Art. 777 Prof.

Balane says the terminology used in this article is infelicitous because the right
to the succession is not transmitted; but rather vested.
To say that it is transmitted upon death implies that before the decedents death, the right to the
succession was possessed by the decedent [which is absurd].
To say that it vests upon death implies that before the decedents death the right was merely
inchoate [which is correct].
THE LAW PRESUMES THAT the person succeeding
Has a right to succeed by

Legitime [compulsory succession],
Will [testamentary succession], or
Law [intestate succession]

Has the legal capacity to succeed, and

Accepts the successional portion

The vesting of the right occurs immediately upon the decedents death; i.e. without a moments
interruption. From this principle, the following consequences flow
The law in force at the time of the decedents death will determine who the heirs should be
New Civil Code August 30, 1950

Ownership passes to the heir at the very moment of death, who therefore, from that moment
acquires the right to dispose of his share.

The heirs have the right to be substituted for the deceased as party in an action that survives.
Because the heir acquires ownership at the moment of death and become parties in interest.

It should be emphasized that the operation of Art. 777 is at the very moment of the decedents
death, meaning the transmission by succession occurs at the precise moment of death and
therefore the heir, devisee, or legatee is legally deemed to have acquired ownership at that
moment, even if, particularly in the heirs case, he will generally not know how much he will be
inheriting and what properties he will ultimately be receiving, and not at the time of declaration
of heirs or partition or distribution.

3 Kinds of Succession Accdg to Art. 778:
Testamentary
That which results from the designation of an heir, made in a will.
Legal or Intestate
Lost definition: takes place by operation of law in the absence of a valid will. (no will, void will,
valid but inoperative will
Mixed
That effected partly by will and partly by operation of law.

Some observations
Enumeration cannot satisfactorily accommodate the system of legitimes.
Legal or intestate succession operates only in default of a will [Arts960 and 961], while the
legitime operates whether or not there is a will, in fact prevails over a will.
There are instances where the rules on legitime [Arts 887] operate, to the exclusion of the rules
on intestacy [Arts 960..]
It is therefore best for clarity, to classify succession to the legitime as a separate and distinct
kind of succession, which, for want of a better term, can be denominated compulsory
succession.

Until the effectivity of the Family Code, there was one exceptional case of succession by
contract [contractual succession] found in Article 130 of Civil Code.
ART 130. The 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 extent laid down by the provisions of this Code referring to testamentary
succession.

Donations propter nuptias of future property, made by one of the future spouses to the other,
took effect mortis cause, and had only to be done in the marriage settlements, which were
governed only by the Statute of Frauds.
It was the only instance of Contractual Succession in our civil law.
This has been eliminated by the Family Code in Article 84 paragraph 2:







Donations of future property shall be governed by the provisions on testamentary succession
and the formalities of wills.

Since under the provision, any donation of future property between the affianced couple is to be
governed by the rules of testamentary succession and the forms of wills, contractual succession
no longer exists in this jurisdiction.
Such a donation becomes an ordinary case of testamentary succession. (in antenuptials
agreement, there are 2 kinds of donation : MC and IV.

FOUR KINDS OF SUCCESSION ACCORDING TO IMPORTANCE [Prof. Balane]
COMPULSORY
Succession to the legitime
Prevails over all other kinds

TESTAMENTARY [Art. 779]
Succession by will

INTESTATE
Succession in default of a will

MIXED [Art. 780]
Not a distinct kind really, but a combination of any two or all of the first three.

DEATHLESS SUCCESSION: the effects of nullity of marriages, annulment, and legal
separation as provided in the FC provide for the delivery of presumptive legitimes by way of
cash, property or sound securities to the common children: Art. 50, 51 annulment and
declaration of nullity. (succession takes place without the element of death.

