1.

BELLIS VS BELLIS 20 SCRA 358

FACTS: Amos Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas, and of the United States. By his first wife whom
he divorced he had five legitimate children, by his second wife, who survived him, he had three legitimate
children, and three illegitimate children. Before he died, he made two wills, one disposing of his Texas
properties and the other disposing his Philippine properties. In both wills, his illegitimate children were not
given anything. The illegitimate children opposed the will on the ground that they have been deprived of
their legitimes to which they should be entitled, if Philippine law were to be applied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the national law of the deceased should determine the successional rights of the
illegitimate children.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the said children are not entitled to their legitimes under the Texas
Law, being the national law of the deceased, there are no legitimes.


LLORENTE VS CA GR NO 124371 11/23/00
Nationality Principle

FACTS: Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente was married before a parish priest. Before the outbreak of
war, Lorenzo departed for the United States and Paula was left at the conjugal home. Lorenzo was
naturalized by the United State. After the liberation of the Philippines he went home and visited his wife to
which he discovered that his wife was pregnant and was having an adulterous relationship. Lorenzo
returned to the US and filed for divorce. Lorenzo married Alicia LLorente; they lived together for 25 years
and begot 3 children. Lorenzo on his last will and testament bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their
3 children. Paula filed a petition for letters administration over Lorenzos estate. The RTC ruled in favor of
Paula. On appeal, the decision was modified declaring Alicia as co-owner of whatever properties they
have acquired. Hence, this petition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES: Whether or not the divorce obtained by Lorenzo capacitated him to remarry. Who are entitled to
inherit from the late Lorenzo Llorente?

HELD: In Van Dorn vs Ramillo Jr. the Supreme Court held that owing to the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against
absolute divorce. In the same case, the Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorce abroad provided that
they are valid according to their national law. The Supreme Court held that divorce obtained by Lorenzo
from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of origin for the determination of the intrinsic validity
of Lorenzos will and determine the successional rights allowing proof of foreign law. The deceased is not
covered by our laws on family rights and duties, status, condition and legal capacity since he was a
foreigner.



CASTAEDA v. ALEMANY
GR No.1439, March 19, 1904 3 PHIL 426

FACTS: Appellant constested the validity of the will of Doa Juana Moreno upon the ground that although
the attestation clause in the will states that the testator signed the will in the presence of three witnesses
who also each signed in each presence, the will was not actually written by the testator.

ISSUE: Is it necessary that a will be written by the testator herself?

HELD: No. Section 618 of the Civil Code requires (1) that the will be in writing and (2) either that the
testator sign it himself or, if he does not sign it, that it be signed by someone in his presence and by his
express direction. Who does the mechanical work of writing the will is a matter of indifference. The fact,
therefore, that in this case the will was typewritten in the office of the lawyer for the testratrix is of no
consequence.




TESTATE ESTATE OF FELICIDAD ESGUERRA ALTO-YAP deceased. FAUSTO E. GAN, petitioner-
appellant,vs. ILDEFONSO YAP, oppositor-appellee.G.R. No. L-12190, August 30, 1958

FACTS:
On November 20, 1951, Felicidad Esguerra Alto Yap died of heart failure in the University of SantoTomas
Hospital, leaving properties in Pulilan, Bulacan, and in the City of Manila.

On March 17, 1952, Fausto E. Gan initiated these proceedings in the Manila court of first instance with
apetition for the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by the deceased.Opposing the petition,
her surviving husband Ildefonso Yap asserted that the deceased had not left anywill, nor executed any
testament during her lifetime.After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the Hon. Ramon R.
San Jose, Judge, refused toprobate the alleged will. A seventy-page motion for reconsideration failed.
Hence this appeal.

ISSUE:
WON a holographic will be probated upon the testimony of witnesses who have allegedly seen it andwho
declare that it was in the handwriting of the testator?

HELD
NO. The court ruled that the execution and the contents of a lost or destroyed holographic will may notbe
proved by the bare testimony of witnesses who have seen and/or read such will. The loss of
theholographic will entails the loss of the only medium of proof. Even if oral testimony were admissible
toestablish and probate a lost holographic will, we think the evidence submitted by herein petitioner is
sotainted with improbabilities and inconsistencies that it fails to measure up to that "clear and
distinct"proof required by Rule 77, sec. 6. 11.




perez v. garchitorena (1930)

Facts:
The amount of P21,428.58 is on deposit in the plaintiff's name with the association known as La
Urbana in Manila, as the final payment of the liquidated credit of Ana Maria Alcantara, deceased, whose
heiress is said plaintiff, against Andres Garchitorena, also deceased, represented by his son, the
defendant Mariano Garchitorena.
And as said Mariano Garchitorena held a judgment for P7,872.23 against Joaquin Perez Alcantara,
husband of the plaintiff, Carmen G. de Perez, the sheriff pursuant to the writ of execution issued in said
judgment, levied an attachment on said amount deposited with La Urbana.
The plaintiff, alleging that said deposit belongs to the fideicommissary heirs of the decedent Ana Maria
Alcantara, secured a preliminary injunction restraining the execution of said judgment on the sum so
attached. The defendants contend that the plaintiff is the decedent's universal heiress, and pray for the
dissolution of the injunction.

Issues:

1. Whether the amount deposited is the property of the children of the late Ana Maria Alcantara as
fideicommissary.

Ruling:
Fideicommissary substitution requires three things:
1. A first heir called primarily to the enjoyment of the estate.
2. An obligation clearly imposed upon him to preserve and transmit to a third person the whole or a part of
the estate.
3. A second heir.

The fideicommissarius or second heir should be entitled to the estate from the time of the testator's death,
which in the instant case, is, rather than a requisite, a necessary consequence derived from the nature of
the fideicommissary substitution, in which the second heir does not inherit from the heir first instituted, but
from the testator.
By virtue of this consequence, the inheritance in question does not belong to the heiress instituted, the
plaintiff herein, as her absolute property, but to her children, from the moment of the death of the testatrix,
Ana Maria Alcantara.
Therefore, said inheritance, of which the amount referred to at the beginning, which is on deposit with the
association known as La Urbana in the plaintiff's name, is a part, does not belong to her nor can it be
subject to the execution of the judgment against Joaquin Perez, who is not one of the fideicommissary
heirs.





PADURA vs BALDOVINO
G.R. No. L-11960 December 27, 1958
FACTS
Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime. With his first wife Gervacia Landig, hehad
one child, Manuel Padura. With the second wife, Benita Garing, he had two children, Fortunato
andCandelaria Padura. Agustin died on Apr 26, 1908, leaving a last will and testament, duly probated,
whereinhe bequeathed his properties among his three children and his surviving spouse, Benita
Garing.Fortunato was adjudicated four parcels of land. He died unmarried on May 28, 1908, without
havingexecuted a will; and not having any issue, the parcels of land were inherited exclusively by his
motherBenita. Benita was issued a Torrens Certificate of Title in her name, subject to the condition that
theproperties were reservable in favor of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from which
saidproperty came.On Aug 26, 1934, Candelaria died, leaving as her heirs her four legitimate children:
Cristeta,Melania, Anicia, and Pablo Baldovino (Oppositors-appellants). On Oct 6, 1940, Manuel also died,
survivedby his legitimate children Dionisia, Felisa, Flora, Cornelio, Francisco, Juana, and Severino
Padura(Petitioners-appellees) Upon the death of Benita (the reservista) on Oct 15, 1952, the heirs
took possessionof the reservable properties. CFI Laguna declared the children of Manuel and Candelaria
to be the rightfulreservees, and as such, entitled to the reservable properties (the original reservees,
Candelaria and Manuel,having predeceased the reservista)The Baldovino heirs filed a petition seeking to
have the properties partitioned, such that one-half beadjudicated to them, and the other half to the
appellees, allegedly on the basis that they inherited by right ofrepresentation from their respective
parents, the original reservees.Padura heirs opposed, maintaining that they should all be deemed as
inheriting in their own right,under which, they claim, each should have an equal share.(In essence, the
Baldovino heirs, who are whole blood relatives of the reservista, were contending that theyshould get
more than their half-blood relatives, the Padura heirs. They anchor their claim on Articles 1006and 1008
of the Civil Code)
RTC RULING
Declared all the reservees, without distinction, co-owners, pro-indiviso, in equal shares of the parcels of
land.

ISSUE
WON the reserved properties should, as the trial court held, be apportioned among the heirs equally.
HELD
NO.The nephews of the whole blood should take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half
blood.The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the reservable
property to thethird degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came, and
avoid its beingdissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant (reservista). Article 891 of
the Code provides:
ART 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may haveacquir
ed by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as
he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and
who belong to the line from which said property came.
The purpose of the reserva troncal is accomplished once the property has devolved to the
specifiedrelatives of the line of origin. But from this time on, there is no further occasion for its application.
In therelations between one reservatario and another of the same degree, there is no call for applying Art
891 anylonger; the respective share of each in the reversionary property should be governed by the
ordinary rules ofinterstate succession.Florentino v Florentino (as restated in the case): upon the death of
the ascendant reservista, thereservable property should pass, not to all the reservatorios as a class, but
only to those nearest in degree tothe descendant (prepositus), excluding those reservatarios of more
remote degree... And within the thirddegree of relationship from the descendant (prepositus), the right of
representation operates in favor ofnephews.Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic
principles of ordinary intestate succession; so isthe rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are
entitled to share double that of brothers and nephews ofhalf-blood. If in determining the rights of the
reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the right ofrepresentation of nephews are made to aply,
the rule of double share for immedaite collaterals of the wholeblood should likewise be operative

FUENTES VS CANON GR
Facts:
The testatrix died leaving a legacy of P3,000.00 a legacy for the plaintiffs. However such legacy was not
given, a security was being asked by the defendants. The court that heard the case gave favorable
judgment without distinction on how much was to be paid by each of the heirs to the legatees.
Issue:
Whether or not security should be given for the legacy and how should the amount be computed for each
of the heir to be given to the legatees.
Held:
The Court ruled that no security should be given for said legacy. There was no condition attached to the
legacy given as such no bond is required. As to the amount to be given, liability imposed upon the heirs
to pay this legacy is pro rata ( mancomunada) and in proportion to the amount of the estate to which each
one was entitled.


Ng The Hua vs Chung Kiat Kang
G.R. No. L-17091 September 30, 1963
Facts:
Chung Liu died leaving children of his first wife and his second wife, Ng The Hua. A dispute arose over
the administration of the estate between Ng The Hua and Chung Kiat Hua, one of the children of the
deceased. The RTC ruled in favor of Chung Kiat Hua after the court determined that Ng The Hua was
legally divorced from Chung Liu.
Chung Kiat Kang, a nephew of the deceased later on alleged that he be the administrator of the estate.
Issue:
Whether or not Chung Kiat Kang be appointed as administrator of the estate.
Held:
It is well-settled that for a person to be able to intervene in an administration proceeding concerning
the estate of a deceased, it is necessary for him to have interest in such estate). An interested party
has been defined in this connection as one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir, or
one who has a certain claim against the estate, such as a creditor. Appellant Chung Kiat Kang does
not claim of to be a creditor of Chung Liu's estate. Neither is he an heir in accordance with the Civil
Code of the Republic of China, the law that applies in this case, Chung Liu being a Chinese citizen.
The appellant not having any interest in Chung Liu's estate, either as heir or creditor, he cannot be
appointed as co-administrator of the estate.

Mendoza vs CA 199 SCRA 278
Facts:
The petitioners instituted before the CFI of Bulacan for the reconveyance of real property aganst the
private respondents spouses Renato and Lucia Samonte. The property was in question was sold to
the former and the appellant asserts that they have the right of redemption. Accordingly the sale
was disputed alleging that it was null and void because a mere co-owner of an undivided estate,
Trinidad Mendoza had no righto divide the estate into parts and convey a part thereof by metes and
bounds to a third person. The heirs of Arcacadio Mendoza had in fact executed a document of sale
pertaining to the lot in question stating therewith that they agree to sell such property.
Issue:
Whetehr or no the heirs of Arcadio had already partitioned his estate?
Held:
The Court ruled that there was indeed partition as evidenced by the document of sale. It evidently
describes the partition made by the accomplished heirs of the deceased. To the issue of that there
was co-ownership the estate cannot be divided, the Court ruled that it was extinguished at the time
the heirs agreed to partition the property upon the execution of the sale.


Salao vs Salao L-26699, March 16, 1976
Facts:
The spouses Manuel Salao and Valentina Ignacio of Barrio Dampalit, Malabon, Rizal begot four
children named Patricio, Alejandra, Juan (Banli) and Ambrosia. Manuel Salao died in 1885. His
eldest son, Patricio, died in 1886 survived by his only child. Valentin Salao.
The property in question is the forty-seven-hectare fishpond located at Sitio Calunuran, Lubao,
Pampanga, wherein Benita Salao-Marcelo daughter of Valentin Salao claimed 1/3 interest on the
said fishpond.
.
Juan S. Salao, Jr. on February 6, 1951 categorically stated that Valentin Salao did not have any
interest in the two fishponds and that the sole owners thereof his father Banli and his aunt Ambrosia,
as shown in the Torrens titles issued in 1911 and 1917, and that he Juani was the donee of
Ambrosias one-half share.
Benita Salao and her nephews and niece asked for the annulment of the donation to Juan S. Salao,
Jr. and for the reconveyance to them of the Calunuran fishpond as Valentin Salaos supposed one-
third share in the 145 hectares of fishpond registered in the names of Juan Y. Salao, Sr. and
Ambrosia Salao.
Issue :
Whether or not there is representation in collateral lines.
Held:
The sole legal heir of Ambrosia was her nephew, Juan, Jr., her nearest relative within the third
degree. Valentin Salao, if living in 1945 when Ambrosia died, would have been also her legal heir,
together with his first cousin, Juan, Jr. (Juani). Benita Salao, the daughter of Valentin, could not
represent him in the succession to the estate of Ambrosia since in the collateral line, representation
takes place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters whether they be of the full or half blood.
The nephew excludes a grandniece like Benita Salao or great-gandnephews like the plaintiffs
Alcuriza.