con$adiced( is no '$o#ed( o$ %&ic& is no
one of &ose se fo$& in &is Code( s&a**
annu* &e insiuion of &ei$s insofa$ as i ma"
'$eJudice &e 'e$son disin&e$ied; !u &e
de#ises and *e)acies and o&e$ esamena$"
dis'osiions s&a** !e #a*id o suc& e+en as
%i** no im'ai$ &e *e)iime.
This article sets forth requisites ! and ( of disinheritance.
INE..ECTIVE -ISINHERITANCE
f the disinheritance lac+s one or
other of the requisites mentioned in this article- the
heir in question gets his legitime.
As to whether he will also get
any part of the intestate portion or not- this depends
Ryan Ouan 109
ST ST
on whether the testator ga*e away the free portion
through testamentary dispositions.
o f he did- these dispositions are KA"$ and the
compulsory heir improperly disinherited gets
only his legitime.
o f the testator did not- the compulsory heir will
.e entitled to his corresponding share of the
free portion as well.
Note the difference .etween the
effect of ineffecti*e disinheritance and that of
preterition under article ?%#3
Art. 854. The preterton or omsson of one,
some, or a of the compusory hers n the
drect ne, whether vng at the tme of
the executon of the w or born after the
death of the testator, sha annu the
nsttuton of her; but the devses and
egaces sha be vad nsofar as they are
not noffcous.
If the omtted compusory hers shoud
de before the testator, the nsttuton sha
be effectua, wthout pre|udce to the rght
of representaton.
A$. B1B. T&e fo**o%in) s&a** !e sufficien causes
fo$ &e disin&e$iance of c&i*d$en and
descendans( *e)iimae as %e** as
i**e)iimae=
>1? 1&en a c&i*d o$ descendan &as !een
found )ui*" of an aem' a)ains &e
*ife of &e esao$( &is o$ &e$ s'ouse(
descendans( o$ ascendans;
>@? 1&en a c&i*d o$ descendan &as accused
&e esao$ of a c$ime fo$ %&ic& &e *a%
'$esc$i!es im'$isonmen fo$ si+ "ea$s
o$ mo$e( if &e accusaion &as !een
found )$ound*ess;
>A? 1&en a c&i*d o$ descendan &as !een
con#iced of adu*e$" o$ concu!ina)e
%i& &e s'ouse of &e esao$;
>4? 1&en a c&i*d o$ descendan !" f$aud(
#io*ence( inimidaion( o$ undue
inf*uence causes &e esao$ o ma2e a
%i** o$ o c&an)e one a*$ead" made;
>5? A $efusa* %i&ou Jusifia!*e cause o
su''o$ &e 'a$en o$ ascendan %&o
disin&e$is suc& c&i*d o$ descendan;
>8? ,a*$eamen of &e esao$ !" %o$d o$
deed( !" &e c&i*d o$ descendan;
>7? 1&en a c&i*d o$ descendan *eads a
dis&ono$a!*e o$ dis)$acefu* *ife;
><? Con#icion of a c$ime %&ic& ca$$ies %i&
i &e 'ena*" of ci#i* ine$dicion.
T&e$e a$e < Causes fo$ disin&e$iance of C&i*d$en o$
-escendans 9 1&e&e$ Le)iimae o$ I**e)iimae
:%?clusi8e enu6eration;
1. Has !een found Gui*" of an Aem' A)ains
&e Life of &e Tesao$ o$ &e *ae$:s s'ouse(
descendans o$ ascendans
oThe word atte6pt here is used non>
technically and should not .e construed to
limit the pro*ision to the attempted stage of
the felony.
o All stages of commission are included 9
whether attempted- frustrated- or
consummated.
o The felony- o.*iously- must .e an intentional
one.
o 1NA" CONKCTON is required.
o Question 9 must the disinheritance .e
su.sequent to the con*iction or may it
precede the con*iction6
- 2y the wording of the law- it seems that it
must .e su.sequent :6;
@. Has Accused &e Tesao$ of a C$ime
'unis&a!*e !" 8 "ea$s o$ mo$e( and &e
accusaion is found o !e G$ound*ess
oThe word accused here is used generically
and will include3
aE 1iling of a complaint .efore the
prosecutor- or
.E )resenting incriminating
e*idence against the testator- or
cE &*en suppressing e/culpatory
e*idence
o The crime of which the testator is accused
must carry a penalty of at least ( years
imprisonment.
- )rof. 2alane says that the terminology
used should .e ,more than ( years
imprisonment0 .ecause ( years still falls
within prision correccional. 1 day .eyond
that places it within the ne/t higher
penalty of prision 6ayor.
- f the penalty prescri.ed is prision
correccional- does it fall under the
contemplation of this paragraph6
o The testator must .e ACQBTT&$.
oThe accusation must .e found to .e
groundless- i.e. the Dudgment of acquittal
must state that either 9
aE No crime was committed or
.E The accused did not commit the
crime
o An acquittal .ased on reasona.le ground will
not .e a ground for disinheritance.
A. Has !een Con#iced of Adu*e$" o$
Concu!ina)e %i& &e S'ouse of &e Tesao$
o 1inal Con*iction is required
o 'ame question 9 must the disinheritance .e
su.sequent to the con*iction6
Ryan Ouan 110
ST ST
4. E" .$aud( Vio*ence( Inimidaion o$ 0ndue
Inf*uence causes &e Tesao$ o ,a2e a 1i** o$
C&an)e one a*$ead" made.
5. Refusa* 1IO Jusifia!*e cause o Su''o$ &e
'a$en o$ ascendan %&o disin&e$is
oThere must ha*e .een a need and a demand
for support :in relation to Art 2A! of the 1amily
Code;
Art. 203. The obgaton to gve support
sha be demandabe from the tme the
person who has a rght to receve the
same needs t for mantenance, but t
sha not be pad except from the date of
|udca or extra-|udca demand.
Support pendente te may be camed
n accordance wth the Rues of Court.
Payment sha be made wthn the frst
fve days of each correspondng month
or when the recpent des, hs hers
sha not be obged to return what he
has receved n advance.
oThe demand must ha*e .een un>ustifiably
refused. 7efusal may .e Dustified if the o.ligor
does not ha*e enough resources for all whom
he is o.liged to support. The ascendants are
only !
rd
in the hierarchy of preference among
claimants of support :under Art2AA par! of the
1amily Code;.
Art. 200. When the obgaton to gve
support fas upon two or more persons,
the payment of the same sha be
dvded between them n proporton to
the resources of each.
However, n case of urgent need and
by speca crcumstances, the |udge may
order ony one of them to furnsh the
support provsonay, wthout pre|udce
to hs rght to cam from the other
obgors the share due from them.
When two or more recpents at the
same tme cam support from one and
the same person egay obged to gve
t, shoud the atter not have suffcent
means to satsfy a cams, the order
estabshed n the precedng artce sha
be foowed, uness the concurrent
obgees shoud be the spouse and a
chd sub|ect to parenta authorty, n
whch case the chd sha be preferred.
8. ,a*$eamen of &e esao$ !" %o$d o$ deed
oThis will include a wide range of misdeeds-
.ut it is required that the act of *er.al or
physical assault is of a serious nature.
o No con*iction is required- in fact- it is not e*en
required that any criminal case .e filed.
o Consequently- a physical assault that would
not fall under par1 as an attempt against the
life of the testator- the latter4s spouse-
descendants or ascendants- can fall under
this paragraph.
7. Leads a dis&ono$a!*e o$ dis)$acefu* *ife
oThe operati*e word here is ,lead.0 There must
.e habituality to the conduct to ma+e it fall
under this paragraph.
o The dishonora.le or disgraceful conduct or
pattern of .eha*ior need not .e se/ual in
nature- although it may often .e that. 'urely-
a child or descendant whose li*elihood is
drug>pushing or smuggling is li*ing a
dishonora.le and disgraceful life.
<. Con#icion of a c$ime ca$$"in) ci#i* ine$dicion
o 1inal Con*iction is required.
oThe accessory penalty of ci*il interdiction is
imposed with the principal penalties of death-
reclusion perpetua and reclusion te6poral
:under Articles #A>#1 of the 7)C;.
o 'ame question 9 must the disinheritance .e
su.sequent to the con*iction6
A$. B@C. T&e fo**o%in) s&a** !e sufficien causes
fo$ &e disin&e$iance of 'a$ens o$
ascendans( %&e&e$ *e)iimae o$ i**e)iimae=
>1? 1&en &e 'a$ens &a#e a!andoned &ei$
c&i*d$en o$ induced &ei$ dau)&e$s o *i#e
a co$$u' o$ immo$a* *ife( o$ aem'ed
a)ains &ei$ #i$ue;
>@? 1&en &e 'a$en o$ ascendan &as !een
con#iced of an aem' a)ains &e *ife of
&e esao$( &is o$ &e$ s'ouse(
>A? 1&en &e 'a$en o$ ascendan &as
accused &e esao$ of a c$ime fo$ %&ic&
&e *a% '$esc$i!es im'$isonmen fo$ si+
"ea$s o$ mo$e( if &e accusaion &as !een
found o !e fa*se;
>4? 1&en &e 'a$en o$ ascendan &as !een
con#iced of adu*e$" o$ concu!ina)e %i&
&e s'ouse of &e esao$;
>5? 1&en &e 'a$en o$ ascendan !" f$aud(
#io*ence( inimidaion( o$ undue inf*uence
causes &e esao$ o ma2e a %i** o$ o
c&an)e one a*$ead" made;
>8? T&e *oss of 'a$ena* au&o$i" fo$ causes
s'ecified in &is Code;
>7? T&e $efusa* o su''o$ &e c&i*d$en o$
descendans %i&ou Jusifia!*e cause;
><? An aem' !" one of &e 'a$ens a)ains
&e *ife of &e o&e$( un*ess &e$e &as !een
a $econci*iaion !e%een &em.
Ryan Ouan 111
ST ST
There are also ? Causes for the $isinheritance of
)arents or Ascendants- whether "egitimate or
llegitimate. :%?clusi8e enu6eration;
1. 1&en &e 'a$ens &a#e a!andoned &ei$
c&i*d$en o$ induced &ei$ dau)&e$s o *i#e a
co$$u' o$ immo$a* *ife o$ aem'ed a)ains
&ei$ #i$ue
o This paragraph encompasses ! grounds3
a) A!andonmen 9 also includes
those penaliHed .y law under articles
27(>277 of the 7)C- Article %@ of
)$(A! and all conduct constituting
repeated or total refusal or failure to
care for the child. According to the
case of Chua 8. Cabangbang- mere
acquiescence without more is not
sufficient to constitute a.andonment.
=owe*er- when the mother completely
withheld her presence- her lo*e- her
care and the opportunity to show
maternal affection< and totally denied
her support and maintenance- her
silence and inaction ha*ing .een
prolonged for such a time- then it can
.e legally inferred that there is
a.andonment. Ouestion L will consent
to adoption of a child constitute
abandon6entH
b) Inducemen o *i#e a co$$u'
and immo$a* *ife 9 under Art2!1:2; of
the 1amily Code as a ground for
suspension or depri*ation of parental
authority.
c) Aem' a)ains Vi$ue 9 no
con*iction is required here.
2. Con#iced of aem' a)ains *ife of esao$(
&is o$ &e$ s'ouse( descendan o$ ascendans.
3. Has Accused esao$ of a C$ime 'unis&a!*e
!" Im'$isonmen fo$ 8 "ea$s o$ mo$e( if &e
accusaion &as !een found o !e .a*se.
4. Has !een Con#iced of adu*e$" o$
concu!ina)e %i& &e s'ouse of &e esao$.
5. E" .$aud( Vio*ence( Inimidaion o$ 0ndue
Inf*uence causes esao$ o ,a2e a 1i** o$
C&an)e one a*$ead" made.
8. T&e Loss of Pa$ena* Au&o$i" fo$ causes
s'ecified in &is Code
o Not all causes for loss of parental authority
are grounds for disinheritance. 1or instance-
attainment of the age of maDority is not a
ground. Only those causes which in*ol*e
culpa.ility on the part of the parents will
pro*ide grounds for disinheritance.
aE Cudicial depri*ation of parental
authority .ased on ground of se/ual
a.use :Arts2!2 1C;
.E "oss of parental authority as a result of
Cudicial declaration of a.andonment of
a child :Art22@G!E 1C;
cE Cudicial $epri*ation of )arental
Authority on the grounds of3
i. &/cessi*ely harsh or
cruel treatment of the child
ii. 8i*ing the child
corrupting orders- counsel or
e/ample.
iii. Compelling the child
to .eg- or
i*. 'u.Decting the child
or allowing him to .e su.Dected to
acts of lasci*iousness :Art2!1 1C;
7. Refusa* o su''o$ &e C&i*d$en o$
-escendans %i&ou Jusifia!*e cause
<. Aem' !" one of &e 'a$ens a)ains &e *ife
of &e o&e$( un*ess &e$e &as !een a
$econci*iaion !e%een &em.
)aragraphs 2- !- #- % and 7 are the same grounds for
disinheritance of a descendant or child.
A$. B@1. T&e fo**o%in) s&a** !e sufficien causes
fo$ disin&e$iin) a s'ouse=
>1? 1&en &e s'ouse &as !een con#iced of
an aem' a)ains &e *ife of &e esao$(
&is o$ &e$ descendans( o$ ascendans;
>@? 1&en &e s'ouse &as accused &e esao$
of a c$ime fo$ %&ic& &e *a% '$esc$i!es
im'$isonmen of si+ "ea$s o$ mo$e( and
&e accusaion &as !een found o !e
fa*se;
>A? 1&en &e s'ouse !" f$aud( #io*ence(
inimidaion( o$ undue inf*uence cause &e
esao$ o ma2e a %i** o$ o c&an)e one
a*$ead" made;
>4? 1&en &e s'ouse &as )i#en cause fo$ *e)a*
se'a$aion;
>5? 1&en &e s'ouse &as )i#en )$ounds fo$
&e *oss of 'a$ena* au&o$i";
>8? 0nJusifia!*e $efusa* o su''o$ &e
c&i*d$en o$ &e o&e$ s'ouse.
There are ( causes for disinheriting a 'pouse 9 these
grounds are e/clusi*e.
Ryan Ouan 112
ST ST
1. S'ouse is con#iced of an Aem' a)ains &e
*ife of &e Tesao$( &is o$ &e$ descendans o$
ascendans.
@. S'ouse Accused Tesao$ of a C$ime fo$ %&ic&
&e *a% '$esc$i!es im'$isonmen fo$ 8 "ea$s o$
mo$e( and &e accusaion is fond o !e .a*se.
A. T&e S'ouse( !" .$aud( Vio*ence( Inimidaion(
o$ 0ndue Inf*uence causes &e esao$ o
ma2e a 1i** o$ c&an)e one a*$ead" made.
4. S'ouse &as )i#en cause fo$ *e)a* se'a$aion
o A decree of legal separation is not required.
o According to Art%% of the 1amily Code- there
are 1A grounds for legal separation3
a) 7epeated physical *iolence or grossly
a.usi*e conduct directed against the
petitioner- a common child or a child of
the petitioner :natural or adopted;.
.E )hysical *iolence or moral pressure to
compel the petitioner to change religious
or political affiliation
c) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or
induce the petitioner- a common child- or
a child of petitioner :natural or adopted;
to engage in prostitution or conni*ance in
such corruption or inducement.
dE 1inal Dudgment sentencing the
respondent to imprisonment of more than
( years- e*en if pardoned.
eE $rug addiction or ha.itual alcoholism of
the respondent
fE "es.ianism or homose/uality of the
respondent
gE Contracting .y the respondent of a
su.sequent .igamous marriage- whether
in the )hilippines or a.road
hE 'e/ual infidelity or per*ersion
iE Attempt .y the respondent against the
life of the petitioner
DE A.andonment of the petitioner .y
respondent without Dustifia.le cause for
more than 1 year.
5. Has )i#en )$ounds fo$ *oss of 'a$ena*
au&o$i"
8. 0nJusifia!*e $efusa* o su''o$ &e c&i*d$en o$
&e o&e$ s'ouse
)aragraphs 1- 2- !- % and ( are also enumerated under
grounds for disinheritance of a descendant or child.
A$. B@@. A su!sequen $econci*iaion !e%een &e
offende$ and &e offended 'e$son de'$i#es
&e *ae$ of &e $i)& o disin&e$i( and
$ende$s ineffecua* an" disin&e$iance &a
ma" &a#e !een made.
Meaning of 7econciliation 9 either an e/press pardon
e/tended .y the testator to the offending heir or
unequi*ocal conduct of the testator towards the offending
heir which re*eals the testator4s intent to forgi*e the
offense.
a) f &/press )ardon 9 a general pardon e/tended .y
the testator on his death.ed to all who ha*e
offended him will not suffice< it must .e a pardon
e/pressly and concretely e/tended to the
offender- who accepts it.
.E f conduct 9 the intent to forgi*e must .e clear.
This is ultimately a question of fact which will .e
resol*ed- in case of contro*ersy- .y the courts.
&ffect of 7econciliation
aE f it occurs .efore disinheritance is made 9 right to
disinherit is e/tinguished
.E f it occurs after the disinheritance is made 9
disinheritance is set aside. The effects of setting
aside the disinheritance are3
i. The disinherited heir is restored
to his legitime
ii. f the disinheriting will did not
dispose of the disposa.le portion- the
disinherited heir is entitled to his
proportionate share :in intestacy; if any- of the
disposa.le portion.
iii. f the disinheriting will disposed
of disposa.le portion :or any part thereof; in
fa*or of testamentary heirs- legatees or
de*isees- such dispositions remain *alid.
Article @22 is in relation to Article 1A!!.
A$. B@A. T&e c&i*d$en and descendans of &e
'e$son disin&e$ied s&a** a2e &is o$ &e$ '*ace
and s&a** '$ese$#e &e $i)&s of com'u*so$"
&ei$s %i& $es'ec o &e *e)iime; !u &e
disin&e$ied 'a$en s&a** no &a#e &e
usuf$uc o$ adminis$aion of &e '$o'e$"
%&ic& consiues &e *e)iime.
7ight of 7epresentation in $isinheritance
The right of representation is
granted only to descendants of disinherited
descendants.
This rule is laid down in Art@72
par1 which pro*ides3 ,the right of representation
ta+es place in the direct descending line- .ut ne*er
in the ascending.0
Thus- a disinherited child will .e
represented .y his children or other descendants.
Ryan Ouan 113
ST ST
=owe*er- if the heir disinherited
is a parentLascendant or spouse- the children or the
descendants of the disinherited heir do not ha*e any
right of representation. Thus- this article is carelessly
worded.
&/tent of 7epresentation
The representati*e ta+e the
place of the disinherited heir not only with respect to
the legitime- .ut also to any intestate portion that the
disinherited heir would ha*e inherited.
7epresentation therefore occurs
in compulsory and intestate succession- .ut not in
testamentary succession.
CASE
-rancisco 8. (lfonso
SEC-I./ $.
LE3ACIES A/ E4ISES
A$. B@4. A** &in)s and $i)&s %&ic& a$e %i&in &e
comme$ce of man !e !equea&ed o$ de#ised.
$efinition of "egacies and $e*ises 9 legacies and
de*ises are codally defined :.y indirection; in Art7?2 par2
A more accurate definition of
the terms can .e found either in Art((A of the
'panish Code or in Castan 9
o Article ((A of the 'panish Code
- "egacy3 testamentary disposition of
personal property .y particular title
- $e*ise3 testamentary disposition of real
property .y particular title
o Castan
- "egacy3 testamentary disposition of
specific or generic personal property
- $e*ise3 testamentary disposition of
specific or generic real property.
t is important- in defining a legacy or a de*ise- to
distinguish it from a testamentary disposition to an heir
.ecause of the effects of preterition. &ssentially- the
difference is that an heir recei8es an ali=uot or fractional
part of the inheritance- whereas a legatee or de*isee
recei*es specific or generic personalty or realty-
respecti*ely.

5hat can .e de*ised or .equeathed > anything within the
commerce of man. t is not required that the thing
de*ised or .equeathed .elong to the testator.
"imitations on "egacy or $e*ise 9 it should not impair the
legitime.
A$. B@5. A esao$ ma" c&a$)e %i& *e)acies and
de#ises no on*" &is com'u*so$" &ei$s !u
a*so &e *e)aees and de#isees.
T&e *ae$ s&a** !e *ia!*e fo$ &e c&a$)e
on*" o &e e+en of &e #a*ue of &e *e)ac" o$
&e de#ise $ecei#ed !" &em. T&e com'u*so$"
&ei$s s&a** no !e *ia!*e fo$ &e c&a$)e !e"ond
&e amoun of &e f$ee 'o$ion )i#en &em.
A$. B@8. 1&en &e esao$ c&a$)es one of &e
&ei$s %i& a *e)ac" o$ de#ise( &e a*one s&a**
!e !ound.
S&ou*d &e no c&a$)e an"one in
'a$icu*a$( a** s&a** !e *ia!*e in &e same
'$o'o$ion in %&ic& &e" ma" in&e$i.
5=O is charged with the "egacy
$eneral &ule 9 the &state
%?ception 9 howe*er- the testator may impose the
.urden on a testamentary heir or a legatee or
de*isee. f he does so- then the heir- legatee or
de*isee charged will- if he accepts the disposition
in his fa*or- .e .ound to deli*er the legacy or
de*ise to the person specified. This will .e in the
nature of a su.sidiary legacy or de*ise. As far as
the heir- legatee or de*isee charged is concerned-
it will .e a MO$&.
The wording of Art@2% is
erroneous .ecause a compulsory heir- as such-
cannot .e .urdened with a legacy or de*ise .ecause
that would impair his legitime. Only a testa6entary
heir can .e so .urdened.
&/tent of lia.ility of heir- de*isee
or legatee in case of su.sidiary legacies or de*ises
9 the *alue of the .enefit recei*ed from the testator.
A$. B@7. If %o o$ mo$e &ei$s a2e 'ossession of
&e esae( &e" s&a** !e so*ida$i*" *ia!*e fo$
&e *oss o$ des$ucion of a &in) de#ised o$
!equea&ed( e#en &ou)& on*" one of &em
s&ou*d &a#e !een ne)*i)en.
The lia.ility imposed .y this article is .ased on malice-
fault or negligence.
This lia.ility will also attach to the e/ecutor or
administrator in the proper cases.
A$. B@<. T&e &ei$ %&o is !ound o de*i#e$ &e
*e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** !e *ia!*e in case of
e#icion( if &e &in) is indee$minae and is
indicaed on*" !" is 2ind.
5=O is "ia.le in case of &KCTON6
8eneral 7ule 9 the &state
n case of a su.sidiary legacy or
de*ise 9 the heir- legatee or de*isee charged.
Ryan Ouan 114
ST ST
A$. B@B. If &e esao$( &ei$( o$ *e)aee o%ns on*"
a 'a$ of( o$ an ine$es in &e &in)
!equea&ed( &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** !e
unde$sood *imied o suc& 'a$ o$ ine$es(
un*ess &e esao$ e+'$ess*" dec*a$es &a &e
)i#es &e &in) in is eni$e".
A$. BAC. T&e *e)ac" o$ de#ise of a &in)
!e*on)in) o ano&e$ 'e$son is #oid( if &e
esao$ e$$oneous*" !e*ie#ed &a &e &in)
'e$ained o &im. Eu if &e &in) !equea&ed(
&ou)& no !e*on)in) o &e esao$ %&en &e
made &e %i**( afe$%a$ds !ecomes &is( !"
%&ae#e$ i*e( &e dis'osiion s&a** a2e
effec.
A$. BA1. If &e esao$ o$de$s &a a &in)
!e*on)in) o ano&e$ !e acqui$ed in o$de$ &a
i !e )i#en o a *e)aee o$ de#isee( &e &ei$
u'on %&om &e o!*i)aion is im'osed o$ &e
esae mus acqui$e i and )i#e &e same o
&e *e)aee o$ de#isee; !u if &e o%ne$ of &e
&in) $efuses o a*ienae &e same( o$
demands an e+cessi#e '$ice &e$efo$( &e &ei$
o$ &e esae s&a** on*" !e o!*i)ed o )i#e &e
Jus #a*ue of &e &in).
A$. BA@. T&e *e)ac" o$ de#ise of a &in) %&ic& a
&e ime of &e e+ecuion of &e %i** a*$ead"
!e*on)ed o &e *e)aee o$ de#isee s&a** !e
ineffeci#e( e#en &ou)& ano&e$ 'e$son ma"
&a#e some ine$es &e$ein.
If &e esao$ e+'$ess*" o$de$s &a &e
&in) !e f$eed f$om suc& ine$es o$
encum!$ance( &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** !e
#a*id o &a e+en.
A$. BAA. If &e &in) !equea&ed !e*on)ed o &e
*e)aee o$ de#isee a &e ime of &e e+ecuion
of &e %i**( &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** !e
%i&ou effec( e#en &ou)& i ma" &a#e
su!sequen*" a*ienaed !" &im.
If &e *e)aee o$ de#isee acqui$es i
)$auious*" afe$ suc& ime( &e can c*aim
no&in) !" #i$ue of &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise; !u
if i &as !een acqui$ed !" one$ous i*e &e can
demand $eim!u$semen f$om &e &ei$ o$ &e
esae.
A$. BA4. If &e esao$ s&ou*d !equea& o$ de#ise
some&in) '*ed)ed o$ mo$)a)ed o secu$e a
$eco#e$a!*e de! !efo$e &e e+ecuion of &e
%i**( &e esae is o!*i)ed o 'a" &e de!(
un*ess &e con$a$" inenion a''ea$s.
T&e same $u*e a''*ies %&en &e &in) is
'*ed)ed o$ mo$)a)ed afe$ &e e+ecuion of
&e %i**.
An" o&e$ c&a$)e( 'e$'eua* o$ em'o$a$"(
%i& %&ic& &e &in) !equea&ed is !u$dened(
'asses %i& i o &e *e)aee o$ de#isee.
A$. BA5. T&e *e)ac" of a c$edi a)ains a &i$d
'e$son o$ of &e $emission o$ $e*ease of a
de! of &e *e)aee s&a** !e effeci#e on*" as
$e)a$ds &a 'a$ of &e c$edi o$ de! e+isin)
a &e ime of &e dea& of &e esao$.
In &e fi$s case( &e esae s&a** com'*"
%i& &e *e)ac" !" assi)nin) o &e *e)aee a**
$i)&s of acion i ma" &a#e a)ains &e
de!o$. In &e second case( !" )i#in) &e
*e)aee an acquiance( s&ou*d &e $eques
one.
In !o& cases( &e *e)ac" s&a** com'$ise
a** ine$ess on &e c$edi o$ de! %&ic& ma"
!e due &e esao$ a &e ime of &is dea&.
A$. BA8. T&e *e)ac" $efe$$ed o in &e '$ecedin)
a$ic*e s&a** *a'se if &e esao$( afe$ &a#in)
made i( s&ou*d !$in) an acion a)ains &e
de!o$ fo$ &e 'a"men of &is de!( e#en if
suc& 'a"men s&ou*d no &a#e !een effeced
a &e ime of &is dea&.
T&e *e)ac" o &e de!o$ of &e &in)
'*ed)ed !" &im is unde$sood o disc&a$)e
on*" &e $i)& of '*ed)e.
A$. BA7. A )ene$ic *e)ac" of $e*ease o$ $emission
of de!s com'$ises &ose e+isin) a &e ime
of &e e+ecuion of &e %i**( !u no
su!sequen ones.
"egacy L $e*ise of a thing owned in part .y the testator
:Art@2@;
8eneral 7ule 9 con*eys only
the interest or part owned .y the testator
&/ception 9 if the testator
pro*ides otherwise- *iH3
a) =e may con*ey more than he owns 9 the
estate should try to acquire the part or
interest owned .y other parties. f the other
parties are unwilling to alienate- the estate
should gi*e the legateeLde*isee the monetary
equi*alent- .y analogy with Art@!1.
.E =e may con*ey less than he owns
:Art7@#;
"egacy L $e*ise of a Thing 2elonging to Another
:Arts@!A>@!1;
f the testator ordered the
acquisition of the thing 9 the order should .e
Ryan Ouan 115
ST ST
complied with. f the owner is unwilling to part with
the thing- the legateeLde*isee should .e gi*en the
monetary equi*alent.
f the testator erroneously
.elie*ed that the thing .elonged to him 9 the legacy
or de*ise is KO$.
o%DC%P, if subse=uent to the 6aGing of the
disposition< the thing is ac=uired by the testator
onerously or gratuitously< the disposition is
8alidated.
f the testator +new that the
thing did not .elong to him .ut did not order its
acquisition 9 the Code is '"&NT on this. The most
rational solution seems to .e that such a disposition
should .e considered KA"$- .ecause3
aE The fact that the testator- with +nowledge of
the other person4s ownership- .equeathed the
thing- implies an order to acquire
.E At worst- there is a dou.t- and dou.ts
should .e resol*ed in fa*or of testacy :Arts
7?? and 7@1;
Art. 788. If a testamentary dsposton
admts of dfferent nterpretatons, n case of
doubt, that nterpretaton by whch the
dsposton s to be operatve sha be preferred.
Art. 791. The words of a w are to receve
an nterpretaton whch w gve to every
expresson some effect, rather than one whch
w render any of the expressons noperatve;
and of two modes of nterpretng a w, that s to
be preferred whch w prevent ntestacy.
"egacy L $e*ise of a Thing Already 2elonging to the
"egatee L $e*isee or 'u.sequently Acquired .y =im
:Articles @!2 and @!!;
f the thing already .elonged to
the legateeLde*isee at the time of the e/ecution of
the will 9 the legacy or de*ise is KO$. t is not
*alidated .y an alienation .y the legatee Lde*isee
su.sequent to the ma+ing of the will.
NOT& 9 articles @!2 par 1 and
@!! par 1 say essentially the same thing and should
.e merged.
f the thing was owned .y
another person at the time of the ma+ing of the will
and acquired thereafter .y the legateeLde*isee3
aE f the testator erroneously .elie*ed that it
.elonged to him 9 legacy or de*ise is KO$
.E f the testator was not in error 9
- f the thing was acquired onerously .y
legateeLde*isee 9 the legatee or de*isee
is entitled to reim.ursement.
- f the thing was acquired gratuitously .y
legateeLde*isee 9 nothing more is due.
f the thing was owned .y the
testator at the time of the ma+ing of the will and
acquired thereafter from him .y the legateeLde*isee
9 Articles @!2 and @!! are '"&NT on this- .ut
Article @%7 par 2 can .e applied and the
legacyLde*ise should .e deemed re*o+ed.
"egacy L $e*ise to remo*e an encum.rance o*er a thing
.elonging to the legatee L de*isee under Art@!2 par2 9
KA"$- if the encum.rance can .e remo*ed for a
consideration.
"egacy L $e*ise of a thing pledged or mortgaged under
Article @!# 9 the encum.rance must .e remo*ed .y
paying the de.t- BN"&'' the testator intended
otherwise.
"egacy of Credit or 7emission :Articles @!%>@!7;
Applies only to amount still
unpaid at the time of the testator4s death :under
Art@!%;
7e*o+ed if testator
su.sequently sues the de.tor for collection ::Article
@!(;
f 8eneric- applies only to those
e/isting at the time of e/ecution of the will :under
Articles @!7 and 7@!;- unless otherwise pro*ided.
A$. BA<. A *e)ac" o$ de#ise made o a c$edio$
s&a** no !e a''*ied o &is c$edi( un*ess &e
esao$ so e+'$ess*" dec*a$es.
In &e *ae$ case( &e c$edio$ s&a** &a#e
&e $i)& o co**ec &e e+cess( if an"( of &e
c$edi o$ of &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise.
A$. BAB. If &e esao$ o$de$s &e 'a"men of
%&a &e !e*ie#es &e o%es !u does no in fac
o%e( &e dis'osiion s&a** !e conside$ed as
no %$ien. If as $e)a$ds a s'ecified de!
mo$e &an &e amoun &e$eof is o$de$ed 'aid(
&e e+cess is no due( un*ess a con$a$"
inenion a''ea$s.
T&e fo$e)oin) '$o#isions a$e %i&ou
'$eJudice o &e fu*fi**men of nau$a*
o!*i)aions.
"egacy L $e*ise to a Creditor :Art@!?;
8eneral 7ule 9 will .e treated
li+e any other legacy L de*ise and therefore will not
.e imputed to the de.t.
&/ception 9 will .e imputed to
the de.t if the testator so pro*ides- and if the de.t
e/ceeds the legacy L de*ise- the e/cess may .e
demanded as an o.ligation of the estate.
NOT& 9 if the testator does
pro*ide that the legacy L de*ise should .e imputed to
the de.t and the amount of the de.t is equal to or
more than the *alue of the legacyLde*ise it would .e
folly for the creditor to accept the ,.enefit.0 =e will .e
much .etter off renouncing the legacyLde*ise and
filing a claim for the credit.
Testamentary nstruction to )ay a $e.t :Art@!@;
Ryan Ouan 116
ST ST
a) This is not a testamentary disposition- .ut merely
a direction to discharge a ci*il o.ligation.
b) nstruction to pay non>e/isting de.t 9 should .e
$'7&8A7$&$- .ecause this would solution
indebiti.
cE nstruction to pay more than what is due 9
effecti*e only as to what is due- unless the .igger
amount specified constitutes a natural o.ligation
under Articles 1#2! 9 1#!A.
A$. B4C. In a*e$nai#e *e)acies o$ de#ises( &e
c&oice is '$esumed o !e *ef o &e &ei$ u'on
%&om &e o!*i)aion o )i#e &e *e)ac" o$
de#ise ma" !e im'osed( o$ &e e+ecuo$ o$
adminis$ao$ of &e esae if no 'a$icu*a$ &ei$
is so o!*i)ed.
If &e &ei$( *e)aee o$ de#isee( %&o ma"
&a#e !een )i#en &e c&oice( dies !efo$e
ma2in) i( &is $i)& s&a** 'ass o &e
$es'eci#e &ei$s.
Once made( &e c&oice is i$$e#oca!*e.
In &e a*e$nai#e *e)acies o$ de#ises(
e+ce' as &e$ein '$o#ided( &e '$o#isions of
&is Code $e)u*ain) o!*i)aions of &e same
2ind s&a** !e o!se$#ed( sa#e suc&
modificaions as ma" a''ea$ f$om &e
inenion e+'$essed !" &e esao$.
(lternati8e legacies Q de8ises
$efinition 9 One which pro*ides
that- among se*eral things mentioned- only one is to
.e gi*en.
7ight of Choice
8eneral 7ule
1E The estate- through the e/ecutor or
administrator 9 in a direct legacy or de*ise
2E The heir- legatee- or de*isee charged 9
in a su.sidiary legacy or de*ise
These parties are- analogously-
in the position of the de.tor.
&/ception 9 the
legateeLde*isee- if the testator so pro*ides.
f the person who is to choose dies .efore choice is
made3
aE f the choice .elonged to e/ecutor or administrator
9 the right is transmitted to his successor in office.
.E f the choice .elongs to an heir- legatee or de*isee
9 the right is transmitted to his own heirs.
The choice is irre*oca.le.
)ro*isions suppletorily go*erning 9 Articles 11@@>12A%-
on alternati*e o.ligations.
A$. B41. A *e)ac" of )ene$ic 'e$sona* '$o'e$"
s&a** !e #a*id e#en if &e$e !e no &in)s of &e
same 2ind in &e esae.
A de#ise of indee$minae $ea* '$o'e$"
s&a** !e #a*id on*" if &e$e !e immo#a!*e
'$o'e$" of is 2ind in &e esae.
T&e $i)& of c&oice s&a** !e*on) o &e
e+ecuo$ o$ adminis$ao$ %&o s&a** com'*"
%i& &e *e)ac" !" &e de*i#e$" of a &in)
%&ic& is nei&e$ of infe$io$ no$ of su'e$io$
qua*i".
A$. B4@. 1&ene#e$ &e esao$ e+'$ess*" *ea#es
&e $i)& of c&oice o &e &ei$( o$ o &e
*e)aee o$ de#isee( &e fo$me$ ma" )i#e o$ &e
*ae$ ma" c&oose %&ic&e#e$ &e ma" '$efe$.
A$. B4A. If &e &ei$( *e)aee o$ de#isee canno
ma2e &e c&oice( in case i &as !een )$aned
&im( &is $i)& s&a** 'ass o &is &ei$s; !u a
c&oice once made s&a** !e i$$e#oca!*e.
$eneric legacies Q de8ises
7ules on Kalidity :Article @#1;
A. 8eneric "egacy 9 *alid e*en if no such mo*a.les
e/ist in the testator4s estate upon his death. The
estate will simply ha*e to acquire what is gi*en .y
legacy.
2. 8eneric $e*ise 9 *alid only if there e/ists such an
immo*a.le in the testator4s estate at the time of
his death.
Note 9 this distinction as found
in the 'panish Code perpetuates the rule in the
)artidas e*en if it has .ecome artificial and ar.itrary
in modern times.
7ight of Choice :Article @#2>@#!;
8eneral 7ule 9 the e/ecutor or
administrator- acting for the estate.
o &/ception 9 if the testator gi*es the right of
choice to the legatee L de*isee- or to the heirs
on whom the o.ligation to gi*e the .enefit is
imposed :in a su.sidiary legacy or de*ise;
Li6itation on Choice 9 the
choice must .e limited to something which is neither
superior nor inferior in quality. This rule applies
whether the choice .elongs to the
e/ecutorLadministrator or the legateeLde*isee.
o n relation to Art12#( of the CC 9 ,5hen the
o.ligation consists in the deli*ery of an
indeterminate or generic thing- whose quality
and circumstances ha*e not .een stated- the
creditor cannot demand a thing of superior
quality. Neither can the de.tor deli*er a thing of
inferior quality. The purpose of the o.ligation
and other circumstances shall .e ta+en into
consideration.0
Ryan Ouan 117
ST ST
-inality of Choice 9 irre*oca.le-
once made.
,rans6issibility of &ight to
Choose
1. f the choice .elongs to the
e/ecutor L administrator and he dies .efore
ma+ing the choice 9 the right is transmitted to
his successor in the position.
2. f the choice .elongs to the
legateeLde*isee and he dies .efore ma+ing
the choice 9 the right passes to his heirs.
A$. B44. A *e)ac" fo$ educaion *ass uni* &e
*e)aee is of a)e( o$ !e"ond &e a)e of
maJo$i" in o$de$ &a &e *e)aee ma" finis&
some '$ofessiona*( #ocaiona* o$ )ene$a*
cou$se( '$o#ided &e 'u$sues &is cou$se
di*i)en*".
A *e)ac" fo$ su''o$ *ass du$in) &e
*ifeime of &e *e)aee( if &e esao$ &as no
o&e$%ise '$o#ided.
If &e esao$ &as no fi+ed &e amoun of
suc& *e)acies( i s&a** !e fi+ed in acco$dance
%i& &e socia* sandin) and &e
ci$cumsances of &e *e)aee and &e #a*ue of
&e esae.
If &e esao$ o$ du$in) &is *ifeime used
o )i#e &e *e)aee a ce$ain sum of mone" o$
o&e$ &in)s !" %a" of su''o$( &e same
amoun s&a** !e deemed !equea&ed( un*ess
i !e ma$2ed*" dis'$o'o$ionae o &e #a*ue
of &e esae.
A$. B45. If a 'e$iodica* 'ension( o$ a ce$ain
annua*( mon&*"( o$ %ee2*" amoun is
!equea&ed( &e *e)aee ma" 'eiion &e
cou$ fo$ &e fi$s insa**men u'on &e dea&
of &e esao$( and fo$ &e fo**o%in) ones
%&ic& s&a** !e due a &e !e)innin) of eac&
'e$iod; suc& 'a"men s&a** no !e $eu$ned(
e#en &ou)& &e *e)aee s&ou*d die !efo$e &e
e+'i$aion of &e 'e$iod %&ic& &as
commenced.
"egacy for &ducation
$uration 9 age of maDority or the
completion of a professional- *ocational or general
course- whiche*er comes later. n the latter instance-
only if the legatee pursues his studies diligently.
Amount
o )rimarily 9 that fi/ed .y the testator
o 'econdarily 9 that which is proper- as
determined .y 2 *aria.les3 :1; the social
standing and circumstances of the legatee-
and :2; the *alue of the disposa.le portion of
the estate.
"egacy for 'upport
$uration 9 the legatee4s lifetime-
unless the testator has pro*ided otherwise
Amount
o )rimarily 9 that fi/ed .y the testator
o 'econdarily 9 that which the testator during
his lifetime used to gi*e the legatee .y way of
support- unless mar+edly disproportionate to
the *alue of the disposa.le portion
o Tertiarily 9 that which is reasona.leon the
.asis of 2 *aria.les3 :1; the social standing
and the circumstances of the legatee- and :2;
the *alue of the disposa.le portion.
"egacy of a )eriodical )ension
$emanda.ility 9 upon the
testator4s death and the succeeding ones at the
.eginning of the period without duty to reim.urse
should the legatee due .efore the lapse of the
period.
NOT& 9 this should .e
harmoniHed with the rules on settlement of estates-
i.e. the de.ts should first .e paid .efore any
testamentary grants can .e complied with :unless
the legatee files a 2ON$ under 7ule @A sec1 of
7OC;. =owe*er- should the legacy pro*e to .e
inofficious- the date of effecti*ity shall retroact to the
decedent4s death.
A$. B48. If &e &in) !equea&ed s&ou*d !e
su!Jec o a usuf$uc( &e *e)aee o$ de#isee
s&a** $es'ec suc& $i)& uni* i is *e)a**"
e+in)uis&ed.
This article lays down the same rule as Art@!# par!.
A$. B47. T&e *e)aee o$ de#isee acqui$es a $i)&
o &e 'u$e and sim'*e *e)acies o$ de#ises
f$om &e dea& of &e esao$( and $ansmis i
o &is &ei$s.
$emanda.ility- Ownership and 1ruits of "egaciesL
$e*ises
De1an,-
a2+3+4y
W5en
O6ne.75+8
Ve747
9.:+47
":.e an,
De4e.1+
na4e
Upon
Testators
death
Upon
Testators
death
Upon the
testators
death
|under
Art948|
Ryan Ouan 118
ST ST
":.e an,
0ene.+;
Upon
Testators
death
a. if from
testator*s
estate -
upon
testators
death
b. if
ac+uired
from a ,
rd
person -
upon
acquston
Upon
determ-
naton,
uness
testator
provdes
otherwse
|Art949|
W+45 a
S:78en7+
<e Te.1
Upon the
arrva of
the term
Upon arrva
of the term,
but the
rght to t
vests upon
the
testators
death
|under
Art878|
Upon the
arrva of
the term
|mped
from
Art885|
W+45 a
S:78en7+
<e
Con,+4+o
n
Upon the
happenn
g of the
condton
Upon the
testators
death, f the
condton s
fufed
|under
Art1187|
Upon the
happenng
of the
condton,
uness
testator
provdes
otherwse
|Art884 n
re. to
Art1187|
Art. 1187. The effects of a condtona obgaton to
gve, once the condton has been fufed, sha
retroact to the day of the consttuton of the
obgaton. Nevertheess, when the obgaton
mposes recproca prestatons upon the partes, the
fruts and nterests durng the pendency of the
condton sha be deemed to have been mutuay
compensated. If the obgaton s unatera, the
debtor sha approprate the fruts and nterests
receved, uness from the nature and crcumstances
of the obgaton t shoud be nferred that the
ntenton of the person consttutng the same was
dfferent.
In obgatons to do and not to do, the courts sha
determne, n each case, the retroactve effect of the
condton that has been comped wth.
A$. B4<. If &e *e)ac" o$ de#ice is of a s'ecific
and dee$minae &in) 'e$ainin) o &e
esao$( &e *e)aee o$ de#isee acqui$es &e
o%ne$s&i' &e$eof u'on &e dea& of &e
esao$( as %e** as an" )$o%in) f$uis( o$
un!o$n offs'$in) of anima*s( o$ unco**eced
income; !u no &e income %&ic& %as due
and un'aid !efo$e &e *ae$Ms dea&.
.$om &e momen of &e esao$Ms dea&(
&e &in) !equea&ed s&a** !e a &e $is2 of
&e *e)aee o$ de#isee( %&o s&a**( &e$efo$e(
!ea$ is *oss o$ dee$io$aion( and s&a** !e
!enefied !" is inc$ease o$ im'$o#emen(
%i&ou '$eJudice o &e $es'onsi!i*i" of &e
e+ecuo$ o$ adminis$ao$.
A$. B4B. If &e !eques s&ou*d no !e of a s'ecific
and dee$minae &in)( !u is )ene$ic o$ of
quani"( is f$uis and ine$ess f$om &e ime
of &e dea& of &e esao$ s&a** 'e$ain o &e
*e)aee o$ de#isee if &e esao$ &as
e+'$ess*" so o$de$ed.
A$. B5C. If &e esae s&ou*d no !e sufficien o
co#e$ a** &e *e)acies o$ de#ises( &ei$
'a"men s&a** !e made in &e fo**o%in) o$de$=
>1? Remune$ao$" *e)acies o$ de#ises;
>@? Le)acies o$ de#ises dec*a$ed !" &e
esao$ o !e '$efe$enia*;
>A? Le)acies fo$ su''o$;
>4? Le)acies fo$ educaion;
>5? Le)acies o$ de#ises of a s'ecific(
dee$minae &in) %&ic& fo$ms a 'a$ of
&e esae;
>8? A** o&e$s '$o $aa.
Order of )reference among "egacies and $e*ises in
case the &state is Not 'ufficient for All of them
1. 7emuneratory legacies or de*ises
2. "egacies or de*ises declared .y the testator to .e
preferential
!. "egacies for support
#. "egacies for education
%. "egacies or de*ises of a specific- determinate
thing which forms a part of the estate
6. All others- pro rata
Article @%A and Article @11
Article @11 also contains a rule
for reduction of legacies and de*ises and the order
of preference there is different3 it simply pro*ides
that all the non>preferred legaciesLde*ises will .e
reduced pro rata- and the preferred legaciesLde*ises
are reduced last. t is a rule different from that set
forth in Art@%A.
)ossi.le reconciliation .etween
the 2 articles 9 each article can be gi8en its own
area of applicability.
o Article @11 will apply if reductions ha*e to .e
made .ecause the "&8TM&' ha*e .een
impaired- i.e. if the legaciesLde*ises ha*e
e/ceeded the disposa.le portion
o Article @%A will apply if the reason for the
reduction is not the impairment of legitimes-
i.e. there are no legitimes .ecause there are
no compulsory heirs or the legitimes ha*e
Ryan Ouan 119
ST ST
already .een satisfied through donations inter
8i8os.
A$. B51. T&e &in) !equea&ed s&a** !e de*i#e$ed
%i& a** is accesso$ies and accesso$ies and
in &e condiion in %&ic& i ma" !e u'on &e
dea& of &e esao$.
The o.ligation to deli*er the accessions and accessories
e/ists e*en if the testator does not e/plicitly pro*ide for it.
This is the same rule laid down in Art11((- which
pro*ides3
Art. 1166. The obgaton to gve a determnate
thng ncudes that of deverng a ts accessons
and accessores, even though they may not have
been mentoned
The crucial time is the testator7s death- .ecause that is
when successional rights *est :under Art777;. That is
why the thing must .e deli*ered in the condition in which
it is at that time.
A$. B5@. T&e &ei$( c&a$)ed %i& a *e)ac" o$
de#ise( o$ &e e+ecuo$ o$ adminis$ao$ of &e
esae( mus de*i#e$ &e #e$" &in)
!equea&ed if &e is a!*e o do so and canno
disc&a$)e &is o!*i)aion !" 'a"in) is #a*ue.
Le)acies of mone" mus !e 'aid in cas&(
e#en &ou)& &e &ei$ o$ &e esae ma" no
&a#e an".
T&e e+'enses necessa$" fo$ &e de*i#e$"
of &e &in) !equea&ed s&a** !e fo$ &e
accoun of &e &ei$ o$ &e esae( !u %i&ou
'$eJudice o &e *e)iime.
This article conforms to the rule of identity in the
performance of o.ligations :under Art12##;3
Art. 1244. The debtor of a thng cannot compe the
credtor to receve a dfferent one, athough the
atter may be of the same vaue as, or more
vauabe than that whch s due.
In obgatons to do or not to do, an act or
forbearance cannot be substtuted by another
act or forbearance aganst the obgee's w.
A$. B5A. T&e *e)aee o$ de#isee canno a2e
'ossession of &e &in) !equea&ed u'on &is
o%n au&o$i"( !u s&a** $eques is de*i#e$"
and 'ossession of &e &ei$ c&a$)ed %i& &e
*e)ac" o$ de#ise( o$ of &e e+ecuo$ o$
adminis$ao$ of &e esae s&ou*d &e !e
au&o$iKed !" &e cou$ o de*i#e$ i.
Although the efficacy of a legacy or de*ise *ests upon
the testator4s death- actual deli*ery does not ta+e place
at that time. $e.ts first ha*e to .e paid- then legitimes
ha*e to .e determined- and the testamentary
dispositions Gincluding legacies and de*isesE computed
lest they impair the legitimes. t is only after these steps
ha*e .een ta+en that the .eneficiaries of the will can
ta+e possession.
A$. B54. T&e *e)aee o$ de#isee canno acce' a
'a$ of &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise and $e'udiae &e
o&e$( if &e *ae$ !e one$ous.
S&ou*d &e die !efo$e &a#in) acce'ed &e
*e)ac" o$ de#ise( *ea#in) se#e$a* &ei$s( some
of &e *ae$ ma" acce' and &e o&e$s ma"
$e'udiae &e s&a$e $es'eci#e*" !e*on)in) o
&em in &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise.
A$. B55. T&e *e)aee o$ de#isee of %o *e)acies o$
de#ises( one of %&ic& is one$ous( canno
$enounce &e one$ous one and acce' &e
o&e$. If !o& a$e one$ous o$ )$auious( &e
s&a** !e f$ee o acce' o$ $enounce !o&( o$ o
$enounce ei&e$. Eu if &e esao$ inended
&a &e %o *e)acies o$ de#ises s&ou*d !e
inse'a$a!*e f$om eac& o&e$( &e *e)aee o$
de#isee mus ei&e$ acce' o$ $enounce !o&.
An" com'u*so$" &ei$ %&o is a &e same
ime a *e)aee o$ de#isee ma" %ai#e &e
in&e$iance and acce' &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise(
o$ $enounce &e *ae$ and acce' &e fo$me$(
o$ %ai#e o$ acce' !o&.
7ules on Acceptance and 7epudiation of "egacies L
$e*ises
"egacies ma .e total or partial-
as implied under Art@%# par1.
o &/ception 9 f the legacyLde*ise is partly
onerous and partly gratuitous- the recipient
cannot accept the gratuitous part and
renounce the onerous part. Any other
com.ination howe*er is permitted.
Acceptance or 7epudiation .y
=eirs of "egateeL $e*isee 9 if the legatee or de*isee
dies .efore accepting or renouncing- his heirs shall
e/ercise such right as to their pro>indi*iso share-
and in the same manner as the legatee or de*isee.
2 "egaciesL$e*ises to the 'ame
7ecipient
o f .oth gratuitous 9 the recipient may accept
or renounce either or .oth
Ryan Ouan 120
ST ST
o f .oth onerous 9 same rule- may accept or
renounce either or .oth
o f one gratuitous and the other onerous 9 the
recipient cannot accept the gratuitous and
renounce the onerous. Any other com.ination
is permitted.
"egacyL$e*ise to One who is
Also a Compulsory =eir 9 the recipient may accept
either or .oth- the legacyLde*ise and the legitime. :in
relation to Art1A%%;
&ffect if the 5ill )ro*ides
Otherwise 9 all of the a.o*e rules apply in the
a.sence of a stipulation in the will pro*iding
otherwise. f there is a stipulation- the testator4s
wishes shall go*ern.
A$. B58. If &e *e)aee o$ de#isee canno o$ is
un%i**in) o acce' &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise( o$ if
&e *e)ac" o$ de#ise fo$ an" $eason s&ou*d
!ecome ineffeci#e( i s&a** !e me$)ed ino &e
mass of &e esae( e+ce' in cases of
su!siuion and of &e $i)& of acc$eion.
7ules in Case of 7epudiation .y or ncapacity of
"egateeL$e*isee
1. )rimarily 9 'B2'TTBTON
2. 'econdarily 9 ACC7&TON
!. Tertiarily 9 NT&'TACI
A$. B57. T&e *e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** !e %i&ou
effec=
>1? If &e esao$ $ansfo$ms &e &in)
!equea&ed in suc& a manne$ &a i
does no $eain ei&e$ &e fo$m o$ &e
denominaion i &ad;
>@? If &e esao$ !" an" i*e o$ fo$ an"
cause a*ienaes &e &in) !equea&ed o$
an" 'a$ &e$eof( i !ein) unde$sood
&a in &e *ae$ case &e *e)ac" o$
de#ise s&a** !e %i&ou effec on*" %i&
$es'ec o &e 'a$ &us a*ienaed. If
afe$ &e a*ienaion &e &in) s&ou*d
a)ain !e*on) o &e esao$( e#en if i !e
!" $eason of nu**i" of &e con$ac( &e
*e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** no &e$eafe$ !e
#a*id( un*ess &e $eacquisiion s&a**
&a#e !een effeced !" #i$ue of &e
e+e$cise of &e $i)& of $e'u$c&ase;
>A? If &e &in) !equea&ed is oa**" *os
du$in) &e *ifeime of &e esao$( o$
afe$ &is dea& %i&ou &e &ei$Ms fau*.
Ne#e$&e*ess( &e 'e$son o!*i)ed o 'a"
&e *e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** !e *ia!*e fo$
e#icion if &e &in) !equea&ed s&ou*d
no &a#e !een dee$minae as o is
2ind( in acco$dance %i& &e '$o#isions
of A$ic*e B@<.
This article enumerates the instances when the
legacyLde*ise is 7&KOF&$ 2I O)&7ATON O1 "A5
1. T7AN'1O7MATON
o f for e/ample the testator con*erts a
plantation to a fishpond.
2. A"&NATON
o The alienation .y the testator may .e
gratuitous or onerous.
o The alienation re*o+es the legacyLde*ise
e*en if for any reason the thing re*erts to
the testator.
o %?ceptions
aE f the re*ersion is caused .y the
annulment of the alienation and the
cause for annulment was *itiation of
consent on the grantor4s part- either
.y reason or incapacity or duress.
b) f the re*ersion is .y *irtue of
redemption in a sale with pacto de
retro.
!. TOTA" "O''
oThis will .e a cause for re*ocation only if
it ta+es place before the testator4s death.
o 1ortuitous loss after the testator4s death
will not constitute re*ocation .ecause
legally- the disposition ta+es effect upon
death.
o Therefore- fortuitous loss after the
testator4s death will simply .e an instance
of ,res perit domino0 and will .e .orne .y
the legateeLde*isee.
A$. B5<. A misa2e as o &e name of &e &in)
!equea&ed o$ de#ised( is of no consequence(
if i is 'ossi!*e o idenif" &e &in) %&ic& &e
esao$ inended o !equea& o$ de#ise.
This principle is already set forth in Art7?@
A$. B5B. A dis'osiion made in )ene$a* e$ms in
fa#o$ of &e esao$Ms $e*ai#es s&a** !e
unde$sood o !e in fa#o$ of &ose nea$es in
de)$ee.
This article is misplaced .ecause it applies not Dust to
legateeLde*isees .ut to all testamentary heirs as well. t
should .e placed under the chapter on ,nstitution of
=eir.0
CASES A$ic*es B@4GB5B
Belen 8. BP*
Ryan Ouan 121
ST ST
CHAPTER A
LEGAL OR INTESTATE S0CCESSION

SEC-I./ 0.
3E/E!AL =!.4ISI./S
A$. B8C. Le)a* o$ inesae succession a2es
'*ace=
>1? If a 'e$son dies %i&ou a %i**( o$ %i& a
#oid %i**( o$ one %&ic& &as
su!sequen*" *os is #a*idi";
>@? 1&en &e %i** does no insiue an &ei$
o( o$ dis'ose of a** &e '$o'e$"
!e*on)in) o &e esao$. In suc& case(
*e)a* succession s&a** a2e '*ace on*"
%i& $es'ec o &e '$o'e$" of %&ic&
&e esao$ &as no dis'osed;
>A? If &e sus'ensi#e condiion aac&ed o
&e insiuion of &ei$ does no &a''en
o$ is no fu*fi**ed( o$ if &e &ei$ dies
!efo$e &e esao$( o$ $e'udiaes &e
in&e$iance( &e$e !ein) no su!siuion(
and no $i)& of acc$eion a2es '*ace;
>4? 1&en &e &ei$ insiued is inca'a!*e of
succeedin)( e+ce' in cases '$o#ided in
&is Code.
"egal or ntestate 'uccession $efined
Not defined .y the Code- unli+e
testamentary and mi/ed succession.
2ut the draft Code- as well as
the 'panish Code defines intestate succession as
ta+ing place ,.y operation of law in the a.sence of a
*alid will.0
And the 'panish Code pro*ides
that ,succession results from a person4s will as
manifested in a testament- or in default thereof- .y
operation of law.0
INSTANCES 1HEN LEGAL OR INTESTATE
S0CCESSION OPERATE-
1. If a 'e$son dies %i&ou a %i**( o$ %i& a #oid
%i**( o$ one %&ic& &as su!sequen*" *os is
#a*idi".
o ! instances with the same legal result 9
there is no will.
o A will that has su.sequently lost its
*alidity is one that has .een 7&KOF&$
under Articles ?!A>?!7 without a later one
ta+ing its place. Kalidity should read
,efficacy.0
@. 1&en &e %i** does no insiue an &ei$ o( o$
dis'ose of a** &e '$o'e$" !e*on)in) o &e
esao$. In suc& case( *e)a* succession s&a**
a2e '*ace on*" %i& $es'ec o &e '$o'e$" of
%&ic& &e esao$ &as no dis'osed.
on these instances- intestacy may .e total
or partial.
A. If &e sus'ensi#e condiion aac&ed o &e
insiuion of an &ei$ does no &a''en o$ is no
fu*fi**ed( o$ if &e &ei$ dies !efo$e &e esao$(
o$ $e'udiaes &e in&e$iance( &e$e !ein) no
su!siuion and no $i)& of acc$eion a2es
'*ace
o ntestacy here may also .e total or
partial- depending on the e/tent of the
disposition that turns out to .e inoperati*e.
4. 1&en &e &ei$ insiued is inca'a!*e of
succeedin)( e+ce' in cases '$o#ided in &is
Code.
oncapacity to succeed under Articles
1A27- 1A2? and 1A!2. ntestacy here may
.e total or partial.
O&e$ Causes of Inesac"
5. Ha''enin) of a Reso*uo$" Condiion
8. E+'i$aion of a Reso*uo$" Te$m
7. P$ee$iion
A$. B81. In defau* of esamena$" &ei$s( &e *a%
#ess &e in&e$iance( in acco$dance %i& &e
$u*es &e$einafe$ se fo$&( in &e *e)iimae
and i**e)iimae $e*ai#es of &e deceased( in
&e su$#i#in) s'ouse( and in &e Sae.
A$. B8@. In e#e$" in&e$iance( &e $e*ai#e nea$es
in de)$ee e+c*udes &e mo$e disan ones(
sa#in) &e $i)& of $e'$esenaion %&en i
'$o'e$*" a2es '*ace.
Re*ai#es in &e same de)$ee s&a** in&e$i
in equa* s&a$es( su!Jec o &e '$o#isions of
a$ic*e 1CC8 %i& $es'ec o $e*ai#es of &e fu**
and &a*f !*ood( and of A$ic*e B<7( 'a$a)$a'&
@( conce$nin) di#ision !e%een &e 'ae$na*
and mae$na* *ines.
&/clusion and Concurrence in ntestacy
ntestacy operates on the same
principles as succession to the legitime. There are 2
principles operating sometimes simultaneously-
sometimes singly 9 &PC"B'ON and
CONCB77&NC&.
8roups of intestate heirs and the different com.inations
in intestacy are outlined under Arts. @7?>1A1A.
2asis of ntestate 'uccession
Ryan Ouan 122
ST ST
The presumed will of the
decedent- which would distri.ute the estate in
accordance with the lo*e and affection he has for his
family and close relati*es- and in default of these
persons- the presumed desire of the decedent to
promote charita.le and humanitarian acti*ities.
Manresa says that the law of
intestacy is founded on the presumed will of the
deceased. "o*e- it is said first descends- then
ascends- and finally spreads sideways. Thus- the
law first calls the descendants- then the ascendants
and finally the collaterals- always preferring those
closer in degree than those of remoter degrees.
EASIC R0LES O. INTESTACF
1. T&e Ru*e of P$efe$ence of Lines
The ! lines of relationship are3
aE The descending
.E The ascending- and
cE The collateral
The law lays down an order of
preference among these lines- such that
the descending e/cludes the ascending
and the collateral- and the ascending
e/cludes the collateral.
@. T&e Ru*e of P$o+imi" of -e)$ee
The nearer e/clude the more
remote :Art@(2 par1; without preDudice to
representation.
A. T&e Ru*e of Equa*i" Amon) Re*ai#es of &e
Same -e)$ee
This rule is corollary of the
pre*ious one3 f the nearer e/clude the
more remote- logically those of equal
degree should inherit in equal shares
:Art@(2 par2;
5 EHCEPTIONS
aE The rule of preference of lines
.E The distinction .etween
legitimate and illegitimate filiation
:the ratio under present law is 231;
under Article @?! in relation to Article
?@% as amended .y Art17( of the
1amily Code.
cE The 7ule of $i*ision .y line in
the Ascending "ine under Art@?7
par2
dE The $istinction .etween 1ull>
2lood and =alf>2lood relationship
among 2rothers and 'isters- as well
as nephews and nieces under
Articles 1AA( and 1AA?.
eE 7epresentation
S.BS%C,*+) #. 0 &elationship

A$. B8A. P$o+imi" of $e*aions&i' is dee$mined
!" &e num!e$ of )ene$aions. Eac&
)ene$aion fo$ms a de)$ee.
A$. B84. A se$ies of de)$ees fo$ms a *ine( %&ic&
ma" !e ei&e$ di$ec o$ co**ae$a*.
A di$ec *ine is &a consiued !" &e
se$ies of de)$ees amon) ascendans and
descendans.
A co**ae$a* *ine is &a consiued !" &e
se$ies of de)$ees amon) 'e$sons %&o a$e no
ascendans and descendans( !u %&o come
f$om a common anceso$.
A$. B85. T&e di$ec *ine is ei&e$ descendin) o$
ascendin).
T&e fo$me$ unies &e &ead of &e fami*"
%i& &ose %&o descend f$om &im.
T&e *ae$ !inds a 'e$son %i& &ose f$om
%&om &e descends.
A$. B88. In &e *ine( as man" de)$ees a$e couned
as &e$e a$e )ene$aions o$ 'e$sons(
e+c*udin) &e '$o)enio$.
In &e di$ec *ine( ascen is made o &e
common anceso$. T&us( &e c&i*d is one
de)$ee $emo#ed f$om &e 'a$en( %o f$om &e
)$andfa&e$( and &$ee f$om &e )$eaG
)$and'a$en.
In &e co**ae$a* *ine( ascen is made o &e
common anceso$ and &en descen is made
o &e 'e$son %i& %&om &e com'uaion is
o !e made. T&us( a 'e$son is %o de)$ees
$emo#ed f$om &is !$o&e$( &$ee f$om &is
unc*e( %&o is &e !$o&e$ of &is fa&e$( fou$
f$om &is fi$s cousin( and so fo$&.
LINE 9 a series of degrees forms a line :Article @(# par1;
a) -i$ec > degrees among ascendants and
descendants :Art@(# par2;
Ryan Ouan 123
DESCENDIN0
DIRECT
%SCENDIN0
LINE
DIRECT =
COLL%TER%L
COLL%TER%L
DESCENDIN0
DIRECT =
%SCENDIN0
DIRECT
ST ST
i. $escending 9 Bnites the head
of the family with those who descend from
him :Article @(% par2;
ii. Ascending 9 .inds a person
with those from whom he descends :Article
@(% par!;
b) Co**ae$a* 9 $egrees among persons who are not
ascendants or descendants .ut come from a
common ancestor :Article @(# par!;
i. @irect and Collateral 9
importance of distinction3 the direct is
preferred o*er the collateral.
ii. @escending direct and
(scending direct 9 importance of distinction
9 the descending is preferred o*er the
ascending.
CO,P0TATION O. -EGREES
A. -i$ec Line 9 there is no legal limit to the num.er
of degrees for entitlement to intestate succession.
The practical li6it is of course- human mortality.
o 'ode of Counting @egrees in @irect Line
- One generation ] one degree
- )arent to child ] 1 degree
- 8randparent to 8randchild ] 2 degrees
- 8reat>8randparent to 8reat>8randchild
] ! degrees
B. Co**ae$a* Line 9 computation of degree is
important in the collateral line .ecause intestate
succession e/tends only to the .I.TH 35
&
4
-EGREE of Co**ae$a* $e*aions&i' GArt1A1AE
o'ode of Counting @egrees in the Collateral
Line :Art@(( par!;
i. 1rom the reference point- ascend to
nearest common ancestor :if there
are more than 1 nearest common
ancestor- choose any one.;
ii. Then descend to the other reference
point
iii. Num.er of generations constituting
the ascent and the descent is the
degree of the collateral relationship.
o Collaterals by @egrees
- 1irst degree 9 none
- 'econd degree 9 .rothers L sisters
- Third degree
i. Bncles L Aunts
ii. Nephews L Nieces
- 1ourth degree
i. 1irst Cousins
ii. 2rothersL'isters of a grand>parent :grand>uncles L grand>
aunts;
iii. 8randchildren of a .rotherLsister :grand>nephewsLgrand>
nieces;
- 1ifth degree
Children of a first cousin
1irst cousins of a parent
iii. 2rothersLsisters of a great>
grandparent
i*. 8reat grandchildren of a
.rotherLsister
A$. B87. .u** !*ood $e*aions&i' is &a e+isin)
!e%een 'e$sons %&o &a#e &e same fa&e$
and &e same mo&e$.
Ha*f !*ood $e*aions&i' is &a e+isin)
!e%een 'e$sons %&o &a#e &e same fa&e$(
!u no &e same mo&e$( o$ &e same mo&e$(
!u no &e same fa&e$.
mportance of distinction .etween full>.lood and half>
.lood relationship 9 with reference to .rothers and
sisters and nephews and nieces- there is a ratio of 231 for
full>.lood and half>.lood relationship- respecti*ely.
:Arts1AA( and 1AA?;
5ith respect to collateral relati*es- the full>.lood and
half>.lood relationship is NOT MAT&7A".
A$. B8<. If &e$e a$e se#e$a* $e*ai#es of &e same
de)$ee( and one o$ some of &em a$e
un%i**in) o$ inca'aciaed o succeed( &is
'o$ion s&a** acc$ue o &e o&e$s of &e same
de)$ee( sa#e &e $i)& of $e'$esenaion %&en
i s&ou*d a2e '*ace.
ACCRETION IN INTESTACF
There is accretion in intestacy
among heirs of the same degree- in case of
)7&$&C&A'&- NCA)ACTI or 7&NBNCATON
of any one of them. :Art1A1%;
1) n case of predecease or incapacity-
representation- if proper- will )7&K&NT
accretion from occurring.
2) 7elati*es must .e in the same +ind of
relationship 9 for accretion to ta+e place the
heirs in*ol*ed must .e in the same +ind of
relationship to the decedent. This is .ecause
of the principle of the preference of lines in
intestate succession. Thus- there can .e no
accretion among a grandchild- a grandparent
Ryan Ouan 124
DIRECT LINE
DE0REE
COLL%TER%L
LINE
ST ST
and a .rother of the decedent :e*en if they
are all related to him in the 2
nd
degree;
.ecause they are not inheriting together in the
first place.
A$. B8B. If &e in&e$iance s&ou*d !e $e'udiaed
!" &e nea$es $e*ai#e( s&ou*d &e$e !e one
on*"( o$ !" a** &e nea$es $e*ai#es ca**ed !"
*a% o succeed( s&ou*d &e$e !e se#e$a*(
&ose of &e fo**o%in) de)$ee s&a** in&e$i in
&ei$ o%n $i)& and canno $e'$esen &e
'e$son o$ 'e$sons $e'udiain) &e
in&e$iance.
E..ECT O. REN0NCIATION EF ALL IN THE SA,E
-EGREE
The right of succession should
first .e passed on the heirs in succeeding degrees
:in successi*e order; .efore the ne/t line can
succeed- .ecause of the rule of preference of lines.
Thus3
1) T&e descendin) *ine fi$s 9 if all the
descendants of a certain degree renounce-
succession passes to the descendants of the
ne/t degree :i.e. grandchildren;- and so on-
ad indefinitu6.
2) T&e ascendin) *ine ne+ 9 should no
one .e left in the descending line- the heirs in
the ascending line acquire the right of
succession- again in order of degrees of
pro/imity.
3) T&e co**ae$a* *ine *as 9 only if A"" the
descendants and ascendants renounce will
the collateral relati*es acquire the right to
succeed.
)redecease or ncapacity .y All in the 'ame $egree
This e*entuality is not pro*ided
for .y the article. The rules outlined- howe*er- are
equally applica.le to such situation- e?cept in cases
where &%P&%S%),(,*+) is proper :in descending
line;
7epresentation does not apply
in cases of uni*ersal renunciation outlined a.o*e-
.ecause there is no representation in renunciation.
:Art@77;
S.BS%C,*+) 2. 0 &ight of &epresentation
A$. B7C. Re'$esenaion is a $i)& c$eaed !"
ficion of *a%( !" #i$ue of %&ic& &e
$e'$esenai#e is $aised o &e '*ace and &e
de)$ee of &e 'e$son $e'$esened( and
acqui$es &e $i)&s %&ic& &e *ae$ %ou*d
&a#e if &e %e$e *i#in) o$ if &e cou*d &a#e
in&e$ied.
A$. B71. T&e $e'$esenai#e is ca**ed o &e
succession !" &e *a% and no !" &e 'e$son
$e'$esened. T&e $e'$esenai#e does no
succeed &e 'e$son $e'$esened !u &e one
%&om &e 'e$son $e'$esened %ou*d &a#e
succeeded.
A$. B7@. T&e $i)& of $e'$esenaion a2es '*ace
in &e di$ec descendin) *ine( !u ne#e$ in &e
ascendin).
In &e co**ae$a* *ine( i a2es '*ace on*" in
fa#o$ of &e c&i*d$en of !$o&e$s o$ sise$s(
%&e&e$ &e" !e of &e fu** o$ &a*f !*ood.
A$. B7A. In o$de$ &a $e'$esenaion ma" a2e
'*ace( i is necessa$" &a &e $e'$esenai#e
&imse*f !e ca'a!*e of succeedin) &e
deceden.
A$. B74. 1&ene#e$ &e$e is succession !"
$e'$esenaion( &e di#ision of &e esae s&a**
!e made 'e$ si$'es( in suc& manne$ &a &e
$e'$esenai#e o$ $e'$esenai#es s&a** no
in&e$i mo$e &an %&a &e 'e$son &e"
$e'$esen %ou*d in&e$i( if &e %e$e *i#in) o$
cou*d in&e$i.
A$. B75. 1&en c&i*d$en of one o$ mo$e !$o&e$s
o$ sise$s of &e deceased su$#i#e( &e" s&a**
in&e$i f$om &e *ae$ !" $e'$esenaion( if
&e" su$#i#e %i& &ei$ unc*es o$ auns. Eu if
&e" a*one su$#i#e( &e" s&a** in&e$i in equa*
'o$ions.
A$. B78. A 'e$son ma" $e'$esen &im %&ose
in&e$iance &e &as $enounced.
A$. B77. Hei$s %&o $e'udiae &ei$ s&a$e ma" no
!e $e'$esened.
7&)7&'&NTATON
$efinition 9 a right created .y
fiction of law- .y *irtue of which the representati*e is
raised to the place and the degree of the person
represented- and acquires the rights which the latter
would ha*e if he were li*ing or if he could ha8e
inherited. :Art@7A;
oCriticisms 9 the term ,representation0- it has
.een suggested that a .etter term to call this
legal process is either hereditary subrogation
or successional subrogation .ecause the
person inheriting in another4s stead actually
represents no one and truly succeeds in his
own right. The term ,fiction of law0 is criticiHed
as inaccurate- as well- .ecause the law has
ample authority to predetermine who are to
Ryan Ouan 125
ST ST
.e called to inherit- and the law needs no
resort to fictions .ut merely to ma+e use of its
power to designate those who are to ta+e the
inheritance.
INSTANCES 1HEN REPRESENTATION OPERATES
A. P$edecease
E. Inca'aci" o$ 0n%o$&iness( and
C. -isin&e$iance
nstance when 7epresentation
N&K&7 operates 9 7&NBNCATON
IN 1HAT DIN-S O. S0CCESSION
REPRESENTATION OPERATES
A. "&8TM& or compulsory succession
o There is no e/press pro*ision on
representation in the legitime- e/cept
Art@2! in case of disinheritance.
2. NT&'TACI or legal succession
There is no representation in
testa6entary succession
IN 1HAT LINE -OES REPRESENTATION OETAIN
A. 5ith respect to the "&8TM& 9 in the direct
descending line only :Art@72;
2. 5ith respect to NT&'TACI 9 the general rule is
in the direct descending line as well- &PC&)T in
one instance- in the collateral line 9 in case of
nephews and nieces representing .rothers and
sisters of the deceased :Art@7%;
7&)7&'&NTATON 2I ILLEGITI,ATE C="$7&N
f the child to .e represented is
legiti6ate 9 only legitimate childrenLdescendants
can represent him :Art@@2;
f the child to .e represented is
illegiti6ate 9 2OT= legitimate and illegitimate
childrenLdescendants can represent him :Arts@A2-
@?@ and @@A;
Thus
H
Legiti6ate *llegiti6ate
A E
Legit. *llegit. Legit. *llegit.
A1 A@ E1 E@
Should ( and B both predecease D< only (# can
represent ( but both B# and B2 can represent B
7epresentation O1 and 2I and
adopted child 9 an adopted child can N&T=&7
represent nor .e represented.
oThe rationale for the rule .arring an adopted
from representing and .eing represented is
that the legal relationship created .y adoption
is strictly between the adopted and the
adopted. t does not e/tend to the relati*es of
either party. :Teotico *. $el Kal;
7&)7&'&NTATON 2I 7&NOBNC&7
Although a renounce cannot .e
represented- he can represent the person whose
inheritance he has renounced :Art@7(;. This is
.ecause in the 2
nd
sentence of Art@71- the
representati*e does not succeed the person
represented .ut the one whom the person
represented would ha*e succeeded.
&/ample 9 A is the father of 2
and C is the son of 2- and therefore the grandchild
of A. 2 dies and C renounces his inheritance. 2ut if
A dies and there is a right of representation- C can
still inherit from A in representation of 2- e*en if C
pre*iously renounced his inheritance from 2. This is
.ecause in the latter case- C is inheriting from A and
not from 2.
HO1 REPRESENTATION OPERATES
)&7 'T7)&' 9 the
representati*e or representati*es recei*e only what
the person represented would ha*e recei*ed. f
there is more than 1 representati*e in the same
degree- then di*ide the portion &QBA""I- without
preDudice to the distinction .etween legitimate and
illegitimate children when applica.le.
R0LES ON /0ALI.ICATION
A. T&e $e'$esenai#e mus !e qua*ified o
succeed &e deceden. 3A$B7A4
oAgain- the rationale is found in the 2
nd
sentence of Art@71- stating that the
representati*e does not succeed the person
represented .ut the one whom the person
represented would ha*e succeeded.
B. T&e $e'$esenai#e need no !e qua*ified o
succeed &e 'e$son $e'$esened 3A$B714
C. T&e 'e$son $e'$esened need no !e qua*ified
o succeed &e deceden.
on fact- the reason why representation is
ta+ing place is that the person represented is
not qualified- .ecause of predecease-
incapacity or disinheritance.
Ryan Ouan 126
ST ST
REPRESENTATION EF GRAN-CHIL-REN AN-
REPRESENTATION EF NEPHE1SINIECES=
-iffe$ence in Ru*e
A. If ALL &e c&i*d$en a$e disqua*ified 9 the
grandchildren still inherit .y representation :what
the parents should ha*e gotten; under Art@?2.
B. If ALL &e !$o&e$sIsise$s a$e disqua*ified 9
the nephews and nieces inherit )&7 CA)TA
under Art@7%.
'ome 'uggestions 9 more e/plicit pro*isions on3
o 5hat are the occasions or causes for the
operation of representation6
o n what +inds of succession does representation
operate6
P&+BL%' +) &%P&%S%),(,*+)
)ote< *76 not sure about the answers< please re0checG
P has % legit +ids- ! of whom
ha*e their own +ids.
H
A E C - E
C1 C@ -1 -@ E1 E@
'upposing P ma+es a 5""
:T&'TAM&NTA7I; instituting all his % +ids to the
free portion< then C predeceases him- $ is unworthy
to succeed and upon his death- & renounces. =ow is
P4s estate- worth )(AA-AAA to .e apportioned6
o A- 2- C- $ and & are supposed to get (A-AAA
each :the free portion is O of the whole estate so the free
portion is )!AA-AAA di*ided .y % +ids ] (A-AAA each;.
o =owe*er- there is NO 7&)7&'&NTATON in
Testamentary $isposition.
o Therefore- the share of C who predeceased P-
the share of $ who is unworthy- and the share of & who
renounced- will all accrue to A and 2 as co>heirs.
o 'o- A and 2 will each get O of the )!AA-AAA- or
)1%A-AAA each.
'upposing P dies NT&'TAT&-
all the other facts .eing the same- how is P4s estate
to .e apportioned6
o A- 2- C- $ and & are supposed to get (A-AAA
each :the free portion is O of the whole estate so the free
portion is )!AA-AAA di*ided .y % +ids ] (A-AAA each;.
o =owe*er- since & renounced his share- his
)(A+ portion will- .y ACC7&TON- .e di*ided equally
among the rest of the +ids of P.
o Therefore- A- 2- C and $ will get an additional
)1%-AAA each plus their own )(A+ portion- they will get 7%+
each.
o =owe*er- since C predeceased the testator- he
may .e represented .y C1 and C2- who will each get
)!7-%AA :the )7%+ share of C to .e di*ided .y 2- assuming
.oth C1 and C2 are legitimate children of C;.
o Also- since $ is unworthy to succeed- he may
.e represented .y $1 and $2- who will get )!7-%AA each
:)7%+ share di*ided .y 2;
CA'&' 1O7 A7T'. @(A>@77
Baga6on 8 Piedad
,eotico 8. @el /al
SECTION @. 9 OR-ER O. INTESTATE S0CCESSION

INTESTACF 9 R0LES O. EHCL0SION AN- CONC0RRENCE
HEIRS EHCL0-E CONC0R ARE EHCL0-E- EF
Ryan Ouan 127
ST ST
1. Le)iima
e C&i*d$en
)arents- Collaterals and
the 'tate
The sur*i*ing spouse and
illegitimate children
No one
@. I**e)iima
e C&i*d$en
llegitimate parents-
collaterals and the state
'ur*i*ing spouse- legitimate
children and the legitimate parents
No one
A. Le)iima
e Pa$ens
Collaterals and the state llegitimate children and the
sur*i*ing spouse
"egitimate children
4. I**e)iima
e Pa$ens
Collaterals and the state 'ur*i*ing spouse "egitimate and
illegitimate children
5. Su$#i#in)
S'ouse
Collaterals- &PC&)T
.rothers- sisters-
nephews and nieces-
and the 'tate
"egitimate children- illegitimate
children- legitimate parents-
illegitimate parents and .rothers-
sisters- nephews and nieces.
No one
8. E$o&e$s(
sise$s(
ne'&e%s and
nieces
All other collateral
relati*es up to %
th
degree
and the state
'ur*i*ing spouse "egitimate V illegitimate
children- and legitimate
V illegitimate parents
7. O&e$
Co**ae$a*s
Collaterals remoter in
degree- and the state
Collaterals in the same degree All others
<. T&e Sae No one No one &*eryone
CO,EINATIONS IN INTESTATE S0CCESSION
HEIR SHARE PROVISION
1. Le)iimae
c&i*d$en
5hole estate- equally di*ided Art. 979. Legtmate chdren and ther descendants
succeed the parents and other ascendants,
wthout dstncton as to sex or age, and even f
they shoud come from dfferent marrages.
An adopted chd succeeds to the property of
the adoptng parents n the same manner as a
egtmate chd.
@. Le)iimae
c&i*d$en and
I**e)iimae
c&i*d$en
5hole estate with O share of 1
legit child for &AC= illegitimate
child
Art. 983. If egtmate chdren survve wth
egtmate chdren, the shares of the former sha
be n the proportons prescrbed by Artce 895.
Art. 176 FAMILY CODE. Iegtmate chdren sha use
the surname and sha be under the parenta
authorty of ther mother, and sha be entted to
support n conformty wth ths Code. The egtme
of each egtmate chd sha consst of one-haf
of the egtme of a egtmate chd. Except for
ths modfcaton, a other provsons n the Cv
Code governng successona rghts sha reman
n force.
A. Le)iimae
c&i*d$en and
su$#i#in) s'ouse
5hole estate- di*ided equally-
including the sur*i*ing spouse
Art. 996. If a wdow or wdower and egtmate
chdren or descendants are eft, the survvng
spouse has n the successon the same share as
that of each of the chdren.
4. Le)iimae
c&i*d$en(
su$#i#in) s'ouse
and i**e)iimae
c&i*d$en
5hole estate- the spouse getting
the share of 1 legitimate child
and the illegitimate child getting
O the share of 1 legitimate child.
Art. 999. When the wdow or wdower survves wth
egtmate chdren or ther descendants and
egtmate chdren or ther descendants,
whether egtmate or egtmate, such wdow or
wdower sha be entted to the same share as
that of a egtmate chd.
Art. 176 FAMILY CODE. Iegtmate chdren sha use
the surname and sha be under the parenta
authorty of ther mother, and sha be entted to
support n conformty wth ths Code. The egtme
Ryan Ouan 128
ST ST
of each egtmate chd sha consst of one-haf
of the egtme of a egtmate chd. Except for
ths modfcaton, a other provsons n the Cv
Code governng successona rghts sha reman
n force.
5. Le)iimae
'a$ens a*one
5hole estate- equally Art. 985. In defaut of egtmate chdren and
descendants of the deceased, hs parents and
ascendants sha nhert from hm, to the
excuson of coatera reatves.
8. Le)iimae
ascendans
5hole estate- di*ision equally .y
line
Art. 987. In defaut of the father and mother, the
ascendants nearest n degree sha nhert.
Shoud there be more than one of equa degree
beongng to the same ne they sha dvde the
nhertance per capta; shoud they be of dfferent
nes but of equa degree, one-haf sha go to the
paterna and the other haf to the materna
ascendants. In each ne the dvson sha be
made per capta.
7. Le)iimae
'a$ens and
i**e)iimae
c&i*d$en
"egitimate parents get O of the
estate di*ided equally .etween
them and the illegitimate children
get O of the estate di*ided also
equally
Art. 991. If egtmate ascendants are eft, the
egtmate chdren sha dvde the nhertance
wth them, takng one-haf of the estate, whatever
be the number of the ascendants or of the
egtmate chdren.
<. Le)iimae
'a$ens and
su$#i#in) s'ouse
"egit parents get O of the estate
and the sur*i*ing spouse gets
the other half
egtmate parents or ascendants, the survvng
spouse sha be entted to one-haf of the estate,
and the egtmate parents or ascendants to the
other haf.
B. Le)iimae
'a$ens(
su$#i#in) s'ouse
and i**e)iimae
c&i*d$en
"egit parents get O- the sur*i*ing
spouse gets R and the
illegitimate children get R.
Art. 1000. If egtmate ascendants, the survvng
spouse, and egtmate chdren are eft, the
ascendants sha be entted to one-haf of the
nhertance, and the other haf sha be dvded
between the survvng spouse and the egtmate
chdren so that such wdow or wdower sha have
one-fourth of the estate, and the egtmate
chdren the other fourth.
1C. I**e)iimae
c&i*d$en
The whole estate- di*ided equally Art. 988. In the absence of egtmate descendants
or ascendants, the egtmate chdren sha
succeed to the entre estate of the deceased.
11. I**e)iimae
c&i*d$en and
su$#i#in) s'ouse
The illegitimate children get O
and the sur*i*ing spouse gets
the other O
Art. 998. If a wdow or wdower survves wth
egtmate chdren, such wdow or wdower sha
be entted to one-haf of the nhertance, and the
egtmate chdren or ther descendants,
whether egtmate or egtmate, to the other
haf.
1@. Su$#i#in)
s'ouse
The whole estate Art. 994. In defaut of the father or mother, an
egtmate chd sha be succeeded by hs or her
survvng spouse who sha be entted to the
entre estate.
If the wdow or wdower shoud survve wth
brothers and ssters, nephews and neces, she or
he sha nhert one-haf of the estate, and the
atter the other haf.
Art. 995. In the absence of egtmate descendants
and ascendants, and egtmate chdren and
ther descendants, whether egtmate or
egtmate, the survvng spouse sha nhert the
entre estate, wthout pre|udce to the rghts of
Ryan Ouan 129
ST ST
brothers and ssters, nephews and neces, shoud
there be any, under artce 1001.
1A. Su$#i#in)
s'ouse and
i**e)iimae
'a$ens
'pouse gets O of estate-
illegitimate parents get the other
O
No provson, but by anaogy to Art997.
egtmate parents or ascendants, the survvng
spouse sha be entted to one-haf of the estate,
and the egtmate parents or ascendants to the
other haf.
14. Su$#i#in)
s'ouse and
*e)iimae
!$o&e$s( sise$s(
ne'&e%s and
nieces
'pouse gets O and the
legitimate 2'NN get O- with the
nephews and nieces inheriting .y
representation in proper cases
Art. 1001. Shoud brothers and ssters or ther
chdren survve wth the wdow or wdower, the
atter sha be entted to one-haf of the
nhertance and the brothers and ssters or ther
chdren to the other haf.
15. Su$#i#in)
s'ouse and
i**e)iimae
!$o&e$( sise$s(
ne'&e%s and
nieces
'pouse gets O while illegitimate
2'NN get O- with representation
Art. 994. In defaut of the father or mother, an
egtmate chd sha be succeeded by hs or her
survvng spouse who sha be entted to the
entre estate.
If the wdow or wdower shoud survve wth
brothers and ssters, nephews and neces, she or
he sha nhert one-haf of the estate, and the
atter the other haf.
18. I**e)iimae
'a$ens
The whole estate Art. 993. If an egtmate chd shoud de wthout
ssue, ether egtmate or egtmate, hs father
or mother sha succeed to hs entre estate; and
f the chd's faton s duy proved as to both
parents, who are both vng, they sha nhert
from hm share and share ake.
17. I**e)iimae
'a$ens and an"
c&i*d$en
llegitimate parents are e/cluded
.y the children
Art. 993. If an egtmate chd shoud de wthout
ssue, ether egtmate or egtmate, hs father
or mother sha succeed to hs entre estate; and
f the chd's faton s duy proved as to both
parents, who are both vng, they sha nhert
from hm share and share ake.
1<. Le)iimae
!$o&e$s and
sise$s
5hole estate- half .lood gets O
of full .lood4s share :231;
Art. 1004. Shoud the ony survvors be brothers and
ssters of the fu bood, they sha nhert n equa
shares.
Art. 1006. Shoud brother and ssters of the fu
bood survve together wth brothers and ssters
of the haf bood, the former sha be entted to a
share doube that of the atter.
1B. Le)iimae
!$o&e$s P
sise$s( ne'&e%s
P nieces
5hole estate- 231 for half .lood-
with representation for nephews
and nieces
Art. 1005. Shoud brothers and ssters survve
together wth nephews and neces, who are the
chdren of the descendant's brothers and ssters
of the fu bood, the former sha nhert per
capta, and the atter per strpes.
Art. 1008. Chdren of brothers and ssters of the haf
bood sha succeed per capta or per strpes, n
accordance wth the rues ad down for the
brothers and ssters of the fu bood.
@C. Ne'&e%s and
nieces %i&
unc*es and auns
Bncles and aunts are e/cluded.
The nephews and nieces get the
whole estate
Art. 1009. Shoud there be nether brothers nor
ssters nor chdren of brothers or ssters, the
other coatera reatves sha succeed to the
estate.
The atter sha succeed wthout dstncton of
nes or preference among them by reason of
Ryan Ouan 130
ST ST
reatonshp by the whoe bood.
And the case of -acayo ( -orromeo
@1. I**e)iimae
!$o&e$s and
sise$s
5hole estate- 231 full and half
.lood
No artce governng
@@. I**e)iimae
!$o&e$s P
sise$s( ne'&e%s
P nieces
5hole estate No artce governng
@A. Ne'&e%s and
nieces
5hole- )&7 CA)TA- 231 ratio Art. 975. When chdren of one or more brothers or
ssters of the deceased survve, they sha nhert
from the atter by representaton, f they survve
wth ther unces or aunts. But f they aone
survve, they sha nhert n equa portons.
Art. 1008. Chdren of brothers and ssters of the haf
bood sha succeed per capta or per strpes, n
accordance wth the rues ad down for the
brothers and ssters of the fu bood.
@4. O&e$ co**ae$a*s 5hole- )&7 CA)TA- nearer
e/cludes the more remote in
degree
Art. 1009. Shoud there be nether brothers nor
ssters nor chdren of brothers or ssters, the
other coatera reatves sha succeed to the
estate.
The atter sha succeed wthout dstncton of
nes or preference among them by reason of
reatonshp by the whoe bood.
Art. 1010. The rght to nhert ab ntestato sha not
extend beyond the ffth degree of reatonshp n
the coatera ne.
@5. T&e sae 5hole estate Art. 1011. In defaut of persons entted to succeed
n accordance wth the provsons of the
precedng Sectons, the State sha nhert the
whoe estate.
AS TO THE STATE
Assignment and disposition of
decedent4s asses
aE f decedent was a resident of the )hilippines
at ANI Time
i. )ersonal )roperty 9 to municipality
of last residence
ii. 7eal )roperty 9 where situated
.E f decedent was N&K&7 a resident of the
)hilippines 9 where property is situated-
whether real or personal property.
=ow property is to .e used
aE 1or the .enefit of pu.lic educational and
charita.le institutions in the respecti*e
municipalitiesLcities
b) Alternati*ely- at the instance of an interested
party- or 6otu proprio- court may order
creation of a permanent trust for the .enefit of
the institutions concerned.
SEC-I./ +. 1
.!E! .( I/-ES-A-E SUCCESSI./

S.BS%C,*+) #. 0 @escending @irect Line
A$. B7<. Succession 'e$ains( in &e fi$s '*ace( o
&e descendin) di$ec *ine.
1HO ARE THE INTESTATE HEIRS 3no in o$de$4
A. "egitimate ChildrenL$escendants
2. llegitimate ChildrenL$escendants
C. "egitimate )arentsLAscendants
$. llegitimate )arents
Ryan Ouan 131
ST ST
&. 'ur*i*ing 'pouse
1. 2rothers- 'isters- Nephews- Nieces
G. Other Collaterals up to the %
th
degree
=. The 'tate
The first % classes of intestate
heirs are also compulsory heirs.
There is also an o*erlapping of
compulsory and intestate succession- i.e. the
legitime and the intestate portions merge.
There is a *ery close parallel
.etween the rules of compulsory succession and
those of intestate succession.
A$. B7B. Le)iimae c&i*d$en and &ei$
descendans succeed &e 'a$ens and o&e$
ascendans( %i&ou disincion as o se+ o$
a)e( and e#en if &e" s&ou*d come f$om
diffe$en ma$$ia)es.
An ado'ed c&i*d succeeds o &e
'$o'e$" of &e ado'in) 'a$ens in &e same
manne$ as a *e)iimae c&i*d.
The right of an adopted child in relation to the adopter is
go*erned .y sections 17 and 1? of 7A?%%2- which lays
down the same rule that an adopted child succeeds to
the property of the adopting parents in the same manner
as a legitimate child.
A$. B<C. T&e c&i*d$en of &e deceased s&a**
a*%a"s in&e$i f$om &im in &ei$ o%n $i)&(
di#idin) &e in&e$iance in equa* s&a$es.
A$. B<1. S&ou*d c&i*d$en of &e deceased and
descendans of o&e$ c&i*d$en %&o a$e dead(
su$#i#e( &e fo$me$ s&a** in&e$i in &ei$ o%n
$i)&( and &e *ae$ !" $i)& of $e'$esenaion.
A$. B<@. T&e )$andc&i*d$en and o&e$
descendans s&a** in&e$i !" $i)& of
$e'$esenaion( and if an" one of &em s&ou*d
&a#e died( *ea#in) se#e$a* &ei$s( &e 'o$ion
'e$ainin) o &im s&a** !e di#ided amon) &e
*ae$ in equa* 'o$ions.
8randchildren do not inherit per capita e*en if all children
die 9 they inherit per stirpes- &PC&)T if A"" children
renounce- then the grandchildren will inherit in their own
right L per capita.
A$. B<A. If i**e)iimae c&i*d$en su$#i#e %i&
*e)iimae c&i*d$en( &e s&a$es of &e fo$me$
s&a** !e in &e '$o'o$ions '$esc$i!ed !"
A$ic*e <B5.
The proportion of the shares of legitimate and illegitimate
children has .een simplified to 231 .y *irtue of the
amendments introduced .y Articles 1(! and 17( of the
1amily Code.
n this com.ination- care should .e ta+en lest the
legitimes of the legitimate children .e impaired.
Consequently- a 2>step process should .e o.ser*ed 9
1E 'egregate the legitimes of the children 9 .oth
legitimate and illegitimate
2E f any residue is left- apportion it in the
proportion of 231.
t is possi.le 9 depending on the num.er of legitimates
and illegitimates 9 that the estate may not e*en .e
sufficient to satisfy the legitimes- in which case- the
second step in the process will not e*en .e feasi.le. n
fact- in such case- the legitimes of the ""&8TMAT&'
will ha*e to .e reduced pro rata.
A$. B<4. In case of &e dea& of an ado'ed c&i*d(
*ea#in) no c&i*d$en o$ descendans( &is
'a$ens and $e*ai#es !" consan)uini" and
no !" ado'ion( s&a** !e &is *e)a* &ei$s.
7epealed .y 'ections 17 and 1? of 7A?%%2.
S.BS%C,*+) 2. 0 (scending @irect Line
A$. B<5. In defau* of *e)iimae c&i*d$en and
descendans of &e deceased( &is 'a$ens and
ascendans s&a** in&e$i f$om &im( o &e
e+c*usion of co**ae$a* $e*ai#es.
A$. B<8. T&e fa&e$ and mo&e$( if *i#in)( s&a**
in&e$i in equa* s&a$es.
S&ou*d one on*" of &em su$#i#e( &e o$
s&e s&a** succeed o &e eni$e esae of &e
c&i*d.
A$. B<7. In defau* of &e fa&e$ and mo&e$( &e
ascendans nea$es in de)$ee s&a** in&e$i.
S&ou*d &e$e !e mo$e &an one of equa*
de)$ee !e*on)in) o &e same *ine &e" s&a**
di#ide &e in&e$iance 'e$ ca'ia; s&ou*d &e"
!e of diffe$en *ines !u of equa* de)$ee( oneG
&a*f s&a** )o o &e 'ae$na* and &e o&e$ &a*f
o &e mae$na* ascendans. In eac& *ine &e
di#ision s&a** !e made 'e$ ca'ia.
There is no right of representation in the ascending line.
CA'& 1O7 A7T'. @7?>@?7
Sayson 8. C(
S.BS%C,*+) 2. 0 *llegiti6ate Children
Ryan Ouan 132
ST ST
A$. B<<. In &e a!sence of *e)iimae descendans
o$ ascendans( &e i**e)iimae c&i*d$en s&a**
succeed o &e eni$e esae of &e deceased.
A$. B<B. If( o)e&e$ %i& i**e)iimae c&i*d$en(
&e$e s&ou*d su$#i#e descendans of ano&e$
i**e)iimae c&i*d %&o is dead( &e fo$me$ s&a**
succeed in &ei$ o%n $i)& and &e *ae$ !"
$i)& of $e'$esenaion.
Only difference 9 an illegitimate child can .e represented
.i either an illegitimate or legitimate child of his. 5hile a
legitimate child can only .e represented .y a legitimate
child of his.
A$. BBC. T&e &e$edia$" $i)&s )$aned !" &e %o
'$ecedin) a$ic*es o i**e)iimae c&i*d$en
s&a** !e $ansmied u'on &ei$ dea& o &ei$
descendans( %&o s&a** in&e$i !" $i)& of
$e'$esenaion f$om &ei$ deceased
)$and'a$en.
A$. BB1. If *e)iimae ascendans a$e *ef( &e
i**e)iimae c&i*d$en s&a** di#ide &e
in&e$iance %i& &em( a2in) oneG&a*f of &e
esae( %&ae#e$ !e &e num!e$ of &e
ascendans o$ of &e i**e)iimae c&i*d$en.
A$. BB@. An i**e)iimae c&i*d &as no $i)& o
in&e$i a! inesao f$om &e *e)iimae
c&i*d$en and $e*ai#es of &is fa&e$ o$ mo&e$;
no$ s&a** suc& c&i*d$en o$ $e*ai#es in&e$i in
&e same manne$ f$om &e i**e)iimae c&i*d.
,E,ORIQER
This is the well>+nown and much criticiHed successional
.arrier .etween legitimate and illegitimate relati*es of a
decedent.
CASES
Corpus 8. Corpus
- Teodoro died without forced heirs. =is will was pro.ated.
- At his death his nearest relati*es were3 "uis Ghis half
.rotherE- )aH Ghis half sisterE- children of his half .rother
)a.loE- and Cuanita Gdaughter of his half .rother CoseE.
- Teodoro was the son of "uis 7afael Iangco and 7amona
Arguelles- the widow of Tomas Corpus.
- 2efore her union with "uis 7afael Iangco- 7amona had
.egotten fi*e children with Tomas Corpus- two of whom
were the )a.lo and Cose.
- The proDect of partition was opposed .y the estate of "uis
whose counsel contended that intestacy should .e
declared .ecause the will does not contain an institution of
heir.
- The pro.ate court howe*er appro*ed the proDect of
partition.
- t appears that Teodoro was an ac+nowledged natural child
and not a legitimate child was the statement in the will of
his father- "uis 7afael Iangco- dated Cune 1#- 1@A7- that
Teodoro and his three other children were his
acGnowledged natural children.
5ON Cuanita is entitled to a share in intestate estate of
Teodoro. :Juanita is a legiti6ate daughter of &o6ana and
,o6as.;
- NO. 'ince Teodoro was an ac+nowledged natural child or
was illegitimate and since Cuanita was the legitimate child
of Cose Corpus- himself a legitimate child- we hold that
appellant Tomas Corpus has no cause of action for the
reco*ery of the supposed hereditary share of his mother-
Cuanita Corpus- as a legal heir- in IangcoUs estate. Cuanita
Corpus was not a legal heir of Iangco .ecause there is no
reciprocal succession .etween legitimate and illegitimate
relati*es.
- Corpus concedes that if Teodoro 7. Iangco was a natural
child- he GTomas CorpusE would ha*e no legal personality
to inter*ene in the distri.ution of IangcoUs estate.
- Art. @@2 of the NCC pro*ides that Nan illegitimate child has
no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children
and relati*es of his father or mother< nor shall such children
or relati*es inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate
child.N
- The rule is .ased on the theory that the illegitimate child is
disgracefully loo+ed upon .y the legitimate family while the
legitimate family isin turn- hated .y the illegitimate child.
Leonardo 8. C(
- 1rancisca 7eyes died intestate and was sur*i*ed .y her
two daughters and grandson- who is the son of her !
rd
daughter who predeceased her. 8randson died e*entually
2 yrs after.
- "eonardo now claims ownership o*er some properties of
1rancisca .ecause he was a son of the grandson.
5LN "eonardo may inherit.
- 'C held that he cannot .ecause3
- 1. =e was an illegitimate child of grandson. =e was .orn
outside of wedloc+ and while his father4s first marriage is
still su.sisting.
- 2. An illegitimate child may not inherit .y right of
representation from the legitimate relati*es of his father.
- A7T. @@2
@ia9 8. *(C
1%A 'C7A (#% G1@?7E
- 'imona Cardin has a niece 1elisa Cardin from her legitimate
sister Culiana Cardin. At the same time- 'imona also had a
legitimate son- )a.lo santero- who predeceased her. On
the other hand- )a.lo 'antero was sur*i*ed .y his (
ac+nowledged natural children.
- 'imona Cardin died intestate with only her niece 1elisa as
the sole sur*i*ing heir. $uring the intestate proceedings of
Ryan Ouan 133
ST ST
the estate of 'imona- the illegitimate children of )a.lo
'antero inter*ened and contended that as the illegitimate
children of the deceased 'imona they ha*e the right to
succeed .y representation.
- The grandchildren premised their rights to succeed under
Art @@A of the NCC- which grants the right of representation
to descendants whether legitimate or illegitimate. =ence- .y
said pro*iso- the grandchildren has the right to represent
their deceased father in the estate of their grandmother.
5ho .etween 1elisa Cardin and the llegitimate grandchildren
of 'imona are to .e considered the legal heirs of 'imona
Cardin.
- 1elisa Cardin is the sole legal heir of the decedent.
- The 'C held that the grandchildrenUs reliance in Art @@A is
misplaced and that the applica.le law is Art @@2. Art @@A is
not applica.le .ecause )a.lo 'antero is a le)itimate child
of 'imona while the oppositors are the formerUs illegitimate
children. GArt @@A applies to the right of the des#endants
of an ille)itimate #@ild to inherit .y representation.E
- Art @@2 pro*ides a .arrier or iron curtain in that it prohi.its
a.solutely a succession a. intestato .etween the
illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of
of the father or mother of said legitimate child. 2etween the
legitimate and illegitimate family there is presumed to .e an
inter*ening antagonism and incompati.ility.
- t is clear therefore from Art @@2 of the NCC that the phrase
Nlegitimate children and relatives of his father and motherN
includes 'imona Cardin. =ence- the illegitimate
grandchilren are .arred from asserting their right to
succeed from 'imona- who is a legitimate relati*e of their
father.
- ART BB@ prohi.its a.solutely a succession ab intestato
.etween the illegitimate child and the legitimate children
and relatives of the father or mother Gwho must .e a
legitimate childE. :!owe8er note that descendants< whether
legiti6ate or illegiti6ate< can inherit by right of
representation if the person to be represented is an
illegiti6ate child.;.
@ia9 8. *(C
1?2 'C7A #27 G1@@AE
- The illegitimate children of )a.lo 'antero filed a 2nd Motion
for 7econsideration on the decision of the 'C holding them
disqualified from inheriting from the estate of 'imona
Cardin. Gsa6e facts as abo8eE
- 'aid grandchildren are now in*o+ing Arts @A2- @?2- @?@
and @@A of the New Ci*il Code to .olster their right to
succeed.
5hether or not the illegitimate children of a legitimate child can
inherit .y right of representation from the children and relati*es
of such legitimate parent
- No.
- 1irst- Articles @A2- @?@ and @@A clearly spea+s of
successional rights of ille)itimate #@ildren- which rights
are transmitted to their descendants upon death. The
descendants Gof these illegitimate childrenE who may
inherit .y *irtue of the right of representation may .e
legitimate or illegitimate.
- 'econd- although Art @?2 pro*ides that Nthe grandchildren
and other descendants shall inherit .y right of
representationN- the same is limited .y Art @@2 to the end
that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato
from the legitimate children and relati*es of his father or
mother Gwho must .e legitimate children themsel*esE.
- Third- it is true that while the NCC granted successional
rights to illegitimate children- those articles must howe*er
.e read in conDunction with Art @@2- which prohi.its the right
of representation from .eing e/ercised where the person to
.e represented is a legitimate child. The determining factor
therefore is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the person to .e
Nrepresented.N t must .e emphasiHed that illegitimate
children ha*e only those rights e/pressly garnted to them
.y law.
- 1ourth- the term Nrelati*esN- in accordance with the rules of
statutory construction- must .e understood to ha*e a
general and inclusi*e scope inasmuch as the term is a
general one. n fact- if the law wants to distinguish it
e/pressly says so .y adding qualifiers such as the word
NcollateralN.
- 1rom the aforementioned- 'C affirmed its earlier decision
that the illegitimate grandchildren are .arred from inheriting
ab intestato from 'imonaUs estate..
- ART BB@ prohi.its a.solutely a succession ab intestato
.etween the illegitimate child and the legitimate children
and relatives of the father or mother Gwho must .e a
legitimate childE. :!owe8er note that descendants< whether
legiti6ate or illegiti6ate< can inherit by right of
representation if the person to be represented is an
illegiti6ate child.;
/da. @e Crisologo 8. C(
- )etitioners in this case filed an action for ownership-
annulment of sale- and deli*ery of possession of *arious
properties against 2ernardo Mallillin.
- 2ernardo claims that petitioners are complete strangers to
the decedent Culia Capiao inasmuch as "utgarda is the
decedent4s illegitimate daughter- a product of her e/tra>
marital relations with one Kictoriano Taccad.
- The petitioners claim to .e legal heirs .eing relati*es of
"utgarda within the fifth ci*il degree.
- The lower court said that they cannot inherit .ecause they
are legitimate relati*es of Culia Capiao and they cannot
inherit from an illegitimate daughter of the latter pursuant to
Article @@2 of the Ci*il Code.
5hether or not the relati*es of Culia Capiao- namely- the
petitioners in this case- can inherit from "utgarda Capiao- the
original owner of the properties in dispute.
- NO.
- t is clear from the records that the petitioners cannot inherit
the properties in question .ecause of Article @@2 of the Ci*il
Code.
- 2eing relati*es on the legitimate line of Culia Capiao- they
cannot inherit from her illegitimate daughter.
- Article @@2.
Ryan Ouan 134
ST ST
A$. BBA. If an i**e)iimae c&i*d s&ou*d die %i&ou
issue( ei&e$ *e)iimae o$ i**e)iimae( &is
fa&e$ o$ mo&e$ s&a** succeed o &is eni$e
esae; and if &e c&i*dMs fi*iaion is du*"
'$o#ed as o !o& 'a$ens( %&o a$e !o&
*i#in)( &e" s&a** in&e$i f$om &im s&a$e and
s&a$e a*i2e.
A$. BB4. In defau* of &e fa&e$ o$ mo&e$( an
i**e)iimae c&i*d s&a** !e succeeded !" &is o$
&e$ su$#i#in) s'ouse %&o s&a** !e eni*ed o
&e eni$e esae.
If &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ s&ou*d su$#i#e
%i& !$o&e$s and sise$s( ne'&e%s and
nieces( s&e o$ &e s&a** in&e$i oneG&a*f of &e
esae( and &e *ae$ &e o&e$ &a*f.
S.BS%C,*+) C. 0 Sur8i8ing Spouse
There are no rules on marriage mortis cause :unli+e in
legitimes;
A$. BB5. In &e a!sence of *e)iimae descendans
and ascendans( and i**e)iimae c&i*d$en and
&ei$ descendans( %&e&e$ *e)iimae o$
i**e)iimae( &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** in&e$i
&e eni$e esae( %i&ou '$eJudice o &e
$i)&s of !$o&e$s and sise$s( ne'&e%s and
nieces( s&ou*d &e$e !e an"( unde$ a$ic*e
1CC1.
A$. BB8. If a %ido% o$ %ido%e$ and *e)iimae
c&i*d$en o$ descendans a$e *ef( &e su$#i#in)
s'ouse &as in &e succession &e same s&a$e
as &a of eac& of &e c&i*d$en.
This rule holds e*en if there is only 1 legitimate child- in
which case- the child and the sur*i*ing spouse will di*ide
the estate equally.
5hen the law spea+s of ,.rothers and sisters- nephews
and nieces0 as legal heirs of an illegitimate child- it refers
to illegiti6ate brothers and sisters as well as to the
children< whether legiti6ate or illegiti6ate< of such
brothers and sisters.
A$. BB7. 1&en &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es
%i& *e)iimae 'a$ens o$ ascendans( &e
su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e eni*ed o oneG&a*f
of &e esae( and &e *e)iimae 'a$ens o$
ascendans o &e o&e$ &a*f.
A$. BB<. If a %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es %i&
i**e)iimae c&i*d$en( suc& %ido% o$ %ido%e$
s&a** !e eni*ed o oneG&a*f of &e in&e$iance(
and &e i**e)iimae c&i*d$en o$ &ei$
descendans( %&e&e$ *e)iimae o$
i**e)iimae( o &e o&e$ &a*f.
A$. BBB. 1&en &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es
%i& *e)iimae c&i*d$en o$ &ei$ descendans
and i**e)iimae c&i*d$en o$ &ei$ descendans(
%&e&e$ *e)iimae o$ i**e)iimae( suc& %ido%
o$ %ido%e$ s&a** !e eni*ed o &e same s&a$e
as &a of a *e)iimae c&i*d.
A$. 1CCC. If *e)iimae ascendans( &e su$#i#in)
s'ouse( and i**e)iimae c&i*d$en a$e *ef( &e
ascendans s&a** !e eni*ed o oneG&a*f of &e
in&e$iance( and &e o&e$ &a*f s&a** !e
di#ided !e%een &e su$#i#in) s'ouse and &e
i**e)iimae c&i*d$en so &a suc& %ido% o$
%ido%e$ s&a** &a#e oneGfou$& of &e esae(
and &e i**e)iimae c&i*d$en &e o&e$ fou$&.
A$. 1CC1. S&ou*d !$o&e$s and sise$s o$ &ei$
c&i*d$en su$#i#e %i& &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$(
&e *ae$ s&a** !e eni*ed o oneG&a*f of &e
in&e$iance and &e !$o&e$s and sise$s o$
&ei$ c&i*d$en o &e o&e$ &a*f.
A$. 1CC@. In case of a *e)a* se'a$aion( if &e
su$#i#in) s'ouse )a#e cause fo$ &e
se'a$aion( &e o$ s&e s&a** no &a#e an" of
&e $i)&s )$aned in &e '$ecedin) a$ic*es.
CA'&' 1O7 A7TC"&' @@%>1AA2
Santillon 8. 'iranda
- 'antillon died without testament in Tayug- )angasinan- his
residence- lea*ing one son Claro- and his wife- )erfecta
Miranda. $uring his marriage- )edro acquired se*eral
parcels of land located in that pro*ince.
- A.out four years after his death- Claro 'antillon filed a
petition for letters of administration. Opposition to said
petition was entered .y the widow )erfecta Miranda and
the spouses 2enito B. Miranda and 7osario Corrales on
the following grounds3 GaE that the properties enumerated in
the petition were all conDugal- e/cept three parcels which
)erfecta Miranda claimed to .e her e/clusi*e properties<
G.E that )erfecta Miranda .y *irtue of two documents had
con*eyed !L# of her undi*ided share in most of the
properties enumerated in the petition to said spouses
2enito and 7osario<
- Claro rests his claim to !L# of his fatherUs estate on Art. ?@2-
of the New Ci*il Code which pro*ides that3
- Nf only the legitimate child or descendant of the deceased
sur*i*es- the widow or widower shall .e entitled to one>
fourth of the hereditary estate. . . .UAs she gets one>fourth-
therefore- get !L#- says Claro.
Ryan Ouan 135
ST ST
- )erfecta- on the other hand- cites Art. @@( which pro*ides3
Nf a widow or widower and legitimate children or
descendants are left- the sur*i*ing spouse has in the
succession the same share as that of each of the children.N
- 7eplying to )erfectaUs claim- Claro says the article is unDust
and inequita.le to the e/tent that it grants the widow the
same share as that of the children in intestate succession-
whereas in testate- she is gi*en 1L# and the only child 1L2.
- )erfecta- on the other hand- contends that Art. @@( should
control- regardless of its alleged inequity- .eing as it is- a
pro*ision on intestate succession in*ol*ing a sur*i*ing
spouse and a legitimate child- inasmuch as in statutory
construction- the plural word NchildrenN includes the
singular- NchildN.
=ow shall the estate of a person who dies intestate .e di*ided
when the only sur*i*ors are the spouse and one legitimate
child6
- Art. ?@2 of the New Ci*il Code falls under the chapter on
Testamentary 'uccession< whereas Art. @@( comes under
the chapter on "egal or ntestate 'uccession. 'uch .eing
the case- it is o.*ious that Claro cannot rely on Art. ?@2 to
support his claim to !L# of his fatherUs estate. Art. ?@2
merely fi/es the legitime of the sur*i*ing spouse and Art.
??? thereof- the legitime of children in testate succession.
5hile it may indicate the intent of the law with respect to
the ideal shares that a child and a spouse should get when
they concur with each other- it does not fi/ the amount of
shares that such child and spouse are entitled to when
intestacy occurs. 2ecause if the latter happens- the
pertinent pro*ision on intestate succession shall apply< i. e.
Art. @@(.
- Children3\ t is a ma/im of statutory construction that
words in plural include the singular. 2 'o Art. @@( could or
should .e read Gand so appliedE3 Nif the widow or widower
and a legitimate child are left- the sur*i*ing spouse has the
same share as that of the child.N
- Our conclusion Gequal sharesE seems a logical inference
from the circumstance that whereas Article ?!# of the
'panish Ci*il Code- from which Art. @@( was ta+en-
contained two paragraphs go*erning two contingencies- the
first- where the widow or widower sur*i*es with legitimate
children Ggeneral ruleE- and the second- where the widow or
widower sur*i*es with only one child Ge/ceptionE- Art. @@(
omitted to pro*ide for the second situation- there.y
indicating the legislatorUs desire to promulgate Dust one
general rule applica.le to .oth situations.
- The resultant di*ision may .e unfair as some writers
e/plain- \ and this we are not called upon to discuss \
.ut it is the clear mandate of the statute- which we are
.ound to enforce.
- 5hen intestacy occurs- a sur*i*ing spouse concurring with
only one legitimate child of the deceased is entitled to one>
half of the estate of the deceased spouse under Article @@(
of the Ci*il Code.
Pascual 8. Pascual Bautista
Landayan 8. Bacani
- Teodoro A.enoDar owned parcels of land in )angasinan
and a house and lot in Manila.
- =e died intestate.
- Ma/ima Adrada- the sur*i*ing spouse of Teodoro- and
'e*erino A.enoDar- e/ecuted an e/tra>Dudicial partition
where.y they adDudicated .etween themsel*es the
properties left .y Teodoro.
- 'e*erino represented himself as the only and forced heir
and descendant of Teodoro.
- A.out 1? years after the e/ecution of the said document-
petitioners filed a complaint see+ing a declaration that they
are legal heirs of Teodoro and that they .e gi*en the shares
that they are entitled to with respect to the properties of
Teodoro.
- )etitioners alleged that they are the legitimate children of
8uillerma A.enoDar- who was the only child of Teodoro with
his first wife named 1lorencia 2autista and that while
Teodoro contracted a 2
nd
marriage with Antera Mandap and
a !
rd
with Ma/ima Andrada- he did not ha*e any offspring.
They a*er that 'e*erino is an illegitimate son of 8uillerma
A.enoDar.
- )ri*ate respondents alleged that Teodoro married only
once and that was with Ma/ima. They claimed that
'e*erino is an ac+nowledged natural child of Teodoro with
1lorencia. They a*er that 8uillerma- the mother of
petitioners- was Teodoro4s spurious child with Antera
Mandap.
- )ri*ate respondents also alleged that the action had
already prescri.ed.
- The trial court dismissed the action .ecause of prescription.
5hether the action is .arred .y prescription.
- NO. The lower court erred assuming that the e/tra>Dudicial
partition to .e merely a *oida.le contract and not a *oid
one. Thus- there should first .e a determination of the Dudge
regarding the legal status of 'e*erino.
- The 'C ordered the lower court to try the case on the
merits to determine the legal status of the 'e*erino.
- f the claim of the petitioners is correct- then 'e*erino has
no rights of legal succession from Teodoro .ecause of Art.
@@2 of the NCC.
- The right of representation is denied .y law to an
illegitimate child who is disqualified to inherit ab intestate
form the legitimate children and relati*es of his father.
5hether 'e*erino may .e considered as legal heir of Teodoro.
- The right of 'e*erino to .e considered a legal heir of
Teodoro depends on the truth of his allegations that he is
not an illegitimate child of 8uillerma- .ut an ac+nowledged
natural child of Teodoro.
- 'hould it .e pro*ed that 'e*erino is not a legal heir- the
portion of the deed of e/tra>Dudicial partition adDudicating
properties of Teodoro in his fa*or shall .e deemed
ine/istent and *oid from the .eginning.
- Art. @@2 of the NCC3 An illegitimate child has no right to
inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relati*es
of his father or mother< nor shall such children or relati*es
inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.
- Art. 11A% of the NCC3 A partition which includes a person
.elie*ed to .e an heir- .ut who is not- shall .e *oid only
with respect to such person.
'anuel 8. ferrer
@el &osario 8. Conanan

S.BS%C,*+) F. 0 Collateral &elati8es
Ryan Ouan 136
ST ST
A$. 1CCA. If &e$e a$e no descendans(
ascendans( i**e)iimae c&i*d$en( o$ a
su$#i#in) s'ouse( &e co**ae$a* $e*ai#es s&a**
succeed o &e eni$e esae of &e deceased
in acco$dance %i& &e fo**o%in) a$ic*es.
A$. 1CC4. S&ou*d &e on*" su$#i#o$s !e !$o&e$s
and sise$s of &e fu** !*ood( &e" s&a** in&e$i
in equa* s&a$es.
)rescripti*e period for the claim is 1K& I&A7' from the
deli*ery of the property to the state or political
su.di*ision concerned.
5ho may ma+e the claim 9 any person entitled .y
succession to the estate- including any heir of any +ind of
succession- legitime- testamentary or intestate.
THE PROELE, O. PARTIAL INTESTACF
The com.inations laid down in Articles @7?>1A1# co*er
only cases of TOTA" intestacy. There is no pro*ision to
go*ern cases of partial intestacy when the decedent has
left a will disposing of part- .ut not all- of the disposa.le
portion.
=ow then should the estate .e di*ided if the decedent
died with a will .ut the will does not dispose of the entire
free or disposa.le portion6 The pro.lem is sol*ed .y
inference- .earing in mind the law4s intent- thus3
1E Trace where the free portion went in total
intestacy
2E 'ince part of that free portion was disposed of
.y will- the testamentary pro*ision should .e
carried out- and what is left of the free portion
should then .e gi*en to the intended
.eneficiary in intestacy.
&PAM)"&
P died- lea*ing as his sur*i*ors
his legitimate parents A and 2 and his wife I-
without any children. =e left a will gi*ing 1L? of his
entire estate to Caritas Manila. =is net estate is
worth )(AA-AAA.
)7OC&''LAN'5&7
The will is not inofficious- since
it disposes only of 1L? of the estate- the disposa.le
portion .eing R.
The *e)iimes of the
compulsory heirs are 9
o A and 2 as legitimate parents 9 O of estate ]
)!AA-AAA
o I as sur*i*ing spouse 9 R of estate ] )1%A-AAA
n oa* inesac"- the sharings
would ha*e .een 9 :according to Art@@7;
o A and 2 to O of the estate ] )!AA-AAA
o I to O of the estate ] )!AA-AAA
The intended recipient of the
undisposed portion is I since she is the one to
whom the entire free portion went in total intestacy
:since A and 2 simply got their legitimes.
Therefore- since part of the free
portion was gi*en away .y will- the remainder should
.e gi*en to I.
!ence< Caritas 'anila gets #QE
or PAF<000. ( and B get R or P200<000 di8ided
between the6< so P#F0<000 each. 1 then gets
P22F<000. (ll shares total to the P00<000 estate.
A$. 1CC5. S&ou*d !$o&e$s and sise$s su$#i#e
o)e&e$ %i& ne'&e%s and nieces( %&o a$e
&e c&i*d$en of &e descendanMs !$o&e$s and
sise$s of &e fu** !*ood( &e fo$me$ s&a**
in&e$i 'e$ ca'ia( and &e *ae$ 'e$ si$'es.
A$. 1CC8. S&ou*d !$o&e$ and sise$s of &e fu**
!*ood su$#i#e o)e&e$ %i& !$o&e$s and
sise$s of &e &a*f !*ood( &e fo$me$ s&a** !e
eni*ed o a s&a$e dou!*e &a of &e *ae$.
A$. 1CC7. In case !$o&e$s and sise$s of &e &a*f
!*ood( some on &e fa&e$Ms and some on &e
mo&e$Ms side( a$e &e on*" su$#i#o$s( a** s&a**
in&e$i in equa* s&a$es %i&ou disincion as
o &e o$i)in of &e '$o'e$".
A$. 1CC<. C&i*d$en of !$o&e$s and sise$s of &e
&a*f !*ood s&a** succeed 'e$ ca'ia o$ 'e$
si$'es( in acco$dance %i& &e $u*es *aid
do%n fo$ &e !$o&e$s and sise$s of &e fu**
!*ood.
A$. 1CCB. S&ou*d &e$e !e nei&e$ !$o&e$s no$
sise$s no$ c&i*d$en of !$o&e$s o$ sise$s( &e
o&e$ co**ae$a* $e*ai#es s&a** succeed o &e
esae.
T&e *ae$ s&a** succeed %i&ou
disincion of *ines o$ '$efe$ence amon) &em
!" $eason of $e*aions&i' !" &e %&o*e !*ood.
A$. 1C1C. T&e $i)& o in&e$i a! inesao s&a**
no e+end !e"ond &e fif& de)$ee of
$e*aions&i' in &e co**ae$a* *ine.

S.BS%C,*+) . 0 ,he State
A$. 1C11. In defau* of 'e$sons eni*ed o
succeed in acco$dance %i& &e '$o#isions of
&e '$ecedin) Secions( &e Sae s&a** in&e$i
&e %&o*e esae.
A$. 1C1@. In o$de$ &a &e Sae ma" a2e
'ossession of &e '$o'e$" menioned in &e
Ryan Ouan 137
ST ST
'$ecedin) a$ic*e( &e 'e$inen '$o#isions of
&e Ru*es of Cou$ mus !e o!se$#ed.
A$. 1C1A. Afe$ &e 'a"men of de!s and
c&a$)es( &e 'e$sona* '$o'e$" s&a** !e
assi)ned o &e munici'a*i" o$ ci" %&e$e &e
deceased *as $esided in &e P&i*i''ines( and
&e $ea* esae o &e munici'a*iies o$ ciies(
$es'eci#e*"( in %&ic& &e same is siuaed.
If &e deceased ne#e$ $esided in &e
P&i*i''ines( &e %&o*e esae s&a** !e
assi)ned o &e $es'eci#e munici'a*iies o$
ciies %&e$e &e same is *ocaed.
Suc& esae s&a** !e fo$ &e !enefi of
'u!*ic sc&oo*s( and 'u!*ic c&a$ia!*e
insiuions and cene$s( in suc&
munici'a*iies o$ ciies. T&e cou$ s&a**
dis$i!ue &e esae as &e $es'eci#e needs
of eac& !eneficia$" ma" %a$$an.
T&e cou$( a &e insance of an ine$esed
'a$"( o$ on is o%n moion( ma" o$de$ &e
esa!*is&men of a 'e$manen $us( so &a
on*" &e income f$om &e '$o'e$" s&a** !e
used.
A$. 1C14. If a 'e$son *e)a**" eni*ed o &e esae
of &e deceased a''ea$s and fi*es a c*aim
&e$eo %i& &e cou$ %i&in fi#e "ea$s f$om
&e dae &e '$o'e$" %as de*i#e$ed o &e
Sae( suc& 'e$son s&a** !e eni*ed o &e
'ossession of &e same( o$ if so*d &e
munici'a*i" o$ ci" s&a** !e accouna!*e o
&im fo$ suc& 'a$ of &e '$oceeds as ma" no
&a#e !een *a%fu**" s'en.
n case of partial intestacy
CA'&' 1O7 A7TC"&' 1AA!>1A1#
(bellana 8. -erraris
,ioco de Papa 8. Ca6acho
Bico6ong 8. (l6an9a
CHAPTER 4
PROVISIONS CO,,ON TO TESTATE AN- INTESTATE S0CCESSIONS

SEC-I./ 0. 1
!I3H- .( ACC!E-I./
A$. 1C15. Acc$eion is a $i)& !" #i$ue of %&ic&(
%&en %o o$ mo$e 'e$sons a$e ca**ed o &e
same in&e$iance( de#ise o$ *e)ac"( &e 'a$
assi)ned o &e one %&o $enounces o$ canno
$ecei#e &is s&a$e( o$ %&o died !efo$e &e
esao$( is added o$ inco$'o$aed o &a of
&is coG&ei$s( coGde#isees( o$ coG*e)aees.
A$. 1C18. In o$de$ &a &e $i)& of acc$eion ma"
a2e '*ace in a esamena$" succession( i
s&a** !e necessa$"=
>1? T&a %o o$ mo$e 'e$sons !e ca**ed o &e
same in&e$iance( o$ o &e same 'o$ion
&e$eof( '$o indi#iso; and
>@? T&a one of &e 'e$sons &us ca**ed die
!efo$e &e esao$( o$ $enounce &e
in&e$iance( o$ !e inca'aciaed o $ecei#e
i.
ACC7&TON
$efinition 9 a right .y *irtue of
which- when 2 or more persons are called to the
same inheritance- de*ise or legacy- the part
assigned to the one who renounces or cannot
recei*e his share- or who died .efore the testator.
Occasions for Operation of
Accretion
aE 7&NBNCATON
.E )7&$&C&A'&
cE NCA)ACTI
ELE,ENTS .OR ACCRETION
IN TESTA,ENTARF S0CCESSION
1) @ o$ mo$e 'e$sons a$e ca**ed o &e same
in&e$iance( o$ o &e same 'o$ion &e$eof(
'ro indiviso
o Meaning of pro indi*iso3
&ither the co>heirs are instituted
without indi*idual designation of
shares- e/. , institute A and 2 to O
of my estate.0 Or
The co>heirs are instituted with the
specification that they share equally
:,in equal shares0; or that they ha*e
the same fractional sharing for each
:Art1A17;. &/amples3 , institute A- 2
and C to O of my estate in equal
shares-0 or , institute A- 2 and C to
O of my estate- each of them to ta+e
1L! of such O.0
5ill accretion occur if the fractional
sharings of the co>heirs are
unequal6 I&'. All that the law
requires is that the institution .e pro
indi8iso- which means ,as undi*ided0
or ,in common0. The term does not
Ryan Ouan 138
ST ST
import equality of shares. Thus-
accretion will occur e*en if the
sharings are unequal- as long as the
result is co>ownership.
@? One of &e 'e$sons &us ca**ed die !efo$e
&e esao$( o$ $enounce &e in&e$iance
o$ !e inca'aciaed o $ecei#e i.
o 7enunciation- predecease or incapacity
of one or more .ut "&'' T=AN A"" of
the instituted heirs.
A$. 1C17. T&e %o$ds SoneG&a*f fo$ eac&S o$ Sin
equa* s&a$esS o$ an" o&e$s %&ic&( &ou)&
desi)nain) an a*iquo 'a$( do no idenif" i
!" suc& desc$i'ion as s&a** ma2e eac& &ei$
&e e+c*usi#e o%ne$ of dee$minae '$o'e$"(
s&a** no e+c*ude &e $i)& of acc$eion.
In case of mone" o$ fun)i!*e )oods( if &e
s&a$e of eac& &ei$ is no ea$ma$2ed( &e$e
s&a** !e a $i)& of acc$eion.
A$. 1C1<. In *e)a* succession &e s&a$e of &e
'e$son %&o $e'udiaes &e in&e$iance s&a**
a*%a"s acc$ue o &is coG&ei$s.
n intestacy- accretion occurs 9
A. n repudiation or renunciation 9 accretion is
su.ordinate to representation in intestacy.
2. n predecease- only if representation does not
ta+e place
C. n incapacity or unworthiness- only if
representation does not ta+e place.
The co>heirs in whose fa*or accretion occurs must .e co>
heirs in the same category as the e/cluded heir.
&/ample- if P dies intestate and
is sur*i*ed .y his wife I and his .rothers A- 2 and
C. f C renounces- his portion goes to A and 2 .y
accretion. I is not an accruing co>heir- not .eing
of the same category or class.
A$. 1C1B. T&e &ei$s o %&om &e 'o$ion )oes !"
&e $i)& of acc$eion a2e i in &e same
'$o'o$ion &a &e" in&e$i.
8eneral 7ule > Accretion should .e proportional.
A$. 1C@C. T&e &ei$s o %&om &e in&e$iance
acc$ues s&a** succeed o a** &e $i)&s and
o!*i)aions %&ic& &e &ei$ %&o $enounced o$
cou*d no $ecei#e i %ou*d &a#e &ad.
&PC&)TON' to general rule that accretion should .e
proportional 9
aE n testamentary succession- if the testator
pro*ides otherwise-
.E f the o.ligation is purely persona- and hence
intransmissi.le.
A$. 1C@1. Amon) &e com'u*so$" &ei$s &e $i)&
of acc$eion s&a** a2e '*ace on*" %&en &e
f$ee 'o$ion is *ef o %o o$ mo$e of &em( o$
o an" one of &em and o a s$an)e$.
S&ou*d &e 'a$ $e'udiaed !e &e
*e)iime( &e o&e$ coG&ei$s s&a** succeed o i
in &ei$ o%n $i)&( and no !" &e $i)& of
acc$eion.
1
'T
paragraph 9 ! +inds of succession3 compulsory-
testamentary and intestate. These ! are distinct-
although they may operate simultaneously.
Conse=uently< accretion is restricted in its operation
within the confines of the particular Gind of succession
in8ol8ed.
2
N$
paragraph 9 there is NO ACC7&TON in the
"&8TM&. n most cases- this rule will not su.stantially
affect the operation of the legitime. The possi.le
significance of this is when it comes to the computation
of legitimes of illegitimate children or the sur*i*ing
spouse- when concurring with legitimate children.
A$. 1C@@. In esamena$" succession( %&en &e
$i)& of acc$eion does no a2e '*ace( &e
#acan 'o$ion of &e insiued &ei$s( if no
su!siue &as !een desi)naed( s&a** 'ass o
&e *e)a* &ei$s of &e esao$( %&o s&a**
$ecei#e i %i& &e same c&a$)es and
o!*i)aions.
n the testamentary succession- accretion is su.ordinate
to su.stitution- if the testator so pro*ided. This is
.ecause su.stitution is the testator4s e/press intent-
whereas accretion is merely his i6plied intent.
O.*iously- if there is neither su.stitution nor accretion-
the part left *acant will lapse into intestacy and will .e
disposed of accordingly.
A$. 1C@A. Acc$eion s&a** a*so a2e '*ace amon)
de#isees( *e)aees and usuf$ucua$ies unde$
&e same condiions esa!*is&ed fo$ &ei$s.
SEC-I./ +. 1
CA=ACI-> -. SUCCEE
B> 2ILL .! B> I/-ES-AC>
Ryan Ouan 139
ST ST
A$. 1C@4. Pe$sons no inca'aciaed !" *a% ma"
succeed !" %i** o$ a! inesao.
T&e '$o#isions $e*ain) o inca'aci" !"
%i** a$e equa**" a''*ica!*e o inesae
succession.
The general rule is in fa*or of capacity to succeed- as
long as the successor has Duridical personality.
ncapacity must .e .ased on some legal ground and
must .e shown.
The second paragraph is inaccurate. 'ome grounds for
incapacity to succeed .y will ha*e no application to
compulsory or intestate succession.
The articles laying down the cause of incapacity to
succeed are Articles 1A27- 2A2? and 1A!2.
A. Article 1A27 pars. 1>% 9 applica.le only to
testamentary succession
2. Article 1A27 par( 9 applica.le to A"" +inds of
succession
C. Article 1A2? 9 applica.le only to testamentary
succession
$. Article 1A!2 9 applica.le to A"" +inds of
succession
A$. 1C@5. In o$de$ o !e ca'aciaed o in&e$i( &e
&ei$( de#isee o$ *e)aee mus !e *i#in) a &e
momen &e succession o'ens( e+ce' in
case of $e'$esenaion( %&en i is '$o'e$.
A c&i*d a*$ead" concei#ed a &e ime of
&e dea& of &e deceden is ca'a!*e of
succeedin) '$o#ided i !e !o$n *ae$ unde$
&e condiions '$esc$i!ed in a$ic*e 41.
RE/0IRE,ENT .OR CAPACITF TO S0CCEE- O.
NAT0RAL PERSONS
A. Gene$a* $u*e 9 mus !e LIVING %&en
succession o'ens
1. 5hen succession
opens 9 the decedent4s death under Art777
2. Meaning of ,li*ing0 9 it
is enough that the heir- de*isee or legatee
.e already concei8ed when the decedent
dies- pro*ided it .e .orn later- in
accordance with Articles #A and #1.
nheriting is fa*ora.le to the child.
E. If insiuion is su!Jec o a Sus'ensi#e
Condiion
o 'uccessor must A"'O .e li*ing when the
condition happens :Art1A!# par!;. Thus- in
a conditional institution- the successor must
.e li*ing 2OT= when the decedent dies
AN$ when the condition happens.
C. If insiuion su!Jec o a Sus'ensi#e Te$m
o The requirement of .eing ali*e applies only
at the moment of the decedent4s death- the
successor need not .e ali*e- when the term
arri*es :Art?7?;
7epresentation NOT an e/ception to 7equirement
The requirement that the
successor should .e ali*e when the decedent dies is
a.solute. There is no e/ception to this rule- the
pro*isions of this article notwithstanding.
1or representation to occur- the
representation must at least already .e concei*ed
when the decedent dies- .ecause of the pro*isions
of Articles @71 and @7!.
&/ample 9 P has 2 sons A and
2. 2 was disinherited .y P. P died in 1@?%. n 1@??
2 .egot a child. 24s child cannot represent 2 in the
succession to P.
A$. 1C@8. A esamena$" dis'osiion ma" !e
made o &e Sae( '$o#inces( munici'a*
co$'o$aions( '$i#ae co$'o$aions(
o$)aniKaions( o$ associaions fo$ $e*i)ious(
scienific( cu*u$a*( educaiona*( o$ c&a$ia!*e
'u$'oses.
A** o&e$ co$'o$aions o$ eniies ma"
succeed unde$ a %i**( un*ess &e$e is a
'$o#ision o &e con$a$" in &ei$ c&a$e$ o$
&e *a%s of &ei$ c$eaion( and a*%a"s su!Jec
o &e same.
RE/0IRE,ENT .OR CAPACITF O. N0RI-ICAL
PERSONS TO S0CCEE-
t must already &P'T as a
Duridical person when the decedent dies.
OrganiHations or associations
which do not possess Duridical personality cannot
succeed- .ecause legally- they would not e/ist. The
enumeration of Duridical persons is found in Art ##3
Art. 44. The foowng are |urdca persons:
(1) The State and ts potca subdvsons;
(2) Other corporatons, nsttutons and enttes
for pubc nterest or purpose, created by
aw; ther personaty begns as soon as they
have been consttuted accordng to aw;
(3) Corporatons, partnershps and
assocatons for prvate nterest or purpose
to whch the aw grants a |urdca
personaty, separate and dstnct from that
of each sharehoder, partner or member.
1or institutions su.Dect to
suspensi*e conditions or terms- the rules outlined in
the pre*ious article apply.
Ryan Ouan 140
ST ST
A$. 1C@7. T&e fo**o%in) a$e inca'a!*e of
succeedin)=
>1? T&e '$ies %&o &ea$d &e confession of &e
esao$ du$in) &is *as i**ness( o$ &e
minise$ of &e )os'e* %&o e+ended
s'i$iua* aid o &im du$in) &e same
'e$iod;
>@? T&e $e*ai#es of suc& '$ies o$ minise$ of
&e )os'e* %i&in &e fou$& de)$ee( &e
c&u$c&( o$de$( c&a'e$( communi"(
o$)aniKaion( o$ insiuion o %&ic& suc&
'$ies o$ minise$ ma" !e*on);
>A? A )ua$dian %i& $es'ec o esamena$"
dis'osiions )i#en !" a %a$d in &is fa#o$
!efo$e &e fina* accouns of &e
)ua$dians&i' &a#e !een a''$o#ed( e#en if
&e esao$ s&ou*d die afe$ &e a''$o#a*
&e$eof; ne#e$&e*ess( an" '$o#ision made
!" &e %a$d in fa#o$ of &e )ua$dian %&en
&e *ae$ is &is ascendan( descendan(
!$o&e$( sise$( o$ s'ouse( s&a** !e #a*id;
>4? An" aesin) %iness o &e e+ecuion of a
%i**( &e s'ouse( 'a$ens( o$ c&i*d$en( o$
an" one c*aimin) unde$ suc& %iness(
s'ouse( 'a$ens( o$ c&i*d$en;
>5? An" '&"sician( su$)eon( nu$se( &ea*&
office$ o$ d$u))is %&o oo2 ca$e of &e
esao$ du$in) &is *as i**ness;
>8? Indi#idua*s( associaions and co$'o$aions
no 'e$mied !" *a% o in&e$i.
)ars. 1>% apply only to T&'TAM&NTA7I 'uccession.
They ha*e no application to the legitime or to intestacy.
Thus- a person may .e disqualified to succeed .y will
under these paragraphs .ut will still .e entitled to a
legitime or to an intestate portion.
t is unfortunate that these
paragraphs- :e/cept )ar!- which clearly limits its
application to testamentary dispositions; do not state
clearly that they only apply to testamentary
succession and not to the legitime or intestacy.
)ar( is misplaced .ecause it pro*ides for TOTA"
disqualification. t should .e made a separate article.
&ationale of Pars. #0F 9 the law- in imposing a
disqualification- see+s to pre*ent any possi.le a.use of
the moral or spiritual ascendancy for purposes of
testamentary .enefit.
This disqualification is pere6ptory. No actual duress or
influence need .e shown- these are conclusi*ely
presumed. )roof of a.sence of duress or influence is
irrele*ant and will not remo*e the disqualification.
PERSONS INCAPACITATE- TO S0CCEE-
1. P$ies o$ minise$ of &e )os'e*
o 7equisites3
aE The will must ha*e .een
e/ecuted during the testator4s last
illness
.E The spiritual ministration must
ha*e .een e/tended during the last
illness.
cE The will must ha*e .een
e/ecuted during or after the spiritual
ministration.
o Notwithstanding the seemingly restricti*e
terms of this disqualification- it applies not
only to Christian priests- pastors- ministers
and so forth- .ut also to all indi*iduals
.elonging to other religions- sects or cults-
whose office or function is to e/tend the
peculiar spiritual ministrations of their creed.
2. P$ies:s 4
&
de)$ee $e*ai#es and &is C&u$c&
o )urpose of disqualification 9 to pre*ent
indirect *iolations or circum*entions of
par1.
o 'pouse of religious minister 9 does the
prohi.ition apply to the spouse of the
minister6 I&'. Although the Catholic priest
s celi.ate- the priesthood or ministry of
other denominations or religions are not.
Certainly- the mischief sought to .e a*erted
can .e perpetrated .y the spouse.
A. Gua$dian as o dis'osiion !efo$e .ina*
Accounin)
o4hen dis=ualification applies 9 the will
must ha*e .een e/ecuted .y the ward
during the effecti*ity of the guardianship-
which means at anytime .etween the
commencement of the guardianship and its
dissolution.
o4hat Gind of guardianship co8ered 9 terms
of disqualification seem to .e limited to
guardians o*er the property. n *iew-
howe*er- of the purpose of the prohi.ition-
the argument that this prohi.ition should
apply as well to guardians o*er the person
is most tena.le.
o%?ception 9 a guardian who happens to .e
an ascendant- descendant- .rother- sister
or spouse of the ward>testator is e/cluded
from the prohi.ition. Curiously- thus
e/ception is not allowed in the other
paragraphs.
Ryan Ouan 141
ST ST
4. Aesin) %iness o$ S'ouse( Pa$ens( C&i*d$en
o$ an" one c*aimin) unde$ suc& %iness(
s'ouse( 'a$ens o$ c&i*d$en
o &ssentially a reiteration of the
disqualification in Art?2!- .ut cast more in
general terms- since this article nullifies not
Dust legacies and de*ises .ut all
testamentary dispositions made in the
witness4 fa*or.
oNOT& 9 there is a discrepancy .etween
this paragraph and Art?2!- which allows for
an e/ception3 i.e. if there are ! other
competent witnesses. ,hat e?ception
should be read into this paragraph.
5. P&"sician( su$)eon( nu$se( &ea*& office$ o$
d$u))is
o'cope of )rohi.ition 9 the person must
ha*e taGen care of the testator during the
latter4s final illness. ,Ta+ing Care0 means
medical attendance with some regularity or
continuity that the possi.ility of duress or
influence e/ists.
o =owe*er- the pharmacist who only
happens to fill a prescription does not fall
under the interdiction.
8. Indi#idua*s( associaions and co$'o$aions no
'e$mied !" *a%
2ewildering *ariations in the rules 9
5hy do some paragraphs :pars
2 and #; disqualify relati*es .ut another :par%; does
not6
5hy is the e/ception in par! not
applied to paragraphs 1 and %6
The reason is that the article is
deri*ed from *arious sources 9 from the Old Code-
the Code of Ci*il )rocedure and the ideas of the
Code Commission.
A$. 1C@<. T&e '$o&i!iions menioned in a$ic*e
7AB( conce$nin) donaions ine$ #i#os s&a**
a''*" o esamena$" '$o#isions.
The $isqualification laid down .y this article applies only
to T&'TAM&NTA7I 'BCC&''ON
2y the pro*isions of this article- those are disqualified
from recei*ing donations under Art7!@ are li+ewise
disqualified from recei*ing testamentary dispositions
from the parties specified in that article.
Art. 739. The foowng donatons sha be vod:
(1) Those made between persons who were guty
of adutery or concubnage at the tme of the
donaton;
(2) Those made between persons found guty of
the same crmna offense, n consderaton
thereof;
(3) Those made to a pubc offcer or hs wfe,
descedants and ascendants, by reason of hs
offce.
In the case referred to n No. 1, the acton for
decaraton of nuty may be brought by the
spouse of the donor or donee; and the gut of the
donor and donee may be proved by
preponderance of evdence n the same acton.
CA'&' 1O7 A7TC"&' 1A1%>1A2?
Parish Priest 8. &igor
- 1ather 7igor- the parish priest of )ulilan- 2ulacan- died
lea*ing a will which was pro.ated .y the C1. Named as
de*isees in the will were the testatorUs nearest relati*es-
namely- his three sisters3 1lorencia 7igor>&sco.ar- 2elina
7igor>Manaloto and Nestora 7igor>Quiam.ao. The testator
ga*e a de*ise to his cousin- 1ortunato 8amalinda.
- t may .e deduced that the testator intended to de*ise the
## ha. 7iceland owned .y him to his nearest male relati*e
who would .ecome a priest- who was for.idden to sell the
ricelands- who would lose the de*ise if he discontinued his
studies for the priesthood- or ha*ing .een ordained a priest-
he was e/communicated- and who would .e o.ligated to
say annually twenty masses with prayers for the repose of
the souls of the testator and his parents.
- $uring the testate proceedings- the C1 appro*ed the
proDect of partition and directed the administratri/ to deli*er
to the de*isees their respecti*e shares. nasmuch as no
nearest male relati*e of the testator claimed the de*ise and
as the administratri/ and the legal heirs .elie*ed that the
parish priest of Kictoria had no right to administer the
ricelands- the same were not deli*ered to him. The latter-
howe*er- petitioned for deli*ery of the ricelands to the
church.
- The lower court- after first declaring the .equest
inoperati*e- later reconsidered its findings in an order- on
the ground that the testator had a grandnephew G.orn after
the testatorUs deathE- who was a seminarian- and directed
the administrator of the estate to deli*er the ricelands to the
parish priest of Kictoria as trustee.
$id the testator contemplate only his nearest male relati*e at
the time of his death6 Or did he ha*e in mind any of his
nearest male relati*es at anytime after his death6
- The .equest refers to the testatorUs nearest male relati*e
li*ing at the time of his death and not to any indefinite time
thereafter. Nn order to .e capacitated to inherit- the heir-
de*isee or legatee must .e li*ing at the moment the
succession opens- e/cept in case of representation- when it
is properN
- The said testamentary pro*isions should .e sensi.ly or
reasona.ly construed. To construe them as referring to the
testatorUs nearest male relati*e at anytime after his death
would render the pro*isions difficult to apply and create
uncertainty as to the disposition of his estate. That could
not ha*e .een his intention.
- n 1@!%- when the testator died- his nearest legal heirs were
his three sisters or second>degree relati*es- Mrs. &sco.ar-
Mrs. Manaloto and Mrs. Quiam.ao. O.*iously- when the
testator specified his nearest male relati*e- he must ha*e
had in mind his nephew or a son of his sister- who would .e
his third>degree relati*e- or possi.ly a grandnephew. 2ut
since he could not prognosticate the e/act date of his death
or state with certitude what category of nearest male
Ryan Ouan 142
ST ST
relati*e would .e li*ing at the time of his death- he could not
specify that his nearest male relati*e would .e his nephew
or grandnephews Gthe sons of his nephew or nieceE and so
he had to use the term Nnearest male relati*eN.
- nasmuch as the testator was not sur*i*ed .y any nephew
who .ecame a priest- the una*oida.le conclusion is that the
.equest in question was ineffectual or inoperati*e.
Therefore- the administration of the ricelands .y the parish
priest of Kictoria- as en*isaged in the will- was li+ewise
inoperati*e. t should .e understood that the parish priest of
Kictoria could .ecome a trustee only when the testatorUs
nephew li*ing at the time of his death- who desired to
.ecome a priest- had not yet entered the seminary or-
ha*ing .een ordained a priest- he was e/communicated.
Those two contingencies did not arise- and could not ha*e
arisen- in this case .ecause no nephew of the testator
manifested any intention to enter the seminary or e*er
.ecame a priest.
- This case is co*ered .y article @%(- which pro*ides that if
Nthe .equest for any reason should .e inoperati*e- it shall
.e merged into the estate- e/cept in cases of su.stitution
and those in which the right of accretion e/istsN
- This case is also co*ered .y article @(AG2E- which pro*ides
that legal succession ta+es place when the will Ndoes not
dispose of all that .elongs to the testator.N
- There .eing no su.stitution nor accretion as to the said
ricelands- the same should .e distri.uted among the
testatorUs legal heirs. The effect is as if the testator had
made no disposition as to the said ricelands.
- The Ci*il Code recogniHes that a person may die partly
testate and partly intestate- or that there may .e mi/ed
succession. The old rule as to the indi*isi.ility of the
testatorUs will is no longer *alid. Thus- if a conditional legacy
does not ta+e effect- there will .e intestate succession as to
the property co*ered .y the said legacy
&esurrecion 8. Ja8ier
)epo6uceno 8. C(
- Martin Cugo- in his will- appointed 'ofia Nepomuceno as his
sole and only e/ecutor of his estate.
- The will state that Cugo was legally married to 7ufina
8omeH- .y who he has 2 children and that since 1@(2- they
ha*e .een estranged and Martin had .een li*ing with 'ofia
as hus.and and wife.
- Martin de*ised to his forced heirs G7ufina and their 2
childrenE his entire estate- and the free portion thereof to
'ofia.
- 'ofia filed a petition for the pro.ate of the last will of Martin.
- 7ufina and her children opposed.
- C1 denied pro.ate on the ground that Martin admitted in
his will that he had .een unlawfully coha.iting with 'ofia.
- The CA re*ersed and admitted the will to pro.ate .ut
declared that the de*ise in fa*or of 'ofia is *oid.
- 'ofia contends that the *alidity of the testamentary
pro*ision in her fa*or should .e assailed in another
proceeding.
5hether the pro.ate court could *alidly pass upon the intrinsic
*alidity of the testamentary pro*ision in fa*or of 'ofia.
- I&'. The rule that only the e/trinsic *alidity of the will is
loo+ed upon in pro.ate proceedings is not a.solute. 1or
practical considerations- the pro.ate court is not powerless
to pass upon certain pro*isions of the will e*en .efore it is
pro.ated.
5hether 'ofia can *alidly claim the de*ise made in her fa*or.
- NO. The prohi.ition in Art. 7!@ of the NCC is against the
ma+ing of a donation .etween person who are li*ing in
adultery or concu.inage. t is the donation which .ecomes
*oid. The gi*en cannot gi*e e*en assuming that the
recipient may recei*e.
- n this case- the wordings of the 5ill in*alidate the legacy
.ecause the testator admitted he was disposing the
properties to a person with whom he had .een li*ing in
concu.inage.
- Art. 1A2? of the NCC3 The prohi.itions mentioned in Art.
7!@- concerning donations inter 8i8os shall apply to
testamentary pro*isions.
A$. 1C@B. S&ou*d &e esao$ dis'ose of &e
%&o*e o$ 'a$ of &is '$o'e$" fo$ '$a"e$s and
'ious %o$2s fo$ &e !enefi of &is sou*( in
)ene$a* e$ms and %i&ou s'ecif"in) is
a''*icaion( &e e+ecuo$( %i& &e cou$Ms
a''$o#a* s&a** de*i#e$ oneG&a*f &e$eof o$ is
'$oceeds o &e c&u$c& o$ denominaion o
%&ic& &e esao$ ma" !e*on)( o !e used fo$
suc& '$a"e$s and 'ious %o$2s( and &e o&e$
&a*f o &e Sae( fo$ &e 'u$'oses menioned
in A$ic*e 1C1A.
RE/0ISITES
A. $isposition for prayers and pious wor+s for the
.enefit of the testator4s soul
2. No specification of application of the disposition
Apportionment of the $isposition or its )roceeds
A. One>half :1L2; to the Church or denomination to
which the testator .elonged
2. One>half :1L2; to the 'tate- to .e applied as
pro*ided for under Art1A1!
A$. 1CAC. Tesamena$" '$o#isions in fa#o$ of &e
'oo$ in )ene$a*( %i&ou desi)naion of
'a$icu*a$ 'e$sons o$ of an" communi"( s&a**
!e deemed *imied o &e 'oo$ *i#in) in &e
domici*e of &e esao$ a &e ime of &is
dea&( un*ess i s&ou*d c*ea$*" a''ea$ &a &is
inenion %as o&e$%ise.
T&e desi)naion of &e 'e$sons %&o a$e o
!e conside$ed as 'oo$ and &e dis$i!uion of
&e '$o'e$" s&a** !e made !" &e 'e$son
Ryan Ouan 143
ST ST
a''oined !" &e esao$ fo$ &e 'u$'ose; in
defau* of suc& 'e$son( !" &e e+ecuo$( and
s&ou*d &e$e !e no e+ecuo$( !" &e Jusice of
&e 'eace( &e ma"o$( and &e munici'a*
$easu$e$( %&o s&a** decide !" a maJo$i" of
#oes a** quesions &a ma" a$ise. In a** &ese
cases( &e a''$o#a* of &e Cou$ of .i$s
Insance s&a** !e necessa$".
T&e '$ecedin) 'a$a)$a'& s&a** a''*"
%&en &e esao$ &as dis'osed of &is
'$o'e$" in fa#o$ of &e 'oo$ of a definie
*oca*i".
The named .eneficiaries here are the poor- either of a
definite locality :par!; or of no designated locality :par1;.
n the latter case- the .eneficiaries shall .e the poor of
the testator4s domicile- unless e/cluded .y the testator in
his will.
5ho are to determine the indi*idual .eneficiaries within
the class designated .y the testator6
A. The person authoriHed .y the testator or in his
default-
2. The e/ecutor- or in his default-
C. The administrator.
n fact- the committee specified
in this article will ha*e no occasion to function.
A$. 1CA1. A esamena$" '$o#ision in fa#o$ of a
disqua*ified 'e$son( e#en &ou)& made unde$
&e )uise of an one$ous con$ac( o$ made
&$ou)& an ine$media$"( s&a** !e #oid.
7ationale 9 5hat cannot .e done .y direction cannot .e
done .y indirection. The simulation must .e pro*ed- for
this article to apply.
&ffect of simulation or circum*ention 9 The article
pro*ides that the disposition is *oid- hence ineffecti*e
.oth as to the intended .eneficiary and the intermediary.
The intestate heirs- to whom the property would go- ha*e
the right to claim the nullity.
A$. 1CA@. T&e fo**o%in) a$e inca'a!*e of
succeedin) !" $eason of un%o$&iness=
>1? Pa$ens %&o &a#e a!andoned &ei$
c&i*d$en o$ induced &ei$ dau)&e$s o
*ead a co$$u' o$ immo$a* *ife( o$
aem'ed a)ains &ei$ #i$ue;
>@? An" 'e$son %&o &as !een con#iced of
an aem' a)ains &e *ife of &e
esao$( &is o$ &e$ s'ouse(
>A? An" 'e$son %&o &as accused &e
esao$ of a c$ime fo$ %&ic& &e *a%
'$esc$i!es im'$isonmen fo$ si+ "ea$s
o$ mo$e( if &e accusaion &as !een
found )$ound*ess;
>4? An" &ei$ of fu** a)e %&o( &a#in)
2no%*ed)e of &e #io*en dea& of &e
esao$( s&ou*d fai* o $e'o$ i o an
office$ of &e *a% %i&in a mon&( un*ess
&e au&o$iies &a#e a*$ead" a2en
acion; &is '$o&i!iion s&a** no a''*"
o cases %&e$ein( acco$din) o *a%(
&e$e is no o!*i)aion o ma2e an
accusaion;
>5? An" 'e$son con#iced of adu*e$" o$
concu!ina)e %i& &e s'ouse of &e
esao$;
>8? An" 'e$son %&o !" f$aud( #io*ence(
inimidaion( o$ undue inf*uence s&ou*d
cause &e esao$ o ma2e a %i** o$ o
c&an)e one a*$ead" made;
>7? An" 'e$son %&o !" &e same means
'$e#ens ano&e$ f$om ma2in) a %i**( o$
f$om $e#o2in) one a*$ead" made( o$ %&o
su''*ans( concea*s( o$ a*e$s &e
*ae$Ms %i**;
><? An" 'e$son %&o fa*sifies o$ fo$)es a
su''osed %i** of &e deceden.
This article applies to all Ginds of succession
GRO0N-S .OR 0N1ORTHINESS
1. Pa$ens %&o &a#e a!andoned &ei$ c&i*d$en o$
induced &ei$ dau)&e$s o *ead a co$$u' o$
immo$a* *ife( o$ aem'ed a)ains &ei$ #i$ue
oThere are ! grounds gi*en3
1E A.andonment of the child
2E nducement of a daughter to
lead a corrupt or immoral life
!E Attempt against a daughter4s
*irtue
o All these ! grounds are also grounds for
disinheritance of parents or ascendants under
Art@2A. The same rules apply.
@. Pe$son con#iced of an aem' a)ains &e *ife
of &e esao$( &is o$ &e$ s'ouse( descendans
o$ ascendans
o Also a ground for disinheritance under
Art@1@. The same rules apply.
A. Pe$son %&o accused &e esao$ of a c$ime fo$
%&ic& &e *a% '$esc$i!ed im'$isonmen fo$ 8
"ea$s o$ mo$e( if &e accusaion &as !een
found o !e )$ound*ess
4. An" &ei$ of fu** a)e %&o( &a#in) 2no%*ed)e of
&e #io*en dea& of &e esao$( s&ou*d fai* o
$e'o$ i o an office$ of &e *a% %i&in a mon&(
unless &e au&o$iies &a#e a*$ead" a2en
acion
o One requisite of this ground for
disqualification ma+es this paragraph non>
operati*e 9 a legal o.ligation to ma+e an
Ryan Ouan 144
ST ST
accusation. There is no such o.ligation under
the present law.
o =owe*er- the 7equisites of this paragraph are
9
aE The heir has +nowledge of
the *iolent death of the decedent
.E The heir is of legal age
cE The heir fails to report it to an
officer of the law within a month after
learning of it
dE The authorities ha*e not yet
ta+en action
eE There is a legal o.ligation for
the heir to ma+e an accusation.
5. Pe$son con#iced of adu*e$" o$ concu!ine a)e
%i& &e s'ouse of &e esao$
8. An" 'e$son %&o !" f$aud( #io*ence(
inimidaion o$ undue inf*uence s&ou*d cause
&e esao$ o ma2e a %i** o$ o c&an)e one
a*$ead" made
7. Pe$son %&o !" &e same means '$e#ens
ano&e$ f$om ma2in) a %i**( o$ f$om $e#o2in)
one a*$ead" made( o$ %&o su''*ans(
concea*s( o$ a*e$s &e *ae$:s %i**
<. Pe$son %&o fa*sifies o$ fo$)es a su''osed %i**
of &e deceden
E..ECT O. 0N1ORTHINESS
Bnworthiness gi*es rise to total
dis=ualification- i.e. the unworthy heir is
incapacitated to succeed from the offended party .y
ANI 1O7M O1 'BCC&''ON.
,hus< unworthiness and
disinheritance ha8e identical effects. .nworthiness
is disinheritance i6posed by law.
That unworthiness depri*es the
unworthy heir e*en of the legitime is clear from
Article 1A!%.
A$. 1CAA. T&e cause of un%o$&iness s&a** !e
%i&ou effec if &e esao$ &ad 2no%*ed)e
&e$eof a &e ime &e made &e %i**( o$ if(
&a#in) 2no%n of &em su!sequen*"( &e
s&ou*d condone &em in %$iin).
7estoration to Capacity 9 the unworthiness is set aside
and the unworthy heir restored to capacity in 2 ways3
1. A written condonation-
or
2. The e/ecution .y the
offended party of a will with +nowledge of the
cause of unworthiness.
Question 9 regarding the second mode- is it enough that
the offended party e/ecute a will with +nowledge of the
e/istence of the cause of unworthiness6
o 2alane says that the .etter opinion is that it is
NOT enough- the will must either institute the
unworthy heir or restore him to capacity.
Common G$ounds fo$ 0n%o$&iness and
-isin&e$iance= Conf*icin) ,odes of Lifin)
-isqua*ificaion 3A$ic*es 1CAA and B@@4
A.Most of the grounds for unworthiness are also
grounds for disinheritance under Art1A!2.
There is no pro.lem if the
offended party does not choose to disinherit
the offending heir- .ecause then only the
rules of unworthiness will operate.
'hould the offended party-
howe*er- elect to disinherit the offender- the 2
set of rules on disinheritance and
unworthiness would o*erlap.
The pro.lem then arises3 =O5
' T=& $'QBA"1&$ =&7 7&'TO7&$
TO CA)ACTI6
Bnder the rules on
disinheritance- a subse=uent reconciliation is
enough GArt@22E< under those on
unworthiness- either a written pardon or a
subse=uent will is required.
'upposing that there is a
reconciliation .ut nothing in writing- will it .e
correct to conclude that the heir is restored to
capacity under the rule on disinheritance .ut
stays disqualified under the rule on
unworthiness6
2alane says this seems
unaccepta.le .ecause that would ma+e the
rules on unworthiness :which is .y operation
of law and is only the implied will of the
offended party; pre*ail o*er those on
disinheritance :which is his e/press will;
2. T=B'- the most accepta.le reconciliation seems to
.e the following3
1. f offended party $O&' NOT MAF& A
5"" su.sequent to the occurrence of the
common cause 9 apply article 1A!!-
unworthiness sets in ipso facto and written
condonation is necessary to restore capacity.
2. f offended party MAF&' A 5"" su.sequent to
the occurrence of the common cause 9
a. f he +new of the cause
i. f he
disinherits 9 art@22- disinheritance is
ineffecti*e.
ii. f he
institutes or pardons the offender 9
offender restored to capacity.
Ryan Ouan 145
ST ST
iii. f will
is silent 9 this is disputed. 2ut the
.etter opinion is that the unworthiness
stays.
.. f he did not +now of the cause 9
unworthiness stays
A$. 1CA4. In o$de$ o Jud)e &e ca'aci" of &e
&ei$( de#isee o$ *e)aee( &is qua*ificaion a
&e ime of &e dea& of &e deceden s&a** !e
&e c$ie$ion.
In cases fa**in) unde$ Nos. @( A( o$ 5 of
A$ic*e 1CA@( i s&a** !e necessa$" o %ai uni*
fina* Jud)men is $ende$ed( and in &e case
fa**in) unde$ No. 4( &e e+'i$aion of &e
mon& a**o%ed fo$ &e $e'o$.
If &e insiuion( de#ise o$ *e)ac" s&ou*d
!e condiiona*( &e ime of &e com'*iance
%i& &e condiion s&a** a*so !e conside$ed.
5hen Capacity is to .e $etermined
A. 8eneral 7ule 9 the time of the decedent4s death
o 2ecause that is when successional rights
*est.
2. f institution is su.Dect to suspensi*e condition 9
1. Time of the decedent4s
death AN$
2. Time of the happening of the condition
C. f final Dudgment is a requisite of unworthiness 9 at
the time of final Dudgment.
A$. 1CA5. If &e 'e$son e+c*uded f$om &e
in&e$iance !" $eason of inca'aci" s&ou*d !e
a c&i*d o$ descendan of &e deceden and
s&ou*d &a#e c&i*d$en o$ descendans( &e
*ae$ s&a** acqui$e &is $i)& o &e *e)iime.
T&e 'e$son so e+c*uded s&a** no enJo"
&e usuf$uc and adminis$aion of &e
'$o'e$" &us in&e$ied !" &is c&i*d$en.
7epresentation in Bnworthiness
Bnworthiness is one of the !
occasions for representation to operate.
&/tent of 7epresentation
7epresentation in unworthiness
:as also in predecease and disinheritance; e/tends
not only to the legitime .ut also to whate*er portion
in intestate succession the person represented may
ha*e .een entitled to.
The first paragraph of the article
should not .e ta+en to imply that representation is
confined to the legitime.
7epresentation in the Collateral "ine
f the unworthy heir is a .rother
or sister- his children :nephews and nieces of the
decedent; will represent under art@72 par2.
'econd )aragraph 9 Articles 22%>22( of the 1amily Code
should .e read together with the second paragraph of
this article 9
A. As to usufruct 9 the prohi.ition in this pro*ision
has .ecome unnecessary .ecause of Art22( par2
of the 1amily Code.
B. As to ad6inistration 9 the disqualification remains-
and this right shall .e e/ercised either .y a
Dudicially appointed guardian or those *ested .y
law with su.stitute parental authority under Art21(
of the 1amily Code.
A$. 1CA8. A*ienaions of &e$edia$" '$o'e$"( and
acs of adminis$aion 'e$fo$med !" &e
e+c*uded &ei$( !efo$e &e Judicia* o$de$ of
e+c*usion( a$e #a*id as o &e &i$d 'e$sons
%&o aced in )ood fai&; !u &e coG&ei$s s&a**
&a#e a $i)& o $eco#e$ dama)es f$om &e
disqua*ified &ei$.
8ood 1aith of Transferee as $etermining 1actor of
Kalidity
The *alidity of the alienation is
determined .y the good faith or .ad faith of the
transferee- not of the transferor :the e/cluded heir;
1or the transferee to .e in good
faith- he must ha*e acquired the thing for 8alue and
without Gnowledge of the defect of the transferor4s
title.
Thus- a donee cannot claim the
.enefit of this pro*ision- since he did not acquire for
*alue.
Note that in cases of *alid alienations .y the disqualified
heir- the rightful heirs are not without a remedy3 they may
go after the disqualified heir for damages.
A$. 1CA7. T&e un%o$&" &ei$ %&o is e+c*uded
f$om &e succession &as a $i)& o demand
indemni" o$ an" e+'enses incu$$ed in &e
'$ese$#aion of &e &e$edia$" '$o'e$"( and
o enfo$ce suc& c$edis as &e ma" &a#e
a)ains &e esae.
Ryan Ouan 146
ST ST
The right of reim.ursement granted .y this article to the
e/cluded heir is irrespecti*e of his .ad faith .ecause the
e/penses referred to in this article are necessary
e/penses which ha*e to .e reim.ursed e*en to a
possessor in .ad faith :under Articles ##! and %#( par1;
A$. 1CA<. An" 'e$son inca'a!*e of succession(
%&o( dis$e)a$din) &e '$o&i!iion saed in
&e '$ecedin) a$ic*es( ene$ed ino &e
'ossession of &e &e$edia$" '$o'e$"( s&a**
!e o!*i)ed o $eu$n i o)e&e$ i is
accessions.
He s&a** !e *ia!*e fo$ a** &e f$uis and
$ens &e ma" &a#e $ecei#ed( o$ cou*d &a#e
$ecei#ed &$ou)& &e e+e$cise of due
di*i)ence.
The disqualified heir- referred to in this article- who too+
possession of the hereditary property- is a possessor in
.ad faith- .ecause he too+ possession ,disregarding the
pro*ision stated in the preceding articles.0
=ence- the law applies to him the rules on possession in
.ad faith3
1. The o.ligation to return- with accessions
2. "ia.ility for fruits which were recei*ed and could
ha*e .een recei*ed.
These are the same rules laid down in Art%#@.
)eriod for action to reco*er 9 Bnder Art 1A#A- % years.
A$. 1CAB. Ca'aci" o succeed is )o#e$ned !" &e
*a% of &e naion of &e deceden.
National law of decedent go*erns capacity 9 note that it
is the national law of the $&C&N$&NT and not that of
the heir that go*erns the capacity to succeed.
This is the same principle as Art1( par2.
Art. 16. Rea property as we as persona
property s sub|ect to the aw of the country where
t s stpuated.
However, ntestate and testamentary
successons, both wth respect to the order of
successon and to the amount of successona
rghts and to the ntrnsc vadty of testamentary
provsons, sha be reguated by the natona aw
of the person whose successon s under
consderaton, whatever may be the nature of the
property and regardess of the country wheren
sad property may be found.
A$. 1C4C. T&e acion fo$ a dec*a$aion of
inca'aci" and fo$ &e $eco#e$" of &e
in&e$iance( de#ise o$ *e)ac" s&a** !e !$ou)&
%i&in fi#e "ea$s f$om &e ime &e
disqua*ified 'e$son oo2 'ossession &e$eof.
I ma" !e !$ou)& !" an" one %&o ma" &a#e
an ine$es in &e succession.
% years prescripti*e period 9 applies .oth to the
declaration of incapacity of the heir and the reco*ery of
the inheritance or portion thereof wrongfully possessed
.y the disqualified heir.
n effect- this is a special prescripti*e period for this
action. t is an e/ception to the prescripti*e periods for
reco*ery of mo*a.les :?years; and of immo*a.les
:!Ayears; laid down respecti*ely in Articles 11#A and
11#1.
SEC-I./ 5.
ACCE=-A/CE A/ !E=UIA-I./
.( -HE I/HE!I-A/CE
A$. 1C41. T&e acce'ance o$ $e'udiaion of &e
in&e$iance is an ac %&ic& is 'u$e*" #o*una$"
and f$ee.
Acceptance of nheritance a 1ree Act
The acceptance of property
through succession 9 whether in the form of a
legitime- testamentary succession or intestacy 9 is-
li+e the acceptance of a donation- essentially free
and *oluntary.
No one can .e required to
accept a .enefit3 )on potest liberalitas nolenti
ad=uiri.
The following articles lay down the requirements for
acceptance and repudiation. t should .e noted that the
rules for acceptance are much more "2&7A" than those
for repudiation. This is .ecause acceptance is .eneficial
whereas repudiation is preDudicial to the successor.
A$. 1C4@. T&e effecs of &e acce'ance o$
$e'udiaion s&a** a*%a"s $e$oac o &e
momen of &e dea& of &e deceden.
This has the same underlying philosophy as Art777. The
moment of death is the time succession *ests.
7&T7OACTKTI 9
A. Of Acceptance 9 the successor will .e deemed to
ha*e owned and possessed the property from the
precise moment of the decedent4s death. This rule
has consequences with respect to acquisiti*e
prescription- capacity to succeed- representation-
etc.
2. Of 7enunciation 9 the renouncer is deemed ne*er
to ha*e owned or possessed the property.
Consequently- the su.stitute- co>heir or intestate
heir who gets the property in default of the
renouncer is deemed to ha*e owned and
possessed it from the moment of the decedent4s
death.
C. Conditional nstitutions 9 the principle of
retroacti*ity is not o*erridden e*en if the institution
Ryan Ouan 147
ST ST
is su.Dect to a suspensi*e condition. Bpon the
happening of the condition- the property passes to
the heir .ut with retroacti*e effect. This is the
same principle enunciated in conditional
o.ligations :Art11?7;. 'imilarly- if the condition
does not happen- the property goes to the
appropriate successor- with the same retroacti*e
effect.
=owe*er- for conditional institutions- the pro*isions of
Art??A should .e complied with- to wit- the property
should .e placed under administration during the interim.
A$. 1C4A. No 'e$son ma" acce' o$ $e'udiae an
in&e$iance un*ess &e is ce$ain of &e dea&
of &e 'e$son f$om %&om &e is o in&e$i( and
of &is $i)& o &e in&e$iance.
Acceptance or renunciation must .e made +nowingly.
Bnless the successor has +nowledge of the two things
mentioned in this article- his acceptance or renunciation
is not effecti*e.
A$. 1C44. An" 'e$son &a#in) &e f$ee dis'osa* of
&is '$o'e$" ma" acce' o$ $e'udiae an
in&e$iance.
An" in&e$iance *ef o mino$s o$
inca'aciaed 'e$sons ma" !e acce'ed !"
&ei$ 'a$ens o$ )ua$dians. Pa$ens o$
)ua$dians ma" $e'udiae &e in&e$iance *ef
o &ei$ %a$ds on*" !" Judicia* au&o$iKaion.
T&e $i)& o acce' an in&e$iance *ef o
&e 'oo$ s&a** !e*on) o &e 'e$sons
desi)naed !" &e esao$ o dee$mine &e
!eneficia$ies and dis$i!ue &e '$o'e$"( o$ in
&ei$ defau*( o &ose menioned in A$ic*e
1CAC.
7equirement for )ersonal Acceptance or 7enunciation
Capacity to act is required for
personal acceptance or renunciation.
Acceptance or 7enunciation on .ehalf of minors or other
incapacitated parties
Minors and other capacitated
parties may accept or renounce only through their
legal representati8es. =owe*er- for renunciation
there is the added requirement of court appro8al.
The rules for renunciation are stricter than those for
acceptance.
Acceptance of Testamentary 8rants to the )oor
The persons empowered in
Art1A!A to select the recipients of testamentary
grants to the poor in general are li+ewise
empowered to accept on their .ehalf.
Note that3
1. These authoriHed indi*iduals can only accept-
not reDect the grant.
2. The persons selected as qualified recipients
are- for their own part- free to accept or
renounce the .enefit.
A$. 1C45. T&e *a%fu* $e'$esenai#es of
co$'o$aions( associaions( insiuions and
eniies qua*ified o acqui$e '$o'e$" ma"
acce' an" in&e$iance *ef o &e *ae$( !u in
o$de$ o $e'udiae i( &e a''$o#a* of &e cou$
s&a** !e necessa$".
A$. 1C48. Pu!*ic officia* esa!*is&mens can
nei&e$ acce' no$ $e'udiae an in&e$iance
%i&ou &e a''$o#a* of &e )o#e$nmen.
These pro*isions lay down rules similar to those
concerning acceptance or renunciation on .ehalf of
minors and incompetents. The legal representati*es may
accept or renounce the testamentary grant on .ehalf of
the entity represented- .ut for renunciation- court
appro*al is- additionally required.
A$. 1C47. A ma$$ied %oman of a)e ma" $e'udiae
an in&e$iance %i&ou &e consen of &e$
&us!and.
Acceptance or renunciation .y a Married person
There is no suggestion in this
article that a married man of age does not ha*e the
capacity to renounce without his wife4s consent.
The rule is more accurately
worded as follows 9 A married person of age and
not incapacitated for any reason may accept or
renounce an inheritance without his or her spouse4s
consent.
A$. 1C4<. -eafGmues %&o can $ead and %$ie
ma" acce' o$ $e'udiae &e in&e$iance
'e$sona**" o$ &$ou)& an a)en. S&ou*d &e"
no !e a!*e o $ead and %$ie( &e in&e$iance
s&a** !e acce'ed !" &ei$ )ua$dians. T&ese
)ua$dians ma" $e'udiae &e same %i&
Judicia* a''$o#a*.
Capacity of $eaf>mute to accept or renounce 9 this
article must .e correlated with Art1!27- which pro*ides3
Art. 1327. The foowng cannot gve consent to a
contract:
(1) Unemancpated mnors;
(2) Insane or demented persons, and deaf-mutes
who do not know how to wrte.
Ryan Ouan 148
ST ST
Thus- a deaf>mute who can read and write has
contractual capacity- and can accept or renounce on his
own .ehalf.
=owe*er- an illiterate deaf>mute is incompetent and the
rules on acceptance and renunciation through a
representati*e apply. :Art1A##;
A$. 1C4B. Acce'ance ma" !e e+'$ess o$ aci.
An e+'$ess acce'ance mus !e made in a
'u!*ic o$ '$i#ae documen.
A aci acce'ance is one $esu*in) f$om
acs !" %&ic& &e inenion o acce' is
necessa$i*" im'*ied( o$ %&ic& one %ou*d &a#e
no $i)& o do e+ce' in &e ca'aci" of an
&ei$.
Acs of me$e '$ese$#aion o$ '$o#isiona*
adminis$aion do no im'*" an acce'ance of
&e in&e$iance if( &$ou)& suc& acs( &e i*e
o$ ca'aci" of an &ei$ &as no !een assumed.
FN$' O1 ACC&)TANC&
A. &/press
1. )u.lic $ocuments or
2. )ri*ate 5riting
2. Tacit
C. mplied :Art1A%7;
A$. 1C5C. An in&e$iance is deemed acce'ed=
>1? If &e &ei$s se**s( donaes( o$ assi)ns &is
$i)& o a s$an)e$( o$ o &is coG&ei$s( o$
o an" of &em;
>@? If &e &ei$ $enounces &e same( e#en
&ou)& )$auious*"( fo$ &e !enefi of
one o$ mo$e of &is coG&ei$s;
>A? If &e $enounces i fo$ a '$ice in fa#o$ of
a** &is coG&ei$s indisc$iminae*"; !u if
&is $enunciaion s&ou*d !e )$auious(
and &e coG&ei$s in %&ose fa#o$ i is
made a$e &ose u'on %&om &e 'o$ion
$enounced s&ou*d de#o*#e !" #i$ue of
acc$eion( &e in&e$iance s&a** no !e
deemed as acce'ed.
TACT ACC&)TANC&
nferred from acts re*ealing an
intent to accept. n general- a tacit acceptance is
inferred from acts of ownership performed .y the
heir o*er the property.
The enumeration in this article
is illustrati8e .ut not e/clusi*e.
nstances of Tacit Acceptance
A. )ar1 9 Onerous or gratuitous con*eyance in fa*or
of one- some or all of his co>heirs or to a stranger.
This is an act of ownership- which necessarily
implies that the heir has accepted the inheritance.
2. )ar2 9 8ratuitous renunciation in fa*or of one or
some of his co>heirs. This is not in fact a
renunciation .ut a con*eyance in fa*or of the co>
heirs specified. t parta+es of the nature of
donation and therefore must conform to the
prescri.ed form of donations under Arts 7#?>7#@.
f the gratuitous ,renunciation0 is in fa*or of
A"" the heirs .ut in proportions
$11&7&NT from those in which they
would recei*e .y accretion- it is still a
con*eyance and must .e treated as a tacit
acceptance.
A fortiori- if the renunciation in fa*or of one
or some of the co>heirs is for an onerous
consideration- there is an acceptance.
C. )ar! 9 Onerous renunciation in fa*or of all the co>
heirs indiscriminately< this is not in fact a
renunciation .ut a sale f his portion and therefore
constitutes a tacit acceptance.
8ratuitous renunciation in fa*or of the co>
heirs indiscriminately 9 this is a true
renunciation and cannot .e treated as a
tacit acceptance. ndiscriminate
renunciation means a renouncement-
gratuitously made- in fa*or of all the co>
heirs who would get the renounced portion
.y *irtue of accretion.
The same rule applies e*en if the part
renounced in this manner is the legitime-
notwithstanding that there is no accretion in
the legitime- as long as the renunciation is
indiscriminate.
A$. 1C51. T&e $e'udiaion of an in&e$iance s&a**
!e made in a 'u!*ic o$ au&enic ins$umen(
o$ !" 'eiion '$esened o &e cou$ &a#in)
Ju$isdicion o#e$ &e esamena$" o$ inesae
'$oceedin)s.
1O7M' O1 7&NBNCATON
A. )u.lic or Authentic :genuine; nstrument
2. )etition filed in the 'ettlement )roceedings
1orm of renunciation stricter 9 the law has stricter
requisites for renunciation- since it is not .eneficial to the
heir.
A$. 1C5@. If &e &ei$ $e'udiaes &e in&e$iance o
&e '$eJudice of &is o%n c$edio$s( &e *ae$
ma" 'eiion &e cou$ o au&o$iKe &em o
acce' i in &e name of &e &ei$.
T&e acce'ance s&a** !enefi &e c$edio$s
on*" o an e+en sufficien o co#e$ &e
amoun of &ei$ c$edis. T&e e+cess( s&ou*d
Ryan Ouan 149
ST ST
&e$e !e an"( s&a** in no case 'e$ain o &e
$enounce$( !u s&a** !e adJudicaed o &e
'e$sons o %&om( in acco$dance %i& &e
$u*es esa!*is&ed in &is Code( i ma" !e*on).
This is an instance of accion pauliana- which is the right
gi*en to creditors to impugn or set aside contracts-
transactions or dispositions of their de.tors which will
preDudice or defraud them.
The same principle is e/pressed in Art1177 and Art1!1!
of the Ci*il Code.
Art. 1177. The credtors, after havng pursued the
property n possesson of the debtor to satsfy
ther cams, may exercse a the rghts and
brng a the actons of the atter for the same
purpose, save those whch are nherent n hs
person; they may aso mpugn the acts whch
the debtor may have done to defraud them.
Art. 1313. Credtors are protected n cases of
contracts ntended to defraud them.
The right of the creditor to accept the inheritance in the
name of the de.tor e/tends only to the amount or *alue
necessary to satisfy the credit. Any amount in e/cess of
that may .e *alidly renounced .y the de.tor>heir.
A$. 1C5A. If &e &ei$ s&ou*d die %i&ou &a#in)
acce'ed o$ $e'udiaed &e in&e$iance &is
$i)& s&a** !e $ansmied o &is &ei$s.
This rule is a consequence of the principle that the rieght
of succession *ests at the moment of death. Therefore-
the right of the heir who dies .efore accepting or
renouncing is already *ested and is transmitted to the
heir4s heirs.
The right to the inheritance itself forms part of the
inheritance of the heir and therefore- the heir of the heir
can e/ercise the right granted .y this article only if he
:the heir4s heir; accepts his own predecessor4s
inheritance. f he renounces- o.*iously he cannot
e/ercise this right.
A$. 1C54. S&ou*d &e$e !e se#e$a* &ei$s ca**ed o
&e in&e$iance( some of &em ma" acce' and
&e o&e$s ma" $e'udiae i.
f there are se*eral heirs- their right to accept or right
corresponds to the aliquot share to which they are
entitled.
Thus- if P dies and I- his heir- himself dies .efore
accepting or renouncing the inheritance- lea*ing A- 2 and
C as his own heirs 9 A- 2 and C each has the right to
accept or renounce his corresponding 1L! interest in
whate*er I was entitled to inherit from P.
Question 9 should one or more of the heirs renounce- to
whom will the repudiated portion go6 To the ones who
accept- .y accretion6 Or to the intestate heirs of the
decedent whose inheritance the predecessor of the heirs
was una.le to accept or renounce6
A$. 1C55. If a 'e$son( %&o is ca**ed o &e same
in&e$iance as an &ei$ !" %i** and a! inesao(
$e'udiaes &e in&e$iance in &is ca'aci" as a
esamena$" &ei$( &e is unde$sood o &a#e
$e'udiaed i in !o& ca'aciies.
S&ou*d &e $e'udiae i as an inesae &ei$(
%i&ou 2no%*ed)e of &is !ein) a
esamena$" &ei$( &e ma" si** acce' i in &e
*ae$ ca'aci".
This article go*erns the situation when a person is 2OT=
a testamentary heir :or legatee or de*isee and an
intestate heir;- with respect to the same inheritance.
7B"&'
A. f he renounces as testamentary heir :or legatee
or de*isee; 9 he is deemed to ha*e renounced as
intestate heir as well.
B. f he renounces as intestate heir without
Gnowledge of his being a testa6entary heir :or
legatee or de*isee; 9 he is NOT deemed to ha*e
renounced as testamentary heir and may
therefore accept or renounce separately in the
latter capacity.
7ationale 9 the testamentary disposition is the e?press
will of the testator- whereas intestacy is only his i6plied
will. One who renounces the e/press will is deemed to
ha*e renounced the implied also- .ut not the other way
around.
Question 9 supposing the heir renounces as intestate
heir with +nowledge of his .eing testamentary heir- may
he accept in the latter capacity6 2alane says I&'- in
light of the rationale of the rule.
NON>A))"CA2"TI O1 7B"& TO "&8TM&
n *iew of the rationale of the
rule- should the heir .e simultaneously a compulsory
heir and a testamentary heir- he can accept either or
.oth.
The legitime passes not
.ecause of any implied will or wish of the decedent
.ut .y strict operation of law- irrespecti*e of the
decedent4s wishes. Thus- the term ab intestate in
this article refers solely to intestate succession.
Ryan Ouan 150
ST ST
To the same effect is the rule
laid down in Art@%% par2- regarding a person who is
simultaneously a compulsory heir and a legatee or
de*isee.
A$. 1C58. T&e acce'ance o$ $e'udiaion of an
in&e$iance( once made( is i$$e#oca!*e( and
canno !e im'u)ned( e+ce' %&en i %as
made &$ou)& an" of &e causes &a #iiae
consen( o$ %&en an un2no%n %i** a''ea$s.
&PC&)TON' TO T=& 7B"& O1 1NA"TI O1
ACC&)TANC& O7 7&NBNCATON
A. Kitiated Consent 9 the factors are3
1. Kiolence
2. ntimidation
!. Bndue nfluence
#. Mista+e
%. 1raud
2. Appearance of an un+nown will 9 this applies if
the newly>disco*ered will is su.sequent to any will
which may ha*e formed the .asis for the
acceptance or renouncement. The new will
:assuming it is *alid and admitted to pro.ate;
reopens the whole affair and will call for a new
acceptance or renunciation.
A$. 1C57. 1i&in &i$" da"s afe$ &e cou$ &as
issued an o$de$ fo$ &e dis$i!uion of &e
esae in acco$dance %i& &e Ru*es of Cou$(
&e &ei$s( de#isees and *e)aees s&a** si)nif"
o &e cou$ &a#in) Ju$isdicion %&e&e$ &e"
acce' o$ $e'udiae &e in&e$iance.
If &e" do no do so %i&in &a ime( &e"
a$e deemed o &a#e acce'ed &e in&e$iance.
This is M)"&$ ACC&)TANC& 9 the failure to signify
the acceptance or renunciation within the !A>day period
specified .y this article
Oui tacet consentire 8idetur 9 silence means yes.
CA'&' 1O7 A7TC"&' @@%>1AA2
(8elino 8. C(
- The petitioner Maria 'ocorro is a daughter of Antonio
A*elino- 'r. and Angelina A*elino.
- The pri*ate respondents are Angelina- Maria4s si.lings- and
'haron- the 2
nd
wife of Antonio- 'r.
- Maria filed a petition with the 7TC>QC for issuance of
letters of administration of the estate of Antonio- 'r.- who
died intestate. 'he as+ed that she .e appointed
administrator of the estate.
- The pri*ate respondents filed an opposition .y filing a
motion to con*ert the petition for issuance of letters of
administration to an action for Dudicial partition. Maria duly
opposed.
- 7TC granted the motion of the pri*ate respondents. A
su.sequent M7 .y Maria was denied.
- =ence- this petition alleging that the Dudge committed gra*e
a.use in granting the motion.
5ON the 7TC Cudge was in error in granting the motion and
con*erting the petition for issuance of letters of administration
to an action for Dudicial partition.
- NO. 5hen a person dies intestate- or if testate- failed to
name an e/ecutor in his will or the e/ecutor so named is
incompetent- or refuses the trust- or fails to furnish the .ond
required- the general rule is that the estate shall .e
Dudicially administered and the court shall appoint a
qualified administrator.
- The e/ception to the a.o*e rule is found in 'ecs. 1 and 2 of
7ule 7# - which does not require the appointment of an
administrator in cases of G1E e/traDudicial settlement .y
agreement .etween the heirs- and G2E summary settlement
of estates of small *alue.
- 'ec. 1 of 7ule 7# allows the heirs to di*ide the estate
among themsel*es without need of delay and ris+s of .eing
dissipated.
- 5hen a person dies without lea*ing pending o.ligations- his
heirs- are not required to su.mit the property for Dudicial
administration- nor apply for the appointment of an
administrator .y the court.
)a9areno 8. C(
- The case in*ol*es the sale of Ma/imino '7 and his wife of (
lots to one of their daughters- Nati*idad- who later on sold
the same to her .rother- Ma/imino Cr.
- n one of the said lots was where respondent in this case
7omeo and his wife and one of the petitioners Ma/imino Cr
are residing. Bpon +nowing of Ma/imino Cr4s ownership o*er
the said land- the spouses loc+ed him out of the house.
- 7omeo then filed this present case on .ehalf of the estate of
Ma/imino 'r. for the annulment of the sale of the lot in
question.
- Nati*idad e*entually sold the lots to an innocent purchaser
for *alue.
5LN the sale was *alid.
- 'C held that it was *alid .ecause3
- 1. The lone testimony of 7omeo that the said lots were sold
to Nati*idad for no consideration was found to .e credi.le
.y the TC and CA.
- 2. The fact that the document was notariHed is not a
guarantee of the *alidity of its contents.
- !. The Dudgment in a pre*ious case *esting ownership in
Ma/imino Cr. and which was filed .y 7omeo and his wife
Ryan Ouan 151
ST ST
does not .ind the estate of Ma/imino 'r. in this case which
also has a right to reco*er properties which were wrongfully
disposed.
- #. The TC and CA found that the NaHareno spouses
transferredtheir properties to their children .y fictitious sales
in order to a*oid the payment of inheritance ta/es.
- %. Any *oid contract may .e questioned .y any party
affected .y it< hence- e*en if the estate of Ma/imino 'r.
alone contests the *alidity of the sale- the outcome of the
suit will .ind the estate of his wife as if no sale too+ place at
all.
- (. t cannot .e denied that the spouses intended to gi*e the
( lots to Nati*idad as the latter is the only female and
unmarried mem.er of the family. Thus- since an implied
trust was created- the lots are therefore su.Dect to collation.
- &*ery compulsory heir who succeeds with other compulsory
heirs must .ring into the mass of the estate any property or
right which he may ha*e recei*ed from the decedent- or any
other gratuitous title- in order that it may .e computed in the
determination of the legitime of each heir- and in the
account of the partition.
SEC-I./ %. 1
EFECU-.!S A/ A:I/IS-!A-.!S

A$. 1C5<. A** mae$s $e*ain) o &e a''oinmen(
'o%e$s and duies of e+ecuo$s and
adminis$ao$s and conce$nin) &e
adminis$aion of esaes of deceased
'e$sons s&a** !e )o#e$ned !" &e Ru*es of
Cou$.
5ith reference to 7ules 7?>@A of the 7ules of Court.
A$. 1C5B. If &e asses of &e esae of a deceden
%&ic& can !e a''*ied o &e 'a"men of de!s
a$e no sufficien fo$ &a 'u$'ose( &e
'$o#isions of A$ic*es @@AB o @@51 on
P$efe$ence of C$edis s&a** !e o!se$#ed(
'$o#ided &a &e e+'enses $efe$$ed o in
A$ic*e @@44( No. <( s&a** !e &ose in#o*#ed in
&e adminis$aion of &e decedenMs esae.
n relation to Articles 22!@>22%1 and 22##
A$. 1C8C. A co$'o$aion o$ associaion au&o$iKed
o conduc &e !usiness of a $us com'an" in
&e P&i*i''ines ma" !e a''oined as an
e+ecuo$( adminis$ao$( )ua$dian of an
esae( o$ $usee( in *i2e manne$ as an
indi#idua*; !u i s&a** no !e a''oined
)ua$dian of &e 'e$son of a %a$d.
7ule 7? of the 7oC go*erns the issuance of letters
testamentary and of administration and should .e read
together with this article.

SEC-I./ 7. 1
C.LLA-I./
T=7&& M&ANN8' O1 T=& T&7M ,CO""ATON0 A'
B'&$ N T=& 11 A7TC"&'3
1. Collation as
COM)BTATON 9 :add;
o This is a
simple accounting or arithmetical process-
where.y the *alue of all donations inter
8i8os made .y the decedent is added to his
a*aila.le assets in order to arri*e at the
*alue of the net hereditary estate.
o Article @A?
2. Collation as
M)BTATON 9 :su.tract;
oThis is the process .y which donations
inter 8i8os made .y the decedent are
correspondingly charged either to the
donee4s legitime or against the disposa.le
portion.
o Articles @A@ and @1A
!. Collation as 7&TB7N
9
oThis ta+es place when a donation inter
8i8os is found to .e inofficious :i.e. e/ceeds
the disposa.le portion; and so much of its
*alue as is inofficious is returned to the
decedent4s estate to satisfy the legitimes.
o Articles @A@ and @1A also pro*ide for this.
A$. 1C81. E#e$" com'u*so$" &ei$( %&o succeeds
%i& o&e$ com'u*so$" &ei$s( mus !$in) ino
&e mass of &e esae an" '$o'e$" o$ $i)&
%&ic& &e ma" &a#e $ecei#ed f$om &e
deceden( du$in) &e *ifeime of &e *ae$( !"
%a" of donaion( o$ an" o&e$ )$auious i*e(
in o$de$ &a i ma" !e com'ued in &e
dee$minaion of &e *e)iime of eac& &ei$( and
in &e accoun of &e 'a$iion.
This article refers to the COM)BTATON of all donations
inter *i*os made .y the decedent- for the purpose of
determining the *alue of the net estate.
This is e/actly the same thing
that is referred to in Art@A? par2. The process is
purely arithmetical- and is merely paper
computation.
5hat 'hould .e ncluded in the Computation
Ryan Ouan 152
ST ST
A"" donations inter *i*os 9
whether made to compulsory heirs or to strangers-
should .e included in the computation of the net
hereditary estate. This is the !
rd
step in the process
of computing the net hereditary estate under Art@A?.
Kalue to .e Computed
Only the *alue of the property
donated AT T=& TM& T=& $ONATON 5A'
MA$& is to .e computed since in donations
ownership transfers at the time the donation is
perfected.
Thus- any su.sequent increase
in *alue is for the donee4s .enefit- and any decrease
is for his account.
)urpose of the Article is to determine the amount of the
net estate so as to ensure that the legitimes are not
impaired.
A$. 1C8@. Co**aion s&a** no a2e '*ace amon)
com'u*so$" &ei$s if &e dono$ s&ou*d &a#e so
e+'$ess*" '$o#ided( o$ if &e donee s&ou*d
$e'udiae &e in&e$iance( un*ess &e donaion
s&ou*d !e $educed as inofficious.
Collation in the sense of M)BTATON
That donations inter *i*os made
.y the decedent to a compulsory heir are- as a
general rule- imputed to or charged against the
heir4s legitime.
R0LES ON I,P0TATION O.
-ONATIONS INTER VIVOS=
A. -onaions ine$ #i#os o com'u*so$" &ei$s
o 873 'hould .e imputed to the heir4s
legitime and is considered as an ad*ance
on the legitime.
o &PC&)TON' 9
1. f the donor pro*ides in
the $eed of $onation otherwise
2. f the donee renounces
the inheritance- .ecause in this case
the donee gi*es up his status as a
compulsory heir and therefore cannot
.e considered as one.
o n case either e/ception applies- the
donation will ha*e to .e imputed to the
17&& )O7TON.
o Question 9 supposing the compulsory
heir recei*ed a donation inter *i*os from
the decedent .ut the *alue of the donation
e/ceeds the donee4s legitime6 The
donation will .e imputed to the donee4s
legitime to the e/tent of the lefitime4s *alue
and the e/cess- to the free portion.
B. -onaions ine$ #i#os o s$an)e$s
o mputed to the free portion
C. Insances %&en donaions ine$ #i#os a$e o !e
im'ued o &e .REE PORTION
1. 5hen made to
strangers
2. 5hen made to
compulsory heirs- and the donor so
pro*ides that it will .e imputed to the free
portion
!. 5hen made to
compulsory heirs who renounce the
inheritance
#. 5hen in e/cess of the
compulsory heir4s legitime- as to the
e/cess.
A$. 1C8A. P$o'e$" *ef !" %i** is no deemed
su!Jec o co**aion( if &e esao$ &as no
o&e$%ise '$o#ided( !u &e *e)iime s&a** in
an" case $emain unim'ai$ed.
Collation in the sense of M)BTATON.
This article applies to $onations Mortis Cause :the
pre*ious article applies to donations inter *i*os;.
Therefore- here the testamentary disposition is as a
general rule- not deemed as an ad*ance on the legitime.
R0LE ON TESTA,ENTARF -ISPOSITIONS TO
CO,P0LSORF HEIRS
873 they should NOT .e
imputed to the legitime .ut to the free portion.
=ence- the compulsory heir recei*es the
testamentary disposition in addition to his legitime.
&PC&)TON3 if the testator
pro*ides otherwise. Then the testamentary
disposition in fa*or of the heir 5"" .e M&78&$
with his legitime. That will ma+e the disposition
illusory.
A$. 1C84. 1&en &e )$andc&i*d$en( %&o su$#i#e
%i& &ei$ unc*es( auns( o$ cousins( in&e$i
f$om &ei$ )$and'a$ens in $e'$esenaion of
&ei$ fa&e$ o$ mo&e$( &e" s&a** !$in) o
co**aion a** &a &ei$ 'a$ens( if a*i#e( %ou*d
&a#e !een o!*i)ed o !$in)( e#en &ou)& suc&
)$andc&i*d$en &a#e no in&e$ied &e '$o'e$".
T&e" s&a** a*so !$in) o co**aion a** &a
&e" ma" &a#e $ecei#ed f$om &e deceden
du$in) &is *ifeime( un*ess &e esao$ &as
'$o#ided o&e$%ise( in %&ic& case &is %is&es
mus !e $es'eced( if &e *e)iime of &e coG
&ei$s is no '$eJudiced.
This article applies to 2 instances3
Ryan Ouan 153
ST ST
1. 5hen the
grandchildren of the decedent inheriting .y
representation concurrently with children of the
decedent :uncles and aunts of the
grandchildren; who are inheriting in their own
right- or
2. The grandchildren
inherit .y representation with other
grandchildren :cousins of the grandchildren;.
5hat the 8randchildren ha*e to Collate or mpute to the
"egitime
A. 5hate*er the parent whom they are representing
would ha*e .een o.liged to collate< and
2. 5hate*er they themsel*es ha*e recei*ed from the
grandparent .y gratuitous title- su.Dect to the
same rules and e/ceptions in Art1A(2.
A$. 1C85. Pa$ens a$e no o!*i)ed o !$in) o
co**aion in &e in&e$iance of &ei$
ascendans an" '$o'e$" %&ic& ma" &a#e
!een donaed !" &e *ae$ o &ei$ c&i*d$en.
Collation in the sense of M)BTATON.
A person should not collate what his parent ga*e to his
child since he is not the recipient of the con*eyance.
Against what part of the estate the con*eyance is
imputa.le 9 the donation to the grandchild should .e
imputed to the 17&& )O7TON- since the donation is to
a stranger.
A$. 1C88. Nei&e$ s&a** donaions o &e s'ouse
of &e c&i*d !e !$ou)& o co**aion; !u if &e"
&a#e !een )i#en !" &e 'a$en o &e s'ouses
Join*"( &e c&i*d s&a** !e o!*i)ed o !$in) o
co**aion oneG&a*f of &e &in) donaed.
7B"&' ON $ONATON' TO T=& ')OB'&
O1 T=& C="$
A. $onations made .y a person to his son>in>law or
daughter>in>law are '&)A7AT& property of the
donee and should not .e imputed to the legitime
of the donor4s child :the donee4s spouse;. The
donation is one made to a stranger.
2. f the donation is made to the spouse CONT"I-
one>half .elongs to the donor4s child and should
.e treated in accordance with Art1A(2 and the
other half is the property of the donor4s son or
daughter>in>law and should .e treated as a
donation to a stranger.
o This presumption of equality of aliquot
shares :as to the O di*ision .etween
spouses; will yield to a different designation
.y the donor.
These rules are consistent with the 1amily Code 9
A. n AC) 9 Article @2 par. 1
Art. 92. The foowng sha be excuded from
the communty property:
(1) Property acqured durng the marrage
by gratutous tte by ether spouse, and
the fruts as we as the ncome thereof,
f any, uness t s expressy provded by
the donor, testator or grantor that they
sha form part of the communty
property;
2. n C)8 9 Art1A@ G2E and Article 11!.
Art. 109. The foowng sha be the excusve
property of each spouse:
(2) That whch each acqures durng the
marrage by gratutous tte;
Art. 113. Property donated or eft by w to the
spouses, |onty and wth desgnaton of
determnate shares, sha pertan to the
donee-spouses as hs or her own excusve
property, and n the absence of desgnaton,
share and share ake, wthout pre|udce to
the rght of accreton when proper.
A$. 1C87. E+'enses fo$ su''o$( educaion(
medica* aendance( e#en in e+$ao$dina$"
i**ness( a''$enices&i'( o$dina$" equi'men(
o$ cusoma$" )ifs a$e no su!Jec o
co**aion.
Collation in the sense of COM)BTATON :add;.
The e/penses mentioned should not e*en .e included in
the computation of the decedent4s estate. This is in effect
a qualification of or an e/ception to the rule in Art1A(1.
The reason is that it would .e e/tremely impractical or
impossi.le to ma+e an accounting of all these items.
Custice =ofilena says these are not really donations .ut
e/penses. According to Tolentino- educational e/penses
in the elementary and high school le*els are considered
as e/penses and not su.Dect to collation- .ut higher
le*els of education should .e collated.
,'upport0 in this article has a restricti*e meaning- it
$O&' NOT include e/penses for the recipient4s
professional- *ocational or other career .ecause these
are items go*erned .y Art1A(?.
A$. 1C8<. E+'enses incu$$ed !" &e 'a$ens in
)i#in) &ei$ c&i*d$en a '$ofessiona*(
#ocaiona* o$ o&e$ ca$ee$ s&a** no !e
!$ou)& o co**aion un*ess &e 'a$ens so
'$o#ide( o$ un*ess &e" im'ai$ &e *e)iime;
!u %&en &ei$ co**aion is $equi$ed( &e sum
%&ic& &e c&i*d %ou*d &a#e s'en if &e &ad
Ryan Ouan 154
ST ST
*i#ed in &e &ouse and com'an" of &is
'a$ens s&a** !e deduced &e$ef$om.
This article states that as a general rule3
oThe e/penses incurred .y the parents for the child4s
professional- *ocational or other career :i.e. courses
.eyond the secondary le*el; are an e/ception to the
rule laid down in Art1A(2.
o =ence- these e/penses- if not inofficious- although
donations- should NOT .e charged against the
recipient4s legitime .ut against the 17&& )O7TON-
unless the parents pro*ide otherwise.
Contrary )ro*ision .y parents >
o 'hould the parents pro*ide otherwise- the child is
entitled under this article to deduct from the said
amount the sum corresponding to what his parents
would ha*e spent on him had he stayed at home
and loafed.
A$. 1C8B. An" sums 'aid !" a 'a$en in
saisfacion of &e de!s of &is c&i*d$en(
e*ecion e+'enses( fines( and simi*a$
e+'enses s&a** !e !$ou)& o co**aion.
The items under this article constitute donations .y the
parent to the child and therefore should .e treated li+e
other donations to compulsory heirs under art1A(2.
A$. 1C7C. 1eddin) )ifs !" 'a$ens and
ascendans consisin) of Je%e*$"( c*o&in)(
and oufi( s&a** no !e $educed as inofficious
e+ce' insofa$ as &e" ma" e+ceed oneGen&
of &e sum %&ic& is dis'osa!*e !" %i**.
This article applies only to wedding gifts gi*en .y parents
or ascendants to children or descendants.
'cope and Operation of this Article 9
A. The article co*ers only wedding gifts consisting of
Dewelry- clothing and wedding outfit. According to
Manresa- outfit includes the items necessary for
an indi*idual4s personal use. t does not include
other property- whether real or personal- that
would .e go*erned .y Art1A(2.
2. "iterally construed- this article seems to state that
the *alue of such wedding gifts cannot go .eyond
1L1A of the free portion of the donor4s estate. Any
e/cess will .e considered inofficious and should
.e returned in the same manner and at the same
time as other inofficious donations. t further
seems that as o the allowa.le 1L1A- this is to .e
imputed to the free portion.
o The question is why should the gift .e
reduced as inofficious Dust .ecause it
e/ceeds 1L1A of the free portion6
o'O- Manresa interprets the article to
mean that the gift will be i6puted to the
free portion to the e?tent of #Q#0 of the free
portion. Beyond that 8alue< the e?cess will
be i6putable to the recipient7s legiti6e.
A$. 1C71. T&e same &in)s donaed a$e no o !e
!$ou)& o co**aion and 'a$iion( !u on*"
&ei$ #a*ue a &e ime of &e donaion( e#en
&ou)& &ei$ Jus #a*ue ma" no &en &a#e
!een assessed.
T&ei$ su!sequen inc$ease o$
dee$io$aion and e#en &ei$ oa* *oss o$
des$ucion( !e i accidena* o$ cu*'a!*e( s&a**
!e fo$ &e !enefi o$ accoun and $is2 of &e
donee.
Collation in 2 senses3 COM)BTATON V M)BTATON
5hat *alue is to .e computed and imputed3
o Only the *alue of the thing donated at the
ti6e the donation was 6ade should .e considered
in the computation of the donor4s estate.
o 'imilarly- only the thing4s *alue at the
ti6e the donation was 6ade should .e impited
whether to the legitime or to the free portion.
7eason 9 any appreciation or depreciation of the thing
after that time should .e for the donee4s account- since
the donation transfers ownership to him.
A$. 1C7@. In &e co**aion of a donaion made !"
!o& 'a$ens( oneG&a*f s&a** !e !$ou)& o &e
in&e$iance of &e fa&e$( and &e o&e$ &a*f( o
&a of &e mo&e$. T&a )i#en !" one a*one
s&a** !e !$ou)& o co**aion in &is o$ &e$
in&e$iance.
Collation in 2 senses3 COM)BTATON V M)BTATON
CONT $ONATON'
The 1
st
sentence of this article
presupposes either a regime of AC) or of C)8
.etween the donor spouses. A Doint donation .y
them will .e treated- upon dissolution of the property
regime- as pertaining in equal shares to the estate of
each.
$ONATON' 2I ON& )A7&NT A"ON&
'uch a donation will .e of
separately>owned property and should .e treated as
such.
Ryan Ouan 155
ST ST
A$. 1C7A. T&e doneeMs s&a$e of &e esae s&a** !e
$educed !" an amoun equa* o &a a*$ead"
$ecei#ed !" &im; and &is coG&ei$s s&a**
$ecei#e an equi#a*en( as muc& as 'ossi!*e( in
'$o'e$" of &e same nau$e( c*ass and
qua*i".
This article requires not only equi*alence in amount- .ut
as far as possi.le- also in the +ind of property recei*ed.
This of course will yield to a different agreement among
the heirs.
A$. 1C74. S&ou*d &e '$o#isions of &e '$ecedin)
a$ic*e !e im'$acica!*e( if &e '$o'e$"
donaed %as immo#a!*e( &e coG&ei$s s&a** !e
eni*ed o $ecei#e is equi#a*en in cas& o$
secu$iies( a &e $ae of quoaion; and
s&ou*d &e$e !e nei&e$ cas& o$ ma$2ea!*e
secu$iies in &e esae( so muc& of &e o&e$
'$o'e$" as ma" !e necessa$" s&a** !e so*d a
'u!*ic aucion.
If &e '$o'e$" donaed %as mo#a!*e( &e
coG&ei$s s&a** on*" &a#e a $i)& o se*ec an
equi#a*en of o&e$ 'e$sona* '$o'e$" of &e
in&e$iance a is Jus '$ice.
This article pro*ides for the closes analogue to strict
equi*alence- in case there are not enough of the same
things to distri.ute among all.
Again- this will yield to a contrary agreement among the
heirs.
A$. 1C75. T&e f$uis and ine$es of &e '$o'e$"
su!Jec o co**aion s&a** no 'e$ain o &e
esae e+ce' f$om &e da" on %&ic& &e
succession is o'ened.
.o$ &e 'u$'ose of asce$ainin) &ei$
amoun( &e f$uis and ine$es of &e '$o'e$"
of &e esae of &e same 2ind and qua*i" as
&a su!Jec o co**aion s&a** !e made &e
sanda$d of assessmen.
Collation in the sense of 7&TB7N
7ationale
f any donation turns out to .e
inofficious- then the o.ligation to return it to the
estate arises as of the time the succession *ests-
which is the time of the decedent4s death- .ecause it
is from that time the compulsory heir4s right to the
inheritance .ecomes a.solute. 1rom that time
therefore the compulsory heir is entitled to the fruits.
&/tent of 7ight to 1ruits
The entirety of the fruits and
interests shall pertain to the compulsory heir- only if
the donation is ,+,(LL1 inofficious.
f the donation is only partially
inofficious- the right to the fruits and interests shall
.e )7O7AT&$ .etween the compulsory heir and
the donee- in proportion to their respecti*e interests
o*er the property.
A$. 1C78. T&e coG&ei$s a$e !ound o $eim!u$se o
&e donee &e necessa$" e+'enses %&ic& &e
&as incu$$ed fo$ &e '$ese$#aion of &e
'$o'e$" donaed o &im( &ou)& &e" ma" no
&a#e au)mened is #a*ue.
T&e donee %&o co**aes in 2ind an
immo#a!*e %&ic& &as !een )i#en o &im mus
!e $eim!u$sed !" &is coG&ei$s fo$ &e
im'$o#emens %&ic& &a#e inc$eased &e
#a*ue of &e '$o'e$"( and %&ic& e+is a &e
ime &e 'a$iion if effeced.
As o %o$2s made on &e esae fo$ &e
me$e '*easu$e of &e donee( no
$eim!u$semen is due &im fo$ &em; &e &as(
&o%e#e$( &e $i)& o $emo#e &em( if &e can
do so %i&ou inJu$in) &e esae.
Collation in the sense of 7&TB7N
The rules in this article go*ern necessary :par1;- useful
:par2; and orna6ental :par!; e/penses incurred .y the
donee who is now o.liged to return.
TOTA" O7 )A7TA" 7&TB7N
The e/tent of the application of
the rules in this article depends on the e/tent of the
o.ligation to return- thus3
1. f the thing has to .e returned in its &NT7&TI
.ecause the donation is totally inofficious 9
a. Necessary e/penses 9 reim.ursement
must .e to the full e/tent of the e/penses
incurred. This is in relation to Art%#(
par13
Art. 546. Necessary expenses sha be
refunded to every possessor; but
ony the possessor n good fath
may retan the thng unt he has
been rembursed therefor.
b. Bseful e/penses 9 reim.ursement must
.e to the full e/tent pro*ided that the
impro*ement is still in e/istence. This is
in relation to Art%#( par23
Usefu expenses sha be refunded
ony to the possessor n good fath
wth the same rght of retenton, the
person who has defeated hm n the
possesson havng the opton of
refundng the amount of the expenses
Ryan Ouan 156
ST ST
or of payng the ncrease n vaue
whch the thng may have acqured by
reason thereof.
c. Ornamental e/penses 9 NO
reim.ursement demanda.le- .ut the right
to remo*al is granted if no inDury to the
estate will .e cause. This is in relation to
Article %#?3
Art. 548. Expenses for pure uxury or
mere peasure sha not be refunded
to the possessor n good fath; but
he may remove the ornaments wth
whch he has embeshed the
prncpa thng f t suffers no n|ury
thereby, and f hs successor n the
possesson does not prefer to refund
the amount expended.
2. f the thing has to .e returned only in )A7T
.ecause the donation is only partially inofficious
a. Necessary and useful e/penses 9 the
reim.ursement is also partial- in
proportion to the *alue to .e returned.
.. Ornamental e/penses 9 the same rule as
in total return- unless the property is
physically di*ided and the ornament
happens to .e located in the portion
assigned to the donee- in which case he
will ha*e all the rights of ownership.
Confusion in terminology 9 the situation treated in this
article is really a case of reduction of inofficious
donations and the rules set forth in this article really
.elong in the pro*isions on inofficious donations in
Articles @1A- @1A and @11. The confusion would ha*e
.een a*oided if the Code had not insisted on using the
term collation so *ariedly.
A$. 1C77. S&ou*d an" quesion a$ise amon) &e
coG&ei$s u'on &e o!*i)aion o !$in) o
co**aion o$ as o &e &in)s %&ic& a$e su!Jec
o co**aion( &e dis$i!uion of &e esae s&a**
no !e ine$$u'ed fo$ &is $eason( '$o#ided
adequae secu$i" is )i#en.
The di*ision and distri.ution of the estate can .e made
partially- should there .e contro*ersy as to the inclusion
of certain items in the computation of the estate4s *alue
or the imputation of the heirs4 shares.
The distri.ution can proceed on the items that are not
contro*erted.
CA'&' 1O7 A7TC"&' 1A%?>1A77
Sarago9a 8. C(
- 1la*io TaragoHa died intestate lea*ing four children3 8loria-
TacariaH- 1lorentino and Al.erta.
- Al.erta TaragoHa Morgan- the youngest of the si.lings- filed
an action for the deli*ery of her inheritance shares namely
"ots @#! and ?71.
- According to Al.erta- their father already partitioned his
estate while he was still li*ing and was a.le to con*ey these
parcels of land to his three children through $eeds of 'ale
although- the contracts were made without consideration.
- Bnfortunately- Al.ertaUs share could not yet .e con*eyed to
her .ecause her marriage with an American- con*erting to
her to an American citiHen- disqualified her to own lands- the
only e/ception .eing those acquired through succession.
Al.erta now contends that it was the intention to gi*e to her
"ots @#! and ?71 in accordance with the partition earlier
e/ecuted 1lorentino TaragoHa and his spouse- as the
respondents- denied that there was any partitioning of the
estate of 1la*io during his lifetime.
- n fact- "ot ?71 is still in the name of 1la*io and that "ot @7!
has already .een sold to 1lorentino .y the decedent for a
*alua.le consideration.
- The 7TC ruled that 1la*io partitioned his properties during
his lifetime and that there is an intention to con*ey "ot ?71
to Al.erta.
- =owe*er- there is a *alid title o*er "ot @#! and the
complaint in respect thereof should .e dismissed.
5hether or not a )artition inter *i*os is *alid
- The 'C is con*inced .y the documentary and testimonial
e*idence thus presented that indeed a partition o*er the
estate of 1la*io TaragoHa was e/ecuted during the latterUs
lifetime. t is in this partition that Al.erta anchors her claim
for the disputed lots as in fact- it was admitted .y the
respondents that "ots @#! and ?71 were supposedly the
inheritance shares of youngest si.ling.
- As to the *alidity of this partition- the 'C held a partition
inter *i*os is *alid although the same should not encroach
upon the legitimes.
- As pro*ided for in Art 1A(1- collation must .e resorted to in
order to determine whether what has .een recei*ed from
the decedent- during the lifetime of the latter .y way of
donation or any gratuitous title- has impaired the legitime.
- Bnfortunately- in this case- collation can not .e done as not
all the indispensa.le parties are impleaded in the case.
=ence- The 'C held that the petition must therefore .e
dismissed without preDudice to the institution of a new
proceeding where all the indispensa.le parties are present
for the rightful determination of their respecti*e legitimes.
5hether or not the *alidity of the $eed of 'ale o*er "ot @#!
can .e resol*ed in an action for deli*ery of share
- The *alidity of the $eed of 'ale could not .e collaterally
attac+ed in this petition pursuant to the pro*isions of )$
1%2@.
- The 'C held that the certificate of title- in the a.sence of
fraud- is the e*idence of title real interest of the owner. Once
registered- the same could not .e modified or altered e/cept
in limited circumstances- e/cept in some proceeding
allowed .y law.
- Art 1A(1
- Collation must .e resorted to in order to determine whether
what has .een recei*ed from the decedent- during the
lifetime of the latter .y way of donation or any gratuitous
title- has impaired the legitime.
(dan 8. Casili
Ryan Ouan 157
ST ST
- 1eli/ Adan .rought an action for the Dudicial partition
against his sister Kictoria and the latter4s hus.and of four
G#E parcels of land left .y their deceased mother.
- n opposition to the Dudicial partition- the defendants a*erred
that said lots were ceded .y their mother to Kictoria as her
share of the inheritance< and that the 1eli/ has recei*ed
more than his share consisting of money- e/penses in his
professional study of sur*eying- li*estoc+- palay- and real
property.
- The lower court found that the donation of the parcels of
land to Kictoria were unsu.stantiated .y any written
document .ut that 1eli/ had indeed recei*ed *arious sums
during the lifetime of their mother in palay- li*estoc+ and
e/penses for his education amounting to around )!AAA-
more than the *alue of the lots in dispute- thus a.sol*ing
Kictoria and her hus.and.
5hether or not 1eli/ is entitled to any share in the four G#E
parcels of land left .y their mother in the possession of
Kictoria.
- NO.
- 'ee Articles 1A#1 and 1A#2 in the ne/t column.
- 'ince the career of sur*eyor is a professional one- and
since the e/penses incurred .y plaintiffUs mother in gi*ing
him that career encroached upon the legitime- it is proper to
collate one>half of the amount spent .y her for him during
the two years he studied sur*eying- the other half .eing
considered as the amount which the plaintiff would ha*e
spent if he had li*ed in the house and company of his
mother.
- Thus- of the )1-AAA spent on 1eli/4s education- )%AA is
chargea.le against his legitime- to .e included in the *alue
of the 12 cara.aos- !AA ca*ans of palay- and cash of
)1-1AA ta+en .y 1eli/ from his mother4s trun+.
- The *alue of the four G#E parcels of land in the possession
of Kictoria- less the funeral e/penses- is less than the total
amount recei*ed .y 1eli/- thus he is no longer entitled to
the said lots.
- Compensation operates as to the fruits recei*ed .y Kictoria
and her hus.and from the said lots as against the fruits or
interests recei*ed .y 1eli/ from the money and property he
had recei*ed.
- Bnder the article 1A#1 of the Ci*il Code- allowances for
support- education- attendance in illnesses- e*en though
unusually e/pensi*e- apprenticeship- ordinary equipment-
or customary presents are not su.Dect to collation.
- 2ut article 1A#2 of the same Code pro*ides that e/penses
which may ha*e .een incurred .y the parents in gi*ing their
children a professional or artistic career shall not .e
.rought to collation unless the parent so orders or they
encroach upon the legitimate.
- t also pro*ides that in cases in which it is proper to collate
them- the money which the child would ha*e spent if it had
li*ed in the house and company of its parents shall .e
deducted therefrom.
@i9on &i8era 8. @i9on

SEC-I./ ;. 1
=A!-I-I./ A/ IS-!IBU-I./ .(
-HE ES-A-E

S.BS%C,*+) #. 0 Partition
The immediate effect of the decedent4s death is the
*esting of the successional rights of the successors-
.ecause the rights to the succession are transmitted
from the moment of the death of the decedent.
5hat the successors acquire *ested rights o*er is the net
estate and the net estate is what remains after all the
unpaid de.ts of the decedent are paid- and the *alue of
all the donations inter *i*os is added. Thus- de.ts first
ha*e to .e paid< it is possi.le- if the de.ts e/ceed the
assets- that after the de.ts are paid- there will .e no
estate to spea+ of.
f howe*er the decedent4s gross assets e/ceed his
lia.ilities- or if there are inofficious donations to .e
returned- his net estate passes to his successors :heirs-
legatees- de*isees; at the precise moment of death.
The estate howe*er- is a mass of properties- usually
consisting of *arious items. The immediate effect
therefore- of the decedent4s death as far as successional
rights are concerned- is a CO>O5N&7'=) of the heirs
o*er the entire mass. The legatees and de*isees will
acquire a right to the specific items gi*en to them-
assuming the legacies and de*ises are not inofficious.
The actual partition of the estate among the heirs
terminating the co>ownership can .e done .asically
through 2 methods3
1. &/traDudicial
agreement among the heirs- or
2. Cudicial proceedings
The sequence may .e outlines as3
1. Bpon decedent4s death 9 co>ownership of heirs
o*er net hereditary or parti.le estate
2. 'u.sequent )artition
a. 2y e/traDudicial agreement under 7ule 7#
'ec1 of the 7OC
.. Through Dudicial order in appropriate
proceedings under 7ule @A 7oC
Actually- the Dudicial proceeding in which the partition is
ordered comprises the entire settlement of the estate of
the decedent- co*ered .y 7ules 7!>@A of the 7oC
n this part of successional law- i.e. the partition of the
estate- su.stanti*e law and procedural law intersect.
A$. 1C7<. 1&e$e &e$e a$e %o o$ mo$e &ei$s( &e
%&o*e esae of &e deceden is( !efo$e is
'a$iion( o%ned in common !" suc& &ei$s(
su!Jec o &e 'a"men of de!s of &e
deceased.
A$. 1C7B. Pa$iion( in )ene$a*( is &e se'a$aion(
di#ision and assi)nmen of a &in) &e*d in
common amon) &ose o %&om i ma"
!e*on). T&e &in) ise*f ma" !e di#ided( o$ is
#a*ue.
Ryan Ouan 158
ST ST
)artition ends the co>ownership among the co>heirs as to
the thing partitioned.
FN$' O1 )A7TTON
A. Actual 9 physical di*ision of the thing among the
co>heirs
B. Constructi*e 9 any act- other than physical
di*ision- which terminates the co>ownership :such
as sale to a !
rd
person 9 in relation to Articles
1A?2 and 1A?(;.
A$. 1C<C. S&ou*d a 'e$son ma2e 'a$iion of &is
esae !" an ac ine$ #i#os( o$ !" %i**( suc&
'a$iion s&a** !e $es'eced( insofa$ as i does
no '$eJudice &e *e)iime of &e com'u*so$"
&ei$s.
A 'a$en %&o( in &e ine$es of &is o$ &e$
fami*"( desi$es o 2ee' an" a)$icu*u$a*(
indus$ia*( o$ manufacu$in) ene$'$ise inac(
ma" a#ai* &imse*f of &e $i)& )$aned &im in
&is a$ic*e( !" o$de$in) &a &e *e)iime of
&e o&e$ c&i*d$en o %&om &e '$o'e$" is no
assi)ned( !e 'aid in cas&.
)A7TTON 2I CAB'ANT&
The causante :decedent; can himself effect the partition
of his estate.
1. )ature of Partition by Causante 9 a partition
made .y the causante has the ff. characteristics3
a. t ta+es effect only upon death-
.. t is re*oca.le as long as the causante is
ali*e< hence the causante can change or
modify it- or e*en rescind it during his
lifetime.
o These characteristics stem from the fact that the
partition is .ased on succession as the mode of
transfer and succession is necessarily mortis
causa. 'uccession- in our law- cannot ta+e
place during the causante4s lifetime< that would
.e a donation inter *i*os- not succession.
2. !ow causante 6ay 6aGe the Partition 9
a. 2y 5""- or
b. 2y Act nter Ki*os
i. 1orm of )artition .y Act nter
Ki*os 9 there is authority to the effect
that a partition inter *i*os should .e in
writing and in a public instru6ent.
:1aDardo *. 1aDardo; 2ut in an o.iter- 'C
held that e*en an oral partition is *alid.
:Cha*eH *. AC;
ii. n case of a partition inter *i*os-
must there .e a prior will6
Certainly- a mere partition inter *i*os
which does not o.ser*e the formalities
of a will cannot .y itself- ma+e
testamentary dispositions .ecause that
would circum*ent the requirement that
dispositions mortis causa can .e made
only .y means of a will. A person
cannot- in the guise of ma+ing a
partition- ma+e disposition of property
to ta+e effect upon his death.
Justice !+-* says that if partition is
6ade by pri8ate writing< after which a
will is e?ecuted< the subse=uent will
@+%S )+, cure the pri8ate writing.
,herefore< the partition is not effecti8e.
(lsua LBetts 8. C( pro*ides that the
partition inter *i*os is *oid e*en if a
su.sequent will is e/ecuted in
conformity with the pro*isions of the
prior partition.
The case of Legasto 8. /er9osa
pro*ides that a mere partition not
connected to a will is not .inding. The
act of disposition has to .e .y will- .ut
the partitionLdistri.ution may .e done
.y will or in writing. 'till- it must .e
pursuant to or connected to a 5"".
!. )ossi.le &ffect of Amended 5ording of Art1A?A3
The old Code used the term ,testator0 while
Art1A?A used the term ,person0. Bnder the
present pro*ision- a partition inter *i*os can .e
*alidly made e*en without a prior supporting
will- pro*ided that it is not used to ma+e mortis
causa dispositions Nothing can ta+e the place
of a will to dispose of property mortis causa.
=ence- the only way a partition without a will
can .e *alid is .y following strictly the intestate
portions pro*ided .y law3 i.e. the partition
should conform e/actly to the portions pro*ided
.y law in intestate succession- for then the
causante would not .e ma+ing testamentary
dispositions in the partition 9 the dispositions
would .e .y *irtue of intestate succession.
"imitation on )artition .y Causante
The legitimes of the causante4s
compulsory heirs cannot .e impaired .y partition
made .y him- whether in a will or .y an act inter
*i*os- pursuant to Art@A#.
)aragraph 2 9 )artition to Feep an &nterprise ntact
t seems only a parent is
allowed the pri*ilege of this paragraph.
Ryan Ouan 159
ST ST
t is understood that this
pri*ilege to ma+e the partition in such a way as to
+eep the enterprise intact can .e e/ercised only if
enough cash or other property is a*aila.le to satisfy
the legitimes of the other children. Bnder no
circumstances should the legitimes .e impaired.
A$. 1C<1. A 'e$son ma"( !" an ac ine$ #i#os o$
mo$is causa( in$us &e me$e 'o%e$ o ma2e
&e 'a$iion afe$ &is dea& o an" 'e$son
%&o is no one of &e coG&ei$s.
T&e '$o#isions of &is and of &e
'$ecedin) a$ic*e s&a** !e o!se$#ed e#en
s&ou*d &e$e !e amon) &e coG&ei$s a mino$
o$ a 'e$son su!Jec o )ua$dians&i'; !u &e
mandaa$"( in suc& case( s&a** ma2e an
in#eno$" of &e '$o'e$" of &e esae( afe$
noif"in) &e coG&ei$s( &e c$edio$s( and &e
*e)aees o$ de#isees.
Mandatary cannot .e a co>heir 9 the reason for this
prohi.ition is to ensure fairness and impartiality.
A$. 1C<@. E#e$" ac %&ic& is inended o 'u an
end o indi#ision amon) coG&ei$s and
*e)aees o$ de#isees is deemed o !e a
'a$iion( a*&ou)& i s&ou*d 'u$'o$ o !e a
sa*e( and e+c&an)e( a com'$omise( o$ an"
o&e$ $ansacion.
CON'T7BCTK& )A7TTON
)artition may .e actual or
constructi*e- in relation to Article 1A7@. This article
refers to cases of constructi*e partition.
CA'&
,uason 8. ,uason P $regorio (raneta *nc.
A$. 1C<A. E#e$" coG&ei$ &as a $i)& o demand &e
di#ision of &e esae un*ess &e esao$
s&ou*d &a#e e+'$ess*" fo$!idden is 'a$iion(
in %&ic& case &e 'e$iod of indi#ision s&a**
no e+ceed %en" "ea$s as '$o#ided in a$ic*e
4B4. T&is 'o%e$ of &e esao$ o '$o&i!i
di#ision a''*ies o &e *e)iime.
E#en &ou)& fo$!idden !" &e esao$(
&e coGo%ne$s&i' e$minaes %&en an" of &e
causes fo$ %&ic& 'a$ne$s&i' is disso*#ed
a2es '*ace( o$ %&en &e cou$ finds fo$
com'e**in) $easons &a di#ision s&ou*d !e
o$de$ed( u'on 'eiion of one of &e coG&ei$s.
)artition 8enerally a Matter of 7ight
As a general rule- any co>heir
may demand partition at any time. This is the same
rule laid down in Art#@# par13
Art. 494. No co-owner sha be obged to
reman n the co-ownershp. Each co-owner may
demand at any tme the partton of the thng
owned n common, nsofar as hs share s
concerned.
Nevertheess, an agreement to keep the thng
undvded for a certan perod of tme, not
exceedng ten years, sha be vad. Ths term
may be extended by a new agreement.
A donor or testator may prohbt partton for a
perod whch sha not exceed twenty years.
Nether sha there be any partton when t s
prohbted by aw.
No prescrpton sha run n favor of a co-owner
or co-her aganst hs co-owners or co-hers so
ong as he expressy or mpedy recognzes the
co-ownershp.
EHCEPTIONS 9 des'ie &is
im'osed indi#ision( 'a$iion ma" !e demanded=
#. 4hen any of the
causes for dissolution of a partnership
occurs< under (rts. #E200#E2#I
Art. 1830. Dssouton s caused:
(1) Wthout voaton of the agreement
between the partners:
(a) By the termnaton of the defnte
term or partcuar undertakng
specfed n the agreement;
(b) By the express w of any partner,
who must act n good fath, when no
defnte term or partcuar s specfed;
(c) By the express w of a the partners
who have not assgned ther nterests
or suffered them to be charged for
ther separate debts, ether before or
after the termnaton of any specfed
term or partcuar undertakng;
(d) By the expuson of any partner from
the busness bona fde n accordance
wth such a power conferred by the
agreement between the partners;
(2) In contraventon of the agreement
between the partners, where the
crcumstances do not permt a
Ryan Ouan 160
ST ST
dssouton under any other provson of
ths artce, by the express w of any
partner at any tme;
(3) By any event whch makes t unawfu
for the busness of the partnershp to be
carred on or for the members to carry t
on n partnershp;
(4) When a specfc thng whch a partner
had promsed to contrbute to the
partnershp, pershes before the
devery; n any case by the oss of the
thng, when the partner who contrbuted
t havng reserved the ownershp
thereof, has ony transferred to the
partnershp the use or en|oyment of the
same; but the partnershp sha not be
dssoved by the oss of the thng when
t occurs after the partnershp has
acqured the ownershp thereof;
(5) By the death of any partner;
(6) By the nsovency of any partner or of
the partnershp;
(7) By the cv nterdcton of any partner;
(8) By decree of court under the foowng
artce.
Art. 1831. On appcaton by or for a partner
the court sha decree a dssouton
whenever:
(1) A partner has been decared nsane n
any |udca proceedng or s shown to be
of unsound mnd;
(2) A partner becomes n any other way
ncapabe of performng hs part of the
partnershp contract;
(3) A partner has been guty of such
conduct as tends to affect pre|udcay
the carryng on of the busness;
(4) A partner wfuy or persstenty
commts a breach of the partnershp
agreement, or otherwse so conducts
hmsef n matters reatng to the
partnershp busness that t s not
reasonaby practcabe to carry on the
busness n partnershp wth hm;
(5) The busness of the partnershp can
ony be carred on at a oss;
(6) Other crcumstances render a
dssouton equtabe.
On the appcaton of the purchaser of
a partner's nterest under Artce 1813 or
1814:
(1) After the termnaton of the specfed
term or partcuar undertakng;
(2) At any tme f the partnershp was a
partnershp at w when the nterest was
assgned or when the chargng order
was ssued.
2. 4hen the Court finds
co6pelling reasons for partition.
5hen the co>heirs agree on
indi*ision for a period not e/ceeding 1Ayears-
renewa.le for li+e periods.
A$. 1C<4. Vo*una$" &ei$s u'on %&om some
condiion &as !een im'osed canno demand
a 'a$iion uni* &e condiion &as !een
fu*fi**ed; !u &e o&e$ coG&ei$s ma" demand i
!" )i#in) sufficien secu$i" fo$ &e $i)&s
%&ic& &e fo$me$ ma" &a#e in case &e
condiion s&ou*d !e com'*ied %i&( and uni*
i is 2no%n &a &e condiion &as no !een
fu*fi**ed o$ can ne#e$ !e com'*ied %i&( &e
'a$iion s&a** !e unde$sood o !e
'$o#isiona*.
Application of Article 9 nstitutions with a 'uspensi*e
Condition
7ationale
The heir instituted under a
suspensi*e condition acquires no rights unless and
until the condition happens.
The other heirs not so instituted-
howe*er- should not .e depri*ed of their right to
demand partition- su.Dect to the o.ligation to protect
the inchoate right of the conditional heir- .y
furnishing adequate security.
A$. 1C<5. In &e 'a$iion of &e esae( equa*i"
s&a** !e o!se$#ed as fa$ as 'ossi!*e( di#idin)
&e '$o'e$" ino *os( o$ assi)nin) o eac& of
&e coG&ei$s &in)s of &e same nau$e( qua*i"
and 2ind.
&QBA"TI AMON8 CO>=&7'
Quantitati*e 9 the shares of the
co>heirs are not necessarily equal in *alue- .ut are
determined .y the law and .y will.
Qualitati*e 9 whate*er the
aliquot portions .e- howe*er- the law mandates
equality in nature- +ind and quality- so that if A gets
a parcel of rice land- 2 should also .e gi*en one.
&PC&)TON' L QBA"1CATON' to the requirement of
Qualitati*e &quality 9
1. f the causante has made the partition himself
2. f the co>heirs agree otherwise
!. f qualitati*e equality is impossi.le or impractica.le.
Ryan Ouan 161
ST ST
A$. 1C<8. S&ou*d a &in) !e indi#isi!*e( o$ %ou*d
!e muc& im'ai$ed !" is !ein) di#ided( i ma"
!e adJudicaed o one of &e &ei$s( '$o#ided
&e s&a** 'a" &e o&e$s &e e+cess in cas&.
Ne#e$&e*ess( if an" of &e &ei$s s&ou*d
demand &a &e &in) !e so*d a 'u!*ic
aucion and &a s$an)e$s !e a**o%ed o !id(
&is mus !e done.
This is another instance of constructi*e partition3 sale of
the thing and di*ision of the proceeds among the heirs.
This will ha*e to .e resorted to if the thing is essentially
indi*isi.le or in physical partition will so diminish its *alue
that it .ecomes unser*icea.le or useless.
To whom thing may .e sold3
1. To a !
rd
person- or
2. f none of the co>heirs
o.Dect- to any one of them who is interested. f
more than one are interested in .uying- they
may .uy it Dointly and ha*e the proceeds
distri.uted among the others to the e/tent of
their respecti*e shares. 2ut the co>ownership
will continue as to the .uyers.
A$. 1C<7. In &e 'a$iion &e coG&ei$s s&a**
$eim!u$se one ano&e$ fo$ &e income and
f$uis %&ic& eac& one of &em ma" &a#e
$ecei#ed f$om an" '$o'e$" of &e esae( fo$
an" usefu* and necessa$" e+'enses made
u'on suc& '$o'e$"( and fo$ an" dama)e
&e$eo &$ou)& ma*ice o$ ne)*ec.
MBTBA" ACCOBNTN8
Bpon partition- the co>heirs shall
render a mutual accounting of .enefits recei*ed and
e/penses- .oth necessary and useful- incurred .y
each of them.
Thus- any heir who .etween the
decedent4s death and partition time- recei*ed fruits
from the estate shall reim.urse his co>heirs their
respecti*e shares- in proportion to the hereditary
interest of each.
'imilarly- any heir who incurred
necessary or useful e/penses on the hereditary
estate may demand reim.ursement from his co>
heirs in the same proportion.
This article lays down the same
rule contained in the Title on Co>ownership under
Art%AA3
Art. 500. Upon partton, there sha be a
mutua accountng for benefts receved and
rembursements for expenses made. Lkewse,
each co-owner sha pay for damages caused by
reason of hs neggence or fraud.
A$. 1C<<. S&ou*d an" of &e &ei$s se** &is
&e$edia$" $i)&s o a s$an)e$ !efo$e &e
'a$iion( an" o$ a** of &e coG&ei$s ma" !e
su!$o)aed o &e $i)&s of &e 'u$c&ase$ !"
$eim!u$sin) &im fo$ &e '$ice of &e sa*e(
'$o#ided &e" do so %i&in &e 'e$iod of one
mon& f$om &e ime &e" %e$e noified in
%$iin) of &e sa*e !" &e #endo$.
7ight of an =eir to Con*ey 'hare 2efore )artition
'uccessional rights *est upon
the decedent4s death. Consequently- an heir may
dispose of his aliquot share after that time< he may
do this gratuitously or onerously.
78=T O1 7&$&M)TON N CA'& O1 'A"&
n the e*ent any co>heir sells his
aliquot portion to a stranger .efore partition time-
this article entitles any co>heir to redeem the portion
sold.
A. 'ale must .e to a stranger 9 a stranger within
the meaning of this article is anyone who is
not a co>heir. :2asa *. Aguilar;
B. 5hen right of redemption may .e e/ercised 9
the right may .e e/ercised only before
partition- not after. :Caro *. CA;
7equirement of 5ritten Notice
The article gi*es the co>heirs
the right of redemption- which can .e e/ercised
within one month from written notice to them .y the
*endor.
5ritten notice therefore is
required< without it the period does not commence to
run. The 'C has- as a rule- interpreted this
requirement of written notice strictly.
$arcia 8. Calali6an 9 5ritten
notice is indispensa.le- actual +nowledge of the sale
acquired in some other manners .y the
redemptioner- notwithstanding. =e or she is still
entitled to written notice to remo*e all uncertainty as
to the sale- its terms and its *alidity- and to quiet any
dou.t that the alienation is not definiti*e. The law not
ha*ing pro*ided for any alternati*e- the method of
notifications remains e/clusi*e- though the Code
does not prescri.e any particular form of written
notice nor any distincti*e method for written
notification of redemption.
The same rule is laid down in Art1(2A which applies
where the co>ownership co*ers specific property. 5hile
Ryan Ouan 162
ST ST
Article 1A?? applies where the co>ownership co*ers the
6ass of the hereditary estate. 2ut the distinction is
academic and the rule is the same.
Art. 1620. A co-owner of a thng may exercse the
rght of redempton n case the shares of a the
other co-owners or of any of them, are sod to a
thrd person. If the prce of the aenaton s
grossy excessve, the redemptoner sha pay
ony a reasonabe one.
Shoud two or more co-owners desre to
exercse the rght of redempton, they may ony
do so n proporton to the share they may
respectvey have n the thng owned n
common.
5hen more than one co>owner wish to redeem 9 implicit
in article 1A?? and e/plicit in article 1(2A is that in such
case- A"" the co>owners wishing to redeem may do so-
.ut in proportion to each one4s hereditary interest o*er
the mass.
A$. 1C<B. T&e i*es of acquisiion o$ o%ne$s&i' of
eac& '$o'e$" s&a** !e de*i#e$ed o &e coG&ei$
o %&om said '$o'e$" &as !een adJudicaed.
This is particularly important in case of registered land
.ecause the old title has to .e surrendered so that a new
title in the name of the heir may .e issued.
A$. 1CBC. 1&en &e i*e com'$ises %o o$ mo$e
'ieces of *and %&ic& &a#e !een assi)ned o
%o o$ mo$e coG&ei$s( o$ %&en i co#e$s one
'iece of *and %&ic& &as !een di#ided !e%een
%o o$ mo$e coG&ei$s( &e i*e s&a** !e
de*i#e$ed o &e one &a#in) &e *a$)es
ine$es( and au&enic co'ies of &e i*e s&a**
!e fu$nis&ed o &e o&e$ coG&ei$s a &e
e+'ense of &e esae. If &e ine$es of eac&
coG&ei$ s&ou*d !e &e same( &e o*des s&a**
&a#e &e i*e.
This article only pro*ides for the right o*er the document.
The co>heirs howe*er ha*e the right to ha*e the title
di*ided into indi*idual titles- a separate one for each of
the owners to correspond to the separate portions held
.y them respecti*ely.

S.BS%C,*+) 2. 0 %ffects of Partition
A$. 1CB1. A 'a$iion *e)a**" made confe$s u'on
eac& &ei$ &e e+c*usi#e o%ne$s&i' of &e
'$o'e$" adJudicaed o &im.
The effect of partition is termination of co>ownership.
A$. 1CB@. Afe$ &e 'a$iion &as !een made( &e
coG&ei$s s&a** !e $eci'$oca**" !ound o
%a$$an &e i*e o( and &e qua*i" of( eac&
'$o'e$" adJudicaed.
O2"8ATON O1 MBTBA" 5A77ANTI
)artition among co>heirs
imposes upon them the same mutual o.ligation of
warranties imposed among co>owners in general.
According to Art%A13 ,&*ery co>
owner shall- after partition- .e lia.le for defects of
title and quality of the portion assigned to each of
the other co>owners.0
7B"& ON 5A77ANT&'
The applica.le rules on
warranties are found in Articles 1%#7>1%?A in the title
on 'ales- insofar as those articles are not
inconsistent with the rules gi*en in this su.section.
A$. 1CBA. T&e $eci'$oca* o!*i)aion of %a$$an"
$efe$$ed o in &e '$ecedin) a$ic*e s&a** !e
'$o'o$ionae o &e $es'eci#e &e$edia$"
s&a$es of &e coG&ei$s( !u if an" one of &em
s&ou*d !e inso*#en( &e o&e$ coG&ei$s s&a**
!e *ia!*e fo$ &is 'a$ in &e same '$o'o$ion(
deducin) &e 'a$ co$$es'ondin) o &e one
%&o s&ou*d !e indemnified.
T&ose %&o 'a" fo$ &e inso*#en &ei$ s&a**
&a#e a $i)& of acion a)ains &im fo$
$eim!u$semen( s&ou*d &is financia* condiion
im'$o#e.
)roportional "ia.ility of Co>heirs on 5arranty
2urdens should .e proportional
to .enefits.
nsol*ency of One of O.ligors 9 should one of the co>
heirs .ound to ma+e good the warranty .e insol*ent- his
portion shall .e .orne proportionally .y all- including the
one entitled to the warranty3 &/ample >
Co>heirs are A- 2- C- $ and & in
equal shares of )(A+ each. 2 claims warranty for
the total amount of his share .ecause he was
e*icted.
A- C- $ and & ha*e to contri.ute
)12+ each to ma+e good the warranty. 'ince there
was e*iction in the amount of )(A+- the total *alue to
.e partitioned was only )2#A+- hence )#?+ each.
'hould A .e insol*ent- his )12+
share shall .e .orne .y all the others- including 2.
=ence- C- $ and & ha*e to contri.ute )!+ more-
ma+ing their indi*idual lia.ility )1%+. 2 recei*es a
Ryan Ouan 163
ST ST
total of )#%+- ha*ing .orne his own share of )!+
from A4s insol*ency.
&PC&)TON to right to reim.ursement from insol*ent
o.ligor3 insol*ency that is Dudicially declared- under the
nsol*ency "aw- since Dudicially declared insol*ency
e/tinguishes all o.ligations.
A$. 1CB4. An acion o enfo$ce &e %a$$an"
amon) &ei$s mus !e !$ou)& %i&in en "ea$s
f$om &e dae &e $i)& of acion acc$ues.
A$. 1CB5. If a c$edi s&ou*d !e assi)ned as
co**eci!*e( &e coG&ei$s s&a** no !e *ia!*e fo$
&e su!sequen inso*#enc" of &e de!o$ of
&e esae( !u on*" fo$ &is inso*#enc" a &e
ime &e 'a$iion is made.
T&e %a$$an" of &e so*#enc" of &e
de!o$ can on*" !e enfo$ced du$in) &e fi#e
"ea$s fo**o%in) &e 'a$iion.
CoG&ei$s do no %a$$an !ad de!s( if so
2no%n o( and acce'ed !"( &e dis$i!uee.
Eu if suc& de!s a$e no assi)ned o a coG
&ei$( and s&ou*d !e co**eced( in %&o*e o$ in
'a$( &e amoun co**eced s&a** !e dis$i!ued
'$o'o$ionae*" amon) &e &ei$s.
Credit Assigned to Co>=eir in )artition
The warranty co*ers only
insol*ency of the decedent4s de.tor at the time of
partition- not su.sequent insol*ency- for which the
co>heir ta+es the ris+.
1oolhardy is the co>heir who will
accept a collecti.le as part of his share in the
partition. A credit- e*en under the .est of
circumstances- is aleatory.
The warranty has a special prescripti*e period of 1K&
G%E I&A7'.
2ad $e.t Assigned to a Co>=eir
A co>heir who accepts a +nown
.ad de.t as his share is either a fool or a masochist.
A$. 1CB8. T&e o!*i)aion of %a$$an" amon) coG
&ei$s s&a** cease in &e fo**o%in) cases=
>1? 1&en &e esao$ &imse*f &as made &e
'a$iion( un*ess i a''ea$s( o$ i ma" !e
$easona!*" '$esumed( &a &is inenion
%as o&e$%ise( !u &e *e)iime s&a**
a*%a"s $emain unim'ai$ed;
>@? 1&en i &as !een so e+'$ess*" si'u*aed
in &e a)$eemen of 'a$iion( un*ess
&e$e &as !een !ad fai&;
>A? 1&en &e e#icion is due o a cause
su!sequen o &e 'a$iion( o$ &as !een
caused !" &e fau* of &e dis$i!uee of
&e '$o'e$".
This article enumerates the instances when there is
NO MBTBA" 5A77ANTI. t is not accurate to refer to it
as a cessation- since there was none to .egin with.
These are 9
1. )artition .y the testator himself 9 sa*e where the
legitime is impaired.
2. Agreement among the co>heirs to suppress the
warranty.
!. 'uper*ening e*ents causing the loss or the
diminution in *alue.
#. 1ault of the co>heir
%. 5ai*er
S.BS%C,*+) 2. 0 &escission and )ullity
of Partition
A$. 1CB7. A 'a$iion ma" !e $escinded o$
annu**ed fo$ &e same causes as con$acs.
CA0SES .OR ANN0L,ENT
Art. 1!@A. The following contracts are *oida.le or
annulla.le- e*en though there may ha*e .een no
damage to the contracting parties3
G1E Those where one of the parties is incapa.le
of gi*ing consent to a contract<
G2E Those where the consent is *itiated .y
mista+e- *iolence- intimidation- undue
influence or fraud.
These contracts are .inding- unless they are
annulled .y a proper action in court. They are
suscepti.le of ratification.
CA0SES .OR RESCISSION
Art. 1!?1. The following contracts are rescissi.le3
G1E Those which are entered into .y guardians
whene*er the wards whom they represent suffer
lesion .y more than one>fourth of the *alue of
the things which are the o.Dect thereof<
G2E Those agreed upon in representation of
a.sentees- if the latter suffer the lesion stated in
the preceding num.er<
G!E Those underta+en in fraud of creditors when the
latter cannot in any other manner collect the
claims due them<
G#E Those which refer to things under litigation if they
ha*e .een entered into .y the defendant
Ryan Ouan 164
ST ST
without the +nowledge and appro*al of the
litigants or of competent Dudicial authority<
G%E All other contracts specially declared .y law to .e
su.Dect to rescission.
)aragraphs 1 and 2 are modified .y the following article.
A$. 1CB<. A 'a$iion( Judicia* o$ e+$aGJudicia*(
ma" a*so !e $escinded on accoun of *esion(
%&en an" one of &e coG&ei$s $ecei#ed &in)s
%&ose #a*ue is *ess( !" a *eas oneGfou$&(
&an &e s&a$e o %&ic& &e is eni*ed(
conside$in) &e #a*ue of &e &in)s a &e ime
&e" %e$e adJudicaed.
"&'ON is economic inDury- where the party recei*es
less than he is entitled to recei*e. "esion is e/ceedingly
difficult to determine and e*aluate and is *iewed with
increasing disfa*or .y modern ci*il law.
Amount of "esion
The minimum e/tent of lesion
for rescission to .e a*aila.le is ON&>1OB7T= or
2%J.
Note the slight *ariation from
paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art1!?1 which specifies
MO7& than R. &*idently- in cases of partition of the
inheritance- Art1A@? applies.
AN &PC&)TON TO T=' A7TC"& ' 1OBN$ N T=&
1O""O5N8 A7TC"&.
A$. 1CBB. T&e 'a$iion made !" &e esao$
canno !e im'u)ned on &e )$ound of *esion(
e+ce' %&en &e *e)iime of &e com'u*so$"
&ei$s is &e$e!" '$eJudiced( o$ %&en i
a''ea$s o$ ma" $easona!*" !e '$esumed( &a
&e inenion of &e esao$ %as o&e$%ise.
This article is an e/ception to the preceding article.
A partition made .y the Testator himself is NOT su.Dect
to rescission e*en in case of lesion in the amount
specified in the preceding article.
EHCEPT in &e fo**o%in) cases=
1. mpairment of the
legitime :e*en if the lesion is less than one>
fourth;
2. Mista+e .y the testator
or *itiation of his intent.
A$. 11CC. T&e acion fo$ $escission on accoun of
*esion s&a** '$esc$i!e afe$ fou$ "ea$s f$om
&e ime &e 'a$iion %as made.
)rescripti*e period of 1OB7 G#E I&A7' 9 this is the
same period laid down in the general rule of rescission of
contracts under article 1!?@.
A$. 11C1. T&e &ei$ %&o is sued s&a** &a#e &e
o'ion of indemnif"in) &e '*ainiff fo$ &e
*oss( o$ consenin) o a ne% 'a$iion.
Indemni" ma" !e made !" 'a"men in
cas& o$ !" &e de*i#e$" of a &in) of &e same
2ind and qua*i" as &a a%a$ded o &e
'*ainiff.
If a ne% 'a$iion is made( i s&a** affec
nei&e$ &ose %&o &a#e no !een '$eJudiced
no$ &ose &a#e no $ecei#ed mo$e &an &ei$
Jus s&a$e.
OELIGOR:S OPTIONS 9 it is the co>heir who is sued for
rescission who has the option. =e has 2 choices3
1. To ha*e a 7e>partition-
or
2. To indemnify the co>
heir the amount of the lesion suffered.
A$. 11C@. An &ei$ %&o &as a*ienaed &e %&o*e o$
a conside$a!*e 'a$ of &e $ea* '$o'e$"
adJudicaed o &im canno mainain an acion
fo$ $escission on &e )$ound of *esion( !u &e
s&a** &a#e a $i)& o !e indemnified in cas&.
Correlated with the preceding article- this article is
unnecessary since anyway it is the party sued who is
gi*en the option.
A$. 11CA. T&e omission of one o$ mo$e o!Jecs o$
secu$iies of &e in&e$iance s&a** no cause
&e $escission of &e 'a$iion on &e )$ound
of *esion( !u &e 'a$iion s&a** !e com'*eed
!" &e dis$i!uion of &e o!Jecs o$ secu$iies
%&ic& &a#e !een omied.
ncompleteness of the partition is not a ground for
rescission. The remedy is a supplemental partition.
A$. 11C4. A 'a$iion made %i& '$ee$iion of an"
of &e com'u*so$" &ei$s s&a** no !e
$escinded( un*ess i !e '$o#ed &a &e$e %as
Ryan Ouan 165
ST ST
!ad fai& o$ f$aud on &e 'a$ of &e o&e$
'e$sons ine$esed; !u &e *ae$ s&a** !e
'$o'o$ionae*" o!*i)ed o 'a" o &e 'e$son
omied &e s&a$e %&ic& !e*on)s o &im.
This is NOT preterition under Art?%#. This is simply an
omission of a compulsory heir in the partition- the
assumption .eing something is left for him in the form of
an undisposed portion of the estate. The omitted heir
simply gets his rightful share :Non *. CA;
f the compulsory heir is one in the direct line and is
totally omitted from the inheritance- Art?%# applies.
A$. 11C5. A 'a$iion %&ic& inc*udes a 'e$son
!e*ie#ed o !e an &ei$( !u %&o is no( s&a** !e
#oid on*" %i& $es'ec o suc& 'e$son.
This is the re*erse of the preceding article. =ere an
outsider is mista+enly included in the partition. The
o.*ious remedy is to reco*er the property from him and
ha*e it redistri.uted among the proper recipients.
CA'&' 1O7 A7TC"&' 1A7?>11A%
Legasto 8. /er9osa
- On May 1!- 1@2%- 'a.ina Almadin e/ecuted a will
de*ising certain parcels of land .elonging to her- to her four
nieces- Maria KerHosa- Oli*a KerHosa- Tori.ia KerHosa- and
7uperta )alma- daughters of her sister Catalina Almadin-
designating the parcels to .e gi*en to each.
- On August ?- 1@2%- 'a.ina Almadin partitioned her
property among her aforesaid sister and nieces- e/ecuting
separate $eeds of 'ale in fa*or of each of her nieces.
- The assignees- Maria KerHosa- Tori.ia KerHosa-
Oli*a KerHosa- and 7uperta )alma- too+ possession of their
respecti*e parcels thus ceded .y 'a.ina Almadin- and
ha*e .een culti*ating them as e/clusi*e owners thereof.
- Bnfortunately- the will of 'a.ina was not admitted to
pro.ate. A complaint was filed .y the administrator see+ing
deli*ery of the parcels of land in the possession of 'a.ina4s
nieces.
As 'a.ina AlmadinUs will was disallowed for the reason that it
did not contain all the essential requisites pro*ided .y law for
its *alidity- can the aforesaid partition of her estate made .y
said testatri/ among her nieces .e deemed *alid6
- NO. t is an indispensa.le condition precedent to a
testator partitioning his estate inter *i*os that he ha*e made
a *alid will disposing of said estate among his heirs< and if
this will .e declared null and *oid- the partition made .y the
testator in pursuance of its pro*isions is li+ewise null and
*oid- for where these pro*isions cease to e/ist- the partition
made in conformity therewith also .ecomes null and *oid-
as the cessation of the cause implies the cessation of the
effect.
- And since 'a.ina- AlmadinUs will is null and *oid for
lac+ of the legal requisites- consequently- the partition
which she made of her estate among her nieces the
defendants>appellants herein- during her lifetime is li+ewise
null and *oid.
- A7T. 1A%(. f the testator should ma+e a partition of
his property .y an act inter *i*os- or .y will- such partition
shall stand in so far as it does not preDudice the legitime of
the forced heirs.
- A testator may- .y an act inter *i*os- partition his
property- .ut he must first ma+e a will with all the formalities
pro*ided for .y law. And it could not .e otherwise- for
without a will there can .e no testator< when the law-
therefore- spea+s of the partition inter *i*os made .y a
testator of his property- it necessarily refers to that property
which he has de*ised to his heirs.
- A person who disposes of his property gratis inter
*i*os is not called a testator- .ut a donor. n employing the
word Ntestator-N the law e*idently desired to distinguish
.etween one who freely donates his property in life and one
who disposes of it .y will to ta+e effect after his death.
,uason 8. ,uason
- The si.lings Angela- Nie*aes and Antonio Tuason Cr.- are
co>owners of a land in 'ampaloc- Manila- each owning an
undi*ided 1L! portion. Nie*es wanted and as+ed for a
partition of the property- .ut failing in this- she offered to
sell her 1L! portion. =er sister- .rother and mother declined
to .uy her share so she sold it to 8regorio Araneta- a
domestic corporation.
- The new co>owners e/ecuted a MOA to the effect that they
all agreed to impro*e the property .y filling it and
constructing roads and cur.s on the same and then
su.di*ide it into small lots for sale. t also pro*ided that the
co>ownership shall .e preser*ed until all the lots ha*e .een
sold.
- $uring and after the e/ecution of the MOA Atty. C. Antonio
Araneta- a mem.er of the .oard of Araneta- acted as the
attorney in fact of Angela and Antonio Tuason.
- After some time- Angela re*o+ed the powers conferred on
her attorney in fact and decided to rescind the contract and
as+ed that the property .e partitioned.
5ON the contract .e declared null and *oid .ecause its terms
*iolate the pro*ision of Art. #AA of the Ci*il Code.
- No- Art.#AA of the CC is not applica.le. The contract
far from *iolating the legal pro*ision that for.ids a co>owner
from .eing o.liged to remain a party to the community-
precisely has for its purpose and o.Dect the dissolution of
the co>ownership and of the community .y selling the parcel
held in common and di*iding the proceeds of the sale
among the co>owners. The o.ligation imposed in the
contract to preser*e the co>ownership until all the lots shall
ha*e .een sold- is a mere incident to the main o.Dect of
dissol*ing the co>ownership.
- 2y *irtue of the document- the parties thereto practically
and su.stantially entered into a contract of partnership as
the .est and most e/pedient means of e*entually dissol*ing
Ryan Ouan 166
ST ST
the co>ownership- the life of the said partnership to end
when the o.Dect of its creation shall ha*e .een attained.
- Art. #AA3 No co>owners shall .e o.liged to remain a party to
the community. &ach may- at any time- demand the
partition of the thing held in common.
- Ne*ertheless- an agreement to +eep the thing undi*ided for
a specified length of time- not e/ceeding ten years- shall .e
*alid. This period may .e a new agreement.
$arcia 8. Calinisan
- 8elacio 8arcia died intestate- lea*ing a parcel of
unregistered land loilo.O
- n his death the property was inherited .y his nephews-
nieces- grandnephews who are the descendants of his late
.rothers- )edro- 'imeon- 2uena*entura and Marcos.
- A group of heirs signed a document entitled ,&/traDudicial
)artition and $eed of 'ale0. n the same document- the
heirs transferred the land to 'pouses Calaliman.
- The document was inscri.ed in the 7$ of loilo.
- 2 wee+s after- another group of heirs sold to 'pouses
Calaliman their shares- rights- interest and participation in
the same parcel of land. The $eed of 'ale was registered
in the 7$ of loilo.
- % months after- some of the heirs Gpetitioners hereinE filed a
case for legal redemption of the ^ of the land which was
sold .y their co>heirs to 'pouses Calaliman.
- The trial court ruled in fa*or of petitioners and ordering
defendants to resell the property.
- =owe*er- the CA re*ersed the decision and ordered for the
dismissal of the complaint.
- =ence- this petition.
5hether petitioners e/ercised their right of redemption within
the period fi/ed .y Art. 1A??.
- I&'. The 'C re*ersed the decision of the CA and
reinstated the decision of the trial court.
- No notification in writing was e*er recei*ed .y petitioners
a.out the sale of the hereditary interest of some of their co>
heirs in the parcel of land they inherited from the late
8elacio 8arcia.
- Also- the 'C held untena.le the argument of respondents
that the requirement that the notice must .e in writing is
deemed satisfied when petitioner 1rancisco 8arcia went to
the Office of the 7egister of $eeds and saw for himself-
read and understood the contents of the deeds of sale.
- 2y citing another case- the Court did not consider the
registration of the deed of sale with the 7egister of $eeds
sufficient notice- most specially .ecause the property
in*ol*ed was unregistered land.
- Thus- the 'C held that petitioners ha*e not lost their right to
redeem- for in the a.sence of a written notification of the
sale .y the *endors- the !A>day period has not e*en .egun
to run.
- The 'C also declared that petitioners can claim attorneyUs
fees for .ad faith on the part of respondents- first- for
refusing redemption- and secondly for declaring the entire
land as theirs- although they +new some heirs had not sold
their shares.
- n the interpretation of a related pro*ision GArticle 1(2! of
the New Ci*il CodeE this Court had stressed that written
notice is indispensa.le- actual +nowledge of the sale
acquired in some other manners .y the redemptioner-
notwithstanding. =e or she is still entitled to written notice-
as e/acted .y the Code- to remo*e all uncertainty as to the
sale- its terms and its *alidity- and to quiet any dou.t that
the alienation is not definiti*e. The law not ha*ing pro*ided
for any alternati*e- the method of notifications remains
e/clusi*e- though the Code does not prescri.e any
particular form of written notice nor any distincti*e method
for written notification of redemption.
- n the a.sence of a written notification of the sale .y the
*endors- the !A>day period pro*ided in Art. 1A?? has not
e*en .egun to run.
Balanay Jr. 8. 'artine9
.y her- disposing of her hus.andUs one>half share.
- The will also pro*ided that the properties should not .e
di*ided during her hus.andUs lifetime .ut should remain
intact and that the legitimes should .e paid in cash to .e
satisfied out of the fruits of the properties.
of her children.
- $uring the pendency of the pro.ate proceedings 1eli/
su.mitted to the court a document showing his fatherUs
conformity to the testamentary distri.ution- renouncing his
hereditary rights in fa*or of his children in deference to the
memory of his wife.
- The Court ga*e effect to the affida*it and conformity of the
sur*i*ing spouse.
- Meanwhile- a certain Atty. $a*id MontaSa- 'r. allegedly- in
.ehalf of the petitioner- mo*ed to dismiss the pro.ate
proceedings and requested authority to proceed .y intestate
proceedings on the ground that the will was *oid G.ecause
"eodegaria cannot *alidly dispose of her hus.and4s shareE.
- This motion was granted .y the pro.ate court and the
petition for the allowance of the will was dismissed.
- 1eli/ appealed the decision of the trial court declaring the
will *oid .efore resol*ing the question of its formal *alidity.
are of du.ious legality- and .ecause of the motion to
withdraw the petition for pro.ate Gwhich the lower court
assumed to ha*e .een filed with the petitionerUs
authoriHationE- the trial court acted correctly in passing upon
the willUs intrinsic *alidity e*en .efore its formal *alidity had
.een esta.lished.
considerations demand that the intrinsic *alidity of the will
.e passed upon- e*en .efore it is pro.ated- the court should
meet the issue
5hether or not the testator *alidly prohi.ited the partition of her
properties until after the lifetime of her hus.and and
consequently ordered that the legitimes .e paid in cash.
- This pro*ision of the will is *oid. 1irst- the prohi.ition to
partition the estate is only *alid for twenty years. =ence- the
Ryan Ouan 167
ST ST
prohi.ition lasting for the hus.and4s lifetime shall .e limited
to 2A years.
- 'econd- the pro*ision stating that the legitimes should .e
paid in cash is contrary to article 1A?A of the Ci*il Code
- The only instance when the legitimes could .e paid in cash
is when an agricultural- commercial or manufacturing
enterprise is granted to one or more children- in which case
the legitimes of the other children to whom the property was
not assigned shall .e paid in cash. The article is not
applica.le when such property is de*ised to all the children.
- Art 1A?A
(le>andro 8. C(
$arcia 8. Calai6an
/erdad 8. C(
- Macaria Atega was the owner of a parcel of land. At the
time of her death- she was sur*i*ed .y her son from the
first marriage- 7amon .urdeos and her children from the
second marriage- including $a*id 7osales.
- 'ometime after Macaria4s death- $a*id 7osales li+ewise
died intestate lea*ing his wife 'ocorro and his .rothers and
sisters as his only heirs.
- The heirs of 7amon 2urdeos sold to Tosima Kerdad their
interest on the lot inherited from Macaria.
- 'ocorro disco*ered the sale while she was on the City
Treasurer4s Office and that a day after- she immediately
sought for the redemption of the property for )2!-AAA. This
offer was refused .y Tosima for .eing inadequate- the lot4s
current *alue .eing ?A-AAA.
- =ence- 'ocorro filed a claim for legal redemption against
Tosima Kerdad.
5hether or Not 'ocorro has the legal standing to redeem said
property
- Ies. t must .e remem.ered that 'ocorro is not filing for
the legal redemption as an intestate heir of the mother>in>
law- apparently she is not one. 'ocorro deri*ed the right
from her hus.and- part of whose estate is a share in the
mother4s inheritance.
- t must .e remem.ered that $a*id sur*i*ed his mother-
and hence when $a*id died- the inheritance deri*ed from
his mother was transmitted to the wife.
5hether or not the cause of action already prescri.ed
- No. According to Art 1(2! of the Ci*il Code- the right of
redemption is to .e e/ercised within !A days from written
notice .y the prospecti*e *endor.
- The written notice under said article has .een declared
mandatory .y the court so as to remo*e all uncertainties
a.out the sale- its terms and conditions- as well as its
efficacy and status.
- The written notice of sale- which will commence the
prescripti*e period for the filing of an action for legal
redemption granted to heirs- is MAN$ATO7I.

EN- O. .INALS REVIE1ER
CO,PARISON O. R0LES ON TESTATE
AN- INTESTATE S0CCESSION
R0LE
TESTATE INTESTATE NOTES
RIGHT O.
ACCRETION
Art. 1A1(. n order that the right of
accretion may ta+e place in a
Art. 1A1?. n legal succession the
share of the person who
Art. 1A1%. Accretion is a right .y
*irtue of which- when two or
Ryan Ouan 168
ST ST
testamentary succession- it
shall .e necessary3
G1E That two or more persons
.e called to the same
inheritance- or to the same
portion thereof- pro
indi*iso< and
G2E That one of the persons
thus called die .efore the
testator- or renounce the
inheritance- or .e
incapacitated to recei*e it.
Art. 1A22. n testamentary
succession- when the right of
accretion does not ta+e place-
the *acant portion of the
instituted heirs- if no su.stitute
has .een designated- shall
pass to the legal heirs of the
testator- who shall recei*e it
with the same charges and
o.ligations.
repudiates the inheritance shall
always accrue to his co>heirs.
Art. @(?. f there are se*eral
relati*es of the same degree-
and one or some of them are
unwilling or incapacitated to
succeed- his portion shall
accrue to the others of the
same degree- sa*e the right of
representation when it should
ta+e place.
more persons are called to the
same inheritance- de*ise or
legacy- the part assigned to the
one who renounces or cannot
recei*e his share- or who died
.efore the testator- is added or
incorporated to that of his co>
heirs- co>de*isees- or co>
legatees.
Art. 1A1@. The heirs to whom the
portion goes .y the right of
accretion ta+e it in the same
proportion that they inherit.
Art. 1A21. Among the compulsory
heirs the right of accretion shall
ta+e place only when the free
portion is left to two or more of
them- or to any one of them and
to a stranger.
'hould the part repudiated
.e the legitime- the other co>
heirs shall succeed to it in their
own right- and not .y the right of
accretion.
CAPACITF TO
S0CCEE-
Art. 1A2%. n order to .e
capacitated to inherit- the heir-
de*isee or legatee must .e
li*ing at the moment the
succession opens- e/cept in
case of representation- when it
is proper.
A child already concei*ed
at the time of the death of the
decedent is capa.le of
succeeding pro*ided it .e .orn
later under the conditions
prescri.ed in article #1.
Art. 1A2%. n order to .e
capacitated to inherit- the heir-
de*isee or legatee must .e
li*ing at the moment the
succession opens- e/cept in
case of representation- when it
is proper.
A child already concei*ed
at the time of the death of the
decedent is capa.le of
succeeding pro*ided it .e .orn
later under the conditions
prescri.ed in article #1.
Art. 1A2#. )ersons not
incapacitated .y law may
succeed .y will or a. intestato.
The pro*isions relating to
incapacity .y will are equally
applica.le to intestate
succession.
ACCEPTANCE
OR
REP0-IATION
O.
INHERITANCE
Art. 1A%%. f a person- who is called
to the same inheritance as an
heir .y will and a. intestato-
repudiates the inheritance in his
capacity as a testamentary heir-
he is understood to ha*e
repudiated it in .oth capacities.
'hould he repudiate it as
an intestate heir- without
+nowledge of his .eing a
testamentary heir- he may still
accept it in the latter capacity.
Art. 1A%%. f a person- who is called
to the same inheritance as an
heir .y will and a. intestato-
repudiates the inheritance in his
capacity as a testamentary heir-
he is understood to ha*e
repudiated it in .oth capacities.
'hould he repudiate it as
an intestate heir- without
+nowledge of his .eing a
testamentary heir- he may still
accept it in the latter capacity.
Art. 1A#1. The acceptance or
repudiation of the inheritance is
an act which is purely *oluntary
and free.
Art. 1A#2. The effects of the
acceptance or repudiation shall
always retroact to the moment
of the death of the decedent.
Art. 1A#!. No person may accept
or repudiate an inheritance
unless he is certain of the death
of the person from whom he is
to inherit- and of his right to the
inheritance.
HAL. ELOO-
AN- .0LL
ELOO-
EROTHERS
AN- SISTERS
Art. ?#?. f the testator should
institute his .rothers and
sisters- and he has some of full
.lood and others of half .lood-
the inheritance shall .e
Art. 1AA(. 'hould .rother and
sisters of the full .lood sur*i*e
together with .rothers and
sisters of the half .lood- the
former shall .e entitled to a
Ryan Ouan 169
ST ST
distri.uted equally unless a
different intention appears.
share dou.le that of the latter.
REPRESENTA
TION
Art. ?%(. A *oluntary heir who dies
.efore the testator transmits
nothing to his heirs.
A compulsory heir who dies .efore
the testator- a person
incapacitated to succeed- and
one who renounces the
inheritance- shall transmit no
right to his own heirs e/cept in
cases e/pressly pro*ided for in
this Code.
Art. @(@. f the inheritance should
.e repudiated .y the nearest
relati*e- should there .e one
only- or .y all the nearest
relati*es called .y law to
succeed- should there .e
se*eral- those of the following
degree shall inherit in their own
right and cannot represent the
person or persons repudiating
the inheritance.
Art. @72. The right of
representation ta+es place in
the direct descending line- .ut
ne*er in the ascending.
n the collateral line- it
ta+es place only in fa*or of the
children of .rothers or sisters-
whether they .e of the full or
half .lood.
Art. @7!. n order that
representation may ta+e place-
it is necessary that the
representati*e himself .e
capa.le of succeeding the
decedent.
Art. @7#. 5hene*er there is
succession .y representation-
the di*ision of the estate shall
.e made per stirpes- in such
manner that the representati*e
or representati*es shall not
inherit more than what the
person they represent would
inherit- if he were li*ing or could
inherit.
Art. @7%. 5hen children of one or
more .rothers or sisters of the
deceased sur*i*e- they shall
inherit from the latter .y
representation- if they sur*i*e
with their uncles or aunts. 2ut if
they alone sur*i*e- they shall
inherit in equal portions.
Ryan Ouan 170

Jen Succession Reviewera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jen Succession Reviewera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUCCESSION REVIEWER SUCCESSION REVIEWER 1 1

End of ,ide$ms Co#e$a)e

You might also like