Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Similarly unsustainable is
Vs. petitioner's submission that by virtue of the
Court of Appeals amicable settlement, the said obligation imposed
G.R. No. 113725 June 29, 2000 by the Codicil has been assumed by the lessee,
and whatever obligation petitioner had become
PURISIMA, J:. the obligation of the lessee; that petitioner is
deemed to have made a substantial and
FACTS: In a Codicil appended to the Last Will
and Testament of the deceased Aleja Belleza, constructive compliance of his obligation
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of through the consummated settlement between
the herein petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was the lessee and the private respondent, and having
consummated a settlement with the petitioner,
instituted as a devisee of a big tract of land. The
Codicil, was duly probated and contained in the recourse of the private respondent is the
substance, among others; that as a condition of fulfilment of the obligation under the amicable
the devise, Dr. Rabadilla shall have the settlement and not the seizure of subject
property.
obligation until he dies to deliver (one hundred)
100 piculs of sugar (75 export sugar and 25 Suffice it to state that a Will is a personal,
domestic sugar) to Maria Marlinna Belleza, solemn, revocable and free act by which a
sister of the deceased; should Dr. Rabadilla die, person disposes of his property, to take effect
his heir who shall inherit the subject land shall after his death. Since the Will expresses the
also oblige to the annual delivery; that should manner in which a person intends how his
the wish of the deceased be not respected, Maria properties be disposed, the wishes and desires of
Marlinna Belleza shall immediately seize the the testator must be strictly followed. Thus, a
subject lot and deliver the same to the nearest Will cannot be the subject of a compromise
descendant of the deceased who shall also have agreement which would thereby defeat the very
the same obligation to deliver the 100 sacks of purpose of making a Will.
sugar to Belleza.
G.R. No. L-28032 September 24, 1986 ISSUE: Whether, as contended by the plaintiffs-
appellees and ruled by the lower Court, all
NARVASA, J.: relatives of the praepositus within the third
degree in the appropriate line succeed without
distinction to the reservable property upon the WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the
death of the reservista. lower Court is reversed and set aside and the
complaint is dismissed, with costs against the
HELD: No. Upon the death of the plaintiffs-appellants.
ascendant reservista, the reservable property
should pass, not to all the reservatarios as a
class but only to those nearest in degree to the
descendant (prepositus), excluding OFELIA HERNANDO
those reservatarios of more remote degree BAGUNU, Petitioner.
(Florentino vs. Florentino, 40 Phil. 489-490; vs.
T.S. 8 Nov. 1894; Dir. Gen. de los Registros, PASTORA PIEDAD, Respondent.
Resol. 20 March 1905). And within the third
G.R. No. 140975 December 8,
degree of relationship from the descendant
2000
(prepositus), the right of representation operates
in favor of nephews (Florentino vs. VITUG, J.:
Florentino, supra).
FACTS: In this case, there is no doubt nor
The right of representation cannot be alleged difference that arise as to the truth or falsehood
when the one claiming same as a reservatario of on alleged facts. The question as to whether
the reservable property is not among the intevenor-appellants as a collateral relative
relatives within the third degree belonging to the within the fifth civil degree, has legal interest in
line from which such property came, inasmuch the intestate proceeding which would justify her
as the right granted by the Civil Code in Article intervention; the question as to whether the
811 is in the highest degree personal and for the publication of notice of hearing made in this
exclusive benefit of designated persons who are case is defective which would amount to lack of
within the third degree of the person from whom jurisdiction over the persons of the parties and
the reservable property came. Therefore, the question as to whether the proceedings has
relatives of the fourth and the succeeding already been terminated when the intestate court
degrees can never be considered as reservatarios, issued the order of transfer of the estate of
since the law does not recognize them as such. Augusto H. Piedad to petitioner-appellee, in
Nevertheless there is right of representation on spite the absence of an order of closure of the
the part of reservatarios who are within the intestate court, all call for the application and
third degree mentioned by law interpretation of the proper law is applicable on
a certain undisputed state of facts.
Reversion of the reservable property being
governed by the rules on intestate succession, Augusto H. Piedad without any direct
the plaintiffs-appellees must be held without any descendants or ascendants. Respondent is the
right thereto because, as aunt and uncles, maternal aunt of the decedent, a third-degree
respectively, of Faustino Dizon relative of the decedent, while petitioner is the
(the praepositus), they are excluded from the daughter of a first cousin of the deceased, or a
succession by his niece, the defendant-appellant, fifth-degree relative of the decedent.
although they are related to him within the same
degree as the latter. Had the reversionary ISSUE: Can petitioner, a collateral relative of
property passed directly from the praepositus, the fifth civil degree, inherit alongside
there is no doubt that the plaintiffs-appellees respondent, a collateral relative of the third civil
would have been excluded by the defendant- degree? Elsewise stated does the rule of
appellant under the rules of intestate succession. proximity in intestate succession find application
There is no reason why a different result should among collateral relatives?
obtain simply because "the transmission of the
HELD:
property was delayed by the interregnum of
the reserva" The various provisions of the Civil Code on
succession embody an almost complete set of
law to govern, either by will or by operation of
Upon the stipulated facts, and by virtue of the law, the transmission of property, rights and
rulings already cited, the defendant-appellant obligations of a person upon his death. Each
Dalisay Tongko-Camacho is entitled to the article is construed in congruity with, rather than
entirety of the reversionary property to the in isolation of, the system set out by the Code.
exclusion of the plaintiffs-appellees.
The rule on proximity is a concept that favors INTESTATE ESTATE OF PETRA V.
the relatives nearest in degree to the decedent ROSALES, IRENEA C. ROSALES,
and excludes the more distant ones except when petitioner,
and to the extent that the right of representation vs.
can apply. Thus, Article 962 of the Civil Code FORTUNATO ROSALES, MAGNA
provides: ROSALES ACEBES, MACIKEQUEROX
ROSALES and ANTONIO ROSALES,
"ART. 962. In every inheritance, the relative respondents.
nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones,
saving the right of representation when it G.R. No. L-40789 February 27, 1987
properly takes place.
GANCAYCO, J.:
"Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in
equal shares, subject to the provisions of article FACTS: It appears from the record of the case
1006 with respect to relatives of the full and half that on February 26, 1971, Mrs. Petra V.
blood, and of article 987, paragraph 2, Rosales, a resident of Cebu City, died intestate.
concerning division between the paternal and She was survived by her husband Fortunate T.
maternal lines." Rosales and their two (2) children Magna
Rosales Acebes and Antonio Rosales. Another
By right of representation, a more distant blood child, Carterio Rosales, predeceased her, leaving
relative of a decedent is, by operation of law, behind a child, Macikequerox Rosales, and his
"raised to the same place and degree" of widow Irenea C. Rosales, the herein petitioner.
relationship as that of a closer blood relative of The estate of the dismissed has an estimated
the same decedent. The representative thereby gross value of about Thirty Thousand Pesos
steps into the shoes of the person he represents (P30,000.00).
and succeeds, not from the latter, but from the
person to whose estate the person represented On July 10, 1971, Magna Rosales Acebes
would have succeeded. instituted the proceedings for the settlement of
the estate of the deceased. In the course of the
The right of representation does not apply to intestate proceedings, the trial court issued an
"others collateral relatives within the fifth civil Order dated June 16, 1972 declaring the
degree" (to which group both petitioner and following in individuals the legal heirs of the
respondent belong) who are sixth in the order of deceased and prescribing their respective share
preference following, firstly, the legitimate of the estate
children and descendants, secondly, the
legitimate parents and ascendants, thirdly, the Fortunata T. Rosales (husband), 1/4; Magna R.
illegitimate children and descendants, fourthly, Acebes (daughter), 1/4; Macikequerox Rosales,
the surviving spouse, and fifthly, the brothers 1/4; and Antonio Rosales son, 1/4.
and sisters/nephews and nieces, fourth decedent. These Orders notwithstanding, Irenea Rosales
Among collateral relatives, except only in the insisted in getting a share of the estate in her
case of nephews and nieces of the decedent capacity as the surviving spouse of the late
concurring with their uncles or aunts, the rule of Carterio Rosales, son of the deceased, claiming
proximity, expressed in Article 962, that she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-
aforequoted, of the Code, is an absolute rule. In law together with her son, Macikequerox
determining the degree of relationship of the Rosales.
collateral relatives to the decedent, Article 966
of the Civil Code gives direction. ISSUE: Whether or not a widow (surviving
spouse) an intestate heir of her mother-in-law.
Respondent, being a relative within the third
civil degree, of the late Augusto H. Piedad HELD: No. Intestate or legal heirs are
excludes petitioner, a relative of the fifth degree, classified into two (2) groups, namely, those
from succeeding an intestato to the estate of the who inherit by their own right, and those who
decedent. inherit by the right of representation. Restated,
an intestate heir can only inherit either by his
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. own right, as in the order of intestate succession
No costs. provided for in the Civil Code, or by the right of
SO ORDERED. representation provided for in Article 981 of the
same law.
There is no provision in the Civil Code which Perpetua Bagsic died on July 1, 1945. Surviving
states that a widow (surviving spouse) is an her are her heirs, the plaintiffs Gaudencio
intestate heir of her mother-in-law. The entire Bicomong, Felicidad Bicomong, Salome
Code is devoid of any provision which entitles Bicomong, and Gervacio Bicomong.
her to inherit from her mother-in- law either by
her own right or by the right of representation. Of the children of the second marriage, Maura
The provisions of the Code which relate to the Bagsic died also on April 14, 1952 leaving no
order of intestate succession (Articles 978 to heir as her husband died ahead of her. Felipa
1014) enumerate with meticulous exactitude the Bagsic, the other daughter of the second
intestate heirs of a decedent, with the State as Geronimo Almanza and her daughter Cristeta
the final intestate heir. The conspicuous absence Almanza. But five (5) months before the present
of a provision which makes a daughter-in-law an suit was filed or on July 23, 1959, Cristeta
intestate heir of the deceased all the more Almanza died leaving behind her husband, the
confirms our observation. If the legislature defendant herein Engracio Manese (Exhibit 1-
intended to make the surviving spouse an Manese) and her father Geronimo Almanza.
intestate heir of the parent-in-law, it would have The subject matter of the complaint in Civil
so provided in the Code. Case No. SP-265 concerns the one-half
Indeed, the surviving spouse is considered a undivided share of Maura Bagsic in the
third person as regards the estate of the parent- following described five (5) parcels of land
in-law. which she inherited from her deceased mother,
Silvestra Glorioso
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit, After the death of Maura Bagsic, the above-
with costs against the petitioner. Let this case be described properties passed on to Cristela
remanded to the trial-court for further Almanza who took charge of the administration
proceedings. of the same. Thereupon, the plaintiffs
approached her and requested for the partition of
their aunt's properties. However, they were
prevailed upon by Cristeta Almanza not to
GAUDENCIO BICOMONG, et al., plaintiffs- divide the properties yet as the expenses for the
appellees, last illness and burial of Maura Bagsic had not
vs. yet been paid. Having agreed to defer the
GERONIMO ALMANZA, et al., defendant. partition of the same, the plaintiffs brought out
FLORENTINO CARTENA, defendant- the subject again sometime in 1959 only. This
appellant. time Cristeta Almanza acceded to the request as
the debts, accordingly, had already been paid.
G.R. No. L-37365 November 29, 1977
Unfortunately, she died without the division of
GUERRERO, J.: the properties having been effected, thereby
leaving the possession and administration of the
FACTS: Simeon Bagsic was married to same to the defendants.
Sisenanda Barcenas on June 8, 1859 Of this
marriage there were born three children namely: ISSUE: What provisions are applicable in the
Perpetua Bagsic, Igmedia Bagsic, and Ignacio case at bar?
Bagsic. Sisenanda Barcenas died ahead of her
husband Simeon Bagsic. HELD: We hold that the provisions of Art. 975,
1006 and 1008 of the New Civil Code are
On June 3, 1885, Simeon Bagsic remarried applicable to the admitted facts of the case at
Silvestra Glorioso. Of this second marriage were bar.
born two children, Felipa Bagsic and Maura
Bagsic. Simeon Bagsic died sometime in 1901. In the absence of defendants, ascendants,
Silvestra Glorioso also died. illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse,
Article 1003 of the New Civil Code provides
Ignacio Bagsic died on April 18, 1939 leaving that collateral relatives shall succeed to the
the plaintiff Francisca Bagsic as his only heir. entire estate of the deceased. It appearing that
Igmedia Bagsic also died on August 19, 1944 Maura Bagsic died intestate without an issue,
survived by the plaintiffs Dionisio Tolentino, and her husband and all her ascendants had died
Maria Tolentino and Petra Tolentino. ahead of her, she is succeeded by the surviving
collateral relatives, namely the daughter of her
sister of full blood and the ten (10) children of
her brother and two (2) sisters of half blood in
accordance with the provision of Art. 975 of the
New Civil Code.