Article 781 is best deleted; it serves only to confuse.
The inheritance includes only those things enumerated in Article 776. Whatever accrues thereto
after the decedents death [which is when the succession opens] belongs to the heir, not by
virtue of succession, but by virtue of ownership.
To say, as Art781 does, that accruals to the inheritance after the decedents death are included
in the inheritance is to negate the principle in Art777 that transmission takes place precisely at
the moment of death.
Once the decedent dies and the heir inherits, the fruits of the property or inheritance belongs to
the heir by accession, and not by succession. This is so even if the heir does not actually
receive the inheritance.
If the assets left behind by the decedent are not sufficient to pay the debts, may the creditors
claims the fruits produced by the decedents property after his death? Or do these fruits pertain
to the heirs?
But wouldnt the debts be deducted from the estate first before the properties are distributed to
the heirs? (mison if the creditors cannot claim on the asset they can claim on the income.)

The distinction between an heir and a devisee or legatee is important because on this distinction
depends the correct application of Art854 on preterition.
In cases of preterition, the institution of an heir is annulled, while the institution of legatees and
devisees is effective to the extent that the legitimes are not impaired. Instituted heirs will not
receive anything by virtue of their institution or under the will but they may receive something by
way of intestacy
The legatees and the devises are favored since they will still receive what was given to them
despite the preterition.

The codal definitions are neither clear nor very helpful. They are so open-ended that an heir can
fall under the definition of a legatee/devisee and vice-versa.
I give X my fishpond in Navotas by definition of heir, is not X called to the succession by
provision of a will and therefore an heir?
I give X of my estate if in the partition, X receives a fishpond, can X, by definition, not be
considered a devisee, having received a gift of real property by will?
Void disinheritance: Art. 918 if the disinheritance is void, there is a violation of the rights of an
heir to receive his legitime huts the institution of heirs will also be annulled but the devisees /
legacies will ramin valid.
WHY??? In the case of an heir, though he may receive a larger amount, the testator did not
create a specific preference for what the heir will receive and this depends on the liquidation
process.on the other hand, legacies and devisees is granted particular properties to designated
beneficiaries.

The definitions of the Spanish Code in conjunction with Castans explanations are more helpful:
Heir one who succeeds to the WHOLE or an Aliquot part of the inheritance
DEVISEE / LEGATEE those who succeed to definite, specific, and individual properties.




CHARACTERISTICS OF WILLS
PURELY PERSONAL
Articles 784, 785 and 787

FREE AND INTELLIGENT
Article 839
The testators consent should not be vitiated by the causes mentioned in Article 839 paragraphs
2-6 on Insanity, Violence, Intimidation, Undue Influence, Fraud and Mistake.

SOLEMN AND FORMAL
Articles 804-814 and 820-821
The requirements of form depend on whether the will is attested or holographic.
Articles 805-808 and 820-821 govern attested wills. Articles 810-814 govern holographic wills.
Article 804 applies to both.

REVOCABLE AND AMBULATORY
Article 828. No rights can be said to have been impaired since succession only opens at the
moment of death.

MORTIS CAUSA
Article 783
This is a necessary consequence of Articles 774 and 777.

INDIVIDUAL
Article 818
Joint wills are prohibited in this jurisdiction.

EXECUTED WITH ANIMUS TESTANDI
This characteristic is implied in Article 783
Rizals valedictory poem Ultimo Adios was not a will. An instrument which merely expresses a
last wish as a thought or advice but does not contain a disposition of property and was not
executed with animus testandi, cannot be legally considered a will.

EXECUTED WITH TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY
Articles 796 803 on testamentary capacity and intent

UNILATERAL
This characteristic is implied in Article 783

DISPOSITIVE OF PROPERTY
Article 783 seems to consider the disposition of the testators estate mortis causa as the
purpose of will-making.

STATUTORY
Will-making is a permitted by statute
It is only when the will disposes of property, wither directly or indirectly, that it has to be
probated. When there is no disposition of property, it is submitted that, although the instrument
may be considered as a will, it does not have to be probated; its dispositions which are Would a
document merely appointing an executor, not containing any dispositive provision, have to
comply with the formal requirements of a will in order to be effective? Would such a document
have to be probated?
Justice Hofilena says NO, because there is no disposition and such appointment would not be
under the category of a will. Therefore, the formal requirements of a will do not apply.
Would a document containing only a disinheriting clause have to be in the form of a will and be
probated? [Article 916]
YES. According to Art916, disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal
cause therefore shall be specified.
A valid disinheritance is in effect a disposition of the property of the testator in favor of those
who would succeed in the absence of the disinherited heir. Unless the will is probated, the
disinheritance cannot be given effect

This provision gives the will its purely personal character.

NON-DELEGABILITY OF WILL-MAKING
It is the exercise of the disposing power that cannot be delegated.
Obviously, mechanical aspects, such as typing, do not fall within the prohibition.







What Constitute the Essence of Will-Making or the Exercise of the Disposing Power? The ff are
non-delegable:
The designation of heirs, devisees or legatees
The duration of efficacy of such designation, including such things as conditions, terms,
substitutions;
The determination of the portions they are to receive.
Exception to the Rule on Non-Delegability of Will-Making. Without this provision, the things
allowed to be delegated here would be non-delegable.

TWO things MUST BE determined by the testator
The property or amount of money to be given; and
The class or the cause to be benefited.

TWO THINGS MAY BE DELEGATED BY THE TESTATOR
The designation of persons, institutions, or establishments within the class or cause;
The manner of distribution

What is delegated is the determination of recipients of the specified properties to persons,
institutions w/in the specified class or cause. The 3rd person merely implements the dispositions
as to who are to receive the estate of the testator. For the delegated power to be ministerial, the
testator has to provide guidelines.

Question Suppose the testator specified the recipients by specific designation but left to the
3rd person the determination of the sharing, ex. I leave P500,000 for the PNRC, the SPCA, and
the Tala Leprosarium, to be distributed among these institutions in such proportions as my
executor may determine. Valid?
One View Article 785 seems to prohibit this, because the recipients are referred to by name
and therefore the portions they are to take must be determined by the testator. Article 786
applies only where the testator merely specifies the class or the cause but not the specific
recipients.
Contra This actually involves a lesser discretion for the 3rd person than the instances allowed
by Article 786 and should be allowed.
KINDS OF DISPOSIION: Direct person identifies a certain piece of property and gives it to a
specific individual; indirect disposes of property by inference or implication (e.g.
disinheritance)

This 787 article should be interpreted rationally. It is not to be so interpreted as to make it clash
with the principle expressed in Articles 1041-1057 of the NCC that the heir is free to accept or
reject the testamentary disposition.
What this article 787 prohibits is the delegation to a 3rd person of the power to decide whether a
disposition should take effect or not.
Articles 788-794 lays down the rules of construction and interpretation.
The underlying principle here is that testacy is preferred to intestacy, because the former is the
express will of the decedent whereas the latter is only his implied will.
In statutory construction, the canon is: That the thing may rather be effective than be without
effect.
A similar principle in contractual interpretation is found in Art1373, which provides that if 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.
2 Kinds of Ambiguity referred to
LATENT (non-apparent) not obvious on the face of the will
When there is an imperfect description or when no person or property exactly answers the
description
Latent as to PERSON I institute to of my estate my first cousin Jose and the testator has
more than one first cousin named Jose.
Latent as to PROPERTY I devise to my cousin Pacifico my fishpond in Roxas City and the
testator has more than one fishpond in Roxas City.

PATENT (extrinsic) obvious on the face of the will
When an uncertainty arises upon the face of the will, as to the application of any of its provisions
Patent as to PERSON I institute of my estate to some of my first cousins.
Patent as to PROPERTY I bequeath to my cousin Pacifico some of my cars.
In both cases, the ambiguity is evident from a reading of the testamentary provisions
themselves; the ambiguity is patent [patere to be exposed]

How to Deal with Ambiguities
The provisions of this article do not make a distinction in the solution of the problem of
ambiguities whether latent or patent.
Hence, the distinction between the 2 kinds of ambiguity is, in the light of the codal provisions, an
all but theoretical one.

The ambiguity should, as far as possible, be cleared up or resolved, in order to give effect to the
testamentary disposition.
Based on principle that testacy is preferred to intestacy.

Ambiguity may be resolved using any evidence admissible and relevant, excluding the oral
declarations of the testator as to his intention.
Reason for the statutory exclusion is that a dead man cannot refute a tale.
Similar rules are laid down in Rule 130 Sections 10 and 14 of the Rules of Court
Sec10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning The language of a writing is to
be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution, unless the
parties intended otherwise.

Sec14. Peculiar signification of terms The 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.

In contractual interpretation, a similar principle is expressed in Article 1370 par1:
Art1370. If 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.
A similar rule is found in Rule 130 Sec11 of the RoC
Sec11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions In 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.

In contractual interpretation, Articles 1373 and 1374 lay down similar principles
Art1373. If 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.
Art1374. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the
doubtful one that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.
This article makes applicable to wills the severability or separability principle in statutory
construction frequently expressly provided in a separability clause.
The source of this article is Art2085 of the German Civil Code which provides that the invalidity
of one of several dispositions contained in a will results in the invalidity of the other dispositions
only if it is to be presumed that the testator would not have made these if the invalid disposition
had not been made.

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: A witness may be called upon to provide testimony as to what the
imperfection is (rule 130) DEAD MANS STAUTUTE: plaintiff is the claimant and the defendant
is the executor, both parties are prohibited to testify.


This 793 article creates problems which would not have existed had it not been so nonchalantly
incorporated in the Code, an implant from the Code of Civil Procedure and ultimately from
American law.

The problem springs from the fact that this article makes the will speak as of the time it is made,
rather than at the time of the decedents death [which is more logical because that is when the
will takes effect according to Article 777].
Illustration X executes a will in 1985 containing a legacy: I give to M all my shares in BPI.
The testator dies in 1990, owning at the time of his death ten times as many BPI shares as he
did when he made the will.
Under Article 793, the shares acquired after the will was executed are not included in the
legacy.

Article 793 therefore departs from the codal philosophy of Articles 774 and 776 and constitutes
an EXCEPTION to the concept of succession as linked to death and rendered legally effective
by death.

Prof. Balane suggests the provisions be reworded as: Property acquired after the making of a
will passes thereby unless the contrary clearly appears from the words or the context of the will.
In the meantime, it is suggested that a liberal application of the article be allowed.
Can the word expressly in this article be interpreted to mean clearly even if it might be
stretching a point?
This article 794 should be read together with Art929, which provides that if the testator, heir, or
legatee owns only a part of or an interest in the thing bequeathed, the legacy or devise shall be
understood limited to such part or interest, unless the testator expressly declares that he gives
the thing in its entirety.

GENERAL RULE in a legacy or devise the testator gives exactly the interest he has in the
thing.
EXCEPTIONS he can give a less interest [Art794] or a greater interest
[Art929] than he has.

In the latter case, if the person owning the interest to be acquired does not wish to part with it,
the solution in Art931 can be applied wherein the legatee or devisee shall be entitled only to the
JUST VALUE OF THE INTEREST that should have been acquired.

All assets subsequently acquired after the making of the will would have to pass by intestate
succession. Art. 793 pertains to props after execution of the will, Art. 781 pertains to prop w/c
accrued after the death of the testator.

RE-CAP OF THE RULES ON INTERPRETATION
AND CONSTRUCTION OF WILLS

In case of doubt, testacy is preferred and disposition should be interpreted in manner which
would make it operative.

Two kinds of Ambiguities
Latent imperfect description or when no person or property exactly answers to description.
Patent based on the face of the will as to the application of any of its provisions

In case of ambiguity, may resort to any evidence, even extrinsic evidence, but may not resort to
oral declarations of the testator as to his intention.

Words of a will shall be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense, unless:
Another sense or meaning is clearly intended to be used, and
That other sense or meaning can be ascertained

Technical words shall be taken in technical sense, except:
When context clearly indicates otherwise
Will was drawn solely by the testator and he was not acquainted with the technical meaning of
such word.

Words are to receive interpretation which will give it some effect.

Invalidity of one disposition in a will does not mean the other dispositions are also invalid.
But invalidity of one provision affects the other if it is to be presumed that the testator would not
have made such other disposition if the first invalid disposition had not been made.

Property that is acquired by the testator after the will was executed shall only be transmitted
along with those in the will, if the testator expressly states in the will that such is his intention.

A devise of legacy shall transmit the whole extent of the testators interest in the property
disposed.
Except when it clearly appears that the testator intended to convey a less interest.

ASPECTS OF VALIDITY OF WILLS
EXTRINSIC refers to the requirement of form / formal validity
Governing law as to TIME
Filipinos law in force when the will was executed [Art795]
Foreigners same rile. The assumption here is that the will is being probated in the Philippines.

Governing law as to PLACE
Filipinos or Foreigners
Law of citizenship
Law of domicile
Law of residence
Law of place of execution, or
Philippine law
Articles 815-817 - Rules of formal validity
Filipino Abroad - According to the law in the country in which he may be and may be probated
in the Philippines
Alien abroad - Has effect in the Philippines if made according to: Law of place where he
resides, Law of his own country or Philippine law
Alien in the phils. - Valid in Phils. as if executed according to Phil. laws, if: Made according to
law of country which he is a citizen or subject, and May be proved and allowed by law of his
own country.


INTRINSIC refers to the substance of the provisions / substantive validity

Governing law as to TIME
Filipinos law at the time of death, in connection with Art2263.
Foreigners depends on their personal law [Art16, par2 and Art1039]

Governing law as to PLACE
Filipinos Philippine law [Art16 par2 and Art1039]
Foreigners their national law [Art16 par2 and Art1039]

Art2263 provides that Rights to the inheritance of a person who died, with or without a will,
before the effectivity of this Code [August 30, 1950], shall be governed by the Civil Code of
1889, by other previous laws, and by the Rules of Court. The inheritance of those who, with or
without a will, die after the beginning of the effectivity of this Code, shall be adjudicated and
distributed in accordance with this new body of laws and by the Rules of Court; but the
testamentary provisions shall be carried out insofar as they may be permitted by this Code.
Therefore, legitimes, betterments, legacies and bequests shall be respected; however, their
amount shall be reduced if in no other manner can every compulsory heir be given his full share
according to this Code.

Art16 par2 provides that 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 consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the
country wherein said property may be found.

While Art1039 provides that Capacity to Succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the
decedent.



NERI v. AKUTIN
FACTS: This is a case where the testator Agripino Neri in his will left all his property by
universal title to the children by his second marriage, the herein respondents, with omission of
the children by his first marriage, the herein petitioner. The omission of the heirs in the will was
contemplated by the testator with the belief that he had already given each of the children
portion of the inheritance, particularly a land he had abandoned was occupied by the
respondents over which registration was denied for it turned out to be a public land, and an
aggregate amount of money which the respondents were indebted to their father.

ISSUE: Should there be cancellation of the will, in view of the omission of heirs? Is there
disinheritance in this case?

HELD: Yes. The Court annulled the institution of heirs and declared a total intestacy on the
ground that testator left all his property by universal title to the children by his second marriage,
without expressly disinheriting the children by his first marriage but upon the erroneous belief
that he had given them already more shares in his property than those given to the children by
his second marriage. Disinheritance made without a statement of the cause, if contested, shall
annul the institution of heirs in so far as it is prejudicial to the disinherited person. This is but a
case of preterition which annuls the institution of heirs.


Seangio vs. Hon. Amor A. Reyes
FACTS:
On September 1988, private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate
estate of the late Segundo. Petitioners opposed assailing among others that Segundo left a
holographic will which is entirely a declaration of disinheritance affecting Alfredo, one of the
private respondents. Private respondents opposed the probate on the ground that the
holographic will did not contain any disposition of the estate of the deceased. RTC dismissed
the petition for probate easoning that the holographic will clearly shows preterition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a holographic will.
RULING:
A holographic will must be written, dated and signed by the testator himself. An intent to dispose
mortis causa can be clearly deducted from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not
make an affirmative deposition of the latters property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, is an act of
disposition in itself. The disinheritance results in the disposition of the property in favor of those
who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.
With regard to the issue on preterition, the court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct
line were not preterited in the will. It was Segundos last expression bequeath his estate to all
his compulsory heirs, with the sole exception of Alfredo.

FISCHER V. JOHNSON: Daniel and Nellie Peterson (nochild) left a will to each other. Nelle
died. Before Daniel died, he wrote to his lawyer a handwritten letter with instructions on how to
dispose oof his properties and leaving the balance after funeral xpense to on L. Fscher. The
latter is also the executrix w/o ond. Daniel instructed put these explanation in my will if you
think it advisable and in the event this doesn reach u before my death, try to make this binding
as possible.. issue is the letter a will? No, this is simply a direction. The will was prared for four
to five times and made no effort to legalize it. The determination whther one is a will depends on
the intent of the testator.



DIZON-RIVERA v. DIZON: Agripina Valdez died with a will with 7 compulsory heirs (6 legit child
and 1 legit grandchild). Marina was executrix. Marina and tomas were given more than their
respective legitimes Marina submitted a project of partitions, while the oppositors submitted their
counter-project partition(reduction of all testamentary disposition proportionately to the value of
of the entire estate corresponding to the free portion and the other half to be divided among 7
heirs. Issu; w/n the dispositions in the will are in the nature of devisees imputable to the free
portion of the estate and thus subject to reduction each real property was specified, the
testamentary dispositions of the testatrix, being for compulsory heirs, need not to be taken only
from the free protion since Art. 842 provides one who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his
estate provided he does not contravene the provisions of the legitime of said heris. . The law
does not prohibit favored heirs.

Parish Priest of Victoria tarlac v. rigor:
Father Rigor, the parish priest of Pulilan, Bulacan, died on August 9, 1935, leaving a will
executed onOctober 29, 1933 which was probated by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac in its
order of December 5,1935. In addition to the devices contained therein, the will had a provision
to the effect that the testatorintended to devise the ricelands to his nearest male relative who
would become a priest. It was statedtherein that the parish priest of Victoria would administer
the ricelands only in two situations: one,during the interval of time that no nearest male relative
of the testator was studying for the priesthoodand two, in case the testator's nephew became a
priest and he was excommunicated.ISSUE:Whether or not a device in favour of a person who
se identity at the time of the testators death cannot
be ascertained, may be efficacious.RULING:No.The Supreme Court held that the said bequest
refers to the testator's nearest male relative
living at thetime of his death and not to any indefinite time thereafter .
"In order to be capacitated to inherit, theheir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment
the succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is proper"
(Art. 1025, Civil Code).The said testamentary provisions should be sensibly or reasonably
construed. To construe them asreferring to the testator's nearest male relative at
anytime after his death
would render the provisionsdifficult to apply and create uncertainty as to the disposition of his
estate. That could not have been hisintention.The reasonable view is that he was referring to a
situation whereby his nephew living at the time of hisdeath, who would like to become a priest,
was still in grade school or in high school or was not yet in theseminary. In that case, the parish
priest of Victoria would administer the ricelands before the nephewentered the seminary. But
the moment the testator's nephew entered the seminary, then he would beentitled to enjoy and
administer the ricelands and receive the fruits thereof. In that event, thetrusteeship would be
terminated


IN RE ESTATE OF RUSSEL:
Brief Fact Summary. Russell executed a will disposing of all her real and personal property to a
close friend and her dog. The trial court held that the gift to the dog was precatory in nature and
that the testator intended that her close friend care for the dog. Another beneficiary in the will
appealed the decision.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The anti-lapse statute applies to void gifts as well as beneficiaries who
predecease the testator. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the testators intent if in light
of the circumstances surrounding the creation of the will, the language in the will is susceptible
to two or more meanings.

Facts. Thelma Russell executed a will leaving her real and personal property to H. Quinn and
Roxy Russell. Roxy Russell was Russells dog. Russell also disposed of jewelry and money to
Georgia Nan Russell Hembree. The trial court held that Russell intended Quinn to receive all of
her personal and real property and that the gift to the testators dog merely reflected a wish that
Quinn care for the dog. Hembree appeals the decision.

Issue.
Whether a gift lapses under the anti-lapse statute if the gift is void?
Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible because the language of a will could reasonably
signify two or more meanings?
HELD: A gift lapses under an anti-lapse statute if the gift is void. Testamentary gifts to animals
are void. The gift to the dog lapses under the anti-lapse statute.
Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove the testators intent because the language of the
will does is not reasonably susceptible to one or more meaning. Here the testator left her
property to an person and to her dog. The language did not state that the testator was making a
gift to a person for the benefit of the dog. The will on its face makes a gift to the dog. The
language is not precatory in nature. Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove the testators
intent. In determining whether a gift is clear and definite, a court will consider outside evidence
concerning the creation of the will. However to prevent fraud, the court will not allow the
evidence if the will itself does not reasonably reflect the intent attempted to be proved by the
outside evidence.


Bellis v. Bellis
Amos Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States.
By his first wife, he had 5 legitimate children; by his second wife, he had 3 legitimate children;
and he had 3 illegitimate children.
Amos executed a will in the Philippines, in which he specified how his estate will be divided and
distributed.
Subsequently, Amos died, a resident of Texas.
His will was admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila.
The Peoples Bank, as executor of will, paid all the bequests included in Amos will.
Before closing its administration, the executor submitted its final report and project of partition.
However, 2 of Amos illegitimate children filed their oppositions to the project of partition on the
ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and therefore
compulsory heirs of the deceased.
The CFI issued an order overruling the oppositions and approving the executors final account,
report and project partition. The lower court, relying upon Art. 16 of the NCC, applied the
national law of Amos, which is the Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes.
The illegitimate children thus filed an Appeal.

Whether this case falls under Art. 17 of the NCC.
NO.
Appellants argue that their case falls under the circumstances mentioned in the 3rd paragraph
of Art. 17 in relation to Art. 16 of the NCC. It argues that Art. 17 prevails as the exception to Art.
16.
The SC rule that appellants argument is incorrect.
It ruled that the change in the NCC shows that whatever public policy and good customs may be
involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the
succession of foreign nationals. Congress has specifically chose to leave the amount of
successional rights to the decedents national law.

Whether Philippine law should govern to Amos Philippine estate.
NO. Appellants argued that Amos executed 2 wills one to govern his Texas estate and the
other his Philippine estate arguing that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine
estate.
The SC held that that a provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be
distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for
his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Art. 16 of the NCC states said
national law should govern.

Which law must apply Texas law or Philippine law?
Texas law applies.
The petitioners admit that Amos was a citizen of State of Texas and that under the laws of
Texas, there are no forced heirs of legitimes.
Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the
amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on
legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos.
Art. 16: Real property as well as personal property is subