October 20, 2014

Problems involving succession would normally also have an aspect of Persons and
Family Relations. Persons is, in fact, a prerequisite of Succession. Many would claim
that succession has basis on persons and family relations. The concept for example
of comouslory heirs would go into family relations. The compulsory heirs with
legitime are those with family relations with the decedent.

Philippine law has a basis on the law of property. So its a combination of the law on
persons and property because there are rules dispose of his property. These
concepts would include devices, legacies, institutions, etc.

Just because a person would inherit ownership over a thing because the law only
says this is a mode of acquisition, not necessarily acquisition of ownership.

Even the concept of inheritance is property rights and obligations not
extinguished by the death of the person.

The changes made basically were consistent with the philosophy which guided the
Code Commission which is the socialization of ownership.

The Code Commission removed reservations. Congress deemed it wise to insert
back into our law reservoir troncal. One of the reasons is that this would
compensate the lack of representation in the ascending line. The other changes
made would include the change in the legal heirs.

If under the old code, the legal heirs are up to the 6
th
civil degree, in the new code, it
is only up to the 5
th
civil degree.

Because of this change, if there would be no heir, the State will be the one to inherit.
The Filipino people will benefit from the estate of the deceased.

Tehre are other changes with nothing to do with socialization of ownership.

Ante mortem probate. With the Civil Code of the Philippines, the testator himself
may petition for the probate of his will.

Illegitimate children were already compulsory heirs even under the Civil Code. The
Civil Code of the Philippines is the New Civil Code (do not refer to it as the old
because the Old Civil Code is the Spanish Code).

Governing law: What will govern?

There are 4 aspects of succession which are governed by the national law of the
decedent: in art.16(2): and art. 39: capacity to succeed.

Whose succession is under consideration? What is his nationality? His national law
shall govern.

Usual defects: not knowing that these 4 aspects are separate and distinct from each
other.

Example: Do not use intrinsic validity of the wills of the amount of succession rights
is the issue.

Art. 16(1) which pertains to res situs has nothing to do with succession. At best, it
may be renvoi In Velez vs Velez, the SC considered the possibility, although renvoi
was not applied to the case.

Into wills

What law shall govern the validity of this will? Never forget that there are 2
aspects as to the validity of the will: extrinsic and intrinsic.

As to extrinsic validity:

Testator who is a foreigner. At the time of the execution of the will is If you are
executing a will, you should consider the law at the time you are executing it. You
have no way of knowing the law in the future.

Before the effectivity of the Civil Code, holographic wills were not recognized. Thus,
the willw as declared void in his case.

As far as foreigners are concerned, there are 2 scenarios: he executed it abroad or in
the Philippines. If he executed it abroad, Art. 816 in relation to Art. 17 is applicable.
In Art. 816 has 3 choices [plus 1 in Art. 17, the law of the palce where the willw as
executed]

National law, domiciliary law, Philippine law, law of the place where the will was
executed.

If X was a citizen of France, permanent resident of Canada, executed the will in
Japan. In order for this will to be valid extrinsically, it must follow the national law.

If it complies with French laws, the will can be probated in the Philippines. Why
would a will of an alien have to be probated? There are properties in the Philippines
that cannot be validly distributed in accordance with that will if the will is not
probated. Gibberson case: if the will was executed abroad, does it have to be
probated before it can be probated in the Philippines? No. It may be probated here
first.

It may also comply with the law of Canada, Philippines and Japan.

He has 4 choices. It is not and, but or. So if in any of these 4 laws,

If he executed the will in the Philippines, (Art. 817 in relation to Art. 17)

In Art. 817, the alien only has 2 choices: national law or Philippine law. He is not
allowed to execute such will in accordance with his domiciliary law.

The problem is with Filipino testators.

If he executed the will in the Philippines, Philippine law shall govern.

What law shall govern as far as the extrinsic validity is concerned?

What if the Filipino is a resident of Canada? Can they execute their will in France, in
accordance with the law in Canada?

If Filipinos would execute their wills in accordance with the law of the place where
they were domiciled at the time of execution, those wills shall be considered valid
under Philippine law.

Fleumer vs Hix: Goes into proof of foreign laws. Foreign laws are to be proven. No
judicial notice.

If the foreign law is not proven, the court may as the same as Philippine law.

Dela Serna vs : goes into a will that is void on its face. This is a joint will. However,
the court issued a probate decree, which was not questioned, so it became final and
executory. Even a void will can the basis of a distribution of an estate.. and becomes
final and executory.

Our law, as far as the 4 aspects, is to be applied, we have to refer the matter to his
national law.

The premise is it is in the Philippines. The court,t o be able to determine the rights of
the aprties, would refer

Christiansen case:








Subjects:

The deceased it is his inheritance that is the topic, all the heirs are related to
him or known to him during his lifetime,
When the law says father or brother, the law means brother or father of the
deceased.

Heirs

There are heirs in the general sense (Art. 782). Anyone who is called to the
succession is an heir. It is not required for a person to be called an heir that he
succeeds. He may be an heir even though he will not actually succeed. Tagapagmana
na hindi nagmana. One of the reasons is that because the heir doesnt want to
inherit. If you dont want to inherit, you cannot be forced to inherit. Even a
compulsory heir may not inherit.

Preterition. The effect of preterition is the annulment of institution of heir but
devisees and legacies shall The only ones that will be affected are the heirs in the
specific sense.

A document can be considered as a will only if there is disposition of property. How
can there be . it may still be a valid will even if there is no institution of an heir.

Compulsory heirs May inherit despite a will
Primary Compulsory Heirs
Secondary Compulsory Heirs
Concurring Compulsory Heirs

Voluntary/Testamentary heirs They may only inherit because of a will

Legal/intestate heirs



How would we know if a person is a compulsory heir? If the law so provides. Not
only is he considered one of those enumerated, there must be another provision of
law giving him a specific legitime under specific circumstances.

Capacity to succeed

They may be heirs but they may be disqualified because

Incapacity may be absolute or relative. Absolute if the person cannot inherit under
all circumstances. They cannot inherit from anyone, in whatever capacity, involving
anything. Relative incapacity cannot inherit only from specific persons or in a
particular capacity only, or in relation to specific things.

If there is an heir, think if there is a law which incapacitates him. If there is none,
then he can succeed.

Citizen of another country. May that child inherit? Yes. Because there is no law
which incapacitates such an heir just because he is a citizen of another country.

Because the heir is suffering civil interdiction, would that incapacitate him or can he
still succeed? First, because he is suffering civil interdiction, the law only prohibits
him from disposing. Inheriting is an act of

X has a wife, Y. Five months after the death of X, Y gave birth to A. A died 5 hours
after birth. Y died later.

Art. 41.

Who are the people who are incapacitated by law?

Arts. 1027, 1028, 1032.

Art. 1027 includes priests, guardians, witnesses under the circumstances.

Art. 1032 acts of unworthiness.

In the will of X, a parcel of land was given to the wife of minister of gospel who
rendered aid to X during his illness. Can the wife inherit the land pursuant to this
will? 2
nd
paragraph of Art. 1027, within the 4
th
civil degree.

What if among the 3 witnesses, one of them is a notary public? May the will be
valid? Yes, if the notary public was not the notary public before whom the will
was In other words, the law does not disqualify a notary public.

Can an heir commit an act of unworthiness after the death of the decedent?
Yes.

A is the son of X. A and B are halfbrothers. C is the son of B. A caused the death of C.
May A still inherit from X? Yes.

If X is the common parent of A and B, A cannot inherit.

Assuming X is the common parent, A may still inherit if he had no intent to kill C.

Assuming A had intent to kill, A may still inherit if he was not convicted,

If a person is found guilty of adultery or concubinage, is he/she incapacitated?

Common misconception: The heir will be incapacitated if he committed adultery
with the spouse of the testator.

X has 2 sons, A and B. B has a son, C. B committed an act of unworthiness because B
attempted against the life of X. X left P1,000,000. Who will inherit? A and C. What
will C inherit? Art. 1035, entitled to the legitime, P250,000. A will get P750,000.

Rationale: First, B attempted to kill the decedent, A [well, C is not the one who
killed X].

Second, if B, instead of attempting to kill X, renounces his inheritance. C will not
inherit.

Object of succession

Property, rights, obligations.

Inheritance of the heir = wrong! It should be inheritance of the deceased. The heir
will have a share in the inheritance of the deceased.



An heir may assign his hereditary rights. This is not future inheritance anymore. De
Borja vs De Borja. The one who assigned his rights are the

Hereditary rights may be the subject of daiton en pago.

Art. 781(last phrase).
In 1985, X executed a will:
I hereby give to A, P10,000,000 out of my account with BPI

X died in 1995.

At the time of the settlement of the estate, interest of P3,000,000. Does the
additional P3,000,000 form part of the inheritance? Since the opening of the
succession Tolentino: That last phrase is reall wrong. Fundamentally inconsistent
with the law on succession. Inheritance is supposed to be transmitted upon death.

The heirs can only be compelled to the extent of the value of the property which
they actually received.

Question: After the death of X, the heirs saw a deed of sale over a parcel of land. In
that deed of sale, the seller was the decedent. Already in the possession of the buyer.
If that contract is a void or voidable contract (Reyes vs CA).

Opening of the succession
Art. 777, put this article to heart! Succession would open upon the death. There are
those who would claim that the world transmitted is not the appropriate word; it
should have been vested. Apparently it is vested in the sense that the heir may
decide not to accept. When the right is vested, he may accept or repudiate. Not
because it is vested, it will be transmitted.

However, the moment the heir accepts, that retroacts to the moment of death. In
effect, rights are transmitted upon death.

Who are entitled to the fruits? From the time of death. The successional rights
having been transmitted upon death

The nationality at the time of death which should be considered.

Into the requisites for the transmission of successional rights:

Only those who have free disposal can validly accept. Minors cannot be accept, but
their guardians can accept for them.

If the heir repudiated, may he be deemed to have accepted? In the first place, can he
repudiate what has not been transmitted to him?

Upon death, rights are vested. Even if rights have not been he can repudiate if he
wants to.

If he repudiated, he will not succeed. Is it possible that if the heir repudiated,
somebody else will accept for him? Example: Yes, creditors who will be prejudiced
by his repudiation.

When would an heir be deemed to have accepted if he has repudiated? There
are consequences like in relation to prescription. When a person accepts, ultimately,
the possession of his predecessor will be considered in relation to the rights of the
heir who inherited the property If there was no acceptance by the other heir.

Another consequence is with respect to taxation. When he repudiate, as if he
assigned his rights, which can be the subject of another tax liability.

Answer: if he renounced in favor of one or some but not all heirs who would have
inherited by accretion.

If he renounced only in favor of one or some but not all, he chose, so he will be
deemed to have accepted. If he renounced indiscriminately, gratuitously,
If the renunciation is onerous, he will always be deemed to have accepted.

AS to death,

Presumptive death.

1985, in the will of X, a 5-door unit was given to A. in 1990, X told his housemates
that he will go MOA. Since then, he was never heard of. In 1996, In 2001, The
court in 2006, declared X to be presumptively dead. With this court declaration, A
will be entitled to the rentals of the apartment unit since when?

He will be considered to have died in 2000, upon the expiration of the 10-year
period.

In relation Art. 43 of FC.
Spouses X and Y had 2 children: A and B. X already died. Xs mother, M, wanted to
bring her grandchildren to Cebu. The ship sank. A, B an M were found dead. Y
claimed to have a share in the estate of M. May Y have a share in the estate of M?

If the grandchildren survived M, A and B will inherit from their grandmother by
representation and in their own right. Whatever they inherited from M will go to
their mother since they died.

Apply Art. 43. Never apply the survivorship rule in succession.

According to Art. 43, whoever is claiming that this heir survived the other, he has
the burden of proof. If there is no proof as to who died first, they will be considered
to have died at the same time and there will be no transmission of rights. In this
case, Y will have no share in the estate of M.

Ungson vs Del Rosario: decedent died before the effectivity of the Civil Code. He
had a paramour and a lawful wife. Would the illegitimate children have a share
in the estate? None.

Bonilla vs Bonilla: goes into what may be transmitted. This is an action for quieting
of title. Can the children be substituted? Yes, basically all property rights may be .

3 kinds: Testamentary, legal or intestate and mixed.

There can be no contractual succession [by mere agreement of the parties, without
compliance with the formalities].

Testamentary dispositions would cover future property. If present property, just
donate it.

Compulsory succession is not necessary because it is not separate and distinct from
the 3 mentioned in law. The rights of the compulsory heirs will always have to be
considered. The rights of the compulsory heirs are already embedded in the other 3
kinds.

There is a difference between legal and intestate succession. If a person died
without a will, he died intestate. If a person died with a will, even if you consider the
will to be void, that is not intestate succession. People may acquire rights from said
will, even though it is void.

Testamentary succession there must be a valid will. If there is a will but the will is
void, that is legal succession.

1. the will was revoked. The effect would be legal succession.
2. There may not be testamentary succession when the will becomes
inoperative because all the heirs in the will predeceased or are incapacitated
or disinherited or renounced.

If 2 persons who are to succeed each other suffered in the same incident, who will
inherit from whom?

If not all the properties were disposed of. Distributed by legal succession.
All are disposed of but some of the dispositions are void.

Art. 960, not exclusive. There are scenarios. One of the scenarios enumerated is the
nonfulfillment of a suspensive condition. May likewise result in legal succession.
Another scenario would pertain to the effect of preterition. No other disposition