General Provisions: Succession Reviewer 1 SEM 2006-2007

SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

'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 es a e is dis $i!u ed amon) &e successo$s.
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 acquisi ion !" #i$ ue of %&ic& &e '$o'e$ "( $i)& s and o!*i)a ions o &e e+ en of &e #a*ue of &e in&e$i ance( of a 'e$son a$e $ansmi ed &$ou)& &is dea & o ano &e$ o$ o &e$s ei &e$ !" &is %i** o$ !" o'e$a ion 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 ,propertyrights 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 propertyrights 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 Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the inheritance of a person is transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law. And the inheritance which is transmitted through a person4s death is defined .y Article 77( to include ,all the propertyrights and o.ligations of a person which are not e/tinguished .y his death.0
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&' $B& of the estate to persons entitled to it. The rule also pro*ides that there shall .e no distri.ution until the payment of the o.ligations enumerated a.o*e- ha*e .een made or pro*ided for. =owe*erif the distri.utees gi*e a .ond for the payment of the said o.ligations within such time and of such amount as fi/ed .y the court- the distri.ution may .e allowed. In ou$ s"s em &e$efo$e( mone" de! s a$e( '$o'e$*" s'ea2in)( no $ansmi ed o &e &ei$ no$ 'aid !" &em. T&e es a e 'a"s &em and i is on*" %&a is *ef af e$ &e de! s a$e 'aid 3$esidue4 &a a$e $ansmi ed o &e &ei$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 #. $%&'()*C C+)C%P, +- .)*/%&S(L !%*& =eir directly and immediately steps into the shoes of the deceased upon the latter4s death At one single occasion :uno ictu; 5ithout need of any formality &n mass Automatic 'u.Decti*e No*ation 2. -&()C+0SP()*S! S1S,%' Acquisition of estate .y uni*ersal title .ut only upon acceptance .y the heir at any time- with retroacti*e effect. Acceptance may .e made any time e/cept when the creditors or the court requires it .e done within a certain time. This is the system followed .y the NCC- .y ha*ing the following features3 aE Bni*ersality of )roperty 7ights and O.ligations .E Transmitted from the moment of death cE &n .loc- as an entire mass dE Transmitted e*en .efore Dudicial recognition of heirship. 2. ()$L+0('%&*C() 3C+''+) L(45 S1S,%' &state must first .e liquidated- assets marshaled and the de.ts paid or settled
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.
Jen Laygo 3D
Digests c/o 3C !"# !$% &lvin Saga' Cecille (atividad' C) *an' )ulie Domingo' +ars ,ongo' -ea +ateo' (ina ,ances . ,yan /uan
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
under Dudicial super*ision- .y an inter*ening trustee or personal representati*e :administrator or e/ecutor; .efore the net residue is ta+en o*er .y the successor. This is the system followed .y the 7ules of Court- in that3 aE &/ecutor or administrator has possession and management of the estate as long as necessary for the payment of de.ts and e/penses of administration- with authority to e/ercise the right of disposition. .E 'ection ! 7ule ?7 9 action to reco*er title or possession of lands in the hands of the e/ecutor or administrator can .e maintained .y the heir only upon the order of the Court assigning such land to the heir or de*isee. cE 'ection 1 7ule @A 9 heirs may reco*er their share only upon3 )ayment of de.ts- e/penses and ta/es =earing conducted .y the court Court assigns the residue of the estate to the heirs.
1ST SEM 2006-2007
Or do the successors acquire only the NAF&$ T T"& 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. Union Bank v. Santibaez
CA'&
- 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 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
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 propertyrights 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 7oCthe heirsde*isees and legatees shall signify to the court ha*ing Durisdictionwhether 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 superfluousand the law should limit itself to regulating the effects the effects of a repudiation .y an heir or legatee- and its retroacti*e effect.
Jen Laygo 3D
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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 tractorsspecifically 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 resultBnion 2an+ has no personality to file the complaint and therefore cannot hold the heirs lia.le for the o.ligation of the deceased.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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 partytouching 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* $u*e is that a party4s contractual rights and o.ligations are transmissi.le to the successors. - Art. 1!11 of NCC3 Contracts ta+e effect only as .etween the parties- their assigns and heirs- e/cept in the case where the rights and o.ligations arising from the contract are not transmissi.le .y their nature- or .y stipulation or .y pro*ision of law. - Art. 77# of NCC3 Succession is a mode of acquisition .y *irtue of which the propertyrights and o.ligations to the e/tent of the *alue of the inheritance of a person are transmitted through his death to another or other either .y his will or .y operation of law. - Art. 77( of NCC3 The in&e$i ance includes all the propertyrights 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 heirssince the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would ha*e .een entitled to recei*e.
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
Jen Laygo 3D
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007 no &e *ef a %i**. If &e *ef a %i**( &e is a*so ca**ed &e es a o$.
Alvarez v. IAC
- Aniceto Ianes owned a parcel of land identified as "ot 77! in Negros Occidental. =e was sur*i*ed .y his children7ufino- 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 propertyrights 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 propertyrights and o.ligations of a person which are not e/tinguished .y his death.
$ecedent 9 general term- person whose property is transmitted Testator 9 specific term- person who transmits his property *ia a will. t is unfortunate that the Code does not use the term , ntestate0 to refer to a decedent who died without a will- This would ha*e pre*ented the am.iguity now inherent in the term ,decedent0
ART. 778. T&e in&e$i ance inc*udes a** &e '$o'e$ "( $i)& s and o!*i)a ions of a 'e$son %&ic& a$e no e+ in)uis&ed !" &is dea &.
O*erlap of Codal $efinition with Art77( Article 77# tal+s of ,propertyrights 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 propertyrights 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 Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the inheritance of a person is transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.
And the inheritance which is transmitted through a person4s death is defined .y Article 77( to include ,all the propertyrights 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 $ansmi ed f$om &e momen of &e dea & of &e deceden .

Time of Kesting of 'uccessional 7ight )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
ART. 775. In &is Ti *e( 6deceden 7 is &e )ene$a* e$m a''*ied o &e 'e$son %&ose '$o'e$ " is $ansmi ed &$ou)& succession( %&e &e$ o$ Jen Laygo 3D
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
2. (ccepts the successional portion
-
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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.
T&e #es in) of &e $i)& occu$s immedia e*" u'on &e deceden :s dea &; i.e. %i &ou a momen :s in e$$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.
- 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
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)a ee 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$a**" no 2no% &o% muc& &e %i** !e in&e$i in) and %&a '$o'e$ ies &e %i** u* ima e*" !e $ecei#in)( and no a &e ime of dec*a$a ion of &ei$s o$ 'a$ i ion o$ dis $i!u ion. Uson v. el !osario "aw in force at time of decedent4s death determines who the heirs should .e.
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 2orDa1rancisco4s 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 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.
CA'&'
- 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
Jen Laygo 3D
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- 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 itselfshe 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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 andtherefore- 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 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
Jen Laygo 3D
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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 $$%&$$$
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- '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 installmaintain 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. - 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 propertyrights 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.
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
Jen Laygo 3D
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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
ART. 77<. Succession ma" !e= >1? Tes amen a$" >@? Le)a* o$ In es a e( o$ >A? ,i+ed ART. 77B. Tes amen a$" succession is &a %&ic& $esu* s f$om &e desi)na ion of an &ei$( made in a %i** e+ecu ed in &e fo$m '$esc$i!ed !" *a%. ART. 7<C. ,i+ed succession is &a effec ed 'a$ *" !" %i** and 'a$ *" !" o'e$a ion of *a%.

Donations of future property shall be governed by the provisions on testamentary succession and the formalities of wills. '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$of. Ea*ane4 #. C+'P.LS+&1 'uccession to the legitime )re*ails o*er all other +inds 2. ,%S,('%),(&1 3(rt. AAB5 'uccession .y will 2. *),%S,(,% 'uccession in default of a will C. '*D%@ 3(rt. AE05 Not a distinct +ind really- .ut a com.ination of any two or all of the first three.
! F N$' O1 'BCC&'' ON ACC$8 TO A7T. 77?3 1. T&'TAM&NTA7I That which results from the designation of an heir- made in a will. 2. "&8A" O7 NT&'TAT& "ost definition3 ,ta+es place .y operation of law in the a.sence of a *alid will.0 !. M P&$ 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. &,* 03!. *he future spouses may give each other in their marriage settlements as much as one#fifth of their present property' and with respect to their future property' only in the event of death' to the e1tent laid down by the provisions of this Code referring to testamentary succession. @onations propter nuptias of future propertymade .y one of the future spouses to the
ART. 7<1. T&e in&e$i ance of a 'e$son inc*udes no on*" &e '$o'e$ " and &e $ansmissi!*e $i)& s and o!*i)a ions e+is in) a &e ime of &is dea &( !u a*so &ose %&ic& &a#e acc$ued &e$e o 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.
Jen Laygo 3D
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- $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*erKictor 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. - 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 heirKictor- 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 termsshows 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* $u*e- therefore- is that heirs are .ound .y contracts entered into .y their predecessors>in>interest e,#e't when the rights and o.ligations arising therefrom are not transmissi.le .y G1E their nature- G2E stipulation or G!E pro*ision of law. - 5here acts stipulated in a contract require the e/ercise of special +nowledge- genius- s+ill- taste- a.ility- e/perienceDudgment- discretion- integrity- or other personal qualification of one or .oth parties- the agreement is of personal nature-
Question 9 f the assets left .ehind .y the decedent are not sufficient to pay the de.ts- may the creditors claims the fruits produced .y the decedent4s property after his death6 Or do these fruits pertain to the heirs6 2ut wouldn4t the de.ts .e deducted from the estate first .efore the properties are distri.uted to the heirs6
ART. 7<@. An &ei$ is a 'e$son ca**ed o &e succession ei &e$ !" &e '$o#ision of a %i** o$ !" o'e$a ion of *a%. -e#isees and *e)a ees a$e 'e$sons o %&om )if s of $ea* and 'e$sona* '$o'e$ " a$e $es'ec i#e*" )i#en !" #i$ 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- $FC undertoo+ to pay )hp !-AAA a month for the reser*ation of its option.
Jen Laygo 3D
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
and terminates on the death of the party who is required to render such ser*ice. - There is pri*ity of interest .etween an heir and his deceased predecessor 9 he only succeeds to what rights his predecessor had and what is *alid and .inding against the latter is also *alid and .inding against the former. - The death of a party does not e/cuse nonperformance of a contract which in*ol*es a property right- and the rights and o.ligations thereunder pass to the personal representati*es of the deceased. 'imilarly- nonperformance is not e/cused .y the death of the party when the other party has a property interest in the su.Dect matter of the contract.
1ST SEM 2006-2007
CHAPTER @ TESTA,ENTARF S0CCESSION
SEC-I./ 0 1 2ILLS Subse#tion 0 1 2ills in 3eneral ART. 7<A. A %i** is an ac %&e$e!" a 'e$son is 'e$mi ed( %i & &e fo$ma*i ies '$esc$i!ed !" *a%( o con $o* o a ce$ ain de)$ee &e dis'osi ion of &is es a e( o a2e effec af e$ &is dea &.
Operati*e 5ords in the $efinition 1. ACT The definition of a will as an act is too .road and should ha*e .een more clearly delimited with a more specific term such as instru6ent or docu6ent- in *iew of the pro*ision of Art?A# that ,e*ery will must .e in writing.0 N0NC0PATIVE or oral wills are not recogniHed in our Code- unli+e the 'panish Ci*il Code wherein military wills could .e oral. 2. )&7M TT&$ 5ill>ma+ing is purely statutory. !. 1O7MA" T &' )7&'C7 2&$ 2I "A5 The requirement of form prescri.ed respecti*ely for attested and holographic wills. #. CONT7O" TO A C&7TA N $&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.
Jen Laygo 3D
10
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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.
CHARACTERISTICS O. 1ILLS
#. 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- Kiolencentimidation- 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. ##. S,(,.,+&1 5ill>ma+ing is a permitted .y statute.
Questions 5ould a document merely appointing an e/ecutornot 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. 4itu) v. CA
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 propertyha*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&'. - 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
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 thatalthough 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
Jen Laygo 3D
11
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007 ART. 7<8. T&e es a o$ ma" en $us o a &i$d 'e$son &e dis $i!u ion of s'ecific '$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)na ion of &e 'e$sons( ins i u ions o$ es a!*is&men s 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<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$e ion of a &i$d 'e$son( o$ accom'*is&ed &$ou)& &e ins $umen a*i " of an a)en o$ a o$ne".
This pro*ision gi*es the will its purely personal character. NONG-ELEGAEILITF O. 1ILLG,ADING 9 t is the e/ercise of the disposing power that cannot .e delegated. O.*iously- mechanical aspects- such as typing- do not fall within the prohi.ition.
ART. 7<5. T&e du$a ion o$ efficac" of &e desi)na ion of &ei$s( de#isees o$ *e)a ees( o$ &e de e$mina ion of &e 'o$ ions %&ic& &e" a$e o a2e( %&en $efe$$ed o !" name( canno !e *ef o &e disc$e ion of a &i$d 'e$son.
ART. 7<7. T&e es a o$ ma" no ma2e a es amen a$" dis'osi ion in suc& manne$ &a ano &e$ 'e$son &as o de e$mine %&e &e$ o$ no i is o !e o'e$a i#e.

4hat Constitute the %ssence of 4ill0'aGing or the %?ercise of the @isposing PowerH ,he ff are non0 delegableI 1. The designation of heirsde*isees or legatees 2. The duration of efficacy of such designationincluding such things as conditions- termssu.stitutions< !. The determination of the portions they are to recei*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 heir is free to accept or reDect the testamentary disposition. 5hat this article prohi.its is the delegation to a 2rd person of the power to decide whether a disposition should taGe effect or not.
Jen Laygo 3D
12
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007
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 studieswhich 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 $ona "uisa is e/pressly left to him as a legacy. - The reser*ation of property in a will to the name of specific persons shall .e considered as a legacy. - 5here the will authoriHes the e/ecutor to pay the legaciese/pressly or .y natural inference- action will lie .y the legatee against the e/ecutor to compel allowance and payment hereof. f the e/ecutor is not authoriHed- action will lie against the heirs. An heir on the other hand- can maintain no such action against the e/ecutor.
ART. 7<<. If a es amen a$" dis'osi ion admi s of diffe$en in e$'$e a ions( in case of dou! ( &a in e$'$e a ion !" %&ic& &e dis'osi ion is o !e o'e$a i#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( mis a2es and omissions mus !e co$$ec ed( of &e e$$o$ a''ea$s f$om &e con e+ of &e %i** o$ f$om e+ $insic e#idence( e+c*udin) &e o$a* dec*a$a ions of &e es a o$ as o &is in en ion; and %&en an unce$ ain " a$ises u'on &e face of &e %i**( as o &e a''*ica ion of an" of i s '$o#isions( &e es a o$:s in en ion is o !e asce$ ained f$om &e %o$ds of &e %i**( a2in) in o conside$a ion &e ci$cums ances unde$ %&ic& i %as made( e+c*udin) suc& o$a* dec*a$a ions.
@ 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 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 aE )atent as to )&7'ON 9 , institute R of my estate to so6e of my first cousins.
Jen Laygo 3D
13
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
.E )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;
1ST SEM 2006-2007
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. 7B1. T&e %o$ds of a %i** a$e o $ecei#e an in e$'$e a ion %&ic& %i** )i#e o e#e$" e+'$ession some effec ( $a &e$ &an one %&ic& %i** $ende$ an" of &e e+'$essions ino'e$a i#e; and of %o modes of in e$'$e in) a %i**( &a is o !e '$efe$$ed %&ic& %i** '$e#en in es ac".
A similar rule is found in 7ule 1!A 'ec11 of the 7oC 9 Sec00. 2nstrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions 3 2n the construction of an instrument where there are several provisions or particulars' such a construction is' if possible' to be adopted as will give effect to all. n contractual interpretation- Articles 1!7! and 1!7# lay down similar principles 9 &rt03$3. 2f some stipulation of any contract should admit of several meanings' it shall be understood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual. &rt03$4. *he various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together' attributing to the doubtful one that sense which may result from all of them ta6en 7ointly.
ART. 7BC. T&e %o$ds of a %i** a$e o !e a2en in &ei$ o$dina$" and )$amma ica* sense( un*ess a c*ea$ in en ion 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 con e+ c*ea$*" indica es a con $a$" in en ion( o$ un*ess i sa isfac o$i*" a''ea$s &a &e %as unacquain ed %i & suc& ec&nica* sense.
ART. 7B@. T&e in#a*idi " of one of se#e$a* dis'osi ions con ained in a %i** does no $esu* in &e in#a*idi " of &e o &e$ dis'osi ions( un*ess i is o !e '$esumed &a &e es a o$ %ou*d no &a#e made suc& o &e$ dis'osi ions if &e fi$s in#a*id dis'osi ion &ad no !een made.
'imilar rules are laid down in 7ule 1!A 'ections 1A and 1# of the 7ules of Court 9 Sec0!. 2nterpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning 3 *he language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its e1ecution' unless the parties intended otherwise. Sec04. 5eculiar signification of terms *he terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general application' but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local' technical' or otherwise peculiar signification' and were so used and understood in the particular instance' in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly.
This article ma+es applica.le to wills the S%/%&(B*L*,1 +& S%P(&(B*L*,1 P&*)C*PL% in statutory construction frequently e/pressly pro*ided in a separa.ility clause. The source of this article is Art2A?% of the 8erman Ci*il Code which pro*ides that the in*alidity of one of se*eral dispositions contained in a will results in the in*alidity of the other dispositions only if it is to .e presumed that the testator would not ha*e made these if the in*alid disposition had not .een made.
ART. 7BA. P$o'e$ " acqui$ed af e$ &e ma2in) of a %i** s&a** on*" 'ass &e$e!"( as if &e es a o$ &ad 'ossessed i a &e ime of ma2in) &e %i**( s&ou*d i e+'$ess*" a''ea$ !" &e %i** &a suc& %as &is in en ion.
n contractual interpretation- a similar principle is e/pressed in Article 1!7A par13 &rt03$!. 2f the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties' the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.
This article creates pro.lems which would not ha*e e/isted had it not .een so nonchalantly incorporated in the Code- an implant from the Code of Ci*il )rocedure and ultimately from American law. The pro.lem springs from the fact that this article ma+es the will spea+ as of the time it is made- rather than at the time of the decedent4s death :which is more
Jen Laygo 3D
14
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
logical .ecause that is when the will ta+es effect according to Article 777;.
1ST SEM 2006-2007
llustration 9 P e/ecutes a will in 1@?% containing a legacy3 , gi*e to M all my shares in 2) .0 The testator dies in 1@@A- owning at the time of his death ten times as many 2) shares as he did when he made the will. Bnder Article 7@!- the shares acquired after the will was e/ecuted are NOT included in the legacy. A$ ic*e 7BA &e$efo$e de'a$ s f$om &e coda* '&i*oso'&" of A$ ic*es 774 and 778 and cons i u es an EHCEPTION o &e conce' of succession as *in2ed o dea & and $ende$ed *e)a**" effec i#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
REGCAP O. THE R0LES ON INTERPRETATION AN- CONSTR0CTION O. 1ILLS

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*idencee*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. 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.
!.
#.
%.
(.
ART. 7B4. E#e$" de#ise o$ *e)ac" s&a** co#e$ a** &e in e$es %&ic& &e es a o$ cou*d de#ice o$ !equea & in &e '$o'e$ " dis'osed of( un*ess i c*ea$*" a''ea$s f$om &e %i** &a &e in ended o con#e" a *ess in e$es .
7. ?.
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. gi*es e/actly the interest he has in the thing. &PC&)T ON' 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.
@.
8&N&7A" 7B"& 9 in a legacy or de*ise the testator
1A. A de*ise of legacy shall transmit the whole e/tent of the testator4s interest in the property disposed. &/cept when it clearly appears that the testator intended to con*ey a less interest.
Jen Laygo 3D
15
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

pro*isions shall .e carried out insofar as they may .e 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
ART. 7B5. T&e #a*idi " of a %i** as o i s 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!s ance of &e '$o#isions I su!s an i#e #a*idi " #. $o8erning law as to ,*'% a. 1ilipinos 9 law at the time of deathin connection with Art22(!. .. 1oreigners 9 depends on their personal law :Art1(- par2 and Art1A!@; $o8erning law as to PL(C% a. 1ilipinos 9 )hilippine law :Art1( par2 and Art1A!@; .. 1oreigners 9 their national law :Art1( par2 and Art1A!@;
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*isionsshall .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. G t 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 Cuanthere 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 willproceedings for the pro.ate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings e*en if at the stage an administrator has already .een appointed.
2.
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
Jen Laygo 3D
16
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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.
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 willproceedings 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 willafter which the three witnesses signed on the last page as well. - n 1@2!- long .efore the New Ci*il Code was in forceholographic wills Gas the one prepared .y 1r. A.adiadetermined 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 ta+en to carry out the intention of the testator which is the controlling factor and which may o*erride any defect in form.
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.lein 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
Jen Laygo 3D
17
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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 Calderon1ilomena 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 widowthere 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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 the testator or interfering with the general testamentary 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
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 Courthowe*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. 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
Jen Laygo 3D
18
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
estate should .e distri.uted in the manner therein pro*idedand it is incum.ent upon the state that- if legally tena.lesuch 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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*erintestate 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*isionsshall .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 orderpu.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.
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 NCCapplied the national law of Amos- which is the Te/as lawwhich 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 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.
Subse#tion + 1 -estamentary Ca'a#ity And Intent ART. 7B8. A** 'e$sons %&o a$e no e+'$ess*" '$o&i!i ed !" *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 essen ia* &a &e es a o$ !e of sound mind a &e ime of i s e+ecu ion. ART. 7BB. To !e of sound mind( i is no necessa$" &a &e es a o$ !e in fu** 'ossession of a** &is $easonin) facu* ies( o$ &a &is mind !e %&o**" un!$o2en( unim'ai$ed( o$ uns&a e$ed !" disease( inJu$" o$ o &e$ cause. I s&a** !e sufficien if &e es a o$ %as a!*e a &e ime of ma2in) &e %i** o 2no% &e na u$e of &e es a e o !e dis'osed of( &e '$o'e$ o!Jec s of &is !oun "( and &e c&a$ac e$ of &e es amen a$" ac . ART. <CC. T&e *a% '$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 es a o$ %as no of sound mind a &e ime of ma2in) &is dis'osi ions is on &e 'e$son %&o o''oses
Jen Laygo 3D
19
SUCCESSION REVIEWER &e '$o!a e of &e %i**; !u if &e es a o$( one mon &( o$ *ess( !efo$e ma2in) &is %i** %as 'u!*ic*" 2no%n o !e insane( &e 'e$son %&o main ains &e #a*idi " of &e %i** mus '$o#e &a &e es a o$ made i du$in) a *ucid in e$#a*. ART. <C1. Su'e$#enin) inca'aci " does no in#a*ida e an effec i#e %i**( no$ is &e %i** of an inca'a!*e #a*ida ed !" &e su'e$#enin) of ca'aci ".
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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.
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@@.
"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 $e!u a!*e P$esum' ion of Sani " unde$ A$ <CC. T1O EHCEPTIONS 9 %&en &e$e is a $e!u a!*e '$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
SO0N-NESS O. ,IN- 3SANITF4 N&8AT K&"I 1. Not necessary that testator .e in full possession of reasoning faculties 2. Not necessary that testator4s mind .e wholly un.ro+enunimpairedunshattered .y disease- inDury or other cause. )O' T K&"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
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$a e '$o'e$ " as %e** as &e$ s&a$e of &e conJu)a* 'a$ ne$s&i' o$ a!so*u e communi " '$o'e$ ". 20
Jen Laygo 3D
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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+enunimpaired- 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.
'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 testatorwho 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. - 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.
>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
Jen Laygo 3D
21
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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 testatorand to comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distri.ute his property.
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 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.
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.
-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.
Jen Laygo 3D
22
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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
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 8onHalesManolito 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.lingsassuming 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/. - =ence this appeal. 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 witnessesand .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
Subse#tion 5 1 (orms of 2ills ART. <C4. E#e$" %i** mus !e in %$i in) and e+ecu ed in a *an)ua)e o$ dia*ec 2no%n o &e es a o$.

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
Jen Laygo 3D
23
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007
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*
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 andtherefore- *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. - 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 willconsists 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.
ART. <C5. E#e$" %i**( o &e$ &an a &o*o)$a'&ic %i**( mus !e su!sc$i!ed a &e end &e$eof !" &e es a o$ &imse*f o$ !" &e es a o$:s name %$i en !" some o &e$ 'e$son in &is '$esence( and !" &is e+'$ess di$ec ion( and a es ed and su!sc$i!ed !" &$ee o$ mo$e c$edi!*e %i nesses in &e '$esence of &e es a o$ and of one ano &e$. T&e es a o$ o$ &e 'e$son $eques ed !" &im o %$i e &is name and &e ins $umen a* %i nesses of &e %i**( s&a** a*so si)n( as afo$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*a i#e*" in *e e$s '*aced on &e u''e$ 'a$ of eac& 'a)e. T&e a es a ion c*ause s&a** s a e &e num!e$ of 'a)es used u'on %&ic& &e %i** is %$i en( and &e fac &a &e es a o$ si)ned &e %i** an e#e$" 'a)e &e$eof( o$ caused some o &e$ 'e$son o %$i e &is name( unde$ &is e+'$ess di$ec ion( in &e '$esence of &e ins $umen a* %i nesses( and &a &e *a e$ %i nessed and si)ned &e %i** and a** &e 'a)es &e$eof in &e '$esence of &e es a o$ and of one ano &e$. If &e a es a ion c*ause is in a *an)ua)e no 2no%n o &e %i nesses( i s&a** !e in e$'$e ed o &em. ART. <C8. E#e$" %i** mus !e ac2no%*ed)ed !efo$e a no a$" 'u!*ic !" &e es a o$ and &e 24
Jen Laygo 3D
SUCCESSION REVIEWER %i nesses. T&e no a$" 'u!*ic s&a** no !e $equi$ed o $e ain a co'" of &e %i**( o$ fi*e ano &e$ %i & &e Office of &e C*e$2 of Cou$ .
1ST SEM 2006-2007
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& aE 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 *. 'aludthe 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 signatureBN"&'' it is the testator4s usual manner of signature or one of his usual styles of signing. ' 8N N8 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.
' 8N N8 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. ' 8N N8 N T=& )7&'&NC& O1 5 TN&''&' 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 $irectory part to this requirement 9
Jen Laygo 3D
25
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
aE MAN$ATO7I 9 the signing on e*ery page in the witnesses4 presence .E $ 7&CTO7I 9 place of the signingthe 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*erif 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. ;. 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 testator< witnesses and notary should acco6plished in one single act. All that is required in this article is that testator and witnesses should a*ow to the be the the
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the article. ndication of $ate 9 there is no requirement that an attested will should .e dated- unli+e a holographic will. =ayad v. -olentino
CA'&
- 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+.
Jen Laygo 3D
26
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007
:atias v. Salud Barut v. Caba#un)an

- 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 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. - 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.
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.
/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.
Jen Laygo 3D
27
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- 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 fraudsu.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
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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 clausealthough 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.
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 .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 willconsists 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 controlwhere the purpose of the law to guarantee the identity of the testament and its component pages is sufficiently attainedno 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.
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 frauddeceit- 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 themis 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
Jen Laygo 3D
28
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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$e means in front or preceding in space or ahead of. The function of a notary pu.lic is- among others- to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. This function would .e defeated if the notary pu.lic were one of the attesting witnesses.
1ST SEM 2006-2007
5hether or not it should .e in*alidated due to the attestation clause4s failure to state the num.er of pages used in writing the will. - Attestation consists in witnessing the testator4s e/ecution of the will in order to see and ta+e note mentally that those things are done which the statute requires for the e/ecution of a will and that the signature of the testator e/ists as a fact. - 'u.scription is the signing of the witnesses4 names upon the same paper for the purpose of identification of such paper as the will which was e/ecuted .y the testator.
ART. <C7. If &e es a o$ !e deaf( o$ a deafGmu e( &e mus 'e$sona**" $ead &e %i**( if a!*e o do so; o &e$%ise( &e s&a** desi)na e %o 'e$sons o $ead i and communica e o &im( in some '$ac ica!*e manne$( &e con en s &e$eof. ART. <C<. If &e es a o$ is !*ind( &e %i** s&a** $ead o &im %ice; once !" one of su!sc$i!in) %i nesses( and a)ain( !" no a$" 'u!*ic !efo$e %&om &e %i** ac2no%*ed)ed.
!e &e &e is
-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 1st 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
'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
Jen Laygo 3D
29
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- This case pertains to the will of the late 8liceria A*elino del 7osario. - Bpon the decedent4s death- her niece Consuelo )recillafiled 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 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?.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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.ateCesar 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 es a o$ %&o is !*ind o$ inca'a!*e of $eadin) &e %i** &imse*f >as %&en &e is i**i e$a e? 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 testatorhis 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.
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*aradoand 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.licwhere 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
Jen Laygo 3D
30
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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.
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( defec s and im'e$fec ions in &e fo$m of a es a ion 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+ecu ed and a es ed in su!s an ia* com'*iance %i & a** &e $equi$emen s of A$ ic*e <C5.
According to C2" 7eyes- ,"i.eraliHation 7unning 7iot-0 instead a possi.le rewording would .e 9 2n the absence of bad faith' forgery' or fraud' or undue and improper pressure and influence' defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used therein shall not render the will invalid if such defects and imperfections can be supplied by an examination of the will itself and it is proved that the will was in fact e1ecuted and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of &rticle 8!9. &/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 andcorrespondingly- 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. Caneda v. CA
CA'&'
- On $ecem.er %- 1@7?- Mateo Ca.allero- a widower without any children and already in the twilight years of his lifee/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
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 witnessesli+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
Jen Laygo 3D
31
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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. - 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%.
1ST SEM 2006-2007
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 heirsa statement a.sent in the 2nd 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 endsany other interpretation whatsoe*er- that adds nothing .ut demands more requisites entirely unnecessary- useless and frustrati*e of the testator4s will must .e disregarded.
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 willthis .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.
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.
Jen Laygo 3D
32
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- 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. 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- )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$son ma" e+ecu e a &o*o)$a'&ic %i** %&ic& mus !e en i$e*" %$i en( da ed( and si)ned !" &e &and of &e es a o$ &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 %i nessed.
'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 writtenthe &NT 7& will is *oid .ecause the article would .e *iolated. 2. @(,%@ B1 !*' $ate 9 'pecification or mention- in a written instrument- of the time :daymonth and year; it was made :e/ecuted;. 9 2lac+4s "aw $ictionary As a general rule- the date in a holographic will should include the daymonth- and year of its e/ecution. =owe*erwhen there is no appearance of fraud- .ad faith- undue influence and pressure and the authenticity of the 5ill is esta.lished and the only issue is whether or not the date 1&2.L(1 is a *alid compliance- pro.ate of the holographic will should .e allowed under the principle of su.stantial compliance. A complete date is required to pro*ide against such contingencies as 9 aE Two competing wills e/ecuted on the same day- or .E Of a testator .ecoming insane in the day on which a will was e/ecuted. The law does not specify a particular location where the date should .e placed in the will. The only requirements are that the date .e in the will itself and e/ecuted in the hand of the testator. 2. S*$)%@ B1 ,%S,(,+&
Jen Laygo 3D
33
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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 ,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 daymonth- 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 requisitesalthough 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 daymonth 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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 17th 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.radortheir 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 '$o!a e of a &o*o)$a'&ic %i**( i s&a** !e necessa$" &a a *eas one %i ness %&o 2no%s &e &and%$i in) and si)na u$e of &e es a o$ e+'*ici *" dec*a$e &a &e %i** and &e si)na u$e a$e in &e &and%$i in) of &e es a o$. If &e %i** is con es ed( a *eas &$ee of suc& %i nesses s&a** !e $equi$ed. In &e a!sence of an" com'e en %i ness $efe$$ed o in &e '$ecedin) 'a$a)$a'&( and if &e cou$ deem i necessa$"( e+'e$ es imon" 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.
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
Jen Laygo 3D
34
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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) N ON 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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*ec ion $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 ,shall0when 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. - The paramount consideration in the present petition is to determine the true intent of the deceased.
&PC&)T ON 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. Azaola v. Sin)son
CA'&'
- 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 contestedthe 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*erif there is no competent witness or if those produced were not con*incingthe 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.
Jen Laygo 3D
35
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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. =ence this appeal.
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-
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 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
Jen Laygo 3D
36
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- )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*erif 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

holographic wills are often difficult to pro*e.
ART. <14. In case of an" inse$ ion( cance**a ion( e$asu$e o$ a* e$a ion in a &o*o)$a'&ic %i**( &e es a o$ mus au &en ica e &e same !" &is fu** si)na u$e.

1ull signature does not mean testator4s full name- only his usual and customary signature. &ffect of non>compliance 9 the change :insertioncancellation- etc.; is simply considered NOT MA$&. The will is not there.y in*alidated as a whole- .ut at most only as regards the particular words erasedcorrected or inserted BN"&'' the portion in*ol*ed is an essential part of the will- such as the date. KalaA v. !elova
CA'&
- Nati*idad Falaw left a holographic will. t is not contested that the will was in her handwriting as certified .y the N2 . The will howe*er has alterationsLinsertions. The will originally named 7osa- the decedent4s sister as her sole heir and administrator- .ut this was crossed out and changed to her .rother 8regorio. 'uch alteration was howe*er not authenticated .y the full signature of the decedent. - =ence- the will was denied pro.ate .y the trial court
ART. <1@. In &o*o)$a'&ic %i**s( &e dis'osi ions of &e es a o$ %$i en !e*o% &is si)na u$e mus !e da ed and si)ned !" &im in o$de$ o ma2e &em #a*id as es amen a$" dis'osi ions. ART. <1A. 1&en a num!e$ of dis'osi ions a''ea$in) in a &o*o)$a'&ic %i** a$e si)ned %i &ou !ein) da ed( and &e *as dis'osi ion &as a si)na u$e and a da e( suc& da e #a*ida es &e dis'osi ions '$ecedin) i ( %&a e#e$ !e &e ime of '$io$ dis'osi ions.
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 signedthen 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
5hether the will is *alid or not. - t is in*alid. Ordinarily- when a num.er of erasurescorrections 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 erasedcorrected 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 erasurescorrections 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 erasedcorrected or interlined. E,#e't howe*erif 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
Jen Laygo 3D
37
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
enough that the testator manifest his intent 9 he must manifest in a manner required .y law.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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 orderpu.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&"&27AT ON ' 9 contractswills and other pu.lic instruments follow the formalities of the law where they are e/ecuted.
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 es a!*is&ed !" &e *a% of &e coun $" in %&ic& &e ma" !e. Suc& %i** ma" !e '$o!a ed 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$ma*i ies '$esc$i!ed !" &e *a% of &e '*ace in %&ic& &e $esides( o$ acco$din) o &e fo$ma*i ies o!se$#ed in &is coun $"( o$ in confo$mi " %i & &ose %&ic& &is Code '$esc$i!es. ART. <17. A %i** made in &e P&i*i''ines !" a ci iKen o$ su!Jec of ano &e$ coun $"( %&ic& is e+ecu ed in acco$dance %i & &e *a% of &e coun $" of %&ic& &e is a ci iKen o$ su!Jec ( and %&ic& mi)& !e '$o#ed and a**o%ed !" &e *a% of &is o%n coun $"( s&a** &a#e &e same effec as if e+ecu ed acco$din) o &e *a%s of &e P&i*i''ines.
&*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 AliensArt1% for 1ilipinos 2. "aw of place of &/ecution 9 Art17 !. "aw of $omicile 9 Art?1( for aliens a.roadapplying to aliens in the )hilippines and to 1ilipinos .y analogy #. "aw of 7esidence > Art?1( for aliens a.roadapplying to aliens in the )hilippines and to 1ilipinos .y analogy %. )hilippine "aw 9 Arts ?1(>?17 for aliens- Art1% for 1ilipinos .y analogy
R0LES O. .OR,AL VALI-ITF #. -*L*P*)+ (B&+(@ According to the law in the country in which he may .e And may .e pro.ated in the )hilippines 2. (L*%) (B&+(@ =as effect in the )hilippines if made according to3 aE "aw of place where he resides .E "aw of his own country cE )hilippine law 2. (L*%) *) ,!% P!*LS. Kalid in )hilippines L As if e/ecuted according to )hilippine laws- if3 aE Made according to law of country which he is a citiHen or su.Dect- and .E May .e pro*ed and allowed .y law of his own country
ART. <1<. T%o o$ 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.

CO NT 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 !. $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 reciprocaleither 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
n relation to Articles 1% and 17 of the NCC &rt. 09. -aws relating to family rights and duties' or to the status' condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citi:ens of the 5hilippines' even though living abroad.
NAT ONA" TI )7 NC )"& 9 )hilippine law follows 1ilipino citiHens where*er they may .e.
Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contractswills and other pu.lic instruments shall .e go*erned .y the laws of the country in which they are e/ecuted.
Jen Laygo 3D
38
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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 isindeed- 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.
ART. <1B. 1i**s( '$o&i!i ed !" &e '$ecedin) a$ ic*e( e+ecu ed !" .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+ecu ed.
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*ernsdepending 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< andthe 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 $ecision holding that the decedent did not comply with Articles !1! and !1# of the NCC. t found that certain dispositions in the will were either unsigned or undated- or signed .y not dated. t also found that the erasures- alterations and cancellations made had not .een authenticated .y decedent. - =ence- this appeal. 5hether the CA erred in holding that Articles ?1! and ?1# of the NCC were not complies with. - I&'. The 'C re*ersed the decision of CA.
Subse#tion % 1 2itnesses to 2ills ART. <@C. An" 'e$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 $ead and %$i e( ma" !e a %i ness o &e e+ecu ion of a %i** men ion in A$ ic*e <C5 of &is Code. ART. <@1. T&e fo**o%in) a$e disqua*ified f$om !ein) %i nesses o a %i**= >1? An" 'e$son no domici*ed in &e P&i*i''ines
Jen Laygo 3D
39
SUCCESSION REVIEWER >@? T&ose %&o &a#e !een con#ic ed of fa*sifica ion of a documen ( 'e$Ju$" o$ fa*se es imon".
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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(.;
' P QBA" 1 CAT ON' O1 5 TN&''&' 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.
ART. <@@. If &e %i nesses a es in) of a %i** a$e com'e en a a es in)( &ei$ !ecomin) incom'e en s&a** no '$e#en of &e %i**.
&e e+ecu ion &e ime of su!sequen *" &e a**o%ance
As in the case of testamentary capacity under Art?A1the time of the e/ecution of the will is the only rele*ant temporal criterion in the determination of the competence of the witnesses.
ART. <@A. If a 'e$son a es s &e e+ecu ion 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'e en %i nesses o suc& %i**. Ho%e#e$( suc& 'e$son so a es in) s&a** !e admi ed as a %i ness 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)AC TI 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.
Jen Laygo 3D
40
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

codicil and *ice *ersa. 2oth may also .e of the same +ind.
$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. <@7. If a %i**( e+ecu ed as $equi$ed !" &is Code( inco$'o$a es in o i se*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) $equisi es a$e '$esen = >1? T&e documen o$ 'a'e$ $efe$$ed o in &e %i** mus !e in e+is ence a &e ime of &e e+ecu ion of &e %i**; >@? T&e %i** mus c*ea$*" desc$i!e and iden if" &e same( s a in) amon) o &e$ &in)s &e num!e$ of 'a)es &e$eof; >A? I mus !e iden ified !" c*ea$ and sa isfac o$" '$oof as &e documen o$ 'a'e$ $efe$$ed o &e$ein; and >4? I mus !e si)ned !" &e es a o$ and &e %i nesses on eac& and e#e$" 'a)e( e+ce' in case of #o*uminous !oo2s of accoun o$ in#en o$ies.
ART. <@4. A me$e c&a$)e on &e es a e of &e es a o$ fo$ &e 'a"men of de! s due a &e ime of &e es a o$:s dea & does no '$e#en &is c$edi o$s f$om !ein) com'e en %i nesses o &is %i**.
2ecause the de.t or charge is not a testamentary disposition.
Su!sec ion 5 9 Codici*s and Inco$'o$a ion E" Refe$ence ART. <@5. A codici* is a su''*emen o$ addi ion o a %i**( made af e$ &e e+ecu ion of a %i** and anne+ed o !e a2en as a 'a$ &e$eof( !" %&ic& dis'osi ion made in &e o$i)ina* %i** is e+'*ained( added o( o$ a* e$ed. ART. <@8. In o$de$ &a a codici* ma" !e effec i#e( i s&a** !e e+ecu ed as in &e case of a %i**.
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 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 $e#o2ed !" &e es a o$ a an" ime !efo$e &is dea &. An" %ai#e$ o$ $es $ic ion of &is $i)& is #oid.

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
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.
Jen Laygo 3D
41
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007
ART. <@B. A $e#oca ion done ou side &e P&i*i''ines( !" a 'e$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$din) o &e *a% of &e '*ace in %&ic& &e es a o$ &ad &is domici*e a &e ime; and if &e $e#oca ion 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.
,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 .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.
Curious that the law departs from the nationality theory and adopts the domiciliary theory.
ART. <AC. No %i** s&a** !e $e#o2ed e+ce' in &e fo**o%in) cases= >1? E" im'*ica ion of *a%; o$ >@? E" some %i**( codici*( o$ o &e$ %$i in) e+ecu ed as '$o#ided in case of %i**s; o$ >A? E" !u$nin)( ea$in)( cance*in)( o$ o!*i e$a in) &e %i** %i & &e in en ion of $e#o2in) i ( !" &e es a o$ &imse*f( o$ !" some o &e$ 'e$son in &is '$esence( and !" &is e+'$ess di$ec ion. If !u$ned( o$n( cance**ed( o$ o!*i e$a ed !" some o &e$ 'e$son( %i &ou &e e+'$ess di$ec ion of &e es a o$( &e %i** ma" s i** !e es a!*is&ed( and &e es a e dis $i!u ed in acco$dance &e$e%i &( if i s con en s( and due e+ecu ion( and &e fac of i s unau &o$iKed des $uc ion( cance**a ion( o$ o!*i e$a ion a$e es a!*is&ed acco$din) o &e Ru*es of Cou$ .
2.
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
Jen Laygo 3D
42
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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 unauthoriHedunless 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 AN MB' 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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.
ART. <A1. Su!sequen %i**s %&ic& do no $e#o2e &e '$e#ious ones in an e+'$ess manne$( annu* on*" suc& dis'osi ions in &e '$io$ %i**s as a$e inconsis en %i & o$ con $a$" o &ose con ained in &e *a e$ %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 willpro*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 $e#oca ion made in a su!sequen %i** s&a** a2e effec ( e#en if &e ne% %i** s&ou*d !ecome ino'e$a i#e !" $eason of &e inca'aci " of &e &ei$s( de#isees o$ *e)a ees desi)na ed &e$ein( o$ !" &ei$ $enuncia ion.
&fficacy of the re*ocatory clause does not depend on the testamentary disposition of the re*o+ing willBN"&'' 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&)T ON is where the testator pro*ides in the su.sequent will that the re*ocation of the prior one is
Jen Laygo 3D
43
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
dependent on the Capacity or Acceptance of the heirsde*isees or legatees instituted in the su.sequent will. $&)&N$&NT 7&"AT K& 7&KOCAT ON
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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 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. Thereforethe 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 willso 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*ocationthe prior will was still re*o+ed .ecause such re*ocation was not dependent on the *alidity of the second will :6XX;
-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 disallowedfor 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 heirslegatees 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;
ART. <AA. A $e#oca ion of a %i** !ased on a fa*se cause o$ 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.
Jen Laygo 3D
44
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007
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 .adit 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%.
Subse#tion $ 1 !e'ubli#ation and !evival of 2ills ART. <A5. T&e es a o$ canno $e'u!*is&( %i &ou $e'$oducin) in a su!sequen %i**( &e dis'osi ions con ained in a '$e#ious one %&ic& is #oid as o i s fo$m. ART. <A8. T&e e+ecu ion 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 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.
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 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@.
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.
1.
REGCAP O. .OR,AL RE/0IRE,ENTS O. A 1ILL

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 pagee/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 cE 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.
ART. <A4. T&e $eco)ni ion of an i**e)i ima e c&i*d does no *ose i s *e)a* effec ( e#en &ou)& &e %i** %&e$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+edthe 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 &rt0$9. 2llegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. *he action must be brought within the same period specified in &rt0$3' e1cept when the action is based on the second paragraph of &rt0$;' in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
2asically- the principle laid down in Art?!# remains unaltered regarding these admissions contained in wills.
Jen Laygo 3D
D. =andicapped Testator aE $eaf or deaf>mute 9 personally read the will if a.le to do so- otherwise designate 2 persons to read and communicate it to him. Digests c/o 3C !"# !$% &lvin Saga' Cecille (atividad' C) *an' )ulie Domingo' +ars ,ongo' -ea +ateo' (ina ,ances . ,yan /uan 45 .E 2lind 9 read to him twice- once .y a su.scri.ing witness and another time .y the notary .efore whom it is ac+nowledged.
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007
REGCAP O. .OR,AL RE/0IRE,ENTS O. A 1ILL

+. $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. $ispositions .elow testator4s signature must also .e dated and signed. g. 5hen se*eral additional dispositions are signed .ut not dated- the last disposition must .e signed and dated to *alidate the dispositions preceding it. h. Any insertioncancellation- erasure or alteration must .e authenticated .y the testator4s full signatureotherwise it shall .e deemed as not made. i. )rohi.ition on Doint wills- especially .y 1ilipinos e*en if e/ecuted in a foreign country where Doint wills are allowed.
ART. <A7. If af e$ ma2in) a %i**( &e es a o$ ma2es a second %i** e+'$ess*" $e#o2in) &e fi$s ( &e $e#oca ion of &e second %i** does no de$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 2nd 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*isionsthe article will not apply and the effect will .e that the first will is re*i*ed. =owe*erwhen 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&)T ON 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.
f the testator wishes to 7epu.lish a will that is either3 1. KO $ for a reason other than a formal defector 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.
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
Jen Laygo 3D
46
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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 willtheir 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 1st 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 1st 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.stitutedthe 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*ethe re*ocation fails and the original will remains in full force.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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. - 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 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 MamuyacAm.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. - 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. - =ence- this appeal. 5ON- the will e/ecuted .y the Cesus de "eon- now deceasedwas 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.
Jen Laygo 3D
47
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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.
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 es a o$ &imse*f ma"( du$in) &is *ife ime( 'e i ion &e cou$ &a#in) Ju$isdic ion fo$ &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 af e$ &e es a o$:s dea & s&a** )o#e$n. T&e Su'$eme Cou$ s&a** fo$mu*a e suc& addi iona* Ru*es of Cou$ as ma" !e necessa$" fo$ &e a**o%ance of %i**s on 'e i ion of &e es a o$. Su!Jec o &e $i)& of a''ea*( &e a**o%ance of &e %i**( ei &e$ du$in) &e *ife ime of &e es a o$ o$ af e$ &is dea &( s&a** !e conc*usi#e as o i s due e+ecu ion.

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!a e 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 NT7 N' C *alidity and the pro.ate court should not pass upon that issue. &PC&)T ON > 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. 3uevara v. 3uevara
)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
CA'&
- &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.
Jen Laygo 3D
48
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- 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 .equestsde*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 willnone 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 lawamong which are the pu.lication and the personal notices to each and all of said heirs and legatees.
1ST SEM 2006-2007
- 'pouses 2erna.e de la 'erna and 8er*asia 7e.acae/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 erroneoushowe*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.
e la Cerna v. =otot
Jen Laygo 3D
49
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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.
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!a e is conc*usi#e as o &e due e+ecu ion 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- menacefraud- 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@(2they ha*e .een estranged and Martin had .een li*ing with '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.
ART. <AB. T&e %i** s&a** !e disa**o%ed in an" of &e fo**o%in) cases= >1? If &e fo$ma*i ies $equi$ed !" *a% &a#e no !een com'*ied %i &; >@? If &e es a o$ %as insane( o$ o &e$%ise men a**" inca'a!*e of ma2in) a %i**( a &e ime of i s e+ecu ion; >A? If i %as e+ecu ed &$ou)& fo$ce o$ unde$ du$ess( o$ &e inf*uence of fea$( o$ &$ea s; >4? If i %as '$ocu$ed !" undue and im'$o'e$ '$essu$e and inf*uence( on &e 'a$ of &e !eneficia$" o$ of some o &e$ 'e$son; >5? If &e si)na u$e of &e es a o$ %as '$ocu$ed !" f$aud; >8? If &e es a o$ ac ed !" mis a2e o$ did no in en &a &e ins $umen &e si)ned s&ou*d !e &is %i** a &e ime of affi+in) &is si)na u$e &e$e o.

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
Jen Laygo 3D
50
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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 -+&C%< @.&%SS< *)-L.%)C% +-%(& +& ,!&%(,S 1orce or Kiolence 9 when in order to wrest consent- serious or irresisti.le force is employed. $uress or ntimidation 9 when one of the contracting parties is compelled .y a reasona.le and well>grounded fear of imminent and gra*e e*il upon his person or property- or upon the person or property of his spousedescendants or ascendants- to gi*e his consent. Age- se/ and condition of the person are .orne in mind. Threat to enforce a Dust or legal claim through competent authority does not *itiate consent. .)@.% P *'P&+P%& P&%SS.&% ()@ *)-L.%)C% Bndue nfluence 9 when a person ta+es improper ad*antage of his power o*er the will of another- depri*ing the latter of a reasona.le freedom of choice. Circumstances such as the following shall .e considered3 confidential- family- spiritual and other relations .etween parties- or fact that person unduly influenced was suffering from mental wea+ness or ignorant or in financial distress. S*$)(,.&% P&+C.&%@ ,!&+.$! -&(.@ 1raud 9 when through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties- the other is induced to enter into a contract which- without them- he would not ha*e agreed to. '*S,(M% +& ,%S,(,+& @*@ )+, *),%), *)S,&.'%), ,+ B% !*S 4*LL 4!%) !% (--*D%@ !*S S*$)(,.&% ,!%&%,+ 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
1ST SEM 2006-2007

*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/ecutionwhether 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.
2.
C.
F.
Jen Laygo 3D
51
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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. - 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. 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- the trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will4s intrinsic *alidity e*en .efore the 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. G n 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 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
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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 especially where the will e*inces an intention on the part of 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 professionappears 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.
Jen Laygo 3D
52
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- 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 practicede*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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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.
: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. 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.
SEC-I./ + 1 I/S-I-U-I./ .( HEI! ART. <4C. Ins i u ion of &ei$ is an ac !" #i$ ue of %&ic& a es a o$ desi)na es 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)a ions.
7ules on institution of heir set forth in this section apply as well to institution of $e*isees and "egatees.
ART. <41. A %i** s&a** !e #a*id e#en &ou)& i s&ou*d no con ain an ins i u ion of an &ei$( o$ suc& ins i u ion s&ou*d no com'$ise &e en i$e es a e( and e#en &ou)& &e 'e$son so ins i u ed s&ou*d no acce' &e in&e$i ance o$ s&ou*d !e inca'aci a ed o succeed. In suc& cases &e es amen a$" dis'osi ions made in acco$dance %i & *a% s&a** !e com'*ied %i & and &e $emainde$ of &e es a e s&a** 'ass o &e *e)a* &ei$s. ART. <4@. One %&o &as no com'u*so$" &ei$s ma" dis'ose !" %i** of a** &is es a e o$ an" 'a$ of i in fa#o$ of an" 'e$son &a#in) ca'aci " o succeed. One %&o &as com'u*so$" &ei$s ma" dis'ose of &is es a e '$o#ided &e does no con $a#ene &e '$o#isions of &is Code %i & $e)a$d o &e *e)i ime of said &ei$s.
&*en if the will does not contain any testamentary disposition- it will .e formally *alid pro*ided it complies with all the formal requisites. This is in +eeping with the character of wills as dispositi*e of property under Art7?!. HO1 ,0CH CAN EE -ISPOSE- O. EF 1ILLL 1. No Compulsory =eirs 9 &ntire hereditary estate 2. There are Compulsory =eirs 9 the disposa.le portion or the net hereditary estate minus the legitimes. The amount of the legitimes depends on the +inds and num.er of compulsory heirs. Karious
Jen Laygo 3D
53
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
com.inations are possi.le and so the amount of disposa.le portion is also *aria.le.
1ST SEM 2006-2007 ART. <45. E#e$" dis'osi ion in fa#o$ of an un2no%n 'e$son s&a** !e #oid( un*ess !" some e#en o$ ci$cums ance &is iden i " !ecomes ce$ ain. Ho%e#e$( a dis'osi ion in fa#o$ of a defini e c*ass o$ )$ou' of 'e$sons s&a** !e #a*id.

f the testator disposes .y will of "&'' than he is allowed to- there will .e M P&$ 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 es a o$ s&a** desi)na e &e &ei$ !" &is name and su$name( and %&en &e$e a$e %o 'e$sons &a#in) &e same names( &e s&a** indica e some ci$cums ance !" %&ic& &e ins i u ed &ei$ ma" !e 2no%n. E#en &ou)& &e es a o$ ma" &a#e omi ed &e name of &e &ei$( s&ou*d &e desi)na e &im in suc& manne$ &a &e$e can !e no dou! as o %&o &as !een ins i u ed( &e ins i u ion s&a** !e #a*id. ART. <44. An e$$o$ in &e name( su$name( o$ ci$cums ances of &e &ei$ s&a** no #i ia e &e ins i u ion %&en i is 'ossi!*e( in an" o &e$ manne$( o 2no% %i & ce$ ain " &e 'e$son ins i u ed. If amon) &e 'e$sons &a#in) &e same names and su$names( &e$e is a simi*a$i " of ci$cums ances in suc& a %a" &a ( e#en %i & &e use of &e o &e$ '$oof( &e 'e$son ins i u ed canno !e iden ified( none of &em s&a** !e an &ei$.
Bn+nown )erson This article refers to a successor whose identity cannot .e determined .ecause the designation in the will is so unclear or so am.iguous as to .e incapa.le of resolution. This does not refer to one with whom the testator is not personally acquainted. The testator may institute some.ody who is a perfect stranger to him- pro*ided the identity is clearly designated in the will
ART. <48. Hei$s ins i u ed %i &ou desi)na ion of s&a$es s&a** in&e$i in equa* 'a$ s.
7&QB 7&M&NT 1O7 $&' 8NAT ON O1 =& 7 The heirlegatee or de*isee must .e iden ified in &e %i** %i & sufficien c*a$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. ,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.
8&N&7A" )7&'BM)T ON %=uality in cases of collecti8e designation. f the testator intends an unequal apportionmenthe should so specify. The article applies only in testa6entary successionand 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 $.
ART. <47. 1&en &e es a o$ ins i u es some &ei$s indi#idua**" and o &e$s co**ec i#e*" as %&en &e sa"s( 6I desi)nate as my @eirs A and B9 and t@e #@ildren of C(7 &ose co**ec i#e*" desi)na ed s&a** !e conside$ed as indi#idua**" ins i u ed( un*ess i c*ea$*" a''ea$s &a &e in en ion of &e es a o$ %as o &e$%ise.

&quality and ndi*iduality of $esignation This article follows the .asic rule of equality in the pre*ious article. n addition- it esta.lished the )7&'BM)T ON that &e &ei$s co**ec i#e*" $efe$$ed o
Jen Laygo 3D
54
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
a$e desi)na ed 'er #a'ita a*on) %i & &ose se'a$a e*" desi)na ed. f the testator intends a .loc+ designation- he should so specify.
1ST SEM 2006-2007 ART. <5C. T&e s a emen of a fa*se cause fo$ &e ins i u ion of an &ei$ s&a** !e conside$ed as no %$i en( un*ess i a''ea$s f$om &e %i** &a &e es a o$ %ou*d no &a#e made suc& ins i u ion if &e &ad 2no%n &e fa*si " of suc& cause.
ART. <4<. If &e es a o$ s&ou*d ins i u e &is !$o &e$s and sis e$s( and &e &as some of fu** !*ood and o &e$s of &a*f !*ood( &e in&e$i ance s&a** !e dis $i!u ed equa**" un*ess a diffe$en in en ion a''ea$s.

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.
Once again- this article follows the general rule of equality laid down in Art?#(. Also- if the testator intends an unequal apportionmenthe should so specify. $ 11&7&NT 7B"& N NT&'TACI Art?#? only applies to testamentary successionwherein 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; &rt. 0!!". Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood' the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter. &rt. <<;. &n illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestate 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.
&PC&)T ON 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 causehe would not ha*e instituted the heir. Austria v. !eyes
CA'&
- 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 CruH2enita 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.ate2asilia 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 lawindependent 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
7&>CA) 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 $oes Art?#? apply e*en to illegitimate .rothers and sisters- in cases where the testator is of legitimate status and *ice *ersa6 I&'. Art?#? does not distinguish.
ART. <4B. 1&en &e es a o$ ca**s o &e succession a 'e$son and &is c&i*d$en &e" a$e a** deemed o &a#e !een ins i u ed 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 apportionmenthe should so specify.
Jen Laygo 3D
55
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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 sideespecially where the will e*inces an intention on the part of 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*ailthat 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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 in en ion of &e es a o$ &a &e ins i u ed &ei$s s&ou*d !ecome so*e &ei$s o &e %&o*e es a e( o$ &e %&o*e f$ee 'o$ ion( as &e case ma" !e( and eac& of &em &as !een ins i u ed o an a*iquo 'a$ of &e in&e$i ance and &ei$ a*iquo 'a$ s o)e &e$ do no co#e$ &e %&o*e in&e$i ance( o$ &e %&o*e f$ee 'o$ ion( eac& 'a$ s&a** !e inc$eased '$o'o$ iona**". ART. <5A. If eac& of &e ins i u ed &ei$s &as !een )i#en an a*iquo 'a$ of &e in&e$i ance( and &e 'a$ s o)e &e$ e+ceed &e %&o*e in&e$i ance( o$ &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.
ART. <51. If &e es a o$ &as ins i u ed on*" one &ei$( and &e ins i u ion is *imi ed o an a*iquo 'a$ of &e in&e$i ance( *e)a* succession a2es '*ace %i & $es'ec o &e $emainde$ of &e es a e. T&e same $u*e a''*ies if &e es a o$ &as ins i u ed se#e$a* &ei$s( eac& !ein) *imi ed o an a*iquo 'a$ ( and a** &e 'a$ s do no co#e$ &e %&o*e in&e$i ance.
FORMULA FOR PROPORTIONATE INCREASE OR DECREASE

P HEIR S SH!RE $ P TOT!L DISPOSED DISPOS!%LE " #
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 &rt. 890. 2f the testator has instituted only one heir' and the institution is limited to an aliquot part of the inheritance' less than the entire disposable portion, legal succession ta6es place with respect to the remainder of the estate. *he same rule applies if the testator has instituted several heirs' each being limited to an aliquot part' and all the parts do not cover the whole inheritance.
P TOT!L EST!TE
ART. <54. T&e '$e e$i ion 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+ecu ion of &e %i** o$ !o$n af e$ &e dea & of &e es a o$( s&a** annu* &e ins i u ion of &ei$; !u &e de#ises and *e)acies s&a** !e #a*id insofa$ as &e" a$e no inofficious. If &e omi ed com'u*so$" &ei$s s&ou*d die !efo$e &e es a o$( &e ins i u ion s&a** !e effec ua*( %i &ou '$eJudice o &e $i)& of $e'$esen a ion.
Jen Laygo 3D
56
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

Donations made to strangers shall be charged to that part of the estate of which the testator could have disposed by his last will. 2nsofar as they may be inofficious or may e1ceed the disposable portion' they shall be reduced according to the rules established by this Code. &rt. <0!. Donations which an illegitimate child may have received during the lifetime of his father or mother' shall be charged to his legitime. Should they e1ceed the portion that can be freely disposed of' they shall be reduced in the manner prescribed by this Code. &rt. 0!";. Collation shall not ta6e place among compulsory heirs if the donor should have so e1pressly provided' or if the donee should repudiate the inheritance' unless the donation should be reduced as inofficious. *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 legitimewill simply .e to demand completion of his legitime- under Articles @A( and @A7.
)7&T&7 T ON 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 fatherson- 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 $efinition 9 ,2y preterition is meant the omission in the will of any of the compulsory heirswithout .eing e/pressly disinherited. t is thus a tacit depri*ation of the legitime- as distinguished from disinheritance- which is an e/press depri*ation.0 O,ISSION THAT CONSTIT0TES PRETERITION *f the heir in =uestion is instituted in the will but the portion gi8en to hi6 by the will is less than his legiti6e L there is no preterition. n the case of 7eyes *. 2aretto>$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 2ased on these- the holding was that there was NO )7&T&7 T ON. 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. &rt. <!". &ny compulsory heir to whom the testator has left by any title less than the legitime belonging to him may demand that the same may be fully satisfied. &rt. <!$. *estamentary dispositions that impair or diminish the legitime of the compulsory heirs shall be reduced on petition of the same' insofar as they may be inofficious or e1cessive. *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. &rt. <!<. Donations given to children shall be charged to their legitime.
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=&7 TANC&. 1HO ARE INCL0-E- 1ITHIN THE TER,S O. THE ARTICLEL A compulsory heir in the direct linewhether 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 ""&8 T MAT& $&'C&N$ANT' O7 A'C&N$ANT' within the co*erage of ,compulsory heirs in the direct line06 Manresa 9 I&'- 'cae*ola 9 NO.
Jen Laygo 3D
57
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
Manresa4s seems to .e the .etter opinionsince 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&7 T&$ COM)B"'O7I =& 7 9
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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 *. Nuguidannulment 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
2nd 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 childA>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= "$7&N Case of Acain *. AC answers the question of whether an adopted child is within the contemplation of this article as ,compulsory heir in the direct line0 and rules in fa*or of the adopted child4s inclusion in the phrase. An adopted child therefore- if totally omitted in the inheritance- is preterited within the contemplation of Art?%# and can in*o+e its protection and consequences. Acain4s logic is that since an adopted child is gi*en .y law the same rights as a legitimate child- *is>Z>*is the adopter- then the adopted child can- in proper casesin*o+e Art?%# in the same manner that a legitimate child can. The law cited was Art!@ of )$(A! or the Child and Iouth 5elfare Code as supplanted .y Art1?@:1; of the 8amily Code- li+ewise supplanted .y 'ecs 17 and
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&7 T ON *. N&11&CT K& $ ' N=&7 TANC& )reterition is total omission from the inheritancewithout 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 heirthis article will not apply.
Jen Laygo 3D
58
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
'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. !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 partitiondistri.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. - 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 oneand 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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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 $uncan- who alone was e/pressly recogniHed .y him - There is no preterition if the heir is gi*en a legacy or de*ise. - Art. ?%# of the NCC3 The preterition or omission of onesome- or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct linewhether li*ing at the time of the e/ecution of the will or .orn after the death of the testatorshall annul the institution of heir< .ut the de*ises and legacies shall .e *alid insofar as they are not inofficious. - Art. @A( of the NCC3 Any compulsory heir whom the testator has left .y any title less than the legitime .elonging to him may demand that the same .e fully satisfied. - P$e e$i ion is the omission of the heir in the will- either .y not naming him at all or- while mentioning him as fatherson- 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
CA'&'
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.
Jen Laygo 3D
59
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
institution in the will not .e annulled. There would .e no intestacy.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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 repeatNshall annul the institution of heirN. This annulment is in totounless 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 disinheritedNwhich 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.
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 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 linewhether li*ing at the time of the e/ecution of the will or .orn after the death of the testatorshall annul the institution of heir< .ut the de*ises and legacies shall .e *alid insofar as they are not inofficious. - P$e e$i ion consists in the omission in the testator4s will of the forced heirs .ecause they were not mentioned thereinor though mentioned- they are neither instituted as heirs not are e/pressly disinherited.
ART. <55. T&e s&a$e of a c&i*d o$ descendan omi ed in a %i** mus fi$s !e a2en f$om &e 'a$ of &e es a e 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.
/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.
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,PAIRELEGITI,EL 1rom the portion of the estate left undisposed of .y will. 1rom the shares of the testamentary heirslegatees 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.; mandateany compulsory heir whose legitime is impaired may demand that the same .e fully satisfied.
Jen Laygo 3D
60
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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. 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 > *he share of the compulsory heir omitted in a will must first be ta6en from the part of the estate not disposed of by the will' if any= if that is not sufficient' so much as may be necessary must be ta6en proportionally from the shares of the other heirs given to them by will.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

Outline of 7ules
PREDECEASE *( , INCAPACITY *( , RENUNCIATION *( , DISINHERITANCE *( ,
Kind of Heir COMPULSORY VOLUNTARY LEGAL
(& (&
(& (&
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. $.E And that if the heir shall later sell- lease- mortgage this said "ot- the .uyer- lessee- mortgagee- shall ha*e also the o.ligation to deli*er yearly 1AA piculs of sugar to Maria 2elleHa- pro*ided that the .uyerlessor or mortgagor .e near descendants and sister of the testator. - The will also pro*ided that in case the .uyerlessor or mortgagor fails to fulfill said o.ligations- Maria 2elleHa is entitled to forfeit the lots in fa*or of the testator4s descendants. - Corge 7a.adilla died- and his spouse and children succeeded him. - Now- Maria 2elleHa filed a complaint against Corge4s heirs due to alleged *iolations of the Codicil and as+ed for the property to .e recon*eyed to the near descendants of AleDa 2elleHa on the ground that3 A.E the lot was mortgaged to )N2- not a near descendant of the testator2.E that the heirs failed to deli*er the piculs of sugar .eg. 1@?%C.E that )N2 also did not comply with the o.ligation to deli*er 1AA piculs of sugarLyear. - 7TC dismissed the claim. On Appeal- the CA ruled that indeed the heirs *iolated the o.ligations imposed upon them and therefore the land should .e seiHed and recon*eyed to the estate of AleDa. =owe*er- they should file a separate proceeding to re>open the estate and ha*e it distri.uted to AleDa4s heirs. - 2elleHa Appealed.
ART. <58. A #o*un a$" &ei$ %&o dies !efo$e &e es a o$ $ansmi s no &in) o &is &ei$s. A com'u*so$" &ei$ %&o dies !efo$e &e es a o$( a 'e$son inca'aci a ed o succeed( and one %&o $enounces &e in&e$i ance( 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 predeceaseincapacity or renunciationtransmits 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 legaltransmits NOT= N8 to his heirs in case of predeceaseincapacityrenunciation 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.
Jen Laygo 3D
61
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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 incapacitypredecease 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 $ansmi the property to a second heir is not present. - n this case- the instituted heir is in fact allowed under the Codicil to a*iena e the property pro*ided the negotiation is with the near descendants or the sister of the testatri/. 5ithout the duty to preser*e- there is no fideicommissary su.stitution. - Also- the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the property is transmitted must not .e .eyond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciary. - n this case- the second heir or the fideicommissary to whom the property is transmitted must not .e .eyond one degree from the first heir or the fiduciary. - The disposition was in the nature of modal institutions. =erethe testator imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without- howe*er- affecting the efficacy of such institution. - n conditional su.stitution howe*er- the efficacy of the inheritance is su.Dect to the condition. - n case of dou.t- the institution must .e considered as modal and not institutional. - n simple su.stitutions- the second heir ta+es the inheritance in default of the first heir .y reason of incapacitypredecease or renunciation. - &lements in 1ideicommissary 'u.3 AE the first heir is o.liged to '$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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- Alicia claimed a.solute ownership as e*inced .y a deed of dona ion 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 settlement7e.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!s i u ion is &e a''oin men of ano &e$ &ei$ so &a &e ma" en e$ in o &e in&e$i ance in defau* of &e &ei$ o$i)ina**" ins i u ed.
/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.
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. 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.
Jen Laygo 3D
62
SUCCESSION REVIEWER

1ST SEM 2006-2007 'a$a)$a'&( un*ess &e es a o$ &as o &e$%ise '$o#ided.
Sim'*e su!s i u ion is $ea**" a fo$m of condi iona* ins i u ion. 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&'T7 CT ON O7 2B7$&N on the first heir- coupled with a selection of a su.sequent recipient of the property.
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 $& 1O7 ' M)"& 'B2'T TBT ON 5 T= A"" ! CAB'&' 1. 2y specifying all ! causes 2. 2y merely pro*iding for a simple su.stitution
A$ . <5<. Su!s i u ion of &ei$s ma" !e= >1? Sim'*e o$ common; >@? E$ief o$ com'endious; >A? Reci'$oca*; o$ >4? .ideicommissa$".
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&'T ON' 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
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 !. 7eciprocal :reciproca; 9 Art?(1 #. 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 es a o$ ma" desi)na e one o$ mo$e 'e$sons o su!s i u e &e &ei$ o$ &ei$s ins i u ed in case suc& &ei$ o$ &ei$s s&ou*d die !efo$e &im( o$ s&ou*d no %is&( o$ s&ou*d !e inca'aci a ed o acce' &e in&e$i ance. A sim'*e su!s i u ion( %i &ou a s a emen of &e cases o %&ic& i $efe$s( s&a** com'$ise &e &e$e men ioned in &e '$ecedin) Jen Laygo 3D
ART. <8C. T%o o$ mo$e 'e$sons ma" !e su!s i u ed 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. $istinctions 2rief 9 2 or more su.stitutes for 1 original heir Compendious 9 1 su.stitute for 2 or more orig.
63
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
=owe*er- most commentators use the terms interchangea.ly.
1ST SEM 2006-2007 c&a$)es o$ condi ions a$e 'e$sona**" a''*ica!*e on*" o &e &ei$ ins i u ed.
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.
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!s i u ion %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 ins i u ed in unequa* s&a$es s&ou*d !e $eci'$oca**" su!s i u ed( &e su!s i u e s&a** acqui$e &e s&a$e of &e &ei$ %&o dies( $enounces( o$ is inca'aci a ed( un*ess i c*ea$*" a''ea$s &a &e in en ion of &e es a o$ %as o &e$%ise. If &e$e a$e mo$e &an one su!s i u e( &e" s&a** &a#e &e same s&a$e in &e su!s i u ion as in &e ins i u ion.

ART. <8A. A fideicommisa$" su!s i u ion !" #i$ ue of %&ic& &e fiducia$" o$ fi$s &ei$ ins i u ed is en $us ed %i & &e o!*i)a ion o '$ese$#e and o $ansmi o a second &ei$ &e %&o*e o$ 'a$ of &e in&e$i ance( s&a** !e #a*id and s&a** a2e effec ( '$o#ided suc& su!s i u ion does no )o !e"ond one de)$ee f$om &e &ei$ o$i)ina**" ins i u ed( and '$o#ided fu$ &e$( &a &e fiducia$" o$ fi$s &ei$ and &e second &ei$ a$e *i#in) a &e ime of &e dea & of &e es a o$.

1irst heir 9 fiduciary < 'econd heir 9 fideicommissary ELE,ENTS O. .I-EICO,ISARIA #. ( #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. ( 2nd 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 to a period- and that right passes to his own heirs should he die .efore the fiduciary4s right e/pires. 2. ,he 2nd 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 C. @ual obligation i6posed upon the #st heir toI a; Preser8e the property< and
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 shallin addition to his gi*en share- acquire the share of the heir who he is su.stituting for due to predeceaserenunciation 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!s i u e s&a** !e su!Jec o &e same c&a$)es and condi ions im'osed u'on &e ins i u ed &ei$( un*ess &e es a o$ &as e+'$ess*" '$o#ided &e con $a$"( o$ &e
Jen Laygo 3D
64
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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 5 T=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 )C 2 *. &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 $BC A7I4' $&AT=. This is .ased on the presumption that the testator intended the fiduciary to enDoy the property during his lifetime. F. Both heirs 6ust be li8ing and dis=ualified to succeed at the ti6e of the testator7s death. Li#in) 9 acco$din) o A$ ic*es 4CG41
&rt. 4!. >irth determines personality= but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it' provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article. &rt. 40. ?or civil purposes' the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother@s womb. Aowever' if the fetus had an intra#uterine life of less than seven months' it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty#four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

&ll other corporations or entities may succeed under a will' unless there is a provision to the contrary in their charter or the laws of their creation' and always sub7ect to the same. &rt. 0!;$. *he following are incapable of succeeding% B0C *he priest who heard the confession of the testator during his last illness' or the minister of the gospel who e1tended spiritual aid to him during the same period= B;C *he relatives of such priest or minister of the gospel within the fourth degree' the church' order' chapter' community' organi:ation' or institution to which such priest or minister may belong= B3C & guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a ward in his favor before the final accounts of the guardianship have been approved' even if the testator should die after the approval thereof= nevertheless' any provision made by the ward in favor of the guardian when the latter is his ascendant' descendant' brother' sister' or spouse' shall be valid= B4C &ny attesting witness to the e1ecution of a will' the spouse' parents' or children' or any one claiming under such witness' spouse' parents' or children= B9C &ny physician' surgeon' nurse' health officer or druggist who too6 care of the testator during his last illness= B"C 2ndividuals' associations and corporations not permitted by law to inherit. &rt. 0!;8. *he prohibitions mentioned in article $3<' concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary provisions. &rt. 0!;<. Should the testator dispose of the whole or part of his property for prayers and pious wor6s for the benefit of his soul' in general terms and without specifying its application' the e1ecutor' with the court@s approval shall deliver one#half thereof or its proceeds to the church or denomination to which the testator may belong' to be used for such prayers and pious wor6s' and the other half to the State' for the purposes mentioned in &rticle 0!03. &rt. 0!3!. *estamentary provisions in favor of the poor in general' without designation of particular persons or of any community' shall be deemed limited to the poor living in the domicile of the testator at the time of his death' unless it should clearly appear that his intention was otherwise. *he designation of the persons who are to be considered as poor and the distribution of the property shall be made by the person appointed by the testator for the purpose= in default of such person' by the e1ecutor' and should there be no e1ecutor' by the 7ustice of the peace' the mayor' and the municipal treasurer' who shall decide by a ma7ority of votes all questions that may arise. 2n all these cases' the approval of the Court of ?irst 2nstance shall be necessary. *he preceding paragraph shall apply when the testator has disposed of his property in favor of the poor of a definite locality. &rt. 0!30. & testamentary provision in favor of a disqualified person' even though made under the guise of an onerous contract' or made through an intermediary' shall be void. &rt. 0!3;. *he following are incapable of succeeding by reason of unworthiness% B0C 5arents who have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life' or attempted against their virtue= B;C &ny person who has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator' his or her spouse' descendants' or ascendants= B3C &ny person who has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for si1 years or more' if the accusation has been found groundless= B4C &ny heir of full age who' having 6nowledge of the violent death of the testator' should fail to report it to an officer of the law within a month' unless the authorities have already ta6en action= this prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein' according to law' there is no obligation to ma6e an accusation= B9C &ny person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator=
/ua*ified 9 acco$din) o A$ ic*es 1C@4G 1CA4.

&rt. 0!;4. 5ersons not incapacitated by law may succeed by will or ab intestato. *he provisions relating to incapacity by will are equally applicable to intestate succession. &rt. 0!;9. 2n order to be capacitated to inherit' the heir' devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the succession opens' e1cept in case of representation' when it is proper. & child already conceived at the time of the death of the decedent is capable of succeeding provided it be born later under the conditions prescribed in article 40. &rt. 0!;". & testamentary disposition may be made to the State' provinces' municipal corporations' private corporations' organi:ations' or associations for religious' scientific' cultural' educational' or charitable purposes.
Jen Laygo 3D
65
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
B"C &ny person who by fraud' violence' intimidation' or undue influence should cause the testator to ma6e a will or to change one already made= B$C &ny person who by the same means prevents another from ma6ing a will' or from revo6ing one already made' or who supplants' conceals' or alters the latter@s will= B8C &ny person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the decedent. &rt. 0!33. *he cause of unworthiness shall be without effect if the testator had 6nowledge thereof at the time he made the will' or if' having 6nown of them subsequently' he should condone them in writing. &rt. 0!34. 2n order to 7udge the capacity of the heir' devisee or legatee' his qualification at the time of the death of the decedent shall be the criterion. 2n cases falling under (os. ;' 3' or 9 of &rticle 0!3;' it shall be necessary to wait until final 7udgment is rendered' and in the case falling under (o. 4' the e1piration of the month allowed for the report. 2f the institution' devise or legacy should be conditional' the time of the compliance with the condition shall also be considered.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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 $eterioration to )roperty f caused .y a fortuitous e*ent or ordinary wear and tear 9 fiduciary is not lia.le f caused .y fiduciary4s fault or negligence 9 fiduciary is lia.le.
NOT& 9 this 2>fold requirement is to .e met only upon the testator4s death- and this applies not only to the fiduciary .ut to the second heir as well.
ART. <88. T&e second &ei$ s&a** acqui$e a $i)& o &e succession f$om &e ime of &e es a o$:s dea &( e#en &ou)& &e s&ou*d die !efo$e &e fiducia$". T&e $i)& of &e second &ei$ s&a** 'ass o &is &ei$s.
Thus- the 2nd heir need not sur*i*e the first heir- if the 2nd heir dies .efore the first heir- the 2 nd heir4s own heirs merely ta+e his place.
ART. <84. A fideicommissa$" su!s i u ion can ne#e$ !u$den &e *e)i ime.
"egitime passes .y strict operation of lawtherefore the testator has no power o*er it.
n connection with Art?(! on element of fideicommissary that .oth heirs must .e li*ing and disqualified to succeed at the time of the testator4s death. The second heir4s right *ests upon the testator4s deathconforma.ly with Art777 and Art?7? since as far as the second heir is concerned- the institution of him is one su.Dect to a suspensi*e term. Thus- the second heir does not ha*e to sur*i*e the first heir in order for the su.stitution to .e effecti*e. The second heir4s own heirs simply ta+e his place .y succeeding to the *ested right already possessed .y the second heir.
ART. <85. E#e$" fideicommisa$" su!s i u ion mus !e e+'$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$i ance o &e second &ei$( %i &ou o &e$ deduc ions &an &ose %&ic& a$ise f$om *e)i ima e e+'enses( c$edi s and im'$o#emen s( sa#e in &e case %&e$e &e es a o$ &as '$o#ided o &e$%ise.

1 $& COM 'A7 A '=OB"$ 2& EHPRESSLF M)O'&$. @ %a"s of ma2in) an e+'$ess im'osi ion 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 $eductions 1. 87 9 fiduciary should deli*er property NTACT and BN$ M N '=&$ to the fideicommissary heir upon the arri*al of the period. 2. The only $eductions allowed- in the a.sence of a contrary pro*ision in the will are 9
ART. <87. T&e fo**o%in) s&a** no a2e effec = >1? .ideicommissa$" su!s i u ions %&ic& a$e no made in an e+'$ess manne$( ei &e$ !" )i#in) &em &is name( o$ im'osin) u'on &e fiducia$" &e a!so*u e o!*i)a ion o de*i#e$ &e '$o'e$ " o a second &ei$; >@? P$o#isions %&ic& con ain a 'e$'e ua* '$o&i!i ion o a*iena e( 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$edi a$" '$o'e$ " in o$de$ &a &e ma" a''*" o$ in#es &e same acco$din) o sec$e ins $uc ions communica ed o &im !" &e es a o$.
)ro*isions that shall NOT TAF& &11&CT
Jen Laygo 3D
66
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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.
1ST SEM 2006-2007 in&e$i ance( and o ano &e$ &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 as to the two of them- all the requisites of Art?(! must .e present.
ART. <7C. T&e dis'osi ions of &e es a o$ dec*a$in) a** o$ 'a$ of &e es a e ina*iena!*e fo$ mo$e &an %en " "ea$s a$e #oid.

f the testator imposes a longer period than 2A yearsthe 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.
#. "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 &NT 7& )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!s i u ion does no '$eJudice &e #a*idi " of &e ins i u ion of &e &ei$s fi$s desi)na ed; &e fideicommissa$" c*ause s&a** sim'*" !e conside$ed as no %$i en.
f the fideicommissary su.stitution is *oid or ineffecti*ethe 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 es a o$ *ea#es o a 'e$son &e %&o*e o$ 'a$ of &e Jen Laygo 3D 67
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- 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 1st 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. - $ying .efore the testator is not the only case for *ulgar su.stitution for it also includes refusal or incapacity to accept the inheritance as pro*ided in Art. ?%@. - =ence the *ulgar su.stitution is *alid. 5ON- the fideicommissary su.stitutions are *alid. - No. 5ith respect to the fideicommissary- the appellants were correct in their claim that is *oid. - The su.stitutes are not related to 5anda- the heir originally instituted. The Ci*il Code specifically pro*ides that to .e *alid- the su.stitution should not go .eyond one degree from the heir originally instituted. - 1urthermore- there is no a.solute duty imposed on 5anda to transmit the usufruct to the su.stitutes as required .y Arts. ?(% and ?(7. - n fact- the testator contradicts the esta.lishment of a fideicommissary su.stitution when he permits the proper su.Dect of the usufruct to .e sold upon mutual agreement of the usufructuaries and na+ed owners. 5ON- the grant of the usufruct to 5anda is *oid under the constitution. - No. 5ith respect to the usufruct in fa*or of 5anda- al.eit a real right- does not *est title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the *esting of title to land in fa*or of aliens which is proscri.ed .y the Constitution. n this case- no title *ests upon 5anda. - A *ulgar su.stitution of heirs is *alid e*en if the heir designated sur*i*es the testator< inasmuch as *ulgar su.stitution can ta+e place also .y refusal or incapacity to inherit of the first heir. - A fideicommissary su.stitution is *oid if first heir is not related in the 1st degree to the 2nd heir. - The constitutional pro*ision which allows aliens to acquire lands .y succession does not apply to testamentary succession. - An alien may .e .estowed usufructuary rights o*er a parcel of land in the )hilippines.
DIN-S O. S0ESTIT0TIONS
1. SI,PLE o$ 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 o 2rief 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 heirsdefault 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 sharesand they are reciprocal su.stitutes of each other- the su.stitute shallin addition to his gi*en share- acquire the share of the heir who he is su.stituting for due to predeceaserenunciation 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 1E A 1st heir who ta+es the property upon the testator4s death 2E A 2nd heir who ta+es the property su.sequently from the fiduciary !E The 2nd heir must .e 1 degree from the first heir #E $ual o.ligation imposed upon the 1st heir to3 a. )reser*e the property- and .. To transmit it after the lapse of the period to the fideicommissary heir. %E 2oth heirs must .e li*ing and disqualified to succeed at the time of the testator4s death. 1ideicommissary su.stitution should .e e/pressly pro*ided for in the will
Cases for Arti#les *7$&*$< !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 su.mitted an in*entory of the estate. Gloo+ at the case for the in*entoryE
Araas v. Araas
Jen Laygo 3D
68
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

- "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 restresidue and remainder of my estate- .oth real and personalwhere*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 )C 2 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. - )C 2- 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.
- 1r. Teodoro Aranas- a priest of the 7oman Catholic Churchdied 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 dispositionrelying 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 timeeither 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
=CIB v. Es#olin
Jen Laygo 3D
69
SUCCESSION REVIEWER 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 ins i u ion of an &ei$ ma" !e made condi iona**"( 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 $efinitions CON$ T ON 9 defined o.liquely in Art117@ par1.
&rt. 00$<. Dvery obligation whose performance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event' or upon a past event un6nown to the parties' is demandable at once. Dvery obligation which contains a resolutory condition shall also be demandable' without pre7udice to the effects of the happening of the event.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

8&N&7A" )7OK ' ON' Art?71 9 The right of the testator to impose conditionsterms or modes springs from testamentary freedom. f he has the right to dispose of his estate mortis causathen he has the right to ma+e the disposition su.Dect to a condition- term or mode.
ART. <7@. T&e es a o$ canno im'ose an" c&a$)e( condi ion o$ su!s i u ion %&a soe#e$ u'on &e *e)i imes '$esc$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 lawindependent 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 condi ions and &ose con $a$" o *a% o$ )ood cus oms s&a** !e conside$ed as no im'osed and s&a** in no manne$ '$eJudice &e &ei$( e#en if &e es a o$ s&ou*d o &e$%ise '$o#ide.
T&7M 9 defined o.liquely in Art117! pars 1 V !

&rt. 00<3. Ebligations for whose fulfillment a day certain has been fi1ed' shall be demandable only when that day comes. Ebligations with a resolutory period ta6e effect at once' but terminate upon arrival of the day certain. & day certain is understood to be that which must necessarily come' although it may not be 6nown when. 2f the uncertainty consists in whether the day will come or not' the obligation is conditional' and it shall be regulated by the rules of the preceding Section.
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 $onations is the same. 9 considered as not imposed Art. 727. llegal or impossi.le conditions in simple and remuneratory donations shall .e considered as not imposed. On the other hand- the rule in O.ligations is different. 9 annuls the o.ligation Art. 11?!. mpossi.le conditions- those contrary to good customs or pu.lic policy and those prohi.ited .y law shall annul the o.ligation which depends upon them. f the o.ligation is di*isi.le- that part thereof which is not affected .y the impossi.le or unlawful condition shall .e *alid. The condition not to do an impossi.le thing shall .e considered as not ha*ing .een agreed upon. 7eason for difference in rule Testamentary dispositions and donations are .oth gratuitous and spring from the grantor4s li.erality. The imposition of a condition does not displace li.erality as the .asis of the grant. On the other hand- in o.ligations which are onerous- the condition that is imposed .ecomes an integral part of the causa of the o.ligation. The
MO$& 9 defined o.liquely in Art??2.

&rt. 88;. *he statement of the ob7ect of the institution' or the application of the property left by the testator' or the charge imposed by him' shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention. *hat which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give security for compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he or they may receive' together with its fruits and interests' if he or they should disregard this obligation.
)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
Jen Laygo 3D
70
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
elimination of that condition for .eing impossi.le or illegal results in a failure of cause.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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. <74. An a!so*u e condi ion no o con $ac a fi$s o$ su!sequen ma$$ia)e s&a** !e conside$ed as no %$i en un*ess suc& condi ion &as !een im'osed on &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ !" &e deceased s'ouse o$ !" &e *a e$:s ascendan s o$ descendan s. Ne#e$ &e*ess( &e $i)& of usuf$uc ( o$ an a**o%ance o$ some 'e$sona* '$es a ion ma" !e de#ised o$ !equea &ed o an" 'e$son fo$ &e ime du$in) %&ic& &e o$ s&e s&ou*d $emain unma$$ied o$ in %ido%&ood.
ART. <78. An" 'u$e*" 'o es a i#e condi ion im'osed u'on an &ei$ mus !e fu*fi**ed !" &im a soon as &e *ea$ns of &e es a o$:s dea &. T&is $u*e s&a** no a''*" %&en &e condi ion( a*$ead" com'*ied %i &( canno !e fu*fi**ed a)ain. ART. <77. If &e condi ion is casua* o$ mi+ed( i s&a** !e sufficien if i &a''en o$ !e fu*fi**ed a an" ime !efo$e o$ af e$ &e dea & of &e es a o$( un*ess &e &as '$o#ided o &e$%ise. S&ou*d i &a#e e+is ed o$ s&ou*d i &a#e !een fu*fi**ed a &e ime &e %i** %as e+ecu ed and &e es a o$ %as una%a$e &e$eof( i s&a** !e deemed as com'*ied %i &. If &e &ad 2no%*ed)e &e$eof( &e condi ion s&a** !e conside$ed fu*fi**ed on*" %&en i is of suc& a na u$e &a i can no *on)e$ e+is o$ !e com'*ied %i & a)ain. A!-. **59 'ar. +. If &e 'e$son in e$es ed in &e condi ion s&ou*d '$e#en i s fu*fi**men ( %i &ou &e fau* of &e &ei$( &e condi ion s&a** !e deemed o &a#e !een com'*ied %i &. ART. <7B. If &e 'o es a i#e condi ion im'osed u'on &e &ei$ is ne)a i#e o$ consis s 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 '$o&i!i ed !" &e es a o$( and &a in case of con $a#en ion &e %i** $e u$n %&a e#e$ &e ma" &a#e $ecei#ed( o)e &e$ %i & i s f$ui s and in e$es s.
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 2nd 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 conditionassuming it is *alidly imposed- is N&8AT K& in naturea 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'osi ion made u'on &e condi ion &a &e &ei$ s&a** ma2e some '$o#ision in fa#o$ of &e *a e$ of &e es a o$ o$ of an" o &e$ 'e$son s&a** !e #oid.
These articles go*ern )OT&'TAT K&- CA'BA" and M P&$ 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- ,IHECON-ITIONS A. )OT&'TAT K& 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.
Scriptura Captatoria 9 "egacy>hunting dispositionswhether 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 !. t gi*es the testator the power to dispose 6ortis causa not only of his property .ut also of his heir4s.
Jen Laygo 3D
71
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
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
1ST SEM 2006-2007
ART. <<1. T&e a''oin men of &e adminis $a o$ of &e es a e men ioned in &e '$ecedin) a$ ic*e( as %e** as &e manne$ of adminis $a ion and &e $i)& s and o!*i)a ions of &e adminis $a o$ s&a** !e )o#e$ned !" &e Ru*es of Cou$ .
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 M P&$ 87 9 may .e fulfilled at any time- .efore or after the testator4s death- unless the testator pro*ides otherwise. QBA" 1 CAT ON' 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 f not an interested party 9 not applica.le
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. 2nd paragraph 9 the property shall .e in the e/ecutor4s or administrator4s custody until the heir furnishes the caucion muciana. )rocedural rules go*erning administrator 9 7ules 77>@A 7oC. appointment of
A!-. **%. Condi ions im'osed !" &e es a o$ u'on &e &ei$s s&a** !e )o#e$ned !" &e $u*es es a!*is&ed fo$ condi iona* o!*i)a ions in a** ma e$s no '$o#ided fo$ !" &is Sec ion.
'uppletorily go*erning conditional institutions Articles 117@ and 11@2 on conditional o.ligations.
are
ART. <<C. If &e &ei$ !e ins i u ed unde$ a sus'ensi#e condi ion o$ e$m &e es a e s&a** !e '*aced unde$ adminis $a ion un i* &e condi ion is fu*fi**ed( o$ un i* i !ecomes ce$ ain &a i canno !e fu*fi**ed( o$ un i* &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.
&rt. 00$<. Dvery obligation whose performance does not depend upon a future or uncertain event' or upon a past event un6nown to the parties' is demandable at once. Dvery obligation which contains a resolutory condition shall also be demandable' without pre7udice to the effects of the happening of the event. &rt. 008!. Fhen the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so' the obligation shall be deemed to be one with a period' sub7ect to the provisions of &rticle 00<$. &rt. 0080. 2n conditional obligations' the acquisition of rights' as well as the e1tinguishment or loss of those already acquired' shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition. &rt. 008;. Fhen the fulfillment of the condition depends upon the sole will of the debtor' the conditional obligation shall be void. 2f it depends upon chance or upon the will of a third person' the obligation shall ta6e effect in conformity with the provisions of this Code. &rt. 0083. 2mpossible conditions' those contrary to good customs or public policy and those prohibited by law shall annul the obligation which depends upon them. 2f the obligation is divisible' that part thereof which is not affected by the impossible or unlawful condition shall be valid.
Jen Laygo 3D
72
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
*he condition not to do an impossible thing shall be considered as not having been agreed upon. &rt. 0084. *he condition that some event happen at a determinate time shall e1tinguish the obligation as soon as the time e1pires or if it has become indubitable that the event will not ta6e place. &rt. 0089. *he condition that some event will not happen at a determinate time shall render the obligation effective from the moment the time indicated has elapsed' or if it has become evident that the event cannot occur. 2f no time has been fi1ed' the condition shall be deemed fulfilled at such time as may have probably been contemplated' bearing in mind the nature of the obligation. &rt. 008". *he condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment. &rt. 008$. *he effects of a conditional obligation to give' once the condition has been fulfilled' shall retroact to the day of the constitution of the obligation. (evertheless' when the obligation imposes reciprocal prestations upon the parties' the fruits and interests during the pendency of the condition shall be deemed to have been mutually compensated. 2f the obligation is unilateral' the debtor shall appropriate the fruits and interests received' unless from the nature and circumstances of the obligation it should be inferred that the intention of the person constituting the same was different. 2n obligations to do and not to do' the courts shall determine' in each case' the retroactive effect of the condition that has been complied with. &rt. 0088. *he creditor may' before the fulfillment of the condition' bring the appropriate actions for the preservation of his right. *he debtor may recover what during the same time he has paid by mista6e in case of a suspensive condition. &rt. 008<. Fhen the conditions have been imposed with the intention of suspending the efficacy of an obligation to give' the following rules shall be observed in case of the improvement' loss or deterioration of the thing during the pendency of the condition% B0C 2f the thing is lost without the fault of the debtor' the obligation shall be e1tinguished= B;C 2f the thing is lost through the fault of the debtor' he shall be obliged to pay damages= it is understood that the thing is lost when it perishes' or goes out of commerce' or disappears in such a way that its e1istence is un6nown or it cannot be recovered= B3C Fhen the thing deteriorates without the fault of the debtor' the impairment is to be borne by the creditor= B4C 2f it deteriorates through the fault of the debtor' the creditor may choose between the rescission of the obligation and its fulfillment' with indemnity for damages in either case= B9C 2f the thing is improved by its nature' or by time' the improvement shall inure to the benefit of the creditor= B"C 2f it is improved at the e1pense of the debtor' he shall have no other right than that granted to the usufructuary. B00;;C &rt. 00<!. Fhen the conditions have for their purpose the e1tinguishment of an obligation to give' the parties' upon the fulfillment of said conditions' shall return to each other what they have received. 2n case of the loss' deterioration or improvement of the thing' the provisions which' with respect to the debtor' are laid down in the preceding article shall be applied to the party who is bound to return. &s for the obligations to do and not to do' the provisions of the second paragraph of &rticle 008$ shall be observed as regards the effect of the e1tinguishment of the obligation. &rt. 00<0. *he power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones' in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. *he in7ured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation' with the payment of damages in either case. Ae may also see6 rescission' even after he has chosen fulfillment' if the latter should become impossible. *he court shall decree the rescission claimed' unless there be 7ust cause authori:ing the fi1ing of a period. *his is understood to be without pre7udice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing' in accordance with &rticles 0389 and 0388 and the +ortgage -aw.
1ST SEM 2006-2007

&rt. 00<;. 2n case both parties have committed a breach of the obligation' the liability of the first infractor shall be equitably tempered by the courts. 2f it cannot be determined which of the parties first violated the contract' the same shall be deemed e1tinguished' and each shall bear his own damages.
-ISPOSITION 1ITH TER,S A!-. *$*. A dis'osi ion %i & a sus'ensi#e e$m does no '$e#en &e ins i u ed &ei$ f$om acqui$in) &is $i)& s and $ansmi in) &em o &is &ei$s e#en !efo$e &e a$$i#a* of &e e$m.
5hen the heir4s right *ests 9 in dispositions with a termthe heir4s right *ests upon the testator4s deathconforma.ly with Art777. Therefore- should the heir die .efore the arri*al of the suspensi*e term- he merely transmits his right to his own heirs who can demand the property when the term arri*es. The rule in this article is similar to Art?(( in fideicommissary su.stitutions. The rule in conditional institutions 9 what is the rule if the instituted heir dies .efore the happening of the condition6 The section is silent on this matter. 2ut under Art1A!#- par!- ,if the institution- de*ise or legacy should .e conditional- the time of the compliance with the condition shall also .e considered. The import is that in conditional institutions- the heir should .e "i*ing and Qualified to succeed 2OT= at the time of the testator4s death and at the time of the happening of the condition.
A!-. **7. T&e desi)na ion of &e da" o$ &e ime %&en &e effec s of &e ins i u ion of an &ei$ s&a** commence o$ cease s&a** !e #a*id. In !o & cases( &e *e)a* &ei$ s&a** !e conside$ed as ca**ed o &e succession un i* &e a$$i#a* of &e 'e$iod o$ i s e+'i$a ion. Eu in &e fi$s case &e s&a** no en e$ in o 'ossession of &e '$o'e$ " un i* af e$ &a#in) )i#en sufficien secu$i "( %i & &e in e$#en ion of &e ins i u ed &ei$.
f term is 'uspensi*e 9 .efore the arri*al of the termthe property should .e deli*ered to the intestate heirs. A caucion muciana has to .e posted .y them. This is the 2nd 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.
Jen Laygo 3D
73
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

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. - =ence- this appeal. 5hether Article ??2 applies in this case. G Petitioner 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 2nd heir ta+es the inheritance in default of the first heir .y reason of incapacitypredecease or renunciation. n this case- the pro*isions of the codicil do not pro*ide that should Corge default due to predeceaseincapacity 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 imposedthe 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 na u$e .ecause it imposes a charge upon the instituted heir without- howe*er- affecting the efficacy of such institution. - Also- since testamentary dispositions are generally acts of li.erality- an o.ligation imposed upon the heir should not .e considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the 5ill itself that such was the intention of the testator. In case of dou! ( &e ins i u ion s&ou*d !e conside$ed as moda* and no condi ion. - 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* ins i u ion- 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 condi iona* es amen a$" dis'osi ion- the condition must happen or .e fulfilled in order for the heir to .e entitled to succeed the testator. The condition suspends .ut does not o.ligate< and the mode o.ligates .ut does not suspend. To some e/tent- it is similar to a resolutory condition. - 'ince testamentary dispositions are generally acts of li.erality- an o.ligation imposed upon the heir should not .e considered a condition unless it clearly appears from the 5ill itself that such was the intention of the testator. In case of dou! ( &e ins i u ion s&ou*d !e conside$ed as moda* and no condi ion.
-ISPOSITION 1ITH ,O-ES ART. <<@. T&e s a emen of &e o!Jec of &e ins i u ion( o$ &e a''*ica ion of &e '$o'e$ " *ef !" &e es a o$( o$ &e c&a$)e im'osed !" &im( s&a** no !e conside$ed as a condi ion un*ess i a''ea$s &a suc& %as &is in en ion. T&a %&ic& &as !een *ef in &is manne$ ma" !e c*aimed a once '$o#ided &a &e ins i u ed &ei$ o$ &is &ei$s )i#e secu$i " fo$ com'*iance %i & &e %is&es of &e es a o$ and fo$ &e $e u$n of an" &in) &e o$ &e" ma" $ecei#e( o)e &e$ %i & i s f$ui s and in e$es s( if &e o$ &e" s&ou*d dis$e)a$d &is o!*i)a ion.
The 1st 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 Corgehe 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
Jen Laygo 3D
74
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
- A will cannot .e su.Dect of a compromise agreement which would there.y defeat the *ery purpose of ma+ing a will.
1ST SEM 2006-2007
Case for Arts *$0&**7 :i#iano v. Brimo
A!-. **5 'ar0. 1&en %i &ou &e fau* of &e &ei$( an ins i u ion $efe$$ed o in &e '$ecedin) a$ ic*e canno a2e effec in &e e+ac manne$ s a ed !" &e es a o$( i s&a** !e com'*ied %i & in a manne$ 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 "&8 T M&. 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 theorynothing is lost from the estate in an onerous dispositionsince 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.
- 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 lawsCospeh .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)i ime is &a 'a$ of &e es a o$Ms '$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.
Jen Laygo 3D
75
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007

they will share &QBA""I regardless of agese/ or marriage of origin. 2. Legiti6ate @escendants 9 the 87 is the nearer e/clude the more remote. Thuschildren- if all qualified- will e/clude grandchildren and so on. The qualification to this rule is representation when proper. "&8 T MAT& )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; 'B7K K N8 ')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. ""&8 T MAT& 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 represented only .y legitimate descendants. :Art@A2 and @@2;
ART. <<7. T&e fo**o%in) a$e com'u*so$" &ei$s= 1?Le)i ima e c&i*d$en and descendan s( %i & $es'ec o &ei$ *e)i ima e 'a$en s and ascendan s; @?In defau* of &e fo$e)oin)( *e)i ima e 'a$en s and ascendan s( %i & $es'ec o &ei$ *e)i ima e c&i*d$en and descendan s; A?T&e %ido% o$ %ido%e$; 4?Ac2no%*ed)ed na u$a* c&i*d$en( and na u$a* c&i*d$en !" *e)a* fic ion; 5?O &e$ i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en $efe$$ed o in A$ ic*e @<7. Com'u*so$" &ei$s men ioned 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$. In a** cases of i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en( &ei$ fi*ia ion mus !e du*" '$o#ed. T&e fa &e$ o$ mo &e$ of i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en of &e &$ee c*asses men ioned( s&a** in&e$i f$om &em in &e manne$ and o &e e+ en es a!*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. !. 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 "&8 T MAT& 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-
Jen Laygo 3D
76
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007
""&8 T MAT& )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&)T ON'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 shallin proper cases- include legitimate descendants other than children. The term ,legitimate parents0 includes- in proper caseslegitimate ascendants other than parents.
Jen Laygo 3D
77
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007
-I..ERENT CO,EINATIONS O. CO,P0LSORF HEIRS

C. E LC C.:BI/A-I./ "egitimate Children Alone SHA!E G of estate divided equally H&rt888I C. AL =!.4ISI./
&rt. 888. *he legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one#half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. *he latter may freely dispose of the remaining half' sub7ect to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.
/.-ES
&dopted Child has the same rights as -C 2f there is more than 0 legitimate child' the G of the estate shall be divided equally among them. 2f there are legitimate children and grandchildren' the nearer descendants e1clude the farther' so as long as there are legitimate children' the grandchildren cannot inherit. 2f legitimate children 5,DDDCD&SD the testator or are 2(C&5&C2*&*DD to inherit' the grandchildren get their respective parents Hthe legitimate childrenI shares by virtue of ,D5,DSD(*&*2E(. >ut if &-- the legitimate children ,D(EJ(CD' the grandchildren inherit in their own right and the G estate is divided equally among them. >ut if only a few of the legitimate children ,D(EJ(CD or not all renounce' the share of those who renounce accrue to the other legitimate children.
1LCSS
One "egitimate Child and 'ur*i*ing 'pouse
G of the estate to the legitimate child K of the estate to the surviving spouse Hta6en from the free disposable portion of the estateI H&rt8<; par0I
&rt. 8<;. 2f only one legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives' the widow or widower shall be entitled to one# fourth of the hereditary estate. 2n case of a legal separation' the surviving spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had given cause for the same. 2f there are two or more legitimate children or descendants' the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. 2n both cases' the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be ta6en from the portion that can be freely disposed of by the testator. &rt. 8<;. 2f only one legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives' the widow or widower shall be entitled to one# fourth of the hereditary estate. 2n case of a legal separation' the surviving spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had given cause for the same. 2f there are two or more legitimate children or descendants' the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. 2n both cases' the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be ta6en from the portion that can be freely disposed of by the testator. -DL&- SD5&,&*2E( between the testator and the surviving spouse 2f there is a final decree of legal separation 0. surviving spouse is the innocent party 3 he/she gets her legitime H&rt"3 par4 ?CI ;. surviving spouse is the offending spouse 3 he/she is disqualified from inheriting H&rt"3 par4 ?CI 2f after the final decree of legal separation there was a reconciliation between the parties' the reciprocal right to succeed is restored because reconciliation sets aside the decree H&rt"" par; ?CI 2llegitimate child only gets half the share of a legitimate child. 2n case total of the shares of all illegitimate children e1ceed the amount of the estate' their shares shall be reduced equally. *he shares of the legitimate children cannot be reduced.
LCSS
"egitimate Children and 'ur*i*ing 'pouse
G of estate to legitimate children Share equal to that of 0 child for the surviving spouse Hta6en from the free disposable portion of the estateI H&rt8<;par;I
LCIC
"egitimate Children and llegitimate Children
G of estate to the legitimate children G of the share of 0 legitimate child to the illegitimate children H&rt0$" ?CI
Jen Laygo 3D
78
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007
C. E 1LCICSS
C.:BI/A-I./ One legitimate child- illegitimate children and sur*i*ing spouse
SHA!E G of estate to legitimate children Dach illegitimate child will get G of the share of a legitimate child K of estate to the surviving spouse' whose share is preferred over those of the illegitimate children' which shall be reduced if necessary H&rt8<9I
C. AL =!.4ISI./
&rt. 8<9. *he legitime of each of the ac6nowledged natural children and each of the natural children by legal fiction shall consist of one#half of the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. *he legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an ac6nowledged natural' nor a natural child by legal fiction' shall be equal in every case to four#fifths of the legitime of an ac6nowledged natural child. *he legitime of the illegitimate children shall be ta6en from the portion of the estate at the free disposal of the testator' provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such illegitimate children e1ceed that free portion' and that the legitime of the surviving spouse must first be fully satisfied. &rt. 8<9. *he legitime of each of the ac6nowledged natural children and each of the natural children by legal fiction shall consist of one#half of the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. *he legitime of an illegitimate child who is neither an ac6nowledged natural' nor a natural child by legal fiction' shall be equal in every case to four#fifths of the legitime of an ac6nowledged natural child. *he legitime of the illegitimate children shall be ta6en from the portion of the estate at the free disposal of the testator' provided that in no case shall the total legitime of such illegitimate children e1ceed that free portion' and that the legitime of the surviving spouse must first be fully satisfied. &rt. 88<. *he legitime of legitimate parents or ascendants consists of one#half of the hereditary estates of their children and descendants. *he children or descendants may freely dispose of the other half' sub7ect to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. &rt. 8<". 2llegitimate children who may survive with legitimate parents or ascendants of the deceased shall be entitled to one#fourth of the hereditary estate to be ta6en from the portion at the free disposal of the testator. &rt. 8<3. 2f the testator leaves no legitimate descendants' but leaves legitimate ascendants' the surviving spouse shall have a right to one#fourth of the hereditary estate. *his fourth shall be ta6en from the free portion of the estate.
/.-ES
2n case total of the shares of all illegitimate children e1ceed the amount of the estate' their shares shall be reduced equally. *he shares of the legitimate children and the surviving spouse cannot be reduced.
LCICSS
"egitimate childrenillegitimate children and sur*i*ing spouse
G of estate to legitimate children Dach illegitimate child will get G of the share of one legitimate child & share equal to that of 0 legitimate child for the surviving spouse' whose share is preferred over those of the illegitimate children which shall be reduced if necessary. H&rt8<9I G of estate H&rt88<I
2n case total of the shares of all illegitimate children e1ceed the amount of the estate' their shares shall be reduced equally. *he shares of the legitimate children and the surviving spouse cannot be reduced.
LP
"egitimate parents alone
*here is (E ,2LA* E? ,D5,DSD(*&*2E( in the &scending -ine. 2f the one of the legitimate parents 5,DDDCD&SD or is 2(C&5&C2*&*DD to inherit' his/her share accrues to the other parent Htama baMI
LPIC
"egitimate parents and illegitimate children "egitimate parents and sur*i*ing spouse
G of estate to legitimate parents K of estate to illegitimate children G of estate to legitimate parents K of estate to surviving spouse
?or the illegitimate children or descendants' the sharing shall depend on whether death occurred before or during the effectivity of the ?amily Code.
LPSS
Jen Laygo 3D
79
SUCCESSION REVIEWER
1ST SEM 2006-2007
C. E LPICSS
C.:BI/A-I./
"egitimate parents illegitimate children and sur*i*ing spouse
SHA!E G of estate to the legitimate parents K of estate to the illegitimate children 0/8 of estate to the surviving spouse
C. AL =!.4ISI./
&rt. 8<<. Fhen the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants and with illegitimate children' such surviving spouse shall be entitled to one#eighth of the hereditary estate of the deceased which must be ta6en from the free portion' and the illegitimate children shall be entitled to one#fourth of the estate which shall be ta6en also from the disposable portion. *he testator may freely dispose of the remaining one# eighth of the estate. &rt. <!!. 2f the only survivor is the widow or widower' she or he shall be entitled to one#half of the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse' and the testator may freely dispose of the other half. 2f the marriage between the surviving spouse and the testator was solemni:ed in articulo mortis' and the testator died within three months from the time of the marriage' the legitime of the surviving spouse as the sole heir shall be one# third of the hereditary estate' e1cept when they have been living as husband and wife for more than five years. 2n the latter case' the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be that specified in the preceding paragraph. &rt. 8<4. 2f the testator leaves illegitimate children' the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one#third of the hereditary estate of the deceased and the illegitimate children to another third. *he remaining third shall be at the free disposal of the testator. &rt. <!3. *he legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate child' when such child leaves neither legitimate descendants' nor a surviving spouse' nor illegitimate children' is one#half of the hereditary estate of such illegitimate child. 2f only legitimate or illegitimate children are left' the parents are not entitled to any legitime whatsoever. 2f only the widow or widower survives with parents of the illegitimate child' the legitime of the parents is one#fourth of the hereditary estate of the child' and that of the surviving spouse also one#fourth of the estate. &rt. <!0. Fhen the testator dies leaving illegitimate children and no other compulsory heirs' such illegitimate children shall have a right to one#half of the hereditary estate of the deceased. *he other half shall be at the free disposal of the testator. &rt. <!3. *he legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate child' when such child leaves neither legitimate descendants' nor a surviving spouse' nor illegitimate children' is one#half of the hereditary estate of such illegitimate child. 2f only legitimate or illegitimate children are left' the parents are not entitled to any legitime whatsoever. 2f only the widow or widower survives with parents of the illegitimate child' the legitime of the parents is one#fourth of the hereditary estate of the child' and that of the surviving spouse also one#fourth of the estate.
/.-ES
SS
'ur*i*ing spouse alone
O of the estate or 1L! if the marriage.eing in articulo mortisfalls under Art@AA par 2 :Art@AApar1;
SSIC
'ur*i*ing spouse and illegitimate children 'ur*i*ing spouse and illegitimate parents
SSIP
1L! of estate to sur*i*ing spouse 1L! of estate to illegitimate children R of estate to sur*i*ing spouse R of estate to illegitimate parents :Art@A!;
IC
llegitimate children alone
O of estate :Art@A1;
IP
llegitimate parents alone
O of estate :Art@A!;
Jen Laygo 3D
80
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

- '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
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/tinguishmentpayment 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 sonwho 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.
La'uz v. Eufemio
Note 9 under the "apuH ruling- it does not matter who dieswhether 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 Codechildren .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.
!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.andtwo daughters and grandchild. - )etitioner daughter>in>law now see+s reconsideration. 5LN a widow is an intestate heir of a mother>in>law.
Nen La")o A-
81
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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 heirConcolacion 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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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)i ime of *e)i ima e 'a$en s o$ ascendan s consis s of oneG&a*f of &e &e$edi a$" es a es of &ei$ c&i*d$en and descendan s. T&e c&i*d$en o$ descendan s ma" f$ee*" dis'ose of &e o &e$ &a*f( su!Jec o &e $i)& s of i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en and of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse as &e$einaf e$ '$o#ided. ART. <BC. T&e *e)i ime $ese$#ed fo$ &e *e)i ima e 'a$en s s&a** !e di#ided !e %een &em equa**"; if one of &e 'a$en s s&ou*d &a#e died( &e %&o*e s&a** 'ass o &e su$#i#o$. If &e es a o$ *ea#es nei &e$ fa &e$ no$ mo &e$( !u is su$#i#ed !" ascendan s of equa* de)$ee of &e 'a e$na* and ma e$na* *ines( &e *e)i ime s&a** !e di#ided equa**" !e %een !o & *ines. If &e ascendan s s&ou*d !e of diffe$en de)$ees( i s&a** 'e$ ain en i$e*" o &e ones nea$es in de)$ee of ei &e$ *ine.
ARTICLES GOVERNING THE PARTIC0LAR CO,EINATIONS ART. <<<. T&e *e)i ime of *e)i ima e c&i*d$en and descendan s consis s of oneG&a*f of &e &e$edi a$" es a e of &e fa &e$ and of &e mo &e$. T&e *a e$ ma" f$ee*" dis'ose of &e $emainin) &a*f( su!Jec o &e $i)& s of i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en and of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse as &e$einaf e$ '$o#ided.
"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.
&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.
Note 9 also< there is no right of representation in the ascending line.
Nen La")o A-
82
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

a.sent for the specified period and lay down the requisites therefor. The reappearance of the prior spouse T&7M NAT&' 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$ 1A T= 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$ 1A T=- they continue to .e heirs of each other. 2. f only one of said consorts acted in .ad faiththe 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.
The operation of the principles of $i*ision 2y "ine and &qual $i*ision within the "ine may cause inequality of shares among ascendants of identical degrees. 1or e/ample- if .oth legitimate parents of testator predecease him and testator has no other legitimate descendants- if there are 2 sur*i*ing maternal grandparents .ut only 1 sur*i*ing paternal grandparent 9 the O estate is di*ided equally .etween the maternal and paternal lines.ut the 2 maternal grandparents must share the R portion of the maternal line :they get 1L? each; while the sole paternal grandparent gets the whole R portion of the paternal line.
ART. <B@. If on*" one *e)i ima e c&i*d o$ descendan of &e deceased su$#i#es( &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ s&a** !e en i *ed o oneG fou$ & of &e &e$edi a$" es a e. In case of a *e)a* se'a$a ion( &e su$#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$e *e)i ima e c&i*d$en o$ descendan s( &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e en i *ed o a 'o$ ion equa* o &e *e)i ime of eac& of &e *e)i ima e c&i*d$en o$ descendan s. In !o & cases( &e *e)i ime of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e a2en f$om &e 'o$ ion &a can !e f$ee*" dis'osed of !" &e es a o$.
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" '&)A7AT ON .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 separationthe proceedings are T&7M NAT&$ 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
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. $etermination of sur*i*ing spouse4s share 1. As long as at least 1 of se*eral children inherits in his own right- the determination of the share of the sur*i*ing spouse presents no pro.lem. t will always .e equi*alent of one child4s share. 2. 2ut supposing A"" the children predecease or are disinherited or are unworthy to succeed6 'ince all the grandchildren would then inherit 2I 7&)7&'&NTAT ON and therefore in different amounts- the practical solution will still
Nen La")o A-
83
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
.e to gi*e the spouse the share that each child would ha*e gotten if qualified. !. 'upposing A"" the Children 7&NOBNC&- the grandchildren would inherit )&7 CA) TA or in their own right and therefore equally. 'hould the spouse4s share still .e computed on the .asis of the children4s share had they accepted6 f so- then when will the word ,or descendants0 in the second paragraph of this article e*er .e operati*e6
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
ART. <B5. T&e *e)i ime of eac& of &e ac2no%*ed)ed na u$a* c&i*d$en and eac& of &e na u$a* c&i*d$en !" *e)a* fic ion s&a** consis of oneG&a*f of &e *e)i ime of eac& of &e *e)i ima e c&i*d$en o$ descendan s. T&e *e)i ime of an i**e)i ima e c&i*d %&o is nei &e$ an ac2no%*ed)ed na u$a*( no$ a na u$a* c&i*d !" *e)a* fic ion( s&a** !e equa* in e#e$" case o fou$Gfif &s of &e *e)i ime of an ac2no%*ed)ed na u$a* c&i*d. T&e *e)i ime of &e i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en s&a** !e a2en f$om &e 'o$ ion of &e es a e a &e f$ee dis'osa* of &e es a o$( '$o#ided &a in no case s&a** &e o a* *e)i ime of suc& i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en e+ceed &a f$ee 'o$ ion( and &a &e *e)i ime of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse mus fi$s !e fu**" sa isfied.
ART. <BA. If &e es a o$ *ea#es no *e)i ima e descendan s( !u *ea#es *e)i ima e ascendan s( &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** &a#e a $i)& o oneGfou$ & of &e &e$edi a$" es a e. T&is fou$ & s&a** !e a2en f$om &e f$ee 'o$ ion of &e es a e.
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.;
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. '=A7 N8 )7 O7 TO T=& 1AM "I CO$& f death occurred .efore the effecti*ity of the 1amily Code- this article will go*ern 9 consequentlyshould the natural and spurious children concur in the succession- each spurious child will get #L% the share of one natural child- and each natural child gets O the share of one legitimate child. &/ample > % legitimate children and total estate is 1M. O of estate :%AA-AAA; di*ided .y % so 1 "egit child 9 1AA-AAA Natural child 9 %A-AAA 'purious child 9 #A-AAA 'hould there .e no natural children .ut only spurious children- each spurious child will get 2L% share of one legitimate child. 1 legit child 9 1AA-AAA No natural children 'purious child 9 #A-AAA 7&$BCT ON O1 '=A7&' $epending on the num.er of legitimate and illegitimate children- the possi.ility e/ists that the total legitimes will e/ceed the entire estate.
ART. <B4. If &e es a o$ *ea#es i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en( &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e en i *ed o oneG &i$d of &e &e$edi a$" es a e of &e deceased and &e i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en o ano &e$ &i$d. T&e $emainin) &i$d s&a** !e a &e f$ee dis'osa* of &e es a o$.
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$& 9 the sharing will .e equalinasmuch as the 1amily Code has a.olished the old distinction .etween natural and illegitimate children other than natural or spurious :Arts 1(!- 1(% and 17? of 1C; 2. f the decedent died 2&1O7& the effecti*ity of the 1amily Code- the old distinctions must .e o.ser*ed. The legitime of the spurious child will only .e #L% that of a natural child- according to the ratio esta.lished in Art?@% par2. This ratio of %3# among natural and spurious children should .e o.ser*ed in all cases under the Ci*il Code where they concur.
Nen La")o A-
84
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
7eductions- therefore will ha*e to .e made in accordance with the following rules 9 1. The legitimes of the legitimate children should ne*er .e reduced- they are )7 MA7I and )7&1&77&$ compulsory heirs 2. The legitime of the sur*i*ing spouse should ne*er .e reduced- this article prohi.its this. !. The legitimes of the illegitimate children will .e reduced pro rata and without preference among them.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 !e a2en f$om &e f$ee 'o$ ion( and &e i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en s&a** !e en i *ed o oneG fou$ & of &e es a e %&ic& s&a** !e a2en a*so f$om &e dis'osa!*e 'o$ ion. T&e es a o$ ma" f$ee*" dis'ose of &e $emainin) oneGei)& & of &e es a e.
ART. <B8. I**e)i ima e c&i*d$en %&o ma" su$#i#e %i & *e)i ima e 'a$en s o$ ascendan s of &e deceased s&a** !e en i *ed o oneGfou$ & of &e &e$edi a$" es a e o !e a2en f$om &e 'o$ ion a &e f$ee dis'osa* of &e es a o$.
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.
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. BCC. If &e on*" su$#i#o$ is &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$( s&e o$ &e s&a** !e en i *ed o oneG &a*f of &e &e$edi a$" es a e of &e deceased s'ouse( and &e es a o$ ma" f$ee*" dis'ose of &e o &e$ &a*f. If &e ma$$ia)e !e %een &e su$#i#in) s'ouse and &e es a o$ %as so*emniKed in a$ icu*o mo$ is( and &e es a o$ died %i &in &$ee mon &s f$om &e ime of &e ma$$ia)e( &e *e)i ime of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse as &e so*e &ei$ s&a** !e oneG &i$d of &e &e$edi a$" es a e( e+ce' %&en &e" &a#e !een *i#in) as &us!and and %ife fo$ mo$e &an fi#e "ea$s. In &e *a e$ case( &e *e)i ime of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e &a s'ecified in &e '$ecedin) 'a$a)$a'&.
ART. <B7. 1&en &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es %i & *e)i ima e c&i*d$en o$ descendan s( and ac2no%*ed)ed na u$a* c&i*d$en( o$ na u$a* c&i*d$en !" *e)a* fic ion( suc& su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e en i *ed o a 'o$ ion equa* o &e *e)i ime of eac& of &e *e)i ima e c&i*d$en %&ic& mus !e a2en f$om &a 'a$ of &e es a e %&ic& &e es a o$ can f$ee*" dis'ose of. ART. <B<. If &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es %i & *e)i ima e c&i*d$en o$ descendan s( and %i & i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en o &e$ &an ac2no%*ed)ed na u$a*( o$ na u$a* c&i*d$en !" *e)a* fic ion( &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.
S0RVIVING SPO0SE AS SOLE CO,P0LSORF HEIR 9 $eneral rule L O of the estate %?ception 9 1L! of the estate- if the following circumstances are present 9 aE The marriage was in articulo 6ortis .E The testator died within ! months from the time of the marriage cE The parties did not coha.it for more than % years- and dE The spouse who died was the party in articulo 6ortis at the time of the marriage. NOT& 9 the last requisite is not e/plicit in the article .ut can .e deri*ed from the sense and intent of the pro*ision. The law does not regard such marriages with eager appro*al.
ART. <BB. 1&en &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es %i & *e)i ima e 'a$en s o$ ascendan s and %i & i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en( suc& su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e en i *ed o oneGei)& & of &e &e$edi a$" es a e of &e deceased %&ic& mus Nen La")o A-
85
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
ART. BC1. 1&en &e es a o$ dies *ea#in) i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en and no o &e$ com'u*so$" &ei$s( suc& i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en s&a** &a#e a $i)& o oneG&a*f of &e &e$edi a$" es a e of &e deceased. T&e o &e$ &a*f s&a** !e a &e f$ee dis'osa* of &e es a o$.
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 childrenillegitimate parents are e/cluded .y all +inds of children- legitimate or illegitimate.
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.
End of ,id e$ms Co#e$a)e
ART. BC@. T&e $i)& s of i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en se fo$ & in &e '$ecedin) a$ ic*es a$e $ansmi ed u'on &ei$ dea & o &ei$ descendan s( %&e &e$ *e)i ima e o$ i**e)i ima e.
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$&7 than the right of representation gi*en to descendants of legitimate children. Thus- an illegitimate child of a predeceased legitimate child cannot inherit .y representation :Art@@2;- while an illegitimate child of an illegitimate child can :Art@A2;. A classic instance of unintended consequence.
ART. BCA. T&e *e)i ime of &e 'a$en s %&o &a#e an i**e)i ima e c&i*d( %&en suc& c&i*d *ea#es nei &e$ *e)i ima e descendan s( no$ a su$#i#in) s'ouse( no$ i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en( is oneG&a*f of &e &e$edi a$" es a e of suc& i**e)i ima e c&i*d. If on*" *e)i ima e o$ i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en a$e *ef ( &e 'a$en s a$e no en i *ed o an" *e)i ime %&a soe#e$. If on*" &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es %i & 'a$en s of &e i**e)i ima e c&i*d( &e *e)i ime of &e 'a$en s is oneGfou$ & of &e &e$edi a$" es a e of &e c&i*d( and &a of &e su$#i#in) s'ouse a*so oneGfou$ & of &e es a e.
ILLEGITI,ATE PARENTS ALONE 9 they get O of the estate. Note that in the illegitimate ascending line- the right $O&' NOT go .eyond the parents.
Nen La")o A-
86
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
RESERVA TRONCAL
A$ . <B1. T&e ascendan %&o in&e$i s f$om &is descendan an" '$o'e$ " %&ic& &e *a e$ ma" &a#e acqui$ed !" )$a ui ous i *e f$om ano &e$ ascendan ( o$ a !$o &e$ o$ sis e$( is o!*i)ed o $ese$#e suc& '$o'e$ " as &e ma" &a#e acqui$ed !" o'e$a ion of *a% fo$ &e !enefi of $e*a i#es %&o a$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
O$i)in Rese$#is a Rese$#a a$ios G7elati*e wLin !rd degree of )repositusE
PROCESS 9 A T$ansmissions In#o*#ed 1. -irst ,ransfer 9 .y gratuitous title- from a person to his descendant- .rother or sister. 2. Second ,ransfer 9 .y operation of law- from the transferee in the first transfer :prepositus; to another ascendant :reser*ista;. t is this second transfer that creates the reser*a. !. ,hird ,ransfer 9 from the transferee in the second transfer :reser*ista; to the relati*es within the !rd degree of the )repositus- coming from the line of the Origin. f there are only two transmissions- there is no reser*a :$on9ales 8 C-*;
RE/0ISITES O. RESERVA TRONCAL

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$ sis e$ 3ori)in4 !" )$a ui ous i *e. o The term descendant should read person .ecause if the grantor is a .rother or sisterthe 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. @. T&a said descendan %i &ou an issue. 3're'ositus4 died
By $ratuitous ,itle
By +peration of Law
P$e'osi us
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. A.
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. T&a &e '$o'e$ " is in&e$i ed !" ano &e$ ascendan 3reservista4 !" o'e$a ion of *a%; and o Transmission .y operation of law is limited .y succession- either to the legitime or .y intestacy. 4. T&a &e$e a$e $e*a i#es %i &in &e A $d de)$ee !e*on)in) o &e *ine f$om %&ic& said '$o'e$ " came 3reservatarios4. o These relati*es- called the reser*atarios or reser*ees- are those that are within the ! rd degree of the line of the Origin.
Nen La")o A-
87
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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.
@ EASIC R0LES I. No inqui$" is o !e made !e"ond &e O$i)inI ,edia e Sou$ce. I does no ma e$ %&o &e o%ne$ of &e '$o'e$ " %as !efo$e i %as acqui$ed !" &e O$i)in. II. A** &e $e*a ions&i's amon) &e 'a$ ies mus !e *e)i ima e. T&e '$o#isions of A$ <B1 on*" a''*" o *e)i ima e $e*a i#es. 4 PARTIES TO THE RESERVA TRONCAL 1. ORIGIN OR THE ,E-IATE SO0RCE o =e is either the ascendant or a .rother or sister of the )repositus. o Ascendant from any degree of ascent. o 2rotherL'ister 9 2 'chools of Thought aE 7elationship must .e of =A"1 2"OO$ 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. @. 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 1 7'T transferee of the property. o 5hile the property is still with the )repositusthere 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 .E 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. A. 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 'hould the OriginLMediate 'ource and the 7eser*ista .elong to $ifferent "ines6 - &/ample3 A recei*es .y donation a parcel of land from his paternal grandfather P. Bpon A4s death- the parcel passes .y intestacy to his father I :P4s son;. The property ne*er left the line- is I o.liged to reser*e6 - One Kiew 9 NO- .ecause another ascendant is one .elonging to a line other than that of the reser*ista. - Another Kiew 9 I&'- .ecause :1; the law ma+es no distinction- and :2; the purpose of the reser*e is not only curati*e .ut also pre*enti*e- i.e. to pre*ent the property from lea*ing the line. 4. RESERVATARIOS 3RESERVEES4 o The reser*a is in fa*or of a class- collecti*ely referred to as the 7eser*atarios :reser*ees;. o RE/0IRE,ENTS TO EE A RESERVATARIO= 1? He mus !e %i &in &e A$d de)$ee of consan)uini " f$om &e P$e'osi us. @? He mus !e*on) o &e *ine f$om %&ic& &e '$o'e$ " came. T&is is de e$mined !" &e O$i)inI,edia e 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. o 7eser*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
Nen La")o A-
88
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
- 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 deathhe qualifies as such- e8en if he was concei8ed and born after the Prepositus7 death. o P$efe$ence Amon) &e Rese$#a a$ios - Bpon death of the ascendant reser*istathe 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'$esen a ion Amon) &e Rese$#a a$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;
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

- Actually- there will only .e 1 instance of representation among the reser*atarioswhich is in case of the Prepositus being sur8i8ed by brothersQsisters and children of a predeceased or incapacitated brother or sister. Nu$idica* Na u$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$idica* Na u$e f$om &e #ie%'oin of &e RESERVISTA - Manresa says that ,the ascendant is in the first place a B'B17BCTBA7I who should use and enDoy the things according to their nature- in the manner and form already set forth in the Code referring to use and usufruct.0 - 2ut since in addition to .eing the usufructuaryhe ise*en though CON$ T ONA""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" T T"& and $OM N ON- although under a CON$ T ON 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 alienatealthough 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 conditionreside 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. 2. 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.
Nen La")o A-
89
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 $on9ales 8. C-*;
@. Nu$idica* Na u$e f$om &e #ie%'oin of &e RESERVATARIOS - The nature of the reser*atarios4 right isManresa 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)&CTAT ON 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 wayeither 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 anotheron 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" 7 8=T which the reser*e may alienate and dispose of- al.eit conditionallythe CON$ T ON .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. 2. 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. 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 ;.
T&e $u*e in &is Ju$isdic ion( &e$efo$e( is &a u'on &e $ese$#is a:s dea &( &e '$o'e$ " 'asses !" s $ic o'e$a ion of *a% 3acco$din) o &e $u*es of in es a e succession( as &e*d in Padu$a4( o &e '$o'e$ $ese$#a a$ios. T&us( &e se*ec ion of %&ic& $ese$#a a$ios %i** )e &e '$o'e$ " is made !" *a% and no !" &e $ese$#is a.
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. o f 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 )repositusthere is yet no reser*a- which commences when the property id recei*ed .y the reser*ista. o Consequently- 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&'T ON 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. o t is a consequence of these principles that upon the death of the reser*ista- the reser*atario nearest to the prepositus .ecomesautomatically and .y operation of law- the
Nen La")o A-
90
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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 proceedingssince 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. o As a consequence of &e $u*e *aid do%n in Cano( since &e $ese$#ed '$o'e$ " is no com'u ed as 'a$ of &e $ese$#is a:s es a e( i is no a2en in o accoun in de e$minin) &e *e)i imes of &e $ese$#is a:s com'u*so$" &ei$s. 7&'&7KA MAP MA 9 7&'&7KA M N MA 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 deathin 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)a ions 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
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

ha*e .een alienated .y onerously or gratuitously. the reser*ista
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*atariospro*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 partitionaccounting- 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 father2enito "egarda y $e la )aH.
Nen La")o A-
91
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
- 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 daughter1ilomena 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. - =ence this appeal. 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 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
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

the pri*ate respondent- Concordia Ca*ellana>Killanue*asister 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 motherfrom 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'T A 'O" K O K$A. $& CAK&""ANA 1OBN$AT ONN. - 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- .rotherssisters- 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- ascendantsillegitimate children- or a sur*i*ing spouse- the collateral
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
Nen La")o A-
92
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 childrenIears 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 appelleesallegedly 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
)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. - 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
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
Nen La")o A-
93
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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 sepro/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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 trustmerely 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.
-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 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 heiressMercedes- 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
%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 8utangwith 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 single1rancisco 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
Nen La")o A-
94
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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. The right is aliena.le .ut su.Dect to the same suspensi*e condition. The right is registra.le.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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- au oma ica**" and !" o'e$a ion of *a%( the owner of the reser*ed property. The property is no part of the estate of the reser*istahence 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*esplaintiffs .eing the grandaunt and granduncles of the defendant. - They ha*e a common ancestor the late 2al.ino Tiocofather 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 TiocoManuel 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. - =ence this appeal. 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
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
Nen La")o A-
95
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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>appellantalthough 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 .yand 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. >
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 gratuitouslyfrom pure generosity- without requiring from the transferee any prestation.
>
-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 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 N ntestate &state of Consolacion de la TorreNthe 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.
@e Los &eyes 8. Paterno

The su.Dect properties were the conDugal property of Tomas 8. $el 7osario and his wife- Cuana 7eyes. Cuana died and her daughter Concepcion was declared to .e her sole heir. =owe*er- Concepcion died at the age of @ and all her rights to the half of the property passed to her fatherTomas- who was then already the owner of the other half. Tomas registered the properties and after a year his title thereto .ecame a.solute and complete. After ( years- plaintiff in this case see+s to reco*er one half of the su.Dect properties- on the .asis of reser*a troncal. 5hether or not the plaintiff may still reco*er the property after the lapse of one year from the finality of the registration proceedings on the ground of reser*e troncal. No. The reser*a.le right may .e lost to the holder when he fails or neglects to oppose the registration of the land in which such right e/ists under the Torrens 'ystem. > Bnless a reser*a.le right is protected during the pendency of the action for the registration of land- or within the allowa.le period to contest such as prescri.ed .y law- such right is lost fore*er.
Su6aya 8. *(C
- 7aul 2alanta+.o inherited 1L! interest in a parcel of land from his father G1st propertyE and a 1L7 interest in 1A parcels of lands from his maternal grandmother G2nd propertyE.
Nen La")o A-
96
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
- 7aul died intestate- single- and lea*ing only his motherConsuelo- as his sole sur*i*ing heir to the real properties. - 'u.sequently- Consuelo adDudicated unto herself the said properties .y way of an affida*it. - Consuelo sold the first property to 'umaya. 'umaya sold it Killa =onorio which transferred and assigned it in fa*or of Agro> ndustrial. - The documents were registered in the 7$ of "aguan and corresponding certificates of titles were issued. - Consuelo later sold the 2nd 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 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 interestslegal 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
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 ).$. 1%2@- which pro*ides that3 NThe act of registration shall .e the operati*e act to con*ey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned.N
&ioso 8. &ocha
- Maria was married to Mariano. They had ! children'antiago- Cose- 'e*erina. 'e*erina died during infancy. - 'antiago Gnow deceasedE was married to 1rancisca and had 2 children- Magin and Consolacion. - Cose married Marcelina and had one child who died .efore Cose. - Mariano left a will di*iding his property .etween 'antiago and Cose- gi*ing the latter 11 parcels of land. Bpon Cose4s deathhe named his wife Marcelina as his only heir. - 5hen Cose4s will was going to .e pro.ated- Marcelina and Maria Gthe motherE entered into a contract where they di*ided the property left .y Cose .etween themsel*es. - Maria later sold parcels 1>(- 1A and 11 to Marcelina- who later sold them to )a.lo 7ocha. )a.lo later returned parcels 1>( to Maria saying that they were erroneously included in the sale made .y Maria to Marcelina. - Magin Gthe daughter of 'antiagoE is now claiming that she and her sister Consolacion had a share in the 11 parcels passed on to Marcelina .y Cose. 5ON the 11 parcels were reser*a.le properties. - I&'. The 11 parcels of land were acquired .y Cose .y lucrati*e title from his father Mariano and that after the death of Cose- they passed on to Maria .y operation of law. - Magin and Consolacion were the nearest relati*es within the !rd degree of the line from which the property came. - Maria was ordered to ac+nowledge the right of Magin and Consolacion to the reser*ation of the parcels of land- which was to .e recorded in the 7$. - 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 .enefitedthe 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.
Nen La")o A-
97
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
- 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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

,&*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 $ic ions on Le)i ime Im'osed !" La% A. Article 1%@- 1amily Code ,The 1amily =ome shall continue despite the death of one or .oth spouses or of the unmarried head of the family for a period of 1A years or for as long as there is a minor .eneficiary- and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling reasons therefor. This rule shall apply regardless of whoe*er owns the property or constituted the family home.0 2. The 7eser*a Troncal
A$ .
BC4. T&e es a o$ canno de'$i#e &is com'u*so$" &ei$s of &ei$ *e)i ime( e+ce' in cases e+'$ess*" s'ecified !" *a%. Nei &e$ can &e im'ose u'on &e same an" !u$den( encum!$ance( condi ion( o$ su!s i u ion of an" 2ind %&a soe#e$.
As already laid down in Art??(- the legitime is not within the testator4s control. t passes to the compulsory heirs .y strict operation of law. Tes a o$ -e#oid of Po%e$ o -e'$i#e Com'u*so$" Hei$s of Le)i ime t is the law- not the testator- which determines the transmission of the legitimes. Consequently- it is not within the testator4s power to depri*e the compulsory heirs of their legitime. &PC&)T ON 9 the only instance in which the law allows the testator to depri*e the compulsory heirs of their legitimes is -ISINHERITANCE under Arts@1%> @2!- the grounds .eing set forth under Arts@1@>@21. Tes a o$ -e#oid of Po%e$ o Im'ose Eu$dens on Le)i ime As also reiterated in Art?72- the testator cannot impair the legitime- as a consequence of the principle that the legitime passes .y strict operation of law. EHCEPTIONS 9 1&en &e La% )$an s &e Tes a o$ Some Po%e$ o#e$ &e Le)i ime 1. Article 1A?A par2 9 ,A parent who- in the interest of his or her family- desires to +eep any agricultural- industrialor 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
A$ . BC5. E#e$" $enuncia ion o$ com'$omise as $e)a$ds a fu u$e *e)i ime !e %een &e 'e$son o%in) i and &is com'u*so$" &ei$s is #oid( and &e *a e$ ma" c*aim &e same u'on &e dea & of &e fo$me$; !u &e" mus !$in) o co**a ion %&a e#e$ &e" ma" &a#e $ecei#ed !" #i$ ue of &e $enuncia ion o$ com'$omise.
7eason for the 7ule 2efore the predecessor4s death- the heir4s right is simply inchoate. $uty to Collate Any property which the compulsory heir may ha*e gratuitously recei*ed from his predecessor .y *irtue of the renunciation or compromise will .e considered an ad*ance on his legitime and must .e duly credited.
'cope of )rohi.ition This article applies only to transactions of compromise or renunciation .etween the predecessor and the prospecti*e compulsory heir. QB&'T ON 9 s a transaction .etween the prospecti*e compulsory heir and another prospecti*e compulsory heir- or .etween a prospecti*e compulsory heir and a stranger- interdicted6 I&' under Article 1!#7 par23 ,No contract may .e entered into upon future inheritance e/cept in cases e/pressly pro*ided .y law.0
A$ . BC8. An" com'u*so$" &ei$ o %&om &e es a o$ &as *ef !" an" i *e *ess &an &e *e)i ime !e*on)in) o &im ma" demand &a &e same !e fu**" sa isfied. 98
Nen La")o A-
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
7 8=T O1 COM)"&T ON O1 "&8 T M& 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
&rt. 899. *he share of a child or descendant omitted in a will must first be ta6en from the part of the estate not disposed of by the will' if any= if that is not sufficient' so much as may be necessary must be ta6en proportionally from the shares of the other compulsory heirs.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 To &e ne #a*ue of &e &e$edi a$" es a e( s&a** !e added &e #a*ue of a** dona ions !" &e es a o$ &a a$e su!Jec o co**a ion( a &e ime &e made &em.
The N&T =&7&$ 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.
n relation to Arts@A@ and @1A
T&e '$inci'*e unde$*"in) &is $u*e on com'*e ion of *e)i ime is &a an" &in) &a a com'u*so$" &ei$ $ecei#es !" )$a ui ous i *e f$om &e '$edecesso$ is conside$ed an advan#e on le)itime and is deduc ed &e$ef$om &PC&)T ON' 1. Art1A(2 9 if the predecessor ga*e the compulsory heir a donation inter *i*os and pro*ided that it was not to .e charged against the legitime. 2. Art1A(! 9 testamentary dispositions made .y the predecessor to the compulsory heirunless the testator pro*ides that it should .e considered part of the legitime.
A$ . BC7. Tes amen a$" dis'osi ions &a im'ai$ o$ diminis& &e *e)i ime of &e com'u*so$" &ei$s s&a** !e $educed on 'e i ion of &e same( insofa$ 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 portionthe 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 de e$mine &e *e)i ime( &e #a*ue of &e '$o'e$ " *ef a &e dea & of &e es a o$ s&a** !e conside$ed( deduc in) a** de! s and c&a$)es( %&ic& s&a** no inc*ude &ose im'osed in &e %i**.
Nen La")o A-
99
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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(;
,ANNER O. CO,P0TING THE HERE-ITARF ESTATE

1. In#en o$" a** &e E+is in) Asse s 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;. cE 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. cE The difference .etween the gross assets and the unpaid o.ligations will .e the (/(*L(BL% (SS%,S. Add &e Va*ue of -ona ions In e$ Vi#os aE To the a*aila.le assets should .e added all the inter 8i8os donations made .y the decedent. .E 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. cE The sum of the a*aila.le assets and all the donations inter 8i8os is the )%, !%&%@*,(&1 %S,(,%.
@.
A$ . BCB. -ona ions )i#en o c&i*d$en s&a** !e c&a$)ed o &ei$ *e)i ime. -ona ions made o s $an)e$s s&a** !e c&a$)ed o &a 'a$ of &e es a e of %&ic& &e es a o$ 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 $u*es es a!*is&ed !" &is Code. A$ . B1C. -ona ions %&ic& an i**e)i ima e c&i*d ma" &a#e $ecei#ed du$in) &e *ife ime of &is fa &e$ o$ mo &e$( s&a** !e c&a$)ed o &is *e)i ime. 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 o Note that these 2 articles omit :inad*ertently; ascendants who succeed as compulsory heirs. This rule applies to them as well. o 1or 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.
A.
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 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
$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"& )O7T ON.
Nen La")o A-
100
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER A$ . B11. Af e$ &e *e)i ime &as !een de e$mined in acco$dance %i & &e &$ee '$ecedin) a$ ic*es( &e $educ ion s&a** !e made as fo**o%s= >1? -ona ions s&a** !e $es'ec ed as *on) as &e *e)i ime can !e co#e$ed( $educin) o$ annu**in)( if necessa$"( &e de#ises o$ *e)acies made in &e %i**; >@? T&e $educ ion of &e de#ises o$ *e)acies s&a** !e '$o $a a( %i &ou an" dis inc ion %&a e#e$. If &e es a o$ &as di$ec ed &a a ce$ ain de#ise o$ *e)ac" !e 'aid in '$efe$ence o o &e$s( i s&a** no suffe$ an" $educ ion un i* &e *a e$ &a#e !een a''*ied in fu** o &e 'a"men of &e *e)i ime. >A? If &e de#ise o$ *e)ac" consis s of a usuf$uc o$ *ife annui "( %&ose #a*ue ma" !e conside$ed )$ea e$ &an &a of &e dis'osa!*e 'o$ ion( &e com'u*so$" &ei$s ma" c&oose !e %een com'*"in) %i & &e es amen a$" '$o#ision and de*i#e$in) o &e de#isee o$ *e)a ee &e 'a$ of &e in&e$i ance of %&ic& &e es a o$ cou*d f$ee*" dis'ose.
This pro*ision implements the principle laid down in Articles ?72- ??( and @A# > the in*iola.ility of the legitime. Thus- if the legitimes are impaired- the gratuitous dispositions of the testator :either inter 8i8os or 6ortis causa; ha*e to .e set aside or reduced as may .e required to co*er the legitimes. ,e &od of Reduc ion There is an order of priorities to .e o.ser*ed in the reduction of the testator4s gratuitous dispositionsthus 9 A. 1irst- reduce pro rata the non>preferred legacies and de*ises :Art@11 G2E;- and the testamentary dispositions :Art@A7;. Among these legaciesde*ises and testamentary dispositions- there is no preference. 2. 'econd- reduce pro rata the preferred legacies and de*ises :Art@11- last par.; C. Third- reduce the donations inter 8i8os according to the in*erse order of their dates :i.e. the oldest is the most preferred; :Art77!;. These reductions shall .e to the e/tent required to complete the legitimes- e*en if in the process the disposition is reduced to nothing. An a''a$en conf*ic e+is s !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 $educ ions !e necessa$". :'ee discussions under Art@%A;
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

-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 $educ ion 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 $educ ion does no a!so$! oneG &a*f of i s #a*ue; and in a con $a$" case( o &e com'u*so$" &ei$s; !u &e fo$me$ and &e *a e$ s&a** $eim!u$se eac& o &e$ in cas& fo$ %&a $es'ec i#e*" !e*on)s o &em. T&e de#isee %&o is en i *ed o a *e)i ime ma" $e ain &e en i$e '$o'e$ "( '$o#ided i s #a*ue does no e+ceed &a of &e dis'osa!*e 'o$ ion and of &e s&a$e 'e$ ainin) o &im as *e)i ime.
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 $educ ion is LESS THAN O of &e #a*ue of &e &in) 9 i s&ou*d !e )i#en o &e devisee. @. If &e e+ en of $educ ion is O OR ,ORE of &e #a*ue of &e &in) 9 i s&ou*d !e )i#en o &e #om'ulsory @eir. n either case- there should .e pecuniary reim.ursement to the party who did not get his physical portion of the thing de*ised.
A$ . B1A. If &e &ei$s o$ de#isees do no c&oose o a#ai* &emse*#es of &e $i)& )$an ed !" &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 *a e$ no ma2e use of i ( &e '$o'e$ " s&a** !e so*d a 'u!*ic auc ion a &e ins ance of an" one of &e in e$es ed 'a$ ies.
Nen La")o A-
101
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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 somay acquire the thing and pay the parties :the compulsory heir and the de*isee in question; their respecti*e shares in money. 2. 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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

- '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.
A$ . B14. T&e es a o$ 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 deathhe donated some three parcels of land in fa*or of Tupas 1oundationnc. - 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
SEC-I./ ;. 1 ISI/HE!I-A/CE A$ . B15. A com'u*so$" &ei$ ma"( in consequence of disin&e$i ance( !e de'$i#ed of &is *e)i ime( fo$ causes e+'$ess*" s a ed !" *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=&7 TANC&. Thus- disinheritance is the only instance in which the testator may depri*e his compulsory heirs of their legitime.
RE/0ISITES O. A VALI- -ISINHERITANCE

1. 2. t must .e made in a 1i** - Must .e formally *alid and admitted to pro.ate 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 spousedescendants 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 hE Con*iction of a crime carrying ci*il interdiction
Nen La")o A-
102
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
- -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 testatorhis 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 $escendants 5LO Dustifia.le cause hE Attempt .y 1 of the parents against the life of the other- unless there has .een reconciliation .etween them - -or Sur8i8ing Spouse 3(rticle B2#5 aE Con*icted of Attempt against life of Testator- hisLher descendantsLascendants. .E Accused Testator of a Crime punisha.le with imprisonment for ( years or more- and the accusation is fond to .e 1alse. cE 'pouse- .y 1raud- Kiolence- ntimidation- or Bndue nfluence causes the testator to ma+e a 5ill or change one already made. dE =as gi*en cause for legal separation eE =as gi*en grounds for loss of parental authority fE BnDustifia.le refusal to support the children or the other spouse f this is not present- or the cause specified is not among those set forth in the Code- there is ineffecti*e disinheritance under article @1?.
E..ECT O. -ISINHERITANCE The effect of disinheritance is not Dust depri*ation of the leigtime- .ut total e?clusion of the disinherited heir from the inheritance. Thus- the disinherited heir forfeits3 A. =is legitime2. =is intestate portion- if any- and C. Any testamentary disposition made in a prior will of the disinheriting testator.
A$ . B18. -isin&e$i ance can !e effec ed on*" &$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$i ance s&a** $es u'on &e o &e$ &ei$s of &e es a o$( if &e disin&e$i ed &ei$ s&ou*d den" i .
7T= 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.
!.
t must S'ecif" the cause :Arts @1( and @1?; - f this is not present- there is ineffecti*e disinheritance under article @1?. t must .e 0ncondi iona* t must .e To a* The cause must .e T$ue 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 is ineffecti*e disinheritance under article @1?. - All the disinherited heir need do is deny the cause and the .urden is thrown upon those who would uphold the disinheritance.
#. %. (. 7.
A$ . B1<. -isin&e$i ance %i &ou a s'ecifica ion of &e cause( o$ fo$ a cause &e $u & of %&ic&( if con $adic ed( is no '$o#ed( o$ %&ic& is no one of &ose se fo$ & in &is Code( s&a** annu* &e ins i u ion of &ei$s insofa$ as i ma" '$eJudice &e 'e$son disin&e$i ed; !u &e de#ises and *e)acies and o &e$ es amen a$" dis'osi ions s&a** !e #a*id o suc& e+ en as %i** no im'ai$ &e *e)i ime.
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 on whether the testator ga*e away the free portion through testamentary dispositions.
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.
Nen La")o A-
103
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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
&rt. 894. *he preterition or omission of one' some' or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line' whether living at the time of the e1ecution of the will or born after the death of the testator' shall annul the institution of heir= but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. 2f the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator' the institution shall be effectual' without pre7udice to the right of representation.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

limit the pro*ision to the attempted stage of the felony. All stages of commission are included 9 whether attemptedfrustratedor consummated. The felony- o.*iously- must .e an intentional one. 1 NA" CONK CT ON is required. 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;
o o o o
@.
A$ . B1B. T&e fo**o%in) s&a** !e sufficien causes fo$ &e disin&e$i ance of c&i*d$en and descendan s( *e)i ima e as %e** as i**e)i ima e= >1? 1&en a c&i*d o$ descendan &as !een found )ui* " of an a em' a)ains &e *ife of &e es a o$( &is o$ &e$ s'ouse( descendan s( o$ ascendan s; >@? 1&en a c&i*d o$ descendan &as accused &e es a o$ of a c$ime fo$ %&ic& &e *a% '$esc$i!es im'$isonmen fo$ si+ "ea$s o$ mo$e( if &e accusa ion &as !een found )$ound*ess; >A? 1&en a c&i*d o$ descendan &as !een con#ic ed of adu* e$" o$ concu!ina)e %i & &e s'ouse of &e es a o$; >4? 1&en a c&i*d o$ descendan !" f$aud( #io*ence( in imida ion( o$ undue inf*uence causes &e es a o$ o ma2e a %i** o$ o c&an)e one a*$ead" made; >5? A $efusa* %i &ou Jus ifia!*e cause o su''o$ &e 'a$en o$ ascendan %&o disin&e$i s suc& c&i*d o$ descendan ; >8? ,a* $ea men of &e es a o$ !" %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)$acefu* *ife; ><? Con#ic ion of a c$ime %&ic& ca$$ies %i & i &e 'ena* " of ci#i* in e$dic ion.
T&e$e a$e < Causes fo$ disin&e$i ance of C&i*d$en o$ -escendan s 9 1&e &e$ Le)i ima e o$ I**e)i ima e :%?clusi8e enu6eration; 1. Has !een found Gui* " of an A em' A)ains &e Life of &e Tes a o$ o$ &e *a e$:s s'ouse( descendan s o$ ascendan s o The word atte6pt here is used non> technically and should not .e construed to
Has Accused &e Tes a o$ of a C$ime 'unis&a!*e !" 8 "ea$s o$ mo$e( and &e accusa ion is found o !e G$ound*ess o The 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 ACQB TT&$. o The accusation must .e found to .e groundless- i.e. the Dudgment of acquittal must state that either 9 aE No crime was committed or .E The accused did not commit the crime o An acquittal .ased on reasona.le ground will not .e a ground for disinheritance.
A.
Has !een Con#ic ed of Adu* e$" o$ Concu!ina)e %i & &e S'ouse of &e Tes a o$ o 1inal Con*iction is required o 'ame question 9 must the disinheritance .e su.sequent to the con*iction6 E" .$aud( Vio*ence( In imida ion o$ 0ndue Inf*uence causes &e Tes a o$ o ,a2e a 1i** o$ C&an)e one a*$ead" made. Refusa* 1IO Jus ifia!*e cause o Su''o$ &e 'a$en o$ ascendan %&o disin&e$i s o There must ha*e .een a need and a demand for support :in relation to Art 2A! of the 1amily Code;
&rt. ;!3. *he obligation to give support shall be demandable from the time the person who has a right to
4.
5.
Nen La")o A-
104
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
receive the same needs it for maintenance' but it shall not be paid e1cept from the date of 7udicial or e1tra# 7udicial demand. Support pendente lite may be claimed in accordance with the ,ules of Court. 5ayment shall be made within the first five days of each corresponding month or when the recipient dies' his heirs shall not be obliged to return what he has received in advance.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

o 'ame question 9 must the disinheritance .e su.sequent to the con*iction6
o The 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;.
&rt. ;!!. Fhen the obligation to give support falls upon two or more persons' the payment of the same shall be divided between them in proportion to the resources of each. Aowever' in case of urgent need and by special circumstances' the 7udge may order only one of them to furnish the support provisionally' without pre7udice to his right to claim from the other obligors the share due from them. Fhen two or more recipients at the same time claim support from one and the same person legally obliged to give it' should the latter not have sufficient means to satisfy all claims' the order established in the preceding article shall be followed' unless the concurrent obligees should be the spouse and a child sub7ect to parental authority' in which case the child shall be preferred.
8.
,a* $ea men of &e es a o$ !" %o$d o$ deed o This 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 spousedescendants or ascendants- can fall under this paragraph. Leads a dis&ono$a!*e o$ dis)$acefu* *ife o The operati*e word here is ,lead.0 There must .e habituality to the conduct to ma+e it fall under this paragraph. o The dishonora.le or disgraceful conduct or pattern of .eha*ior need not .e se/ual in nature- although it may often .e that. 'urelya child or descendant whose li*elihood is drug>pushing or smuggling is li*ing a dishonora.le and disgraceful life. Con#ic ion of a c$ime ca$$"in) ci#i* in e$dic ion o 1inal Con*iction is required. o The accessory penalty of ci*il interdiction is imposed with the principal penalties of deathreclusion perpetua and reclusion te6poral :under Articles #A>#1 of the 7)C;.
A$ . B@C. T&e fo**o%in) s&a** !e sufficien causes fo$ &e disin&e$i ance of 'a$en s o$ ascendan s( %&e &e$ *e)i ima e o$ i**e)i ima e= >1? 1&en &e 'a$en s &a#e a!andoned &ei$ c&i*d$en o$ induced &ei$ dau)& e$s o *i#e a co$$u' o$ immo$a* *ife( o$ a em' ed a)ains &ei$ #i$ ue; >@? 1&en &e 'a$en o$ ascendan &as !een con#ic ed of an a em' a)ains &e *ife of &e es a o$( &is o$ &e$ s'ouse( descendan s( o$ ascendan s; >A? 1&en &e 'a$en o$ ascendan &as accused &e es a o$ of a c$ime fo$ %&ic& &e *a% '$esc$i!es im'$isonmen fo$ si+ "ea$s o$ mo$e( if &e accusa ion &as !een found o !e fa*se; >4? 1&en &e 'a$en o$ ascendan &as !een con#ic ed of adu* e$" o$ concu!ina)e %i & &e s'ouse of &e es a o$; >5? 1&en &e 'a$en o$ ascendan !" f$aud( #io*ence( in imida ion( o$ undue inf*uence causes &e es a o$ o ma2e a %i** o$ o c&an)e one a*$ead" made; >8? T&e *oss of 'a$en a* au &o$i " fo$ causes s'ecified in &is Code; >7? T&e $efusa* o su''o$ &e c&i*d$en o$ descendan s %i &ou Jus ifia!*e cause; ><? An a em' !" one of &e 'a$en s a)ains &e *ife of &e o &e$( un*ess &e$e &as !een a $econci*ia ion !e %een &em.
There are also ? Causes for the $isinheritance of )arents or Ascendants- whether "egitimate or llegitimate. :%?clusi8e enu6eration; 1. 1&en &e 'a$en s &a#e a!andoned &ei$ c&i*d$en o$ induced &ei$ dau)& e$s o *i#e a co$$u' o$ immo$a* *ife o$ a em' ed a)ains &ei$ #i$ ue o This paragraph encompasses ! grounds3 aE 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*erwhen 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
7.
<.
Nen La")o A-
105
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

)aragraphs 2- !- #- % and 7 are the same grounds for disinheritance of a descendant or child.
.E Inducemen o *i#e a co$$u' and immo$a* *ife 9 under Art2!1:2; of the 1amily Code as a ground for suspension or depri*ation of parental authority. cE A em' a)ains Vi$ ue 9 no con*iction is required here. @. A. Con#ic ed of a em' a)ains *ife of es a o$( &is o$ &e$ s'ouse( descendan o$ ascendan s. Has Accused es a o$ of a C$ime 'unis&a!*e !" Im'$isonmen fo$ 8 "ea$s o$ mo$e( if &e accusa ion &as !een found o !e .a*se. Has !een Con#ic ed of adu* e$" o$ concu!ina)e %i & &e s'ouse of &e es a o$. E" .$aud( Vio*ence( In imida ion o$ 0ndue Inf*uence causes es a o$ o ,a2e a 1i** o$ C&an)e one a*$ead" made. T&e Loss of Pa$en a* Au &o$i " fo$ causes s'ecified in &is Code o Not all causes for loss of parental authority are grounds for disinheritance. 1or instanceattainment 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 $epri*ation of )arental Authority on the grounds of3 i. &/cessi*ely harsh or cruel treatment of the child ii. 8i*ing the child corrupting orderscounsel or e/ample. iii.Compelling the child to .eg- or i*. 'u.Decting the child or allowing him to .e su.Dected to acts of lasci*iousness :Art2!1 1C; Refusa* o su''o$ &e C&i*d$en o$ -escendan s %i &ou Jus ifia!*e cause A em' !" one of &e 'a$en s a)ains &e *ife of &e o &e$( un*ess &e$e &as !een a $econci*ia ion !e %een &em.
4. 5.
8.
A$ . B@1. T&e fo**o%in) s&a** !e sufficien causes fo$ disin&e$i in) a s'ouse= >1? 1&en &e s'ouse &as !een con#ic ed of an a em' a)ains &e *ife of &e es a o$( &is o$ &e$ descendan s( o$ ascendan s; >@? 1&en &e s'ouse &as accused &e es a o$ of a c$ime fo$ %&ic& &e *a% '$esc$i!es im'$isonmen of si+ "ea$s o$ mo$e( and &e accusa ion &as !een found o !e fa*se; >A? 1&en &e s'ouse !" f$aud( #io*ence( in imida ion( o$ undue inf*uence cause &e es a o$ 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$a ion; >5? 1&en &e s'ouse &as )i#en )$ounds fo$ &e *oss of 'a$en a* au &o$i "; >8? 0nJus ifia!*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. 1. S'ouse is con#ic ed of an A em' a)ains &e *ife of &e Tes a o$( &is o$ &e$ descendan s o$ ascendan s. @. S'ouse Accused Tes a o$ of a C$ime fo$ %&ic& &e *a% '$esc$i!es im'$isonmen fo$ 8 "ea$s o$ mo$e( and &e accusa ion is fond o !e .a*se. T&e S'ouse( !" .$aud( Vio*ence( In imida ion( o$ 0ndue Inf*uence causes &e es a o$ o ma2e a 1i** o$ c&an)e one a*$ead" made. S'ouse &as )i#en cause fo$ *e)a* se'a$a ion o A decree of legal separation is not required. o According to Art%% of the 1amily Code- there are 1A grounds for legal separation3 aE 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 cE 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.
A.
4.
7. <.
Nen La")o A-
106
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
dE eE fE gE hE iE DE 1inal Dudgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than ( years- e*en if pardoned. $rug addiction or ha.itual alcoholism of the respondent "es.ianism or homose/uality of the respondent Contracting .y the respondent of a su.sequent .igamous marriage- whether in the )hilippines or a.road 'e/ual infidelity or per*ersion Attempt .y the respondent against the life of the petitioner A.andonment of the petitioner .y respondent without Dustifia.le cause for more than 1 year.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

Article @22 is in relation to Article 1A!!.
5. 8.
Has )i#en )$ounds fo$ *oss of 'a$en a* au &o$i " 0nJus ifia!*e $efusa* o su''o$ &e c&i*d$en o$ &e o &e$ s'ouse
A$ . B@A. T&e c&i*d$en and descendan s of &e 'e$son disin&e$i ed s&a** a2e &is o$ &e$ '*ace and s&a** '$ese$#e &e $i)& s of com'u*so$" &ei$s %i & $es'ec o &e *e)i ime; !u &e disin&e$i ed 'a$en s&a** no &a#e &e usuf$uc o$ adminis $a ion of &e '$o'e$ " %&ic& cons i u es &e *e)i ime.
7ight of 7epresentation in $isinheritance The right of representation is granted only to descendants of disinherited descendants. This rule is laid down in Art@72 par1 which pro*ides3 ,the right of representation ta+es place in the direct descending line- .ut ne*er in the ascending.0 Thus- a disinherited child will .e represented .y his children or other descendants. =owe*erif the heir disinherited is a parentLascendant or spouse- the children or the descendants of the disinherited heir do not ha*e any right of representation. Thus- this article is carelessly worded. &/tent of 7epresentation The representati*e ta+e the place of the disinherited heir not only with respect to the legitime- .ut also to any intestate portion that the disinherited heir would ha*e inherited. 7epresentation therefore occurs in compulsory and intestate succession- .ut not in testamentary succession. CASE -rancisco 8. (lfonso
)aragraphs 1- 2- !- % and ( are also enumerated under grounds for disinheritance of a descendant or child.
A$ . B@@. A su!sequen $econci*ia ion !e %een &e offende$ and &e offended 'e$son de'$i#es &e *a e$ of &e $i)& o disin&e$i ( and $ende$s ineffec ua* an" disin&e$i ance &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. aE 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 heirslegatees or de*iseessuch dispositions remain *alid.
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
Nen La")o A-
107
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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 realtyrespecti*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 $e*ise 9 it should not impair the legitime.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
A$ . B@7. If %o o$ mo$e &ei$s a2e 'ossession of &e es a e( &e" s&a** !e so*ida$i*" *ia!*e fo$ &e *oss o$ des $uc ion of a &in) de#ised o$ !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 malicefault 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#ic ion( if &e &in) is inde e$mina e and is indica ed on*" !" i s 2ind.
5=O is "ia.le in case of &K CT ON6 8eneral 7ule 9 the &state n case of a su.sidiary legacy or de*ise 9 the heirlegatee or de*isee charged.
A$ . B@5. A es a o$ ma" c&a$)e %i & *e)acies and de#ises no on*" &is com'u*so$" &ei$s !u a*so &e *e)a ees and de#isees. T&e *a e$ 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 es a o$ 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 $eneral &ule 9 the &state %?ception 9 howe*er- the testator may impose the .urden on a testamentary heir or a legatee or de*isee. f he does so- then the heirlegatee or de*isee charged will- if he accepts the disposition in his fa*or- .e .ound to deli*er the legacy or de*ise to the person specified. This will .e in the nature of a su.sidiary legacy or de*ise. As far as the heirlegatee or de*isee charged is concernedit will .e a MO$&. 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 heirde*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@B. If &e es a o$( &ei$( o$ *e)a ee o%ns on*" a 'a$ of( o$ an in e$es in &e &in) !equea &ed( &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** !e unde$s ood *imi ed o suc& 'a$ o$ in e$es ( un*ess &e es a o$ e+'$ess*" dec*a$es &a &e )i#es &e &in) in i s en i$e ". A$ . BAC. T&e *e)ac" o$ de#ise of a &in) !e*on)in) o ano &e$ 'e$son is #oid( if &e es a o$ 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 es a o$ %&en &e made &e %i**( af e$%a$ds !ecomes &is( !" %&a e#e$ i *e( &e dis'osi ion s&a** a2e effec . A$ . BA1. If &e es a o$ 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)a ee o$ de#isee( &e &ei$ u'on %&om &e o!*i)a ion is im'osed o$ &e es a e mus acqui$e i and )i#e &e same o &e *e)a ee o$ de#isee; !u if &e o%ne$ of &e &in) $efuses o a*iena e &e same( o$ demands an e+cessi#e '$ice &e$efo$( &e &ei$ o$ &e es a e 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+ecu ion of &e %i** a*$ead" !e*on)ed o &e *e)a ee o$ de#isee s&a** !e ineffec i#e( e#en &ou)& ano &e$ 'e$son ma" &a#e some in e$es &e$ein. If &e es a o$ e+'$ess*" o$de$s &a &e &in) !e f$eed f$om suc& in e$es o$ 108
Nen La")o A-
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER 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)a ee o$ de#isee a &e ime of &e e+ecu ion 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*iena ed !" &im. If &e *e)a ee o$ de#isee acqui$es i )$a ui ous*" af e$ 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 es a e. A$ . BA4. If &e es a o$ 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+ecu ion of &e %i**( &e es a e is o!*i)ed o 'a" &e de! ( un*ess &e con $a$" in en ion a''ea$s. T&e same $u*e a''*ies %&en &e &in) is '*ed)ed o$ mo$ )a)ed af e$ &e e+ecu ion of &e %i**. An" o &e$ c&a$)e( 'e$'e ua* o$ em'o$a$"( %i & %&ic& &e &in) !equea &ed is !u$dened( 'asses %i & i o &e *e)a ee 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)a ee s&a** !e effec i#e on*" as $e)a$ds &a 'a$ of &e c$edi o$ de! e+is in) a &e ime of &e dea & of &e es a o$. In &e fi$s case( &e es a e s&a** com'*" %i & &e *e)ac" !" assi)nin) o &e *e)a ee a** $i)& s of ac ion i ma" &a#e a)ains &e de! o$. In &e second case( !" )i#in) &e *e)a ee an acqui ance( s&ou*d &e $eques one. In !o & cases( &e *e)ac" s&a** com'$ise a** in e$es s on &e c$edi o$ de! %&ic& ma" !e due &e es a o$ 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 es a o$( af e$ &a#in) made i ( s&ou*d !$in) an ac ion a)ains &e de! o$ fo$ &e 'a"men of &is de! ( e#en if suc& 'a"men s&ou*d no &a#e !een effec ed a &e ime of &is dea &. T&e *e)ac" o &e de! o$ of &e &in) '*ed)ed !" &im is unde$s ood o disc&a$)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+is in) a &e ime of &e e+ecu ion of &e %i**( !u no su!sequen ones.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

"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 aE =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 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;
&rt. $88. 2f a testamentary disposition admits of different interpretations' in case of doubt' that interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred. &rt. $<0. *he words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every e1pression some effect' rather than one which will render any of the e1pressions inoperative= and of two modes of interpreting a will' that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy.
"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
Nen La")o A-
109
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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.
"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.
Testamentary nstruction to )ay a $e.t :Art@!@; aE This is not a testamentary disposition- .ut merely a direction to discharge a ci*il o.ligation. .E 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$ . BA<. A *e)ac" o$ de#ise made o a c$edi o$ s&a** no !e a''*ied o &is c$edi ( un*ess &e es a o$ so e+'$ess*" dec*a$es. In &e *a e$ case( &e c$edi o$ 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 es a o$ o$de$s &e 'a"men of %&a &e !e*ie#es &e o%es !u does no in fac o%e( &e dis'osi ion s&a** !e conside$ed as no %$i en. 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 $a$" in en ion a''ea$s. T&e fo$e)oin) '$o#isions a$e %i &ou '$eJudice o &e fu*fi**men of na u$a* o!*i)a ions.
"egacy L $e*ise to a Creditor :Art@!?; 8eneral 7ule 9 will .e treated li+e any other legacy L de*ise and therefore will not .e imputed to the de.t. &/ception 9 will .e imputed to the de.t if the testator so pro*ides- and if the de.t e/ceeds the legacy L de*ise- the e/cess may .e demanded as an o.ligation of the estate.
A$ . B4C. In a* e$na i#e *e)acies o$ de#ises( &e c&oice is '$esumed o !e *ef o &e &ei$ u'on %&om &e o!*i)a ion o )i#e &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise ma" !e im'osed( o$ &e e+ecu o$ o$ adminis $a o$ of &e es a e if no 'a$ icu*a$ &ei$ is so o!*i)ed. If &e &ei$( *e)a ee o$ de#isee( %&o ma" &a#e !een )i#en &e c&oice( dies !efo$e ma2in) i ( &is $i)& s&a** 'ass o &e $es'ec i#e &ei$s. Once made( &e c&oice is i$$e#oca!*e. In &e a* e$na i#e *e)acies o$ de#ises( e+ce' as &e$ein '$o#ided( &e '$o#isions of &is Code $e)u*a in) o!*i)a ions of &e same 2ind s&a** !e o!se$#ed( sa#e suc& modifica ions as ma" a''ea$ f$om &e in en ion e+'$essed !" &e es a o$.
(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 heirlegatee- 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 heirlegatee or de*isee 9 the right is transmitted to his own heirs.
Nen La")o A-
110
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
The choice is irre*oca.le. )ro*isions suppletorily go*erning 9 Articles 11@@>12A%on alternati*e o.ligations.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

and other circumstances shall .e ta+en into consideration.0 -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$ . B41. A *e)ac" of )ene$ic 'e$sona* '$o'e$ " s&a** !e #a*id e#en if &e$e !e no &in)s of &e same 2ind in &e es a e. A de#ise of inde e$mina e $ea* '$o'e$ " s&a** !e #a*id on*" if &e$e !e immo#a!*e '$o'e$ " of i s 2ind in &e es a e. T&e $i)& of c&oice s&a** !e*on) o &e e+ecu o$ o$ adminis $a o$ %&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 es a o$ e+'$ess*" *ea#es &e $i)& of c&oice o &e &ei$( o$ o &e *e)a ee o$ de#isee( &e fo$me$ ma" )i#e o$ &e *a e$ ma" c&oose %&ic&e#e$ &e ma" '$efe$. A$ . B4A. If &e &ei$( *e)a ee o$ de#isee canno ma2e &e c&oice( in case i &as !een )$an ed &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 $e*ise 9 *alid only if there e/ists such an immo*a.le in the testator4s estate at the time of his death. Note 9 this distinction as found in the 'panish Code perpetuates the rule in the )artidas e*en if it has .ecome artificial and ar.itrary in modern times.
A$ . B44. A *e)ac" fo$ educa ion *as s un i* &e *e)a ee is of a)e( o$ !e"ond &e a)e of maJo$i " in o$de$ &a &e *e)a ee ma" finis& some '$ofessiona*( #oca iona* o$ )ene$a* cou$se( '$o#ided &e 'u$sues &is cou$se di*i)en *". A *e)ac" fo$ su''o$ *as s du$in) &e *ife ime of &e *e)a ee( if &e es a o$ &as no o &e$%ise '$o#ided. If &e es a o$ &as no fi+ed &e amoun of suc& *e)acies( i s&a** !e fi+ed in acco$dance %i & &e socia* s andin) and &e ci$cums ances of &e *e)a ee and &e #a*ue of &e es a e. If &e es a o$ o$ du$in) &is *ife ime used o )i#e &e *e)a ee a ce$ 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$ iona e o &e #a*ue of &e es a e. A$ . B45. If a 'e$iodica* 'ension( o$ a ce$ ain annua*( mon &*"( o$ %ee2*" amoun is !equea &ed( &e *e)a ee ma" 'e i ion &e cou$ fo$ &e fi$s ins a**men u'on &e dea & of &e es a o$( 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 $e u$ned( e#en &ou)& &e *e)a ee s&ou*d die !efo$e &e e+'i$a ion of &e 'e$iod %&ic& &as commenced.
"egacy for &ducation $uration 9 age of maDority or the completion of a professional- *ocational or general coursewhiche*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
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
Nen La")o A-
111
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
o 'econdarily 9 that which is proper- as determined .y 2 *aria.les3 :1; the social standing and circumstances of the legateeand :2; the *alue of the disposa.le portion of the estate.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

from a 3rd person 3 upon acquisition Jpon arrival of the term' but the right to it vests upon the testator s death Hunder &rt8$8I Jpon the testator s death' if the condition is fulfilled Hunder &rt008$I
#i!$ a S)&'en&i+e Term
Jpon the arrival of the term
"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.
Jpon the arrival of the term Himplied from &rt889I Jpon the happening of the condition' unless testator provides otherwise H&rt884 in rel. to &rt008$I
#i!$ a S)&'en&i+e Condi!ion
Jpon the happening of the condition
&rt. 008$. *he effects of a conditional obligation to give' once the condition has been fulfilled' shall retroact to the day of the constitution of the obligation. (evertheless' when the obligation imposes reciprocal prestations upon the parties' the fruits and interests during the pendency of the condition shall be deemed to have been mutually compensated. 2f the obligation is unilateral' the debtor shall appropriate the fruits and interests received' unless from the nature and circumstances of the obligation it should be inferred that the intention of the person constituting the same was different. 2n obligations to do and not to do' the courts shall determine' in each case' the retroactive effect of the condition that has been complied with.
A$ . B48. If &e &in) !equea &ed s&ou*d !e su!Jec o a usuf$uc ( &e *e)a ee o$ de#isee s&a** $es'ec suc& $i)& un i* i is *e)a**" e+ in)uis&ed.
This article lays down the same rule as Art@!# par!.
A$ . B47. T&e *e)a ee o$ de#isee acqui$es a $i)& o &e 'u$e and sim'*e *e)acies o$ de#ises f$om &e dea & of &e es a o$( and $ansmi s i o &is &ei$s.
$emanda.ility- Ownership and 1ruits of "egaciesL $e*ises
Demandabi i!" P)re and De!ermina!e P)re and Generi* Jpon *estator s death Jpon *estator s death #$en O%ner&$i' Ve&!& Jpon *estator s death a. if from testators estate 3 upon testator s death b. if acquired (r)i!& Jpon the testator s death Hunder &rt<48I Jpon determi# nation' unless testator provides otherwise H&rt<4<I
A$ . B4<. If &e *e)ac" o$ de#ice is of a s'ecific and de e$mina e &in) 'e$ ainin) o &e es a o$( &e *e)a ee o$ de#isee acqui$es &e o%ne$s&i' &e$eof u'on &e dea & of &e es a o$( as %e** as an" )$o%in) f$ui s( o$ un!o$n offs'$in) of anima*s( o$ unco**ec ed income; !u no &e income %&ic& %as due and un'aid !efo$e &e *a e$Ms dea &. .$om &e momen of &e es a o$Ms dea &( &e &in) !equea &ed s&a** !e a &e $is2 of &e *e)a ee o$ de#isee( %&o s&a**( &e$efo$e( !ea$ i s *oss o$ de e$io$a ion( and s&a** !e !enefi ed !" i s inc$ease o$ im'$o#emen ( %i &ou '$eJudice o &e $es'onsi!i*i " of &e e+ecu o$ o$ adminis $a o$. A$ . B4B. If &e !eques s&ou*d no !e of a s'ecific and de e$mina e &in)( !u is )ene$ic o$ of quan i "( i s f$ui s and in e$es s f$om &e ime of &e dea & of &e es a o$ s&a** 'e$ ain o &e *e)a ee o$ de#isee if &e es a o$ &as e+'$ess*" so o$de$ed. A$ . B5C. If &e es a e 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$a o$" *e)acies o$ de#ises; >@? Le)acies o$ de#ises dec*a$ed !" &e es a o$ o !e '$efe$en ia*; >A? Le)acies fo$ su''o$ ; 112
Nen La")o A-
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER >4? Le)acies fo$ educa ion; >5? Le)acies o$ de#ises of a s'ecific( de e$mina e &in) %&ic& fo$ms a 'a$ of &e es a e; >8? A** o &e$s '$o $a a.
Order of )reference among "egacies and $e*ises in case the &state is Not 'ufficient for All of them 1. 7emuneratory legacies or de*ises 2. "egacies or de*ises declared .y the testator to .e preferential !. "egacies for support #. "egacies for education %. "egacies or de*ises of a specific- determinate thing which forms a part of the estate (. All others- pro rata Article @%A and Article @11 Article @11 also contains a rule for reduction of legacies and de*ises and the order of preference there is different3 it simply pro*ides that all the non> preferred legaciesLde*ises will .e reduced pro rataand the preferred legaciesLde*ises are reduced last. t is a rule different from that set forth in Art@%A. )ossi.le reconciliation .etween the 2 articles 9 each article can be gi8en its own area of applicability. o Article @11 will apply if reductions ha*e to .e made .ecause the "&8 T M&' ha*e .een impaired- i.e. if the legaciesLde*ises ha*e e/ceeded the disposa.le portion o Article @%A will apply if the reason for the reduction is not the impairment of legitimesi.e. there are no legitimes .ecause there are no compulsory heirs or the legitimes ha*e already .een satisfied through donations inter 8i8os.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 !equea &ed if &e is a!*e o do so and canno disc&a$)e &is o!*i)a ion !" 'a"in) i s #a*ue. Le)acies of mone" mus !e 'aid in cas&( e#en &ou)& &e &ei$ o$ &e es a e 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 es a e( !u %i &ou '$eJudice o &e *e)i ime.
This article conforms to the rule of identity in the performance of o.ligations :under Art12##;3
&rt. 0;44. *he debtor of a thing cannot compel the creditor to receive a different one' although the latter may be of the same value as' or more valuable than that which is due. 2n obligations to do or not to do' an act or forbearance cannot be substituted by another act or forbearance against the obligee@s will.
A$ . B5A. T&e *e)a ee o$ de#isee canno a2e 'ossession of &e &in) !equea &ed u'on &is o%n au &o$i "( !u s&a** $eques i s de*i#e$" and 'ossession of &e &ei$ c&a$)ed %i & &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise( o$ of &e e+ecu o$ o$ adminis $a o$ of &e es a e 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. $e.ts first ha*e to .e paid- then legitimes ha*e to .e determined- and the testamentary dispositions Gincluding legacies and de*isesE computed lest they impair the legitimes. t is only after these steps ha*e .een ta+en that the .eneficiaries of the will can ta+e possession.
A$ . B51. T&e &in) !equea &ed s&a** !e de*i#e$ed %i & a** i s accesso$ies and accesso$ies and in &e condi ion in %&ic& i ma" !e u'on &e dea & of &e es a o$.
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
&rt. 00"". *he obligation to give a determinate thing includes that of delivering all its accessions and accessories' even though they may not have been mentioned
A$ . B54. T&e *e)a ee o$ de#isee canno acce' a 'a$ of &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise and $e'udia e &e o &e$( if &e *a e$ !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 *a e$ ma" acce' and &e o &e$s ma" $e'udia e &e s&a$e $es'ec i#e*" !e*on)in) o &em in &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise. A$ . B55. T&e *e)a ee 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$ous o$ )$a ui ous( &e s&a** !e f$ee o acce' o$ $enounce !o &( o$ o $enounce ei &e$. Eu if &e es a o$ in ended &a &e %o *e)acies o$ de#ises s&ou*d !e inse'a$a!*e f$om eac& o &e$( &e *e)a ee o$ de#isee mus ei &e$ acce' o$ $enounce !o &. 113
The crucial time is the testator7s death- .ecause that is when successional rights *est :under Art777;. That is why the thing must .e deli*ered in the condition in which it is at that time.
A$ . B5@. T&e &ei$( c&a$)ed %i & a *e)ac" o$ de#ise( o$ &e e+ecu o$ o$ adminis $a o$ of &e es a e( mus de*i#e$ &e #e$" &in)
Nen La")o A-
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER An" com'u*so$" &ei$ %&o is a &e same ime a *e)a ee o$ de#isee ma" %ai#e &e in&e$i ance and acce' &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise( o$ $enounce &e *a e$ 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 $e*isee 9 if the legatee or de*isee dies .efore accepting or renouncing- his heirs shall e/ercise such right as to their pro>indi*iso share- and in the same manner as the legatee or de*isee.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 >1? If &e es a o$ $ansfo$ms &e &in) !equea &ed in suc& a manne$ &a i does no $e ain ei &e$ &e fo$m o$ &e denomina ion i &ad; >@? If &e es a o$ !" an" i *e o$ fo$ an" cause a*iena es &e &in) !equea &ed o$ an" 'a$ &e$eof( i !ein) unde$s ood &a in &e *a e$ case &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** !e %i &ou effec on*" %i & $es'ec o &e 'a$ &us a*iena ed. If af e$ &e a*iena ion &e &in) s&ou*d a)ain !e*on) o &e es a o$( e#en if i !e !" $eason of nu**i " of &e con $ac ( &e *e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** no &e$eaf e$ !e #a*id( un*ess &e $eacquisi ion s&a** &a#e !een effec ed !" #i$ ue of &e e+e$cise of &e $i)& of $e'u$c&ase; >A? If &e &in) !equea &ed is o a**" *os du$in) &e *ife ime of &e es a o$( o$ af e$ &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#ic ion if &e &in) !equea &ed s&ou*d no &a#e !een de e$mina e as o i s 2ind( in acco$dance %i & &e '$o#isions of A$ ic*e B@<.
This article enumerates the instances when the legacyLde*ise is 7&KOF&$ 2I O)&7AT ON O1 "A5 1. T7AN'1O7MAT ON o f for e/ample the testator con*erts a plantation to a fishpond. A" &NAT ON 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. .E f the re*ersion is .y *irtue of redemption in a sale with pacto de retro. TOTA" "O'' o This 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 legallythe 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.
2 "egaciesL$e*ises to the 'ame 7ecipient o f .oth gratuitous 9 the recipient may accept or renounce either or .oth o f .oth onerous 9 same rule- may accept or renounce either or .oth o f one gratuitous and the other onerous 9 the recipient cannot accept the gratuitous and renounce the onerous. Any other com.ination is permitted. "egacyL$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 stipulationthe testator4s wishes shall go*ern.
2.
A$ . B58. If &e *e)a ee 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" $eason s&ou*d !ecome ineffec i#e( i s&a** !e me$)ed in o &e mass of &e es a e( e+ce' in cases of su!s i u ion and of &e $i)& of acc$e ion.
7ules in Case of 7epudiation .y or ncapacity of "egateeL$e*isee 1. )rimarily 9 'B2'T TBT ON 2. 'econdarily 9 ACC7&T ON !. Tertiarily 9 NT&'TACI
!.
A$ . B57. T&e *e)ac" o$ de#ise s&a** !e %i &ou effec = Nen La")o ADigests c/o 3C !"# !$% &lvin Saga' Cecille (atividad' C) *an' )ulie Domingo' +ars ,ongo' -ea +ateo' (ina ,ances . ,yan /uan
114
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER A$ . B5<. A mis a2e as o &e name of &e &in) !equea &ed o$ de#ised( is of no consequence( if i is 'ossi!*e o iden if" &e &in) %&ic& &e es a o$ in ended o !equea & o$ de#ise.
This principle is already set forth in Art7?@
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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
A$ . B5B. A dis'osi ion made in )ene$a* e$ms in fa#o$ of &e es a o$Ms $e*a i#es s&a** !e unde$s ood 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*
INSTANCES 1HEN LEGAL OR INTESTATE S0CCESSION OPERATE1. If a 'e$son dies %i &ou a %i**( o$ %i & a #oid %i**( o$ one %&ic& &as su!sequen *" *os i s #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 ins i u e an &ei$ o( o$ dis'ose of a** &e '$o'e$ " !e*on)in) o &e es a o$. In suc& case( *e)a* succession s&a** a2e '*ace on*" %i & $es'ec o &e '$o'e$ " of %&ic& &e es a o$ &as no dis'osed. o n these instances- intestacy may .e total or partial. If &e sus'ensi#e condi ion a ac&ed o &e ins i u ion of an &ei$ does no &a''en o$ is no fu*fi**ed( o$ if &e &ei$ dies !efo$e &e es a o$( o$ $e'udia es &e in&e$i ance( &e$e !ein) no su!s i u ion and no $i)& of acc$e ion a2es '*ace o ntestacy here may also .e total or partialdepending on the e/tent of the disposition that turns out to .e inoperati*e. 1&en &e &ei$ ins i u ed is inca'a!*e of succeedin)( e+ce' in cases '$o#ided in &is Code. o ncapacity to succeed under Articles 1A271A2? and 1A!2. ntestacy here may .e total or partial.
CHAPTER A LEGAL OR INTESTATE S0CCESSION
A.
SEC-I./ 0. 3E/E!AL =!.4ISI./S A$ . B8C. Le)a* o$ in es a e 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 i s #a*idi "; >@? 1&en &e %i** does no ins i u e an &ei$ o( o$ dis'ose of a** &e '$o'e$ " !e*on)in) o &e es a o$. In suc& case( *e)a* succession s&a** a2e '*ace on*" %i & $es'ec o &e '$o'e$ " of %&ic& &e es a o$ &as no dis'osed; >A? If &e sus'ensi#e condi ion a ac&ed o &e ins i u ion of &ei$ does no &a''en o$ is no fu*fi**ed( o$ if &e &ei$ dies !efo$e &e es a o$( o$ $e'udia es &e in&e$i ance( &e$e !ein) no su!s i u ion( and no $i)& of acc$e ion a2es '*ace; >4? 1&en &e &ei$ ins i u ed is inca'a!*e of succeedin)( e+ce' in cases '$o#ided in &is Code.
"egal or ntestate 'uccession $efined Not defined .y the Code- unli+e testamentary and mi/ed succession. 4.
O &e$ Causes of In es ac" 5. Ha''enin) of a Reso*u o$" Condi ion 8. E+'i$a ion of a Reso*u o$" Te$m 7. P$e e$i ion
A$ . B81. In defau* of es amen a$" &ei$s( &e *a% #es s &e in&e$i ance( in acco$dance %i & &e $u*es &e$einaf e$ se fo$ &( in &e *e)i ima e and i**e)i ima e $e*a i#es of &e deceased( in &e su$#i#in) s'ouse( and in &e S a e. A$ . B8@. In e#e$" in&e$i ance( &e $e*a i#e nea$es in de)$ee e+c*udes &e mo$e dis an ones( sa#in) &e $i)& of $e'$esen a ion %&en i '$o'e$*" a2es '*ace. Re*a i#es in &e same de)$ee s&a** in&e$i in equa* s&a$es( su!Jec o &e '$o#isions of 115
Nen La")o A-
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER a$ ic*e 1CC8 %i & $es'ec o $e*a i#es of &e fu** and &a*f !*ood( and of A$ ic*e B<7( 'a$a)$a'& @( conce$nin) di#ision !e %een &e 'a e$na* and ma e$na* *ines.
&/clusion and Concurrence in ntestacy ntestacy operates on the same principles as succession to the legitime. There are 2 principles operating sometimes simultaneously- sometimes singly 9 &PC"B' ON and CONCB77&NC&. 8roups of intestate heirs and the different com.inations in intestacy are outlined under Arts. @7?>1A1A. 2asis of ntestate 'uccession The presumed will of the decedent- which would distri.ute the estate in accordance with the lo*e and affection he has for his family and close relati*esand in default of these persons- the presumed desire of the decedent to promote charita.le and humanitarian acti*ities. Manresa says that the law of intestacy is founded on the presumed will of the deceased. "o*e- it is said first descends- then ascends- and finally spreads sideways. Thus- the law first calls the descendantsthen the ascendants and finally the collateralsalways preferring those closer in degree than those of remoter degrees. EASIC R0LES O. INTESTACF 1. T&e Ru*e of P$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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 $e*a ions&i' is de e$mined !" &e num!e$ of )ene$a ions. Eac& )ene$a ion 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**a e$a*. A di$ec *ine is &a cons i u ed !" &e se$ies of de)$ees amon) ascendan s and descendan s. A co**a e$a* *ine is &a cons i u ed !" &e se$ies of de)$ees amon) 'e$sons %&o a$e no ascendan s and descendan s( !u %&o come f$om a common ances o$. A$ . B85. T&e di$ec *ine is ei &e$ descendin) o$ ascendin). T&e fo$me$ uni es &e &ead of &e fami*" %i & &ose %&o descend f$om &im. T&e *a e$ !inds a 'e$son %i & &ose f$om %&om &e descends. A$ . B88. In &e *ine( as man" de)$ees a$e coun ed as &e$e a$e )ene$a ions o$ 'e$sons( e+c*udin) &e '$o)eni o$. In &e di$ec *ine( ascen is made o &e common ances o$. T&us( &e c&i*d is one de)$ee $emo#ed f$om &e 'a$en ( %o f$om &e )$andfa &e$( and &$ee f$om &e )$ea G )$and'a$en . In &e co**a e$a* *ine( ascen is made o &e common ances o$ and &en descen is made o &e 'e$son %i & %&om &e com'u a ion is o !e made. T&us( a 'e$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$ &.
@.
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. T&e Ru*e of Equa*i " Amon) Re*a i#es of &e Same -e)$ee This rule is corollary of the pre*ious one3 f the nearer e/clude the more remotelogically 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
A.
Nen La")o A-
116
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
DESCENDING DIRECT ASCENDING LINE DIRECT , COLLATERAL COLLATERAL DESCENDING DIRECT , ASCENDING DIRECT
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 i. Children of a first cousin ii. 1irst cousins of a parent iii.2rothersLsisters of a great> grandparent i*. 8reat grandchildren of a .rotherLsister
LINE 9 a series of degrees forms a line :Article @(# par1; aE -i$ec > degrees among ascendants and descendants :Art@(# par2; i. $escending 9 Bnites the head of the family with those who descend from him :Article @(% par2; ii. Ascending 9 .inds a person with those from whom he descends :Article @(% par!; .E Co**a e$a* 9 $egrees among persons who are not ascendants or descendants .ut come from a common ancestor :Article @(# par!; i. @irect and Collateral 9 importance of distinction3 the direct is preferred o*er the collateral. ii. @escending direct and (scending direct 9 importance of distinction 9 the descending is preferred o*er the ascending.
DIRECT LINE
DEGREE COLLATERAL LINE
A$ . B87. .u** !*ood $e*a ions&i' is &a e+is in) !e %een 'e$sons %&o &a#e &e same fa &e$ and &e same mo &e$. Ha*f !*ood $e*a ions&i' is &a e+is in) !e %een 'e$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&7 A".
CO,P0TATION O. -EGREES A. -i$ec Line 9 there is no legal limit to the num.er of degrees for entitlement to intestate succession. The practical li6it is of course- human mortality. o 'ode of Counting @egrees in @irect Line - One generation ] one degree - )arent to child ] 1 degree - 8randparent to 8randchild ] 2 degrees - 8reat>8randparent to 8reat>8randchild ] ! degrees 2. Co**a e$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**a e$a* $e*a ions&i' GArt1A1AE o 'ode of Counting @egrees in the Collateral Line :Art@(( par!; i. 1rom the reference point- ascend to nearest common ancestor :if there are more than 1 nearest common ancestor- choose any one.;
A$ . B8<. If &e$e a$e se#e$a* $e*a i#es of &e same de)$ee( and one o$ some of &em a$e un%i**in) o$ inca'aci a ed o succeed( &is 'o$ ion s&a** acc$ue o &e o &e$s of &e same de)$ee( sa#e &e $i)& of $e'$esen a ion %&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&$&C&A'&-
Nen La")o A-
117
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
NCA)AC TI or 7&NBNC AT ON of any one of them. :Art1A1%; 1E n case of predecease or incapacityrepresentation- if proper- will )7&K&NT accretion from occurring. 2E 7elati*es must .e in the same +ind of relationship 9 for accretion to ta+e place the heirs in*ol*ed must .e in the same +ind of relationship to the decedent. This is .ecause of the principle of the preference of lines in intestate succession. Thus- there can .e no accretion among a grandchild- a grandparent and a .rother of the decedent :e*en if they are all related to him in the 2nd degree; .ecause they are not inheriting together in the first place.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 A$ . B7C. Re'$esen a ion is a $i)& c$ea ed !" fic ion of *a%( !" #i$ ue of %&ic& &e $e'$esen a i#e is $aised o &e '*ace and &e de)$ee of &e 'e$son $e'$esen ed( and acqui$es &e $i)& s %&ic& &e *a e$ %ou*d &a#e if &e %e$e *i#in) o$ if &e cou*d &a#e in&e$i ed. A$ . B71. T&e $e'$esen a i#e is ca**ed o &e succession !" &e *a% and no !" &e 'e$son $e'$esen ed. T&e $e'$esen a i#e does no succeed &e 'e$son $e'$esen ed !u &e one %&om &e 'e$son $e'$esen ed %ou*d &a#e succeeded. A$ . B7@. T&e $i)& of $e'$esen a ion a2es '*ace in &e di$ec descendin) *ine( !u ne#e$ in &e ascendin). In &e co**a e$a* *ine( i a2es '*ace on*" in fa#o$ of &e c&i*d$en of !$o &e$s o$ sis e$s( %&e &e$ &e" !e of &e fu** o$ &a*f !*ood. A$ . B7A. In o$de$ &a $e'$esen a ion ma" a2e '*ace( i is necessa$" &a &e $e'$esen a i#e &imse*f !e ca'a!*e of succeedin) &e deceden . A$ . B74. 1&ene#e$ &e$e is succession !" $e'$esen a ion( &e di#ision of &e es a e s&a** !e made 'e$ s i$'es( in suc& manne$ &a &e $e'$esen a i#e o$ $e'$esen a i#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$s o$ sis e$s of &e deceased su$#i#e( &e" s&a** in&e$i f$om &e *a e$ !" $e'$esen a ion( if &e" su$#i#e %i & &ei$ unc*es o$ aun s. 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$i ance &e &as $enounced. A$ . B77. Hei$s %&o $e'udia e &ei$ s&a$e ma" no !e $e'$esen ed.
7&)7&'&NTAT ON $efinition 9 a right created .y fiction of law- .y *irtue of which the representati*e is raised to the place and the degree of the person represented- and acquires the rights which the latter would ha*e if he were li*ing or if he could ha8e inherited. :Art@7A; o Criticisms 9 the term ,representation0- it has .een suggested that a .etter term to call this legal process is either hereditary subrogation or successional subrogation .ecause the
A$ . B8B. If &e in&e$i ance s&ou*d !e $e'udia ed !" &e nea$es $e*a i#e( s&ou*d &e$e !e one on*"( o$ !" a** &e nea$es $e*a i#es ca**ed !" *a% o succeed( s&ou*d &e$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 $e'udia in) &e in&e$i ance.
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 1E T&e descendin) *ine fi$s 9 if all the descendants of a certain degree renouncesuccession passes to the descendants of the ne/t degree :i.e. grandchildren;- and so onad indefinitu6. 2E T&e ascendin) *ine ne+ 9 should no one .e left in the descending line- the heirs in the ascending line acquire the right of succession- again in order of degrees of pro/imity. !E T&e co**a e$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 $egree This e*entuality is not pro*ided for .y the article. The rules outlined- howe*er- are equally applica.le to such situation- e?cept in cases where &%P&%S%),(,*+) is proper :in descending line; 7epresentation does not apply in cases of uni*ersal renunciation outlined a.o*e- .ecause there is no representation in renunciation. :Art@77;
S.BS%C,*+) 2. 0 &ight of &epresentation
Nen La")o A-
118
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
person inheriting in another4s stead actually represents no one and truly succeeds in his own right. The term ,fiction of law0 is criticiHed as inaccurate- as well- .ecause the law has ample authority to predetermine who are to .e called to inherit- and the law needs no resort to fictions .ut merely to ma+e use of its power to designate those who are to ta+e the inheritance. INSTANCES 1HEN REPRESENTATION OPERATES A. E. C. P$edecease Inca'aci " o$ 0n%o$ &iness( and -isin&e$i ance
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

7epresentation O1 and 2I and adopted child 9 an adopted child can N& T=&7 represent nor .e represented. o The 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;
nstance when 7epresentation N&K&7 operates 9 7&NBNC AT ON
IN 1HAT DIN-S O. S0CCESSION REPRESENTATION OPERATES A. "&8 T M& 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
7&)7&'&NTAT ON 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 2nd 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 2and 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 'T 7)&' 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.
IN 1HAT LINE -OES REPRESENTATION OETAIN A. 5ith respect to the "&8 T M& 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&'&NTAT ON 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 A Legit. A1 *llegit. A@ Legit. E1 *llegiti6ate E *llegit. E@
R0LES ON /0ALI.ICATION A. T&e $e'$esen a i#e mus !e qua*ified o succeed &e deceden . 3A$ B7A4 o Again- 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. E. C. T&e $e'$esen a i#e need no !e qua*ified o succeed &e 'e$son $e'$esen ed 3A$ B714 T&e 'e$son $e'$esen ed need no !e qua*ified o succeed &e deceden . o n fact- the reason why representation is ta+ing place is that the person represented is not qualified- .ecause of predeceaseincapacity or disinheritance.
Should ( and B both predecease D< only (# can represent ( but both B# and B2 can represent B
REPRESENTATION EF GRAN-CHIL-REN ANREPRESENTATION EF NEPHE1SINIECES= -iffe$ence in Ru*e
Nen La")o A-
119
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
A. If ALL &e c&i*d$en a$e disqua*ified 9 the grandchildren still inherit .y representation :what the parents should ha*e gotten; under Art@?2. If ALL &e !$o &e$sIsis e$s a$e disqua*ified 9 the nephews and nieces inherit )&7 CA) TA under Art@7%.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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
2.
'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 C1 C C@ -1 -@ E1 E 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 estateworth )(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&'&NTAT ON in Testamentary $isposition. o Therefore- the share of C who predeceased Pthe 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&T ON- .e di*ided equally among the rest of the +ids of P. SECTION @. 9 OR-ER O. INTESTATE S0CCESSION
INTESTACF 9 R0LES O. EHCL0SION AN- CONC0RRENCE

HEIRS 1. Le)i ima e C&i*d$en EHCL0-E )arents- Collaterals and the 'tate CONC0R The sur*i*ing spouse and illegitimate children ARE EHCL0-E- EF No one
Nen La")o A-
120
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
@. A. 4. 5. I**e)i ima e C&i*d$en Le)i ima e Pa$en s I**e)i ima e Pa$en s Su$#i#in) S'ouse E$o &e$s( sis e$s( ne'&e%s and nieces O &e$ Co**a e$a*s T&e S a e llegitimate parentscollaterals and the state Collaterals and the state Collaterals and the state Collaterals- &PC&)T .rothers- sistersnephews and niecesand the 'tate All other collateral relati*es up to %th degree and the state Collaterals remoter in degree- and the state No one 'ur*i*ing spouse- legitimate children and the legitimate parents llegitimate children and the sur*i*ing spouse 'ur*i*ing spouse "egitimate childrenillegitimate children- legitimate parentsillegitimate parents and .rotherssisters- nephews and nieces. 'ur*i*ing spouse No one
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
"egitimate children "egitimate and illegitimate children No one
8.
"egitimate V illegitimate children- and legitimate V illegitimate parents All others &*eryone
7. <.
Collaterals in the same degree No one
CO,EINATIONS IN INTESTATE S0CCESSION

HEIR 1. Le)i ima e c&i*d$en SHARE 5hole estate- equally di*ided PROVISION
&rt. <$<. -egitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants' without distinction as to se1 or age' and even if they should come from different marriages. &n adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same manner as a legitimate child. &rt. <83. 2f illegitimate children survive with legitimate children' the shares of the former shall be in the proportions prescribed by &rticle 8<9. &rt. 0$" ?&+2-N CEDD. 2llegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother' and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. *he legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one#half of the legitime of a legitimate child. D1cept for this modification' all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional rights shall remain in force. &rt. <<". 2f a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left' the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the children. &rt. <<<. Fhen the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or their descendants and illegitimate children or their descendants' whether legitimate or illegitimate' such widow or widower shall be entitled to the same share as that of a legitimate child. &rt. 0$" ?&+2-N CEDD. 2llegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother' and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. *he legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one#half of the legitime of a legitimate child. D1cept for this modification' all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional rights shall remain in force.
@.
Le)i ima e c&i*d$en and I**e)i ima e c&i*d$en
5hole estate with O share of 1 legit child for &AC= illegitimate child
A.
Le)i ima e c&i*d$en and su$#i#in) s'ouse Le)i ima e c&i*d$en( su$#i#in) s'ouse and i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en
5hole estate- di*ided equallyincluding the sur*i*ing spouse 5hole estate- the spouse getting the share of 1 legitimate child and the illegitimate child getting O the share of 1 legitimate child.
4.
5.
Le)i ima e 'a$en s a*one Le)i ima e ascendan s
5hole estate- equally
&rt. <89. 2n default of legitimate children and descendants of the deceased' his parents and ascendants shall inherit from him' to the e1clusion of collateral relatives. &rt. <8$. 2n default of the father and mother' the ascendants nearest in degree shall inherit. Should there be more than one of equal degree belonging to the same line they shall divide the inheritance per capita= should they be of different lines but of equal degree' one#half shall go to the paternal
8.
5hole estate- di*ision equally .y line
Nen La")o A-
121
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

and the other half to the maternal ascendants. 2n each line the division shall be made per capita.
7.
Le)i ima e 'a$en s and i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en Le)i ima e 'a$en s and su$#i#in) s'ouse Le)i ima e 'a$en s( su$#i#in) s'ouse and i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en
<.
"egitimate parents get O of the estate di*ided equally .etween them and the illegitimate children get O of the estate di*ided also equally "egit parents get O of the estate and the sur*i*ing spouse gets the other half "egit parents get O- the sur*i*ing spouse gets R and the illegitimate children get R.
&rt. <<0. 2f legitimate ascendants are left' the illegitimate children shall divide the inheritance with them' ta6ing one#half of the estate' whatever be the number of the ascendants or of the illegitimate children. &rt. <<$. Fhen the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants' the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one#half of the estate' and the legitimate parents or ascendants to the other half. &rt. 0!!!. 2f legitimate ascendants' the surviving spouse' and illegitimate children are left' the ascendants shall be entitled to one#half of the inheritance' and the other half shall be divided between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate children so that such widow or widower shall have one#fourth of the estate' and the illegitimate children the other fourth. &rt. <88. 2n the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants' the illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. &rt. <<8. 2f a widow or widower survives with illegitimate children' such widow or widower shall be entitled to one#half of the inheritance' and the illegitimate children or their descendants' whether legitimate or illegitimate' to the other half. &rt. <<4. 2n default of the father or mother' an illegitimate child shall be succeeded by his or her surviving spouse who shall be entitled to the entire estate. 2f the widow or widower should survive with brothers and sisters' nephews and nieces' she or he shall inherit one#half of the estate' and the latter the other half. &rt. <<9. 2n the absence of legitimate descendants and ascendants' and illegitimate children and their descendants' whether legitimate or illegitimate' the surviving spouse shall inherit the entire estate' without pre7udice to the rights of brothers and sisters' nephews and nieces' should there be any' under article 0!!0.
B.
1C. I**e)i ima e c&i*d$en 11. I**e)i ima e c&i*d$en and su$#i#in) s'ouse 1@. Su$#i#in) s'ouse
The whole estate- di*ided equally
The illegitimate children get O and the sur*i*ing spouse gets the other O The whole estate
1A. Su$#i#in) s'ouse and i**e)i ima e 'a$en s 14. Su$#i#in) s'ouse and *e)i ima e !$o &e$s( sis e$s( ne'&e%s and nieces 15. Su$#i#in) s'ouse and i**e)i ima e !$o &e$( sis e$s( ne'&e%s and nieces
'pouse gets O of estateillegitimate parents get the other O 'pouse gets O and the legitimate 2'NN get O- with the nephews and nieces inheriting .y representation in proper cases 'pouse gets O while illegitimate 2'NN get O- with representation
(o provision' but by analogy to &rt<<$. &rt. <<$. Fhen the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants' the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one#half of the estate' and the legitimate parents or ascendants to the other half. &rt. 0!!0. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower' the latter shall be entitled to one#half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half. &rt. <<4. 2n default of the father or mother' an illegitimate child shall be succeeded by his or her surviving spouse who shall be entitled to the entire estate. 2f the widow or widower should survive with brothers and sisters' nephews and nieces' she or he shall inherit one#half of the estate' and the latter the other half.
18. I**e)i ima e 'a$en s
The whole estate
&rt. <<3. 2f an illegitimate child should die without issue' either legitimate or illegitimate' his father or mother shall succeed to his entire estate= and if the child@s filiation is duly proved as to both parents' who are both living' they shall inherit from him share and share ali6e. &rt. <<3. 2f an illegitimate child should die without issue' either legitimate or illegitimate' his father or mother shall succeed to his entire estate= and if the child@s filiation is duly proved as to both parents' who are
17. I**e)i ima e 'a$en s and an"
llegitimate parents are e/cluded .y the children
Nen La")o A-
122
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
c&i*d$en 1<. Le)i ima e !$o &e$s and sis e$s 5hole estate- half .lood gets O of full .lood4s share :231;
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

both living' they shall inherit from him share and share ali6e. &rt. 0!!4. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the full blood' they shall inherit in equal shares. &rt. 0!!". Should brother and sisters of the full blood survive together with brothers and sisters of the half blood' the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter. &rt. 0!!9. Should brothers and sisters survive together with nephews and nieces' who are the children of the descendant@s brothers and sisters of the full blood' the former shall inherit per capita' and the latter per stirpes. &rt. 0!!8. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes' in accordance with the rules laid down for the brothers and sisters of the full blood. &rt. 0!!<. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or sisters' the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. *he latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of relationship by the whole blood. &nd the case of Bacayo v Borromeo (o article governing
1B. Le)i ima e !$o &e$s P sis e$s( ne'&e%s P nieces
5hole estate- 231 for half .loodwith representation for nephews and nieces
@C. Ne'&e%s and nieces %i & unc*es and aun s
Bncles and aunts are e/cluded. The nephews and nieces get the whole estate
@1. I**e)i ima e !$o &e$s and sis e$s @@. I**e)i ima e !$o &e$s P sis e$s( ne'&e%s P nieces @A. Ne'&e%s and nieces
5hole estate- 231 full and half .lood 5hole estate
(o article governing
5hole- )&7 CA) TA- 231 ratio
&rt. <$9. Fhen children of one or more brothers or sisters of the deceased survive' they shall inherit from the latter by representation' if they survive with their uncles or aunts. >ut if they alone survive' they shall inherit in equal portions. &rt. 0!!8. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes' in accordance with the rules laid down for the brothers and sisters of the full blood. &rt. 0!!<. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or sisters' the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. *he latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of relationship by the whole blood. &rt. 0!0!. *he right to inherit ab intestato shall not e1tend beyond the fifth degree of relationship in the collateral line. &rt. 0!00. 2n default of persons entitled to succeed in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Sections' the State shall inherit the whole estate.
@4. O &e$ co**a e$a*s
5hole- )&7 CA) TA- nearer e/cludes the more remote in degree
@5. T&e s a e
5hole estate
.E AS TO THE STATE Assignment and disposition of decedent4s asses aE f decedent was a resident of the )hilippines at ANI Time i. )ersonal )roperty 9 to municipality of last residence ii. 7eal )roperty 9 where situated
f decedent was N&K&7 a resident of the )hilippines 9 where property is situatedwhether real or personal property.
=ow property is to .e used aE 1or the .enefit of pu.lic educational and charita.le institutions in the respecti*e municipalitiesLcities
Nen La")o A-
123
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
.E Alternati*ely- at the instance of an interested party- or 6otu proprio- court may order creation of a permanent trust for the .enefit of the institutions concerned.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 A$ . B<@. T&e )$andc&i*d$en and o &e$ descendan s s&a** in&e$i !" $i)& of $e'$esen a ion( 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 *a e$ in equa* 'o$ ions.
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 $. llegitimate )arents &. 'ur*i*ing 'pouse 1. 2rothers- 'isters- Nephews- Nieces 8. Other Collaterals up to the %th degree =. The 'tate The first % classes of intestate heirs are also compulsory heirs. There is also an o*erlapping of compulsory and intestate succession- i.e. the legitime and the intestate portions merge. There is a *ery close parallel .etween the rules of compulsory succession and those of intestate succession.
8randchildren do not inherit per capita e*en if all children die 9 they inherit per stirpes- &PC&)T if A"" children renounce- then the grandchildren will inherit in their own right L per capita.
A$ . B<A. If i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en su$#i#e %i & *e)i ima e 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 ""&8 T MAT&' will ha*e to .e reduced pro rata.
A$ .
B7B. Le)i ima e c&i*d$en and &ei$ descendan s succeed &e 'a$en s and o &e$ ascendan s( %i &ou dis inc ion 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$en s in &e same manne$ as a *e)i ima e c&i*d.
A$ . B<4. In case of &e dea & of an ado' ed c&i*d( *ea#in) no c&i*d$en o$ descendan s( &is 'a$en s and $e*a i#es !" consan)uini " and no !" ado' ion( s&a** !e &is *e)a* &ei$s.
7epealed .y 'ections 17 and 1? of 7A?%%2.
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.
S.BS%C,*+) 2. 0 (scending @irect Line A$ . B<5. In defau* of *e)i ima e c&i*d$en and descendan s of &e deceased( &is 'a$en s and ascendan s s&a** in&e$i f$om &im( o &e e+c*usion of co**a e$a* $e*a i#es. A$ . 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 en i$e es a e of &e c&i*d.
A$ . 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 $i)& ( di#idin) &e in&e$i ance in equa* s&a$es. A$ . B<1. S&ou*d c&i*d$en of &e deceased and descendan s of o &e$ c&i*d$en %&o a$e dead( su$#i#e( &e fo$me$ s&a** in&e$i in &ei$ o%n $i)& ( and &e *a e$ !" $i)& of $e'$esen a ion.
Nen La")o A-
124
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER A$ . B<7. In defau* of &e fa &e$ and mo &e$( &e ascendan s nea$es in de)$ee s&a** in&e$i . S&ou*d &e$e !e mo$e &an one of equa* de)$ee !e*on)in) o &e same *ine &e" s&a** di#ide &e in&e$i ance 'e$ ca'i a; s&ou*d &e" !e of diffe$en *ines !u of equa* de)$ee( oneG &a*f s&a** )o o &e 'a e$na* and &e o &e$ &a*f o &e ma e$na* ascendan s. In eac& *ine &e di#ision s&a** !e made 'e$ ca'i a.
There is no right of representation in the ascending line. CA'& 1O7 A7T'. @7?>@?7 Sayson 8. C(
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 motherCuanita 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.
S.BS%C,*+) 2. 0 *llegiti6ate Children A$ . B<<. In &e a!sence of *e)i ima e descendan s o$ ascendan s( &e i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en s&a** succeed o &e en i$e es a e of &e deceased. A$ . B<B. If( o)e &e$ %i & i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en( &e$e s&ou*d su$#i#e descendan s of ano &e$ i**e)i ima e c&i*d %&o is dead( &e fo$me$ s&a** succeed in &ei$ o%n $i)& and &e *a e$ !" $i)& of $e'$esen a ion.
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$edi a$" $i)& s )$an ed !" &e %o '$ecedin) a$ ic*es o i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en s&a** !e $ansmi ed u'on &ei$ dea & o &ei$ descendan s( %&o s&a** in&e$i !" $i)& of $e'$esen a ion f$om &ei$ deceased )$and'a$en .
A$ . BB1. If *e)i ima e ascendan s a$e *ef ( i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en s&a** di#ide in&e$i ance %i & &em( a2in) oneG&a*f of es a e( %&a e#e$ !e &e num!e$ of ascendan s o$ of &e i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en.
&e &e &e &e
Leonardo 8. C(
- 1rancisca 7eyes died intestate and was sur*i*ed .y her two daughters and grandson- who is the son of her ! rd daughter who predeceased her. 8randson died e*entually 2 yrs after. - "eonardo now claims ownership o*er some properties of 1rancisca .ecause he was a son of the grandson. 5LN "eonardo may inherit. - 'C held that he cannot .ecause3
A$ . BB@. An i**e)i ima e c&i*d &as no $i)& o in&e$i a! in es a o f$om &e *e)i ima e c&i*d$en and $e*a i#es of &is fa &e$ o$ mo &e$; no$ s&a** suc& c&i*d$en o$ $e*a i#es in&e$i in &e same manne$ f$om &e i**e)i ima e c&i*d.
,E,ORIQER
Nen La")o A-
125
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
- 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
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

- '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.;
@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 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.;.
/da. @e Crisologo 8. C(
- )etitioners in this case filed an action for ownershipannulment 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
@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
Nen La")o A-
126
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

children< whether legiti6ate or illegiti6ate< of such brothers and sisters.
A$ . BB7. 1&en &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es %i & *e)i ima e 'a$en s o$ ascendan s( &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** !e en i *ed o oneG&a*f of &e es a e( and &e *e)i ima e 'a$en s o$ ascendan s o &e o &e$ &a*f. A$ . BB<. If a %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es %i & i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en( suc& %ido% o$ %ido%e$ s&a** !e en i *ed o oneG&a*f of &e in&e$i ance( and &e i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en o$ &ei$ descendan s( %&e &e$ *e)i ima e o$ i**e)i ima e( o &e o &e$ &a*f. A$ . BBB. 1&en &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ su$#i#es %i & *e)i ima e c&i*d$en o$ &ei$ descendan s and i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en o$ &ei$ descendan s( %&e &e$ *e)i ima e o$ i**e)i ima e( suc& %ido% o$ %ido%e$ s&a** !e en i *ed o &e same s&a$e as &a of a *e)i ima e c&i*d. A$ . 1CCC. If *e)i ima e ascendan s( &e su$#i#in) s'ouse( and i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en a$e *ef ( &e ascendan s s&a** !e en i *ed o oneG&a*f of &e in&e$i ance( and &e o &e$ &a*f s&a** !e di#ided !e %een &e su$#i#in) s'ouse and &e i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en so &a suc& %ido% o$ %ido%e$ s&a** &a#e oneGfou$ & of &e es a e( and &e i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en &e o &e$ fou$ &. A$ . 1CC1. S&ou*d !$o &e$s and sis e$s o$ &ei$ c&i*d$en su$#i#e %i & &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$( &e *a e$ s&a** !e en i *ed o oneG&a*f of &e in&e$i ance and &e !$o &e$s and sis e$s o$ &ei$ c&i*d$en o &e o &e$ &a*f. A$ . 1CC@. In case of a *e)a* se'a$a ion( if &e su$#i#in) s'ouse )a#e cause fo$ &e se'a$a ion( &e o$ s&e s&a** no &a#e an" of &e $i)& s )$an ed in &e '$ecedin) a$ ic*es.
A$ . BBA. If an i**e)i ima e c&i*d s&ou*d die %i &ou issue( ei &e$ *e)i ima e o$ i**e)i ima e( &is fa &e$ o$ mo &e$ s&a** succeed o &is en i$e es a e; and if &e c&i*dMs fi*ia ion is du*" '$o#ed as o !o & 'a$en s( %&o a$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$( an i**e)i ima e c&i*d s&a** !e succeeded !" &is o$ &e$ su$#i#in) s'ouse %&o s&a** !e en i *ed o &e en i$e es a e. If &e %ido% o$ %ido%e$ s&ou*d su$#i#e %i & !$o &e$s and sis e$s( ne'&e%s and nieces( s&e o$ &e s&a** in&e$i oneG&a*f of &e es a e( and &e *a e$ &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)i ima e descendan s and ascendan s( and i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en and &ei$ descendan s( %&e &e$ *e)i ima e o$ i**e)i ima e( &e su$#i#in) s'ouse s&a** in&e$i &e en i$e es a e( %i &ou '$eJudice o &e $i)& s of !$o &e$s and sis e$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)i ima e c&i*d$en o$ descendan s 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 sistersnephews and nieces0 as legal heirs of an illegitimate child- it refers to illegiti6ate brothers and sisters as well as to the
CA'&' 1O7 A7T C"&' @@%>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
Nen La")o A-
127
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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. ?@2of the New Ci*il Code which pro*ides that3 N f 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>fourththerefore- get !L#- says Claro. )erfecta- on the other hand- cites Art. @@( which pro*ides3 N f 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 successionwhereas 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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
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 documentpetitioners 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 2nd 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.
=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+encontained 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.
Nen La")o A-
128
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
'anuel 8. ferrer @el &osario 8. Conanan
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 P 00<000 estate.
S.BS%C,*+) F. 0 Collateral &elati8es A$ . 1CCA. If &e$e a$e no descendan s( ascendan s( i**e)i ima e c&i*d$en( o$ a su$#i#in) s'ouse( &e co**a e$a* $e*a i#es s&a** succeed o &e en i$e es a e 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 sis e$s of &e fu** !*ood( &e" s&a** in&e$i in equa* s&a$es.
)rescripti*e period for the claim is 1 K& I&A7' from the deli*ery of the property to the state or political su.di*ision concerned. 5ho may ma+e the claim 9 any person entitled .y succession to the estate- including any heir of any +ind of succession- legitime- testamentary or intestate. THE PROELE, O. PARTIAL INTESTACF The com.inations laid down in Articles @7?>1A1# co*er only cases of TOTA" intestacy. There is no pro*ision to go*ern cases of partial intestacy when the decedent has left a will disposing of part- .ut not all- of the disposa.le portion. =ow then should the estate .e di*ided if the decedent died with a will .ut the will does not dispose of the entire free or disposa.le portion6 The pro.lem is sol*ed .y inference- .earing in mind the law4s intent- thus3 1E Trace where the free portion went in total intestacy 2E 'ince part of that free portion was disposed of .y will- the testamentary pro*ision should .e carried out- and what is left of the free portion should then .e gi*en to the intended .eneficiary in intestacy. &PAM)"& P died- lea*ing as his sur*i*ors his legitimate parents A and 2 and his wife I- without any children. =e left a will gi*ing 1L? of his entire estate to Caritas Manila. =is net estate is worth )(AA-AAA. )7OC&''LAN'5&7 The will is not inofficious- since it disposes only of 1L? of the estate- the disposa.le portion .eing R. The *e)i imes of the compulsory heirs are 9 o A and 2 as legitimate parents 9 O of estate ] )!AA-AAA o I as sur*i*ing spouse 9 R of estate ] )1%A-AAA n o a* in es ac"- the sharings would ha*e .een 9 :according to Art@@7; o A and 2 to O of the estate ] )!AA-AAA o I to O of the estate ] )!AA-AAA
A$ . 1CC5. S&ou*d !$o &e$s and sis e$s su$#i#e o)e &e$ %i & ne'&e%s and nieces( %&o a$e &e c&i*d$en of &e descendan Ms !$o &e$s and sis e$s of &e fu** !*ood( &e fo$me$ s&a** in&e$i 'e$ ca'i a( and &e *a e$ 'e$ s i$'es. A$ . 1CC8. S&ou*d !$o &e$ and sis e$s of &e fu** !*ood su$#i#e o)e &e$ %i & !$o &e$s and sis e$s of &e &a*f !*ood( &e fo$me$ s&a** !e en i *ed o a s&a$e dou!*e &a of &e *a e$. A$ . 1CC7. In case !$o &e$s and sis e$s of &e &a*f !*ood( some on &e fa &e$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 dis inc ion as o &e o$i)in of &e '$o'e$ ". A$ . 1CC<. C&i*d$en of !$o &e$s and sis e$s of &e &a*f !*ood s&a** succeed 'e$ ca'i a o$ 'e$ s i$'es( in acco$dance %i & &e $u*es *aid do%n fo$ &e !$o &e$s and sis e$s of &e fu** !*ood. A$ . 1CCB. S&ou*d &e$e !e nei &e$ !$o &e$s no$ sis e$s no$ c&i*d$en of !$o &e$s o$ sis e$s( &e o &e$ co**a e$a* $e*a i#es s&a** succeed o &e es a e. T&e *a e$ s&a** succeed %i &ou dis inc ion of *ines o$ '$efe$ence amon) &em !" $eason of $e*a ions&i' !" &e %&o*e !*ood. A$ . 1C1C. T&e $i)& o in&e$i a! in es a o s&a** no e+ end !e"ond &e fif & de)$ee of $e*a ions&i' in &e co**a e$a* *ine. S.BS%C,*+) . 0 ,he State A$ . 1C11. In defau* of 'e$sons en i *ed o succeed in acco$dance %i & &e '$o#isions of &e '$ecedin) Sec ions( &e S a e s&a** in&e$i &e %&o*e es a e. A$ . 1C1@. In o$de$ &a &e S a e ma" a2e 'ossession of &e '$o'e$ " men ioned in &e
Nen La")o A-
129
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER '$ecedin) a$ ic*e( &e 'e$ inen '$o#isions of &e Ru*es of Cou$ mus !e o!se$#ed. A$ . 1C1A. Af e$ &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 $ea* es a e o &e munici'a*i ies o$ ci ies( $es'ec i#e*"( in %&ic& &e same is si ua ed. If &e deceased ne#e$ $esided in &e P&i*i''ines( &e %&o*e es a e s&a** !e assi)ned o &e $es'ec i#e munici'a*i ies o$ ci ies %&e$e &e same is *oca ed. Suc& es a e s&a** !e fo$ &e !enefi of 'u!*ic sc&oo*s( and 'u!*ic c&a$i a!*e ins i u ions and cen e$s( in suc& munici'a*i ies o$ ci ies. T&e cou$ s&a** dis $i!u e &e es a e as &e $es'ec i#e needs of eac& !eneficia$" ma" %a$$an . T&e cou$ ( a &e ins ance of an in e$es ed 'a$ "( o$ on i s o%n mo ion( ma" o$de$ &e es a!*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$son *e)a**" en i *ed o &e es a e of &e deceased a''ea$s and fi*es a c*aim &e$e o %i & &e cou$ %i &in fi#e "ea$s f$om &e da e &e '$o'e$ " %as de*i#e$ed o &e S a e( suc& 'e$son s&a** !e en i *ed o &e 'ossession of &e same( o$ if so*d &e munici'a*i " o$ ci " s&a** !e accoun a!*e o &im fo$ suc& 'a$ of &e '$oceeds as ma" no &a#e !een *a%fu**" s'en .
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
A$ . 1C15. Acc$e ion is a $i)& !" #i$ ue of %&ic&( %&en %o o$ mo$e 'e$sons a$e ca**ed o &e same in&e$i ance( 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$e &e es a o$( is added o$ inco$'o$a ed o &a of &is coG&ei$s( coGde#isees( o$ coG*e)a ees. A$ . 1C18. In o$de$ &a &e $i)& of acc$e ion ma" a2e '*ace in a es amen a$" succession( i s&a** !e necessa$"= >1? T&a %o o$ mo$e 'e$sons !e ca**ed o &e same in&e$i ance( o$ 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 es a o$( o$ $enounce &e in&e$i ance( o$ !e inca'aci a ed o $ecei#e i.
ACC7&T ON $efinition 9 a right .y *irtue of which- when 2 or more persons are called to the same inheritancede*ise or legacy- the part assigned to the one who renounces or cannot recei*e his share- or who died .efore the testator. Occasions for Operation of Accretion aE 7&NBNC AT ON .E )7&$&C&A'& cE NCA)AC TI
ELE,ENTS .OR ACCRETION IN TESTA,ENTARF S0CCESSION 1? @ o$ mo$e 'e$sons a$e ca**ed o &e same in&e$i ance( o$ o &e same 'o$ ion &e$eof( n case of partial intestacy 'ro indiviso o Meaning of pro indi*iso3 CA'&' 1O7 A7T C"&' 1AA!>1A1# &ither the co>heirs are instituted without indi*idual designation of (bellana 8. -erraris shares- e/. , institute A and 2 to O ,ioco de Papa 8. Ca6acho of my estate.0 Or The co>heirs are instituted with the Bico6ong 8. (l6an9a specification that they share equally :,in equal shares0; or that they ha*e the same fractional sharing for each :Art1A17;. &/amples3 , institute A- 2 and C to O of my estate in equal shares-0 or , institute A- 2 and C to O of my estate- each of them to ta+e 1L! of such O.0 5ill accretion occur if the fractional CHAPTER 4 PROVISIONS CO,,ON TO TESTATE AN- INTESTATE S0CCESSIONS sharings of the co>heirs are unequal6 I&'. All that the law requires is that the institution .e pro indi8iso- which means ,as undi*ided0 or ,in common0. The term does not import equality of shares. ThusSEC-I./ 0. 1 accretion will occur e*en if the !I3H- .( ACC!E-I./
Nen La")o A-
130
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
sharings are unequal- as long as the result is co>ownership. @? One of &e 'e$sons &us ca**ed die !efo$e &e es a o$( o$ $enounce &e in&e$i ance o$ !e inca'aci a ed o $ecei#e i . o 7enunciation- predecease or incapacity of one or more .ut "&'' T=AN A"" of the instituted heirs. aE .E
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

n testamentary succession- if the testator pro*ides otherwisef the o.ligation is purely persona- and hence intransmissi.le.
A$ . 1C17. T&e %o$ds SoneG&a*f fo$ eac&S o$ Sin equa* s&a$esS o$ an" o &e$s %&ic&( &ou)& desi)na in) an a*iquo 'a$ ( do no iden if" i !" suc& desc$i' ion as s&a** ma2e eac& &ei$ &e e+c*usi#e o%ne$ of de e$mina e '$o'e$ "( s&a** no e+c*ude &e $i)& of acc$e ion. 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 $i)& of acc$e ion. A$ . 1C1<. In *e)a* succession &e s&a$e of &e 'e$son %&o $e'udia es &e in&e$i ance 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$ . 1C@1. Amon) &e com'u*so$" &ei$s &e $i)& of acc$e ion 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$ $e'udia ed !e &e *e)i ime( &e o &e$ coG&ei$s s&a** succeed o i in &ei$ o%n $i)& ( and no !" &e $i)& of acc$e ion.
1'T paragraph 9 ! +inds of succession3 compulsorytestamentary and intestate. These ! are distinctalthough they may operate simultaneously. Conse=uently< accretion is restricted in its operation within the confines of the particular Gind of succession in8ol8ed. 2N$ paragraph 9 there is NO ACC7&T ON in the "&8 T M&. 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 es amen a$" succession( %&en &e $i)& of acc$e ion does no a2e '*ace( &e #acan 'o$ ion of &e ins i u ed &ei$s( if no su!s i u e &as !een desi)na ed( s&a** 'ass o &e *e)a* &ei$s of &e es a o$( %&o s&a** $ecei#e i %i & &e same c&a$)es and o!*i)a ions.
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 intentwhereas accretion is merely his i6plied intent. O.*iously- if there is neither su.stitution nor accretionthe part left *acant will lapse into intestacy and will .e disposed of accordingly.
A$ . 1C1B. T&e &ei$s o %&om &e 'o$ ion )oes !" &e $i)& of acc$e ion a2e i in &e same '$o'o$ ion &a &e" in&e$i .
8eneral 7ule > Accretion should .e proportional.
A$ . 1C@A. Acc$e ion s&a** a*so a2e '*ace amon) de#isees( *e)a ees and usuf$uc ua$ies unde$ &e same condi ions es a!*is&ed fo$ &ei$s.
A$ . 1C@C. T&e &ei$s o %&om &e in&e$i ance acc$ues s&a** succeed o a** &e $i)& s and o!*i)a ions %&ic& &e &ei$ %&o $enounced o$ cou*d no $ecei#e i %ou*d &a#e &ad.
&PC&)T ON' to general rule that accretion should .e proportional 9
SEC-I./ +. 1 CA=ACI-> -. SUCCEE B> 2ILL .! B> I/-ES-AC> A$ . 1C@4. Pe$sons no inca'aci a ed !" *a% ma" succeed !" %i** o$ a! in es a o. 131
Nen La")o A-
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER T&e '$o#isions $e*a in) o inca'aci " !" %i** a$e equa**" a''*ica!*e o in es a e 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
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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@5. In o$de$ o !e ca'aci a ed o in&e$i ( &e &ei$( de#isee o$ *e)a ee mus !e *i#in) a &e momen &e succession o'ens( e+ce' in case of $e'$esen a ion( %&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$n *a e$ unde$ &e condi ions '$esc$i!ed in a$ ic*e 41.
RE/0IRE,ENT .OR CAPACITF TO S0CCEE- O. NAT0RAL PERSONS A. Gene$a* $u*e 9 mus !e LIVING %&en succession o'ens 1. 5hen succession opens 9 the decedent4s death under Art777 2. Meaning of ,li*ing0 9 it is enough that the heirde*isee or legatee .e already concei8ed when the decedent diespro*ided it .e .orn later- in accordance with Articles #A and #1. nheriting is fa*ora.le to the child. If ins i u ion is su!Jec o a Sus'ensi#e Condi ion o 'uccessor must A"'O .e li*ing when the condition happens :Art1A!# par!;. Thus- in a conditional institution- the successor must .e li*ing 2OT= when the decedent dies AN$ when the condition happens. If ins i u ion su!Jec o a Sus'ensi#e Te$m o The requirement of .eing ali*e applies only at the moment of the decedent4s death- the successor need not .e ali*e- when the term arri*es :Art?7?;
A$ . 1C@8. A es amen a$" dis'osi ion ma" !e made o &e S a e( '$o#inces( munici'a* co$'o$a ions( '$i#a e co$'o$a ions( o$)aniKa ions( o$ associa ions fo$ $e*i)ious( scien ific( cu* u$a*( educa iona*( o$ c&a$i a!*e 'u$'oses. A** o &e$ co$'o$a ions o$ en i ies 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$ea ion( and a*%a"s su!Jec o &e same.
RE/0IRE,ENT .OR CAPACITF O. N0RI-ICAL PERSONS TO S0CCEE t must already &P 'T as a Duridical person when the decedent dies. OrganiHations or associations which do not possess Duridical personality cannot succeed- .ecause legally- they would not e/ist. The enumeration of Duridical persons is found in Art ##3
&rt. 44. *he following are 7uridical persons% B0C *he State and its political subdivisions= B;C Ether corporations' institutions and entities for public interest or purpose' created by law= their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law= B3C Corporations' partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the law grants a 7uridical personality' separate and distinct from that of each shareholder' partner or member.
1or institutions su.Dect to suspensi*e conditions or terms- the rules outlined in the pre*ious article apply.
E.
C.
A$ .
7epresentation NOT an e/ception to 7equirement
1C@7. T&e fo**o%in) a$e inca'a!*e of succeedin)= >1? T&e '$ies %&o &ea$d &e confession of &e es a o$ du$in) &is *as i**ness( o$ &e minis e$ of &e )os'e* %&o e+ ended 132
Nen La")o A-
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER s'i$i ua* aid o &im du$in) &e same 'e$iod; >@? T&e $e*a i#es of suc& '$ies o$ minis e$ of &e )os'e* %i &in &e fou$ & de)$ee( &e c&u$c&( o$de$( c&a' e$( communi "( o$)aniKa ion( o$ ins i u ion o %&ic& suc& '$ies o$ minis e$ ma" !e*on); >A? A )ua$dian %i & $es'ec o es amen a$" dis'osi ions )i#en !" a %a$d in &is fa#o$ !efo$e &e fina* accoun s of &e )ua$dians&i' &a#e !een a''$o#ed( e#en if &e es a o$ s&ou*d die af e$ &e a''$o#a* &e$eof; ne#e$ &e*ess( an" '$o#ision made !" &e %a$d in fa#o$ of &e )ua$dian %&en &e *a e$ is &is ascendan ( descendan ( !$o &e$( sis e$( o$ s'ouse( s&a** !e #a*id; >4? An" a es in) %i ness o &e e+ecu ion of a %i**( &e s'ouse( 'a$en s( o$ c&i*d$en( o$ an" one c*aimin) unde$ suc& %i ness( s'ouse( 'a$en s( o$ c&i*d$en; >5? An" '&"sician( su$)eon( nu$se( &ea* & office$ o$ d$u))is %&o oo2 ca$e of &e es a o$ du$in) &is *as i**ness; >8? Indi#idua*s( associa ions and co$'o$a ions no 'e$mi ed !" *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. 4. .E
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 cultswhose office or function is to e/tend the peculiar spiritual ministrations of their creed. @. P$ies :s 4 & de)$ee $e*a i#es and &is C&u$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. Gua$dian as o dis'osi ion !efo$e .ina* Accoun in) o 4hen dis=ualification applies 9 the will must ha*e .een e/ecuted .y the ward during the effecti*ity of the guardianshipwhich means at anytime .etween the commencement of the guardianship and its dissolution. o 4hat Gind of guardianship co8ered 9 terms of disqualification seem to .e limited to guardians o*er the property. n *iewhowe*er- of the purpose of the prohi.itionthe 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. A es in) %i ness o$ S'ouse( Pa$en s( C&i*d$en o$ an" one c*aimin) unde$ suc& %i ness( s'ouse( 'a$en s o$ c&i*d$en o &ssentially a reiteration of the disqualification in Art?2!- .ut cast more in general terms- since this article nullifies not Dust legacies and de*ises .ut all testamentary dispositions made in the witness4 fa*or. o NOT& 9 there is a discrepancy .etween this paragraph and Art?2!- which allows for an e/ception3 i.e. if there are ! other competent witnesses. ,hat e?ception should be read into this paragraph. P&"sician( su$)eon( nu$se( &ea* & office$ o$ d$u))is
A.
PERSONS INCAPACITATE- TO S0CCEE1. P$ies o$ minis e$ of &e )os'e* o 7equisites3 aE The will must ha*e .een e/ecuted during the testator4s last illness
5.
Nen La")o A-
133
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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( associa ions and co$'o$a ions no 'e$mi ed !" *a%
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

- $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 latterhowe*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. N n order to .e capacitated to inherit- the heirde*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.arMrs. 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 relati*e would .e li*ing at the time of his deathhe 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 orha*ing .een ordained a priesthe 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
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 '$o&i!i ions men ioned in a$ ic*e 7AB( conce$nin) dona ions in e$ #i#os s&a** a''*" o es amen a$" '$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.
&rt. $3<. *he following donations shall be void% B0C *hose made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation= B;C *hose made between persons found guilty of the same criminal offense' in consideration thereof= B3C *hose made to a public officer or his wife' descedants and ascendants' by reason of his office. 2n the case referred to in (o. 0' the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee= and the guilt of the donor and donee may be proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action.
CA'&' 1O7 A7T C"&' 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*esnamely- 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 priesthe 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.
Nen La")o A-
134
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 A$ . 1C@B. S&ou*d &e es a o$ 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) i s a''*ica ion( &e e+ecu o$( %i & &e cou$ Ms a''$o#a* s&a** de*i#e$ oneG&a*f &e$eof o$ i s '$oceeds o &e c&u$c& o$ denomina ion o %&ic& &e es a o$ ma" !e*on)( o !e used fo$ suc& '$a"e$s and 'ious %o$2s( and &e o &e$ &a*f o &e S a e( fo$ &e 'u$'oses men ioned in A$ 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!
&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$ . 1CAC. Tes amen a$" '$o#isions in fa#o$ of &e 'oo$ in )ene$a*( %i &ou desi)na ion of 'a$ icu*a$ 'e$sons o$ of an" communi "( s&a** !e deemed *imi ed o &e 'oo$ *i#in) in &e domici*e of &e es a o$ a &e ime of &is dea &( un*ess i s&ou*d c*ea$*" a''ea$ &a &is in en ion %as o &e$%ise. T&e desi)na ion of &e 'e$sons %&o a$e o !e conside$ed as 'oo$ and &e dis $i!u ion of &e '$o'e$ " s&a** !e made !" &e 'e$son a''oin ed !" &e es a o$ fo$ &e 'u$'ose; in defau* of suc& 'e$son( !" &e e+ecu o$( and s&ou*d &e$e !e no e+ecu o$( !" &e Jus ice of &e 'eace( &e ma"o$( and &e munici'a* $easu$e$( %&o s&a** decide !" a maJo$i " of #o es a** ques ions &a ma" a$ise. In a** &ese cases( &e a''$o#a* of &e Cou$ of .i$s Ins ance s&a** !e necessa$". T&e '$ecedin) 'a$a)$a'& s&a** a''*" %&en &e es a o$ &as dis'osed of &is '$o'e$ " in fa#o$ of &e 'oo$ of a defini e *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 default2. The e/ecutor- or in his defaultC. The administrator. n fact- the committee specified in this article will ha*e no occasion to function.
Nen La")o A-
135
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

Pa$en s %&o &a#e a!andoned &ei$ c&i*d$en o$ induced &ei$ dau)& e$s o *ead a co$$u' o$ immo$a* *ife( o$ a em' ed a)ains &ei$ #i$ ue o There 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#ic ed of an a em' a)ains &e *ife of &e es a o$( &is o$ &e$ s'ouse( descendan s o$ ascendan s o Also a ground for disinheritance under Art@1@. The same rules apply. Pe$son %&o accused &e es a o$ of a c$ime fo$ %&ic& &e *a% '$esc$i!ed im'$isonmen fo$ 8 "ea$s o$ mo$e( if &e accusa ion &as !een found o !e )$ound*ess o Also a ground for disinheritance under Art@1@. The same rules apply. An" &ei$ of fu** a)e %&o( &a#in) 2no%*ed)e of &e #io*en dea & of &e es a o$( s&ou*d fai* o $e'o$ i o an office$ of &e *a% %i &in a mon &( unless &e au &o$i ies &a#e a*$ead" a2en ac ion o One requisite of this ground for disqualification ma+es this paragraph non> operati*e 9 a legal o.ligation to ma+e an 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. Pe$son con#ic ed of adu* e$" o$ concu!ine a)e %i & &e s'ouse of &e es a o$ o Also a ground for disinheritance under Art@1@. The same rules apply. An" 'e$son %&o !" f$aud( #io*ence( in imida ion o$ undue inf*uence s&ou*d cause &e es a o$ o ma2e a %i** o$ o c&an)e one a*$ead" made o Also a ground for disinheritance under Art@1@. The same rules apply. Pe$son %&o !" &e same means '$e#en s ano &e$ f$om ma2in) a %i**( o$ f$om $e#o2in) one a*$ead" made( o$ %&o su''*an s( concea*s( o$ a* e$s &e *a e$:s %i**
A$ . 1CA1. A es amen a$" '$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 in e$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$en s %&o &a#e a!andoned &ei$ c&i*d$en o$ induced &ei$ dau)& e$s o *ead a co$$u' o$ immo$a* *ife( o$ a em' ed a)ains &ei$ #i$ ue; >@? An" 'e$son %&o &as !een con#ic ed of an a em' a)ains &e *ife of &e es a o$( &is o$ &e$ s'ouse( descendan s( o$ ascendan s; >A? An" 'e$son %&o &as accused &e es a o$ of a c$ime fo$ %&ic& &e *a% '$esc$i!es im'$isonmen fo$ si+ "ea$s o$ mo$e( if &e accusa ion &as !een found )$ound*ess; >4? An" &ei$ of fu** a)e %&o( &a#in) 2no%*ed)e of &e #io*en dea & of &e es a o$( s&ou*d fai* o $e'o$ i o an office$ of &e *a% %i &in a mon &( un*ess &e au &o$i ies &a#e a*$ead" a2en ac ion; &is '$o&i!i ion s&a** no a''*" o cases %&e$ein( acco$din) o *a%( &e$e is no o!*i)a ion o ma2e an accusa ion; >5? An" 'e$son con#ic ed of adu* e$" o$ concu!ina)e %i & &e s'ouse of &e es a o$; >8? An" 'e$son %&o !" f$aud( #io*ence( in imida ion( o$ undue inf*uence s&ou*d cause &e es a o$ o ma2e a %i** o$ o c&an)e one a*$ead" made; >7? An" 'e$son %&o !" &e same means '$e#en s ano &e$ f$om ma2in) a %i**( o$ f$om $e#o2in) one a*$ead" made( o$ %&o su''*an s( concea*s( o$ a* e$s &e *a e$Ms %i**; ><? An" 'e$son %&o fa*sifies o$ fo$)es a su''osed %i** of &e deceden .
A.
4.
5.
8.
7.
This article applies to all Ginds of succession GRO0N-S .OR 0N1ORTHINESS
Nen La")o A-
136
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
<. Pe$son %&o fa*sifies o$ fo$)es a su''osed %i** of &e deceden
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
E..ECT O. 0N1ORTHINESS Bnworthiness gi*es rise to total dis=ualification- i.e. the unworthy heir is incapacitated to succeed from the offended party .y ANI 1O7M O1 'BCC&'' ON. ,hus< unworthiness and disinheritance ha8e identical effects. .nworthiness is disinheritance i6posed by law. That unworthiness depri*es the unworthy heir e*en of the legitime is clear from Article 1A!%.
2alane says this seems unaccepta.le .ecause that would ma+e the rules on unworthiness :which is .y operation of law and is only the implied will of the offended party; pre*ail o*er those on disinheritance :which is his e/press will;
A$ . 1CAA. T&e cause of un%o$ &iness s&a** !e %i &ou effec if &e es a o$ &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 %$i in).
7estoration to Capacity 9 the unworthiness is set aside and the unworthy heir restored to capacity in 2 ways3 1. A written condonation- or 2. The e/ecution .y the offended party of a will with +nowledge of the cause of unworthiness. Question 9 regarding the second mode- is it enough that the offended party e/ecute a will with +nowledge of the e/istence of the cause of unworthiness6 o 2alane says that the .etter opinion is that it is NOT enough- the will must either institute the unworthy heir or restore him to capacity. Common G$ounds fo$ 0n%o$ &iness and -isin&e$i ance= Conf*ic in) ,odes of Lif in) -isqua*ifica ion 3A$ 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)AC TI6 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
2. T=B'- the most accepta.le reconciliation seems to .e the following3 1. f offended party $O&' NOT MAF& A 5 "" su.sequent to the occurrence of the common cause 9 apply article 1A!!- unworthiness sets in ipso facto and written condonation is necessary to restore capacity. 2. f offended party MAF&' A 5 "" su.sequent to the occurrence of the common cause 9 a. f he +new of the cause i. f he disinherits 9 art@22disinheritance is ineffecti*e. ii. f he institutes or pardons the offender 9 offender restored to capacity. iii. f will is silent 9 this is disputed. 2ut the .etter opinion is that the unworthiness stays. .. f he did not +now of the cause 9 unworthiness stays
A$ . 1CA4. In o$de$ o Jud)e &e ca'aci " of &e &ei$( de#isee o$ *e)a ee( &is qua*ifica ion a &e ime of &e dea & of &e deceden s&a** !e &e c$i e$ion. In cases fa**in) unde$ Nos. @( A( o$ 5 of A$ ic*e 1CA@( i s&a** !e necessa$" o %ai un i* fina* Jud)men is $ende$ed( and in &e case fa**in) unde$ No. 4( &e e+'i$a ion of &e mon & a**o%ed fo$ &e $e'o$ . If &e ins i u ion( de#ise o$ *e)ac" s&ou*d !e condi iona*( &e ime of &e com'*iance %i & &e condi ion 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 f final Dudgment is a requisite of unworthiness 9 at the time of final Dudgment.
C.
Nen La")o A-
137
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
A$ . 1CA5. If &e 'e$son e+c*uded f$om &e in&e$i ance !" $eason of inca'aci " s&ou*d !e a c&i*d o$ descendan of &e deceden and s&ou*d &a#e c&i*d$en o$ descendan s( &e *a e$ s&a** acqui$e &is $i)& o &e *e)i ime. T&e 'e$son so e+c*uded s&a** no enJo" &e usuf$uc and adminis $a ion of &e '$o'e$ " &us in&e$i ed !" &is c&i*d$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. 2. As to ad6inistration 9 the disqualification remainsand 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.
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 '$ese$#a ion of &e &e$edi a$" '$o'e$ "( and o enfo$ce suc& c$edi s as &e ma" &a#e a)ains &e es a e.
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!i ion s a ed in &e '$ecedin) a$ ic*es( en e$ed in o &e 'ossession of &e &e$edi a$" '$o'e$ "( s&a** !e o!*i)ed o $e u$n i o)e &e$ i i s accessions. He s&a** !e *ia!*e fo$ a** &e f$ui s and $en s &e ma" &a#e $ecei#ed( o$ cou*d &a#e $ecei#ed &$ou)& &e e+e$cise of due di*i)ence.
The disqualified heir- referred to in this article- who too+ possession of the hereditary property- is a possessor in .ad faith- .ecause he too+ possession ,disregarding the pro*ision stated in the preceding articles.0 =ence- the law applies to him the rules on possession in .ad faith3 1. The o.ligation to return- with accessions 2. "ia.ility for fruits which were recei*ed and could ha*e .een recei*ed. These are the same rules laid down in Art%#@. )eriod for action to reco*er 9 Bnder Art 1A#A- % years.
A$ . 1CA8. A*iena ions of &e$edi a$" '$o'e$ "( and ac s of adminis $a ion 'e$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$sons %&o ac ed in )ood fai &; !u &e coG&ei$s s&a** &a#e a $i)& o $eco#e$ dama)es f$om &e disqua*ified &ei$.
8ood 1aith of Transferee as $etermining 1actor of Kalidity The *alidity of the alienation is determined .y the good faith or .ad faith of the transferee- not of the transferor :the e/cluded heir; 1or the transferee to .e in good faith- he must ha*e acquired the thing for 8alue and without Gnowledge of the defect of the transferor4s title. Thus- a donee cannot claim the .enefit of this pro*ision- since he did not acquire for *alue.
A$ . 1CAB. Ca'aci " o succeed is )o#e$ned !" &e *a% of &e na ion 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.
&rt. 0". ,eal property as well as personal property is sub7ect to the law of the country where it is stipulated. Aowever' intestate and testamentary successions' both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions' shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under
Nen La")o A-
138
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
consideration' whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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. Conditional nstitutions 9 the principle of retroacti*ity is not o*erridden e*en if the institution 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.
A$ . 1C4C. T&e ac ion fo$ a dec*a$a ion of inca'aci " and fo$ &e $eco#e$" of &e in&e$i ance( de#ise o$ *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 in e$es in &e succession.
% years prescripti*e period 9 applies .oth to the declaration of incapacity of the heir and the reco*ery of the inheritance or portion thereof wrongfully possessed .y the disqualified heir. n effect- this is a special prescripti*e period for this action. t is an e/ception to the prescripti*e periods for reco*ery of mo*a.les :?years; and of immo*a.les :!Ayears; laid down respecti*ely in Articles 11#A and 11#1.
C.
=owe*er- for conditional institutions- the pro*isions of Art??A should .e complied with- to wit- the property should .e placed under administration during the interim.
SEC-I./ 5. ACCE=-A/CE A/ !E=U IA-I./ .( -HE I/HE!I-A/CE A$ . 1C41. T&e acce' ance o$ $e'udia ion of &e in&e$i ance is an ac %&ic& is 'u$e*" #o*un a$" and f$ee.
Acceptance of nheritance a 1ree Act The acceptance of property through succession 9 whether in the form of a legitime- testamentary succession or intestacy 9 is- li+e the acceptance of a donation- essentially free and *oluntary. No one can .e required to accept a .enefit3 )on potest liberalitas nolenti ad=uiri. The following articles lay down the requirements for acceptance and repudiation. t should .e noted that the rules for acceptance are much more " 2&7A" than those for repudiation. This is .ecause acceptance is .eneficial whereas repudiation is preDudicial to the successor.
A$ . 1C4A. No 'e$son ma" acce' o$ $e'udia e an in&e$i ance 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 $i)& o &e in&e$i ance.
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$ . 1C4@. T&e effec s of &e acce' ance o$ $e'udia ion s&a** a*%a"s $e $oac o &e momen of &e dea & of &e deceden .
This has the same underlying philosophy as Art777. The moment of death is the time succession *ests. 7&T7OACT K TI 9 A. Of Acceptance 9 the successor will .e deemed to ha*e owned and possessed the property from the precise moment of the decedent4s death. This rule has consequences with respect to acquisiti*e prescription- capacity to succeed- representationetc.
A$ . 1C44. An" 'e$son &a#in) &e f$ee dis'osa* of &is '$o'e$ " ma" acce' o$ $e'udia e an in&e$i ance. An" in&e$i ance *ef o mino$s o$ inca'aci a ed 'e$sons ma" !e acce' ed !" &ei$ 'a$en s o$ )ua$dians. Pa$en s o$ )ua$dians ma" $e'udia e &e in&e$i ance *ef o &ei$ %a$ds on*" !" Judicia* au &o$iKa ion. T&e $i)& o acce' an in&e$i ance *ef o &e 'oo$ s&a** !e*on) o &e 'e$sons desi)na ed !" &e es a o$ o de e$mine &e !eneficia$ies and dis $i!u e &e '$o'e$ "( o$ in &ei$ defau* ( o &ose men ioned 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
Nen La")o A-
139
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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 acceptnot reDect the grant. 2. The persons selected as qualified recipients are- for their own part- free to accept or renounce the .enefit.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

B;C 2nsane or demented persons' and deaf#mutes who do not 6now how to write.
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$ .
1C45. T&e *a%fu* $e'$esen a i#es of co$'o$a ions( associa ions( ins i u ions and en i ies qua*ified o acqui$e '$o'e$ " ma" acce' an" in&e$i ance *ef o &e *a e$( !u in o$de$ o $e'udia e i ( &e a''$o#a* of &e cou$ s&a** !e necessa$".
A$ . 1C48. Pu!*ic officia* es a!*is&men s can nei &e$ acce' no$ $e'udia e an in&e$i ance %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$ . 1C4B. Acce' ance ma" !e e+'$ess o$ aci . An e+'$ess acce' ance mus !e made in a 'u!*ic o$ '$i#a e documen . A aci acce' ance is one $esu* in) f$om ac s !" %&ic& &e in en ion o acce' is necessa$i*" im'*ied( o$ %&ic& one %ou*d &a#e no $i)& o do e+ce' in &e ca'aci " of an &ei$. Ac s of me$e '$ese$#a ion o$ '$o#isiona* adminis $a ion do no im'*" an acce' ance of &e in&e$i ance if( &$ou)& suc& ac s( &e i *e o$ ca'aci " of an &ei$ &as no !een assumed.
F N$' O1 ACC&)TANC& A. &/press 1. )u.lic $ocuments or 2. )ri*ate 5riting 2. Tacit C. mplied :Art1A%7;
A$ . 1C47. A ma$$ied %oman of a)e ma" $e'udia e an in&e$i ance %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<. -eafGmu es %&o can $ead and %$i e ma" acce' o$ $e'udia e &e in&e$i ance 'e$sona**" o$ &$ou)& an a)en . S&ou*d &e" no !e a!*e o $ead and %$i e( &e in&e$i ance s&a** !e acce' ed !" &ei$ )ua$dians. T&ese )ua$dians ma" $e'udia e &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
&rt. 03;$. *he following cannot give consent to a contract% B0C Jnemancipated minors=
A$ . 1C5C. An in&e$i ance is deemed acce' ed= >1? If &e &ei$s se**s( dona es( 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)& )$a ui ous*"( 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$imina e*"; !u if &is $enuncia ion s&ou*d !e )$a ui ous( 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$e ion( &e in&e$i ance s&a** no !e deemed as acce' ed.
TAC T 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 onesome or all of his co>heirs or to a stranger.
Nen La")o A-
140
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
This is an act of ownership- which necessarily implies that the heir has accepted the inheritance. )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 renouncementgratuitously 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 legitimenotwithstanding that there is no accretion in the legitime- as long as the renunciation is indiscriminate.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 $enounce$( !u s&a** !e adJudica ed o &e 'e$sons o %&om( in acco$dance %i & &e $u*es es a!*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 contractstransactions 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.
&rt. 00$$. *he creditors' after having pursued the property in possession of the debtor to satisfy their claims' may e1ercise all the rights and bring all the actions of the latter for the same purpose' save those which are inherent in his person= they may also impugn the acts which the debtor may have done to defraud them. &rt. 0303. Creditors are protected in cases of contracts intended to defraud them.
2.
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$ $e'udia ed &e in&e$i ance &is $i)& s&a** !e $ansmi ed o &is &ei$s.
This rule is a consequence of the principle that the rieght of succession *ests at the moment of death. Thereforethe 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$ . 1C51. T&e $e'udia ion of an in&e$i ance s&a** !e made in a 'u!*ic o$ au &en ic ins $umen ( o$ !" 'e i ion '$esen ed o &e cou$ &a#in) Ju$isdic ion o#e$ &e es amen a$" o$ in es a e '$oceedin)s.
1O7M' O1 7&NBNC AT ON A. )u.lic or Authentic :genuine; nstrument 2. )etition filed in the 'ettlement )roceedings 1orm of renunciation stricter 9 the law has stricter requisites for renunciation- since it is not .eneficial to the heir.
A$ . 1C54. S&ou*d &e$e !e se#e$a* &ei$s ca**ed o &e in&e$i ance( some of &em ma" acce' and &e o &e$s ma" $e'udia e i .
f there are se*eral heirs- their right to accept or right corresponds to the aliquot share to which they are entitled. Thus- if P dies and I- his heir- himself dies .efore accepting or renouncing the inheritance- lea*ing A- 2 and C as his own heirs 9 A- 2 and C each has the right to accept or renounce his corresponding 1L! interest in whate*er I was entitled to inherit from P. Question 9 should one or more of the heirs renounce- to whom will the repudiated portion go6 To the ones who accept- .y accretion6 Or to the intestate heirs of the decedent whose inheritance the predecessor of the heirs was una.le to accept or renounce6
A$ . 1C5@. If &e &ei$ $e'udia es &e in&e$i ance o &e '$eJudice of &is o%n c$edi o$s( &e *a e$ ma" 'e i ion &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$edi o$s on*" o an e+ en sufficien o co#e$ &e amoun of &ei$ c$edi s. T&e e+cess( s&ou*d &e$e !e an"( s&a** in no case 'e$ ain o &e Nen La")o A-
141
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
A$ . 1C55. If a 'e$son( %&o is ca**ed o &e same in&e$i ance as an &ei$ !" %i** and a! in es a o( $e'udia es &e in&e$i ance in &is ca'aci " as a es amen a$" &ei$( &e is unde$s ood o &a#e $e'udia ed i in !o & ca'aci ies. S&ou*d &e $e'udia e i as an in es a e &ei$( %i &ou 2no%*ed)e of &is !ein) a es amen a$" &ei$( &e ma" s i** acce' i in &e *a e$ 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. 2. 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 "&8 T M& n *iew of the rationale of the rule- should the heir .e simultaneously a compulsory heir and a testamentary heirhe can accept either or .oth. The legitime passes not .ecause of any implied will or wish of the decedent .ut .y strict operation of lawirrespecti*e of the decedent4s wishes. Thus- the term ab intestate in this article refers solely to intestate succession. 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$ $e'udia ion of an in&e$i ance( once made( is i$$e#oca!*e( and canno !e im'u)ned( e+ce' %&en i %as made &$ou)& an" of &e causes &a #i ia e consen ( o$ %&en an un2no%n %i** a''ea$s.
&PC&)T ON' TO T=& 7B"& O1 1 NA" TI O1 ACC&)TANC& O7 7&NBNC AT ON A. Kitiated Consent 9 the factors are3 1. Kiolence 2. ntimidation !. Bndue nfluence #. Mista+e %. 1raud 2. Appearance of an un+nown will 9 this applies if the newly>disco*ered will is su.sequent to any will which may ha*e formed the .asis for the acceptance or renouncement. The new will :assuming it is *alid and admitted to pro.ate; reopens the whole affair and will call for a new acceptance or renunciation.
A$ . 1C57. 1i &in &i$ " da"s af e$ &e cou$ &as issued an o$de$ fo$ &e dis $i!u ion of &e es a e in acco$dance %i & &e Ru*es of Cou$ ( &e &ei$s( de#isees and *e)a ees s&a** si)nif" o &e cou$ &a#in) Ju$isdic ion %&e &e$ &e" acce' o$ $e'udia e &e in&e$i ance. If &e" do no do so %i &in &a ime( &e" a$e deemed o &a#e acce' ed &e in&e$i ance.
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 A7T C"&' @@%>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 2nd 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
Nen La")o A-
142
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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** ma e$s $e*a in) o &e a''oin men ( 'o%e$s and du ies of e+ecu o$s and adminis $a o$s and conce$nin) &e adminis $a ion of es a es of deceased 'e$sons s&a** !e )o#e$ned !" &e Ru*es of Cou$ .
5ith reference to 7ules 7?>@A of the 7ules of Court.
)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 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
A$ . 1C5B. If &e asse s of &e es a e 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$edi s s&a** !e o!se$#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 $a ion of &e deceden Ms es a e.
n relation to Articles 22!@>22%1 and 22##
A$ . 1C8C. A co$'o$a ion o$ associa ion au &o$iKed o conduc &e !usiness of a $us com'an" in &e P&i*i''ines ma" !e a''oin ed as an e+ecu o$( adminis $a o$( )ua$dian of an es a e( o$ $us ee( in *i2e manne$ as an indi#idua*; !u i s&a** no !e a''oin ed )ua$dian of &e 'e$son of a %a$d.
7ule 7? of the 7oC go*erns the issuance of letters testamentary and of administration and should .e read together with this article.
SEC-I./ 7. 1 C.LLA-I./
T=7&& M&AN N8' O1 T=& T&7M ,CO""AT ON0 A' B'&$ N T=& 11 A7T C"&'3 1. Collation as COM)BTAT ON 9 :add; o This is a simple accounting or arithmetical process-
Nen La")o A-
143
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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)BTAT ON 9 :su.tract; o This 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 o This 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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 A$ . 1C8@. Co**a ion 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 $e'udia e &e in&e$i ance( un*ess &e dona ion s&ou*d !e $educed as inofficious.
Collation in the sense of M)BTAT ON That donations inter *i*os made .y the decedent to a compulsory heir are- as a general rule- imputed to or charged against the heir4s legitime. R0LES ON I,P0TATION O. -ONATIONS INTER VIVOS= A. -ona ions in e$ #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&)T ON' 9 1. f the donor pro*ides in the $eed of $onation otherwise 2. f the donee renounces the inheritance.ecause in this case the donee gi*es up his status as a compulsory heir and therefore cannot .e considered as one. o n case either e/ception applies- the donation will ha*e to .e imputed to the 17&& )O7T ON. o Question 9 supposing the compulsory heir recei*ed a donation inter *i*os from the decedent .ut the *alue of the donation e/ceeds the donee4s legitime6 The donation will .e imputed to the donee4s legitime to the e/tent of the lefitime4s *alue and the e/cess- to the free portion. E. C. -ona ions in e$ #i#os o s $an)e$s o mputed to the free portion Ins ances %&en dona ions in e$ #i#os a$e o !e im'u ed o &e .REE PORTION 1. 5hen made to strangers 2. 5hen made to compulsory heirs- and the donor so pro*ides that it will .e imputed to the free portion !. 5hen made to compulsory heirs who renounce the inheritance #. 5hen in e/cess of the compulsory heir4s legitime- as to the e/cess.
!.
A$ . 1C81. E#e$" com'u*so$" &ei$( %&o succeeds %i & o &e$ com'u*so$" &ei$s( mus !$in) in o &e mass of &e es a e an" '$o'e$ " o$ $i)& %&ic& &e ma" &a#e $ecei#ed f$om &e deceden ( du$in) &e *ife ime of &e *a e$( !" %a" of dona ion( o$ an" o &e$ )$a ui ous i *e( in o$de$ &a i ma" !e com'u ed in &e de e$mina ion of &e *e)i ime of eac& &ei$( and in &e accoun of &e 'a$ i ion.
This article refers to the COM)BTAT ON 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 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=& T M& T=& $ONAT ON 5A' MA$& 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$ . 1C8A. P$o'e$ " *ef !" %i** is no deemed su!Jec o co**a ion( if &e es a o$ &as no o &e$%ise '$o#ided( !u &e *e)i ime s&a** in an" case $emain unim'ai$ed.
Collation in the sense of M)BTAT ON. This article applies to $onations Mortis Cause :the pre*ious article applies to donations inter *i*os;.
Nen La")o A-
144
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
Therefore- here the testamentary disposition is as a general rule- not deemed as an ad*ance on the legitime. R0LE ON TESTA,ENTARF -ISPOSITIONS TO CO,P0LSORF HEIRS 873 they should NOT .e imputed to the legitime .ut to the free portion. =ence- the compulsory heir recei*es the testamentary disposition in addition to his legitime. &PC&)T ON3 if the testator pro*ides otherwise. Then the testamentary disposition in fa*or of the heir 5 "" .e M&78&$ with his legitime. That will ma+e the disposition illusory.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
A$ . 1C88. Nei &e$ s&a** dona ions o &e s'ouse of &e c&i*d !e !$ou)& o co**a ion; !u if &e" &a#e !een )i#en !" &e 'a$en o &e s'ouses Join *"( &e c&i*d s&a** !e o!*i)ed o !$in) o co**a ion oneG&a*f of &e &in) dona ed.
Collation in the sense of M)BTAT ON
A$ . 1C84. 1&en &e )$andc&i*d$en( %&o su$#i#e %i & &ei$ unc*es( aun s( o$ cousins( in&e$i f$om &ei$ )$and'a$en s in $e'$esen a ion of &ei$ fa &e$ o$ mo &e$( &e" s&a** !$in) o co**a ion a** &a &ei$ 'a$en s( if a*i#e( %ou*d &a#e !een o!*i)ed o !$in)( e#en &ou)& suc& )$andc&i*d$en &a#e no in&e$i ed &e '$o'e$ ". T&e" s&a** a*so !$in) o co**a ion a** &a &e" ma" &a#e $ecei#ed f$om &e deceden du$in) &is *ife ime( un*ess &e es a o$ &as '$o#ided o &e$%ise( in %&ic& case &is %is&es mus !e $es'ec ed( if &e *e)i ime of &e coG &ei$s is no '$eJudiced.
Collation in the sense of M)BTAT ON This article applies to 2 instances3 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.
7B"&' ON $ONAT ON' TO T=& ')OB'& O1 T=& C= "$ 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 CO NT"Ione>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
&rt. <;. *he following shall be e1cluded from the community property% B0C 5roperty acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse' and the fruits as well as the income thereof' if any' unless it is e1pressly provided by the donor' testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property=
2.
n C)8 9 Art1A@ G2E and Article 11!.

&rt. 0!<. *he following shall be the e1clusive property of each spouse% B;C *hat which each acquires during the marriage by gratuitous title= &rt. 003. 5roperty donated or left by will to the spouses' 7ointly and with designation of determinate shares' shall pertain to the donee#spouses as his or her own e1clusive property' and in the absence of designation' share and share ali6e' without pre7udice to the right of accretion when proper.
A$ . 1C85. Pa$en s a$e no o!*i)ed o !$in) o co**a ion in &e in&e$i ance of &ei$ ascendan s an" '$o'e$ " %&ic& ma" &a#e !een dona ed !" &e *a e$ o &ei$ c&i*d$en.
Collation in the sense of M)BTAT ON. A person should not collate what his parent ga*e to his child since he is not the recipient of the con*eyance. Against what part of the estate the con*eyance is imputa.le 9 the donation to the grandchild should .e imputed to the 17&& )O7T ON- since the donation is to a stranger.
A$ . 1C87. E+'enses fo$ su''o$ ( educa ion( medica* a endance( e#en in e+ $ao$dina$" i**ness( a''$en ices&i'( o$dina$" equi'men ( o$ cus oma$" )if s a$e no su!Jec o co**a ion.
Collation in the sense of COM)BTAT ON :add;.
Nen La")o A-
145
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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 $O&' NOT include e/penses for the recipient4s professional- *ocational or other career .ecause these are items go*erned .y Art1A(?.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 e+ce' insofa$ as &e" ma" e+ceed oneG en & 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$ . 1C8<. E+'enses incu$$ed !" &e 'a$en s in )i#in) &ei$ c&i*d$en a '$ofessiona*( #oca iona* o$ o &e$ ca$ee$ s&a** no !e !$ou)& o co**a ion un*ess &e 'a$en s so '$o#ide( o$ un*ess &e" im'ai$ &e *e)i ime; !u %&en &ei$ co**a ion is $equi$ed( &e sum %&ic& &e c&i*d %ou*d &a#e s'en if &e &ad *i#ed in &e &ouse and com'an" of &is 'a$en s s&a** !e deduc ed &e$ef$om.
Collation in the sense of M)BTAT ON This article states that as a general rule3 o The 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&& )O7T ONunless 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$ . 1C71. T&e same &in)s dona ed a$e no o !e !$ou)& o co**a ion and 'a$ i ion( !u on*" &ei$ #a*ue a &e ime of &e dona ion( e#en &ou)& &ei$ Jus #a*ue ma" no &en &a#e !een assessed. T&ei$ su!sequen inc$ease o$ de e$io$a ion and e#en &ei$ o a* *oss o$ des $uc ion( !e i acciden a* o$ cu*'a!*e( s&a** !e fo$ &e !enefi o$ accoun and $is2 of &e donee.
Collation in 2 senses3 COM)BTAT ON V M)BTAT ON 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$ . 1C8B. An" sums 'aid !" a 'a$en in sa isfac ion of &e de! s of &is c&i*d$en( e*ec ion e+'enses( fines( and simi*a$ e+'enses s&a** !e !$ou)& o co**a ion.
Collation in the sense of M)BTAT ON 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) )if s !" 'a$en s and ascendan s consis in) of Je%e*$"( c*o &in)( and ou fi ( s&a** no !e $educed as inofficious
A$ . 1C7@. In &e co**a ion of a dona ion made !" !o & 'a$en s( oneG&a*f s&a** !e !$ou)& o &e in&e$i ance of &e fa &e$( and &e o &e$ &a*f( o 146
Nen La")o A-
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER &a of &e mo &e$. T&a )i#en !" one a*one s&a** !e !$ou)& o co**a ion in &is o$ &e$ in&e$i ance.
Collation in 2 senses3 COM)BTAT ON V M)BTAT ON CO NT $ONAT ON' The 1st 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 treatedupon dissolution of the property regime- as pertaining in equal shares to the estate of each. $ONAT ON' 2I ON& )A7&NT A"ON& 'uch a donation will .e of separately>owned property and should .e treated as such.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 of &e es a e of &e same 2ind and qua*i " as &a su!Jec o co**a ion s&a** !e made &e s anda$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$ . 1C7A. T&e doneeMs s&a$e of &e es a e 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 na u$e( c*ass and qua*i ".
Collation in the sense of M)BTAT ON 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'$ac ica!*e( if &e '$o'e$ " dona ed %as immo#a!*e( &e coG&ei$s s&a** !e en i *ed o $ecei#e i s equi#a*en in cas& o$ secu$i ies( a &e $a e of quo a ion; and s&ou*d &e$e !e nei &e$ cas& o$ ma$2e a!*e secu$i ies in &e es a e( so muc& of &e o &e$ '$o'e$ " as ma" !e necessa$" s&a** !e so*d a 'u!*ic auc ion. If &e '$o'e$ " dona ed %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$i ance a i s 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$ . 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 '$ese$#a ion of &e '$o'e$ " dona ed o &im( &ou)& &e" ma" no &a#e au)men ed i s #a*ue. T&e donee %&o co**a es 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'$o#emen s %&ic& &a#e inc$eased &e #a*ue of &e '$o'e$ "( and %&ic& e+is a &e ime &e 'a$ i ion if effec ed. As o %o$2s made on &e es a e fo$ &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 es a e.
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 )A7T A" 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 &NT 7&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
&rt. 94". (ecessary e1penses shall be refunded to every possessor= but only the possessor in good
A$ . 1C75. T&e f$ui s and in e$es of &e '$o'e$ " su!Jec o co**a ion s&a** no 'e$ ain o &e es a e e+ce' f$om &e da" on %&ic& &e succession is o'ened. .o$ &e 'u$'ose of asce$ ainin) &ei$ amoun ( &e f$ui s and in e$es of &e '$o'e$ " Nen La")o A-
147
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

CA'&' 1O7 A7T C"&' 1A%?>1A77 Sarago9a 8. C(
- 1la*io TaragoHa died intestate lea*ing four children3 8loriaTacariaH- 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
..
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
Jseful e1penses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same right of retention' the person who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the e1penses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired 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
&rt. 948. D1penses for pure lu1ury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in good faith= but he may remove the ornaments with which he has embellished the principal thing if it suffers no in7ury thereby' and if his successor in the possession does not prefer to refund the amount e1pended.
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" ques ion a$ise amon) &e coG&ei$s u'on &e o!*i)a ion o !$in) o co**a ion o$ as o &e &in)s %&ic& a$e su!Jec o co**a ion( &e dis $i!u ion of &e es a e s&a** no !e in e$$u' ed fo$ &is $eason( '$o#ided adequa e 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.
Nen La")o A-
148
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
lifetime of the latter .y way of donation or any gratuitous title- has impaired the legitime.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 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 :heirslegatees- 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 themassuming 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.
(dan 8. Casili
- 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 )!AAAmore 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 equipmentor 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.
A$ . 1C7<. 1&e$e &e$e a$e %o o$ mo$e &ei$s( &e %&o*e es a e of &e deceden is( !efo$e i s 'a$ i ion( o%ned in common !" suc& &ei$s( su!Jec o &e 'a"men of de! s of &e deceased. A$ . 1C7B. Pa$ i ion( in )ene$a*( is &e se'a$a ion( di#ision and assi)nmen of a &in) &e*d in common amon) &ose o %&om i ma" 149
@i9on &i8era 8. @i9on
Nen La")o A-
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER !e*on). T&e &in) i se*f ma" !e di#ided( o$ i s #a*ue.

)artition ends the co>ownership among the co>heirs as to the thing partitioned. F N$' O1 )A7T T ON A. Actual 9 physical di*ision of the thing among the co>heirs 2. 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?(;.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 willpro*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 himwhether 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. 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
A$ . 1C<C. S&ou*d a 'e$son ma2e 'a$ i ion of &is es a e !" an ac in e$ #i#os( o$ !" %i**( suc& 'a$ i ion s&a** !e $es'ec ed( insofa$ as i does no '$eJudice &e *e)i ime of &e com'u*so$" &ei$s. A 'a$en %&o( in &e in e$es of &is o$ &e$ fami*"( desi$es o 2ee' an" a)$icu* u$a*( indus $ia*( o$ manufac u$in) en e$'$ise in ac ( ma" a#ai* &imse*f of &e $i)& )$an ed &im in &is a$ ic*e( !" o$de$in) &a &e *e)i ime of &e o &e$ c&i*d$en o %&om &e '$o'e$ " is no assi)ned( !e 'aid in cas&.
)A7T T ON 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 .. 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
Nen La")o A-
150
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
property is a*aila.le to satisfy the legitimes of the other children. Bnder no circumstances should the legitimes .e impaired.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

As a general rule- any co>heir may demand partition at any time. This is the same rule laid down in Art#@# par13
&rt. 4<4. (o co#owner shall be obliged to remain in the co# ownership. Dach co#owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common' insofar as his share is concerned. (evertheless' an agreement to 6eep the thing undivided for a certain period of time' not e1ceeding ten years' shall be valid. *his term may be e1tended by a new agreement. & donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not e1ceed twenty years. (either shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. (o prescription shall run in favor of a co#owner or co#heir against his co#owners or co#heirs so long as he e1pressly or impliedly recogni:es the co#ownership.
A$ . 1C<1. A 'e$son ma"( !" an ac in e$ #i#os o$ mo$ is causa( in $us &e me$e 'o%e$ o ma2e &e 'a$ i ion af e$ &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 manda a$"( in suc& case( s&a** ma2e an in#en o$" of &e '$o'e$ " of &e es a e( af e$ no if"in) &e coG&ei$s( &e c$edi o$s( and &e *e)a ees o$ 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$" ac %&ic& is in ended o 'u an end o indi#ision amon) coG&ei$s and *e)a ees o$ de#isees is deemed o !e a 'a$ i ion( 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$ $ansac ion.
CON'T7BCT K& )A7T T ON )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 $regorio (raneta *nc.
EHCEPTIONS 9 des'i e &is im'osed indi#ision( 'a$ i ion ma" !e demanded= #. 4hen any of the causes for dissolution of a partnership occurs< under (rts. #E200#E2#I
&rt. 083!. Dissolution is caused% B0C Fithout violation of the agreement between the partners% BaC >y the termination of the definite term or particular underta6ing specified in the agreement= BbC >y the e1press will of any partner' who must act in good faith' when no definite term or particular is specified= BcC >y the e1press will of all the partners who have not assigned their interests or suffered them to be charged for their separate debts' either before or after the termination of any specified term or particular underta6ing= BdC >y the e1pulsion of any partner from the business bona fide in accordance with such a power conferred by the agreement between the partners= B;C 2n contravention of the agreement between the partners' where the circumstances do not permit a dissolution under any other provision of this article' by the e1press will of any partner at any time= B3C >y any event which ma6es it unlawful for the business of the partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership= B4C Fhen a specific thing which a partner had promised to contribute to the partnership' perishes before the delivery= in any case by the loss of the thing' when the partner who contributed it having reserved the ownership thereof' has only transferred to the partnership the use or en7oyment of the same= but the partnership shall not be dissolved by the loss of the thing when it occurs after the partnership has acquired the ownership thereof= B9C >y the death of any partner= B"C >y the insolvency of any partner or of the partnership=
A$ . 1C<A. E#e$" coG&ei$ &as a $i)& o demand &e di#ision of &e es a e un*ess &e es a o$ s&ou*d &a#e e+'$ess*" fo$!idden i s 'a$ i ion( 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 es a o$ o '$o&i!i di#ision a''*ies o &e *e)i ime. E#en &ou)& fo$!idden !" &e es a o$( &e coGo%ne$s&i' e$mina es %&en an" of &e causes fo$ %&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$ed( u'on 'e i ion of one of &e coG&ei$s.
)artition 8enerally a Matter of 7ight
Nen La")o A-
151
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
B$C >y the civil interdiction of any partner= B8C >y decree of court under the following article. &rt. 0830. En application by or for a partner the court shall decree a dissolution whenever% B0C & partner has been declared insane in any 7udicial proceeding or is shown to be of unsound mind= B;C & partner becomes in any other way incapable of performing his part of the partnership contract= B3C & partner has been guilty of such conduct as tends to affect pre7udicially the carrying on of the business= B4C & partner wilfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement' or otherwise so conducts himself in matters relating to the partnership business that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with him= B9C *he business of the partnership can only be carried on at a loss= B"C Ether circumstances render a dissolution equitable. En the application of the purchaser of a partner@s interest under &rticle 0803 or 0804% B0C &fter the termination of the specified term or particular underta6ing= B;C &t any time if the partnership was a partnership at will when the interest was assigned or when the charging order was issued.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 &e coG&ei$s &in)s of &e same na u$e( qua*i " and 2ind.
&QBA" TI AMON8 CO>=& 7' Quantitati*e 9 the shares of the co>heirs are not necessarily equal in *alue- .ut are determined .y the law and .y will. Qualitati*e 9 whate*er the aliquot portions .ehowe*er- the law mandates equality in nature- +ind and quality- so that if A gets a parcel of rice land- 2 should also .e gi*en one. &PC&)T ON' L QBA" 1 CAT ON' to the requirement of Qualitati*e &quality 9 1. f the causante has made the partition himself 2. f the co>heirs agree otherwise !. f qualitati*e equality is impossi.le or impractica.le.
2. 4hen the Court finds co6pelling reasons for partition. 5hen the co>heirs agree on indi*ision for a period not e/ceeding 1Ayears- renewa.le for li+e periods.
A$ . 1C<4. Vo*un a$" &ei$s u'on %&om some condi ion &as !een im'osed canno demand a 'a$ i ion un i* &e condi ion &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 condi ion s&ou*d !e com'*ied %i &( and un i* i is 2no%n &a &e condi ion &as no !een fu*fi**ed o$ can ne#e$ !e com'*ied %i &( &e 'a$ i ion s&a** !e unde$s ood o !e '$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 partitionsu.Dect to the o.ligation to protect the inchoate right of the conditional heir- .y furnishing adequate security.
A$ . 1C<8. S&ou*d a &in) !e indi#isi!*e( o$ %ou*d !e muc& im'ai$ed !" i s !ein) di#ided( i ma" !e adJudica ed o one of &e &ei$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 auc ion 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<5. In &e 'a$ i ion of &e es a e( equa*i " s&a** !e o!se$#ed as fa$ as 'ossi!*e( di#idin) &e '$o'e$ " in o *o s( o$ assi)nin) o eac& of Nen La")o A-
A$ . 1C<7. In &e 'a$ i ion &e coG&ei$s s&a** $eim!u$se one ano &e$ fo$ &e income and f$ui s %&ic& eac& one of &em ma" &a#e $ecei#ed f$om an" '$o'e$ " of &e es a e( fo$ an" usefu* and necessa$" e+'enses made u'on suc& '$o'e$ "( and fo$ an" dama)e &e$e o &$ou)& ma*ice o$ ne)*ec .
MBTBA" ACCOBNT N8
152
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
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 sharesin 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
&rt. 9!!. Jpon partition' there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for e1penses made. -i6ewise' each co#owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

rule- interpreted this requirement of written notice strictly. $arcia 8. Calali6an 9 5ritten notice is indispensa.le- actual +nowledge of the sale acquired in some other manners .y the redemptionernotwithstanding. =e or she is still entitled to written notice to remo*e all uncertainty as to the sale- its terms and its *alidity- and to quiet any dou.t that the alienation is not definiti*e. The law not ha*ing pro*ided for any alternati*e- the method of notifications remains e/clusi*e- though the Code does not prescri.e any particular form of written notice nor any distincti*e method for written notification of redemption.
The same rule is laid down in Art1(2A which applies where the co>ownership co*ers specific property. 5hile Article 1A?? applies where the co>ownership co*ers the 6ass of the hereditary estate. 2ut the distinction is academic and the rule is the same.
&rt. 0";!. & co#owner of a thing may e1ercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co#owners or of any of them' are sold to a third person. 2f the price of the alienation is grossly e1cessive' the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one. Should two or more co#owners desire to e1ercise the right of redemption' they may only do so in proportion to the share they may respectively have in the thing owned in common.
A$ . 1C<<. S&ou*d an" of &e &ei$s se** &is &e$edi a$" $i)& s o a s $an)e$ !efo$e &e 'a$ i ion( an" o$ a** of &e coG&ei$s ma" !e su!$o)a ed 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$e no ified in %$i in) of &e sa*e !" &e #endo$.
7ight of an =eir to Con*ey 'hare 2efore )artition 'uccessional rights *est upon the decedent4s death. Consequently- an heir may dispose of his aliquot share after that time< he may do this gratuitously or onerously. 7 8=T O1 7&$&M)T ON 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; 2. 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 redemptionwhich 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
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 acquisi ion 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 adJudica ed.
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 in e$es ( and au &en ic co'ies of &e i *e s&a** !e fu$nis&ed o &e o &e$ coG&ei$s a &e e+'ense of &e es a e. If &e in e$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.
Nen La")o A-
153
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 total of )#%+ha*ing .orne his own share of )!+ from A4s insol*ency.
S.BS%C,*+) 2. 0 %ffects of Partition A$ . 1CB1. A 'a$ i ion *e)a**" made confe$s u'on eac& &ei$ &e e+c*usi#e o%ne$s&i' of &e '$o'e$ " adJudica ed o &im.
The effect of partition is termination of co>ownership.
A$ . 1CB@. Af e$ &e 'a$ i ion &as !een made( &e coG&ei$s s&a** !e $eci'$oca**" !ound o %a$$an &e i *e o( and &e qua*i " of( eac& '$o'e$ " adJudica ed.
O2" 8AT ON O1 MBTBA" 5A77ANTI )artition among co>heirs imposes upon them the same mutual o.ligation of warranties imposed among co>owners in general. According to Art%A13 ,&*ery co>owner shall- after partition- .e lia.le for defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of the other co> owners.0
&PC&)T ON to right to reim.ursement from insol*ent o.ligor3 insol*ency that is Dudicially declared- under the nsol*ency "aw- since Dudicially declared insol*ency e/tinguishes all o.ligations.
A$ . 1CB4. An ac ion o enfo$ce &e %a$$an " amon) &ei$s mus !e !$ou)& %i &in en "ea$s f$om &e da e &e $i)& of ac ion acc$ues. A$ . 1CB5. If a c$edi s&ou*d !e assi)ned as co**ec i!*e( &e coG&ei$s s&a** no !e *ia!*e fo$ &e su!sequen inso*#enc" of &e de! o$ of &e es a e( !u on*" fo$ &is inso*#enc" a &e ime &e 'a$ i ion is made. T&e %a$$an " of &e so*#enc" of &e de! o$ can on*" !e enfo$ced du$in) &e fi#e "ea$s fo**o%in) &e 'a$ i ion. CoG&ei$s do no %a$$an !ad de! s( if so 2no%n o( and acce' ed !"( &e dis $i!u ee. Eu if suc& de! s a$e no assi)ned o a coG &ei$( and s&ou*d !e co**ec ed( in %&o*e o$ in 'a$ ( &e amoun co**ec ed s&a** !e dis $i!u ed '$o'o$ iona e*" 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 1 K& G%E I&A7'. 2ad $e.t Assigned to a Co>=eir A co>heir who accepts a +nown .ad de.t as his share is either a fool or a masochist.
7B"& ON 5A77ANT &' The applica.le rules on warranties are found in Articles 1%#7>1%?A in the title on 'ales- insofar as those articles are not inconsistent with the rules gi*en in this su.section.
A$ . 1CBA. T&e $eci'$oca* o!*i)a ion of %a$$an " $efe$$ed o in &e '$ecedin) a$ ic*e s&a** !e '$o'o$ iona e o &e $es'ec i#e &e$edi a$" s&a$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( deduc in) &e 'a$ co$$es'ondin) o &e one %&o s&ou*d !e indemnified. T&ose %&o 'a" fo$ &e inso*#en &ei$ s&a** &a#e a $i)& of ac ion a)ains &im fo$ $eim!u$semen ( s&ou*d &is financia* condi ion im'$o#e.
)roportional "ia.ility of Co>heirs on 5arranty 2urdens should .e proportional to .enefits. nsol*ency of One of O.ligors 9 should one of the co> heirs .ound to ma+e good the warranty .e insol*ent- his portion shall .e .orne proportionally .y all- including the one entitled to the warranty3 &/ample > Co>heirs are A- 2- C- $ and & in equal shares of )(A+ each. 2 claims warranty for the total amount of his share .ecause he was e*icted.
A$ . 1CB8. T&e o!*i)a ion of %a$$an " amon) coG &ei$s s&a** cease in &e fo**o%in) cases= >1? 1&en &e es a o$ &imse*f &as made &e 'a$ i ion( un*ess i a''ea$s( o$ i ma" !e $easona!*" '$esumed( &a &is in en ion %as o &e$%ise( !u &e *e)i ime s&a** a*%a"s $emain unim'ai$ed; 154
Nen La")o A-
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER >@? 1&en i &as !een so e+'$ess*" s i'u*a ed in &e a)$eemen of 'a$ i ion( un*ess &e$e &as !een !ad fai &; >A? 1&en &e e#ic ion is due o a cause su!sequen o &e 'a$ i ion( o$ &as !een caused !" &e fau* of &e dis $i!u ee of &e '$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
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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 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$ i ion( 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$e o %&ic& &e is en i *ed( conside$in) &e #a*ue of &e &in)s a &e ime &e" %e$e adJudica ed.
"&' ON is economic inDury- where the party recei*es less than he is entitled to recei*e. "esion is e/ceedingly difficult to determine and e*aluate and is *iewed with increasing disfa*or .y modern ci*il law. Amount of "esion The minimum e/tent of lesion for rescission to .e a*aila.le is ON&>1OB7T= or 2%J. Note the slight *ariation from paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art1!?1 which specifies MO7& than R. &*idently- in cases of partition of the inheritance- Art1A@? applies. AN &PC&)T ON TO T= ' A7T C"& ' 1OBN$ N T=& 1O""O5 N8 A7T C"&.
S.BS%C,*+) 2. 0 &escission and )ullity of Partition A$ . 1CB7. A 'a$ i ion ma" !e $escinded o$ annu**ed fo$ &e same causes as con $ac s.
CA0SES .OR ANN0L,ENT Art. 1!@A. The following contracts are *oida.le or annulla.le- e*en though there may ha*e .een no damage to the contracting parties3 G1E Those where one of the parties is incapa.le of gi*ing consent to a contract< G2E Those where the consent is *itiated .y mista+e- *iolence- intimidation- undue influence or fraud. These contracts are .inding- unless they are annulled .y a proper action in court. They are suscepti.le of ratification. CA0SES .OR RESCISSION Art. 1!?1. The following contracts are rescissi.le3 G1E Those which are entered into .y guardians whene*er the wards whom they represent suffer lesion .y more than one>fourth of the *alue of the things which are the o.Dect thereof< G2E Those agreed upon in representation of a.sentees- if the latter suffer the lesion stated in the preceding num.er<
A$ . 1CBB. T&e 'a$ i ion made !" &e es a o$ canno !e im'u)ned on &e )$ound of *esion( e+ce' %&en &e *e)i ime of &e com'u*so$" &ei$s is &e$e!" '$eJudiced( o$ %&en i a''ea$s o$ ma" $easona!*" !e '$esumed( &a &e in en ion of &e es a o$ %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 ac ion fo$ $escission on accoun of *esion s&a** '$esc$i!e af e$ fou$ "ea$s f$om &e ime &e 'a$ i ion %as made.
Nen La")o A-
155
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
)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!?@.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7 '$o'o$ iona e*" o!*i)ed o 'a" o &e 'e$son omi ed &e s&a$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$ . 11C1. T&e &ei$ %&o is sued s&a** &a#e &e o' ion of indemnif"in) &e '*ain iff fo$ &e *oss( o$ consen in) o a ne% 'a$ i ion. 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 '*ain iff. If a ne% 'a$ i ion 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$e.
OELIGOR:S OPTIONS 9 it is the co>heir who is sued for rescission who has the option. =e has 2 choices3 1. To ha*e a 7e>partition- or 2. To indemnify the co>heir the amount of the lesion suffered.
A$ . 11C5. A 'a$ i ion %&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.
A$ . 11C@. An &ei$ %&o &as a*iena ed &e %&o*e o$ a conside$a!*e 'a$ of &e $ea* '$o'e$ " adJudica ed o &im canno main ain an ac ion 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.
CA'&' 1O7 A7T C"&' 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 Almadindesignating 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 $eeds of 'ale in fa*or of each of her nieces. The assignees- Maria KerHosa- Tori.ia KerHosaOli*a KerHosa- and 7uperta )alma- too+ possession of their respecti*e parcels thus ceded .y 'a.ina Almadin- and ha*e .een culti*ating them as e/clusi*e owners thereof. Bnfortunately- the will of 'a.ina was not admitted to pro.ate. A complaint was filed .y the administrator see+ing deli*ery of the parcels of land in the possession of 'a.ina4s nieces. As 'a.ina AlmadinUs will was disallowed for the reason that it did not contain all the essential requisites pro*ided .y law for its *alidity- can the aforesaid partition of her estate made .y said testatri/ among her nieces .e deemed *alid6 NO. t is an indispensa.le condition precedent to a testator partitioning his estate inter *i*os that he ha*e made a *alid will disposing of said estate among his heirs< and if this will .e declared null and *oid- the partition made .y the testator in pursuance of its pro*isions is li+ewise null and *oid- for where these pro*isions cease to e/ist- the partition
A$ . 11CA. T&e omission of one o$ mo$e o!Jec s o$ secu$i ies of &e in&e$i ance s&a** no cause &e $escission of &e 'a$ i ion on &e )$ound of *esion( !u &e 'a$ i ion s&a** !e com'*e ed !" &e dis $i!u ion of &e o!Jec s o$ secu$i ies %&ic& &a#e !een omi ed.
ncompleteness of the partition is not a ground for rescission. The remedy is a supplemental partition.
A$ . 11C4. A 'a$ i ion made %i & '$e e$i ion of an" of &e com'u*so$" &ei$s s&a** no !e $escinded( un*ess i !e '$o#ed &a &e$e %as !ad fai & o$ f$aud on &e 'a$ of &e o &e$ 'e$sons in e$es ed; !u &e *a e$ s&a** !e Nen La")o A-
156
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
made in conformity therewith also .ecomes null and *oidas 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 lawtherefore- 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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

- 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 nephewsnieces- 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 himselfread 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 redemptionernotwithstanding. =e or she is still entitled to written noticeas 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.
,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 communityprecisely 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 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.
Nen La")o A-
157
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
- 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.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7

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
Balanay Jr. 8. 'artine9

- "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. - 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. - 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 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.
(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 motherand 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.
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 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 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
EN- O. .INALS REVIE1ER
Nen La")o A-
158
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
CO,PARISON O. R0LES ON TESTATE AN- INTESTATE S0CCESSION

R0LE
RIGHT O. ACCRETION
TESTATE Art. 1A1(. n order that the right of accretion may ta+e place in a testamentary succession- it shall .e necessary3 G1E That two or more persons .e called to the same inheritance- or to the same portion thereofpro indi*iso< and G2E That one of the persons thus called die .efore the testator- or renounce the inheritanceor .e incapacitated to recei*e it. Art. 1A22. n testamentary succession- when the right of accretion does not ta+e placethe *acant portion of the instituted heirs- if no su.stitute has .een designated- shall pass to the legal heirs of the testatorwho shall recei*e it with the same charges and o.ligations. INTESTATE Art. 1A1?. n legal succession the share of the person who repudiates the inheritance shall always accrue to his co>heirs. Art. @(?. f there are se*eral relati*es of the same degreeand 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. NOTES Art. 1A1%. Accretion is a right .y *irtue of which- when two or more persons are called to the same inheritancede*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. Art. 1A2%. n order to .e capacitated to inherit- the heirde*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 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.
CAPACITF TO S0CCEE-
Art. 1A2%. n order to .e capacitated to inherit- the heirde*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
Nen La")o A-
159
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
prescri.ed in article #1. prescri.ed in article #1. Art. 1A%%. f a person- who is called to the same inheritance as an heir .y will and a. intestatorepudiates the inheritance in his capacity as a testamentary heirhe 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 heirhe may still accept it in the latter capacity.
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
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. intestatorepudiates the inheritance in his capacity as a testamentary heirhe 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 heirhe 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. ELOOAN- .0LL ELOOEROTHERS AN- SISTERS REPRESENTA TION
Art. ?#?. f the testator should institute his .rothers and sisters- and he has some of full .lood and others of half .loodthe inheritance shall .e distri.uted equally unless a different intention appears. Art. ?%(. A *oluntary heir who dies .efore the testator transmits nothing to his heirs. A compulsory heir who dies .efore the testatora 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. 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 share dou.le that of the latter. 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 sisterswhether they .e of the full or half .lood. Art. @7!. n order that representation may ta+e placeit is necessary that the representati*e himself .e capa.le of succeeding the decedent. Art. @7#. 5hene*er there is succession .y representationthe 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.
Nen La")o A-
160
S0CCESSION REVIE1ER
1ST SE, @CC8G @CC7
Nen La")o A-
161

General Provisions: Succession Reviewer 1 SEM 2006-2007

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

General Provisions: Succession Reviewer 1 SEM 2006-2007

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SUCCESSION REVIEWER

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Based on Jottings and Jurisprudence on the Law on

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

CA'& Estate of K.H. Hemady v. Luzon Surety

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Lim"o#o v. Intestate of (la)rante

Heirs of S'ouses Sande"as v. Lina

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Case for Arts. $$*&$*+ KC Holdin)s Cor'. v. CA

1ST SEM 2006-2007

CHAPTER @ TESTA,ENTARF S0CCESSION

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Case for Arts. $*5&$*$ el !osario v. el !osario

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

REGCAP O. THE R0LES ON INTERPRETATION AN- CONSTR0CTION O. 1ILLS

8&N&7A" 7B"& 9 in a legacy or de*ise the testator

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Enri8uez9 et al. v. Abadia9 et al.

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Cases for Arts. $6;&*<5 Ba)tas v. =a)uio

>a' -ua v. >a' Ca Kuan ? >a' Ca Llu

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

CA'&' Suroza v. Honrado

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

:atias v. Salud Barut v. Caba#un)an

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

CA'& 3ar#ia v. 4as8uez

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Alvarado v. 3aviola9 Dr.

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Cases for Arts. *<$&*<6 3il v. :ur#iano

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

&e e+ecu ion &e ime of su!sequen *" &e a**o%ance

1ST SEM 2006-2007

2ecause the de.t or charge is not a testamentary disposition.

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

1ST SEM 2006-2007

Case for Arts. $$&$+ KC Holdin)s Cor'. v. CA

Case for Arts. $5&$$ el !osario v. el !osario

Cases for Arts. <$&<6 3il v. :ur#iano

Cases for Arts. +&*5$ :olo v. :olo

Cases for Arts. 5&*56 !eyes v. CA

Cases for Arti#les 7%&7; !abadilla v. CA

/uaified 9 acco$din) o A$ ices 1C@4G 1CA4.

Cases for Arti#les 7$&$< !amirez v. !amirez

One "egitimate Child and 'uriing 'pouse

"egitimate Children and 'uriing 'pouse

C.:BI/A-I./ One legitimate child- illegitimate children and suriing spouse

"egitimate childrenillegitimate children and suriing spouse

"egitimate parents illegitimate children and suriing spouse

'uriing spouse alone