Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CFI
Facts:
Jose Frias Chua had 2 marriages. First with Patricia, he had 3 childrenIgnacio, Manuel and Lorenzo. When Patriciadied, he married Consolacion
de la Torre and had one child- Juanito Frias Chua. Jose Frias Chua died
intestate.After the intestate proceeding the court adjudicated half of lot in
question to Consolacion and the other half totheir only son, Juanito. The
two sons in the first marriage, Lorenzo and Ignacio, received P3k and
P1550respectively. (Manuel already died).Juanito also died intestate
without issue. Consolacion de la Torre executed a declaration of heirship
adjudicating inher favor the pro-indiviso share of her son Juanito in the lot
in question. When dela Torre died, Ignacio and theheirs of Lorenzo filed a
complaint praying that the one-half portion of the Lot be declared as a
reservable propertyfor the reason that the lot in question was subject to
reserval troncal pursuant to Article 981 NCC. Lower court dismissed
complaint.
Issue: WON property in question was acquired by Juanito Frias Chua from
his father Jose Frias Chua gratuitously (as first requisite of Reserva
Troncal)
Held: Yes. The transmission is gratuitous when the recipient does not give
anything in return. It matters not whether the property transmitted is subject
to any prior charges. What is essential is that the transmission by made
gratuitously, without imposing any obligation on the part of the recipient. It
is evident that the transmission of the property was by means of a
hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous. The obligation was
imposed by the Court, and not by the propositus father.
As long as the transmission was free from any condition imposed by
the deceased himself and the property is given out of pure generosity, it is
gratuitous.
2.
F R AN C I S C A T IOC O DE PAPA, M AN U E L
T I O C O , N I C O L A S T I O C O a n d JANUARIO PAPA,
plaintiffs-appellees,vs.DALISAY TONGKO CAMACHO, PRIMO
TONGKO and GODOFREDO CAMACHO,defendants-appellants.
FAC T S : Th i s c a s e i n v o lv e s t h e a p p l i c a t i on o f Ar t i c l e 8 9 1
o f t h e C i v i l C o d e o n reserva troncal.1. Defendant Dalisay D.
Tongko-Camacho and the plaintiffs, Francisco Tioco dePapa, Manuel
Tioco and Nicolas Tioco, are legitimate relatives, plaintiffs being
saiddefendant's grandaunt and granduncles. P l a i n t i f f s a n d
d e f e n d a n t D a l i s a y D . Ton g o - C a m a c h o h a v e
a s a c o m m o n ancestor the late Balbino Tioco (who had a
sister by the name of Romana Tioco),father of plaintiffs and great
grandfather of defendant. R o m a n a T i o c o d u r i n g h e r
lifetime gratuitously donated four (4) parcels
o f land to her niece Toribia Tioco (legitimate sister of
plaintiffs),4 . To r i b i a
Tioco
died
intestate
in
l9l5,
s u r v i v e d b y h e r h u s b a n d , E u s t a c i o D i z o n , and their
two legitimate children, Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon
(mother of defendant Dalisay D, Tongko-Camacho) and
leaving the afore-mentioned four (4)parcels of land as the
inheritance of her said two children in equal proindivisoshares.5 . I n 1 9 2 8 , B a l b i n o T i o c o d i e d i n t e s t a t e ,
s u r v i v e d b y h i s l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d r e n b y h i s wi f e
Ma r c i a n a F e l i x ( a m o n g t he m p l a i n t i ffs ) an d l e g i t i m a t e
g r a n d c h i l d r e n Faustino Dizon and Trinidad Dizon. In the partition of
his estate, three (3) parcels of land were adjudicated as the
inheritance of the late Toribia Tioco, but as she
hadpredeceased her father, Balbino Tioco, the said three (3) parcels
of land devolvedupon her two legitimate children Faustino Dizon
and Trinidad Dizon in equal pro-indiviso shares.
Issue: WON Propositus died. The uncles and aunts want the property
for them. The niece wants the property for herself. Where does the
property go?
Held:
succession
degree as
property is
To the niece. The uncles and aunts are excluded from the
by the niece, although they are related to him within the same
the latter. Why? Because the reversion of the reservable
governed by the rules on intestate succession, wherein the
Facts: PRs, Alfredo Seangio et. al filed for the settlement of the
intestate estate of the lateSegundo Seangio Petitioners opposed
said petition, contending that Segundo left a holographic
willdisinheriting Alfredo for cause. The reason for the disinheritance was
due to Alfredosmaltreatment to his father Segundo. In view of the
purported holographic will, petitioners averred that in the event
thedecedent is found to have a will, the intestate proceedings
are to be automaticallysuspended and replaced by the proceedings of
the will PRs moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings
contending that the allegedwill of Segundo does not contain any
disposition of the estate of the deceased and thatall other compulsory
heirs were not named nor instituted as heir. Devisee or
legateehence there is preterition which would result to intestacy.
Petitioners countered that the rule on preterition does not apply
because Segundoswi l l d oe s n o t c o n st i t u t e a un i v e r s a l he i r
o r h e i r s t o t h e e x c l u s i on o f o n e o r m o r e compulsory heirs.
They argued that the testator intended all his compulsory
heirs,petitioners and PRs alike, with the sole exception of Alfredo, to
inherit his estate.
ISSUE: WON THE COMPULSORY HEIRS IN THE DIRECT LINE
WERE PRETERITED IN THE WILL.
HELD:No. The compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited
in the will.A c c o r d i n g t o t h e S C , i t w a s S e g u n d o s l a s t
expression
to
bequeath
his
estate
to
all
h i s compulsory heirs with the sole exception of Alfredo. Also,
Segundo did not institute an heir to theexclusion of his other
compulsory heirs. The mere mention of the name of one of the
petitioners,Virginia, in the document did not operate to institute
her as the universal heir. Her name was included only as a
witness to the altercation between Segundo and his son, Alfredo.
5. DE LOS SANTOS v. DELA CRUZ
Facts: On September 5, 1912, Guillermo de los Santos applied to the
Court of Land Registration for registration of a tract of land belonging
to them, situated in the place called Apunan-auac, barrio of
Calubasan, municipality of Bamban, Province of Tarlac. The said tract
is bounded on the north by property of Felipe Lagman, on the
ISSUE: WON the title over the property belonged to Jose Septimo despite
failure to register the deed in the office of the register of deeds
HELD: The contention of the petitioner that the CA erred in applying the law
on testate succession under the Old Civil Code is, likewise, correct. The
appellate court should have applied the provisions of the Old Civil Code on
intestate succession considering that Jose Balilo died intestate in 1943,
before the effectivity of the New Civil Code.
Article 931 of the Old Civil Code provides that when a person dies
intestate, his legitimate children and their descendants succeed him,
without distinction of sex, or age, even though they spring from different
marriages. Article 932 of the same Code provides that the children of the
deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right, dividing the
inheritance in equal shares. Moreover, under Article 939 of the Old Civil
Code, in the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, the natural
children legally acknowledged and those legitimated by royal succession
shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased.
9. CORPUS v. CORPUS
Facts: Teodoro R. Yangco died in Manila on April 20, 1939 at the age of
seventy-seven years. His will dated August 29, 1934 was probated in the
Court of First Instance of Manila. Yangco had no forced heirs. At the time of
his death, his nearest relatives were (1) his half brother, Luis R. Yangco, (2)
his half sister, Paz Yangco, the wife of Miguel Ossorio (3) Amalia Corpus,
Jose A. V. Corpus, and Ramon L. Corpus, the children of his half brother,
Pablo Corpus, and (4) Juana (Juanita) Corpus, the daughter of his half
brother Jose Corpus. Juanita died in October, 1944 at Palauig, Zambales.
Pursuant to the order of the probate court, a project of partition dated
November 26, 1945 was submitted by the administrator and the legatees
named in the will. That project of partition was opposed by the estate of
Luis R. Yangco whose counsel contended that an intestacy should be
declared Because the will does not contain an institution of heir. It was also
opposed by Atty. Roman A. Cruz, who represented Juanita Corpus, Pedro
Martinez and Juliana de Castro. Juanita Corpus was already dead when
Atty. Cruz appeared as her counsel.
Issue: WON Teodoro R. Yangco was a natural child, that his will had been
duly legalized and that plaintiff's action is barred by res judicata and laches.
Held: The rule in article 943 is now found in article 992 of the Civil Code
which provides that "an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato
from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall
such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate
child".
That rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully
looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate family is, in turn,
hated by the illegitimate child.
10.
of his father, like the deceased Francisca Reyes. (Article 992, Civil Code of
the Philippines.)
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed
in this petition is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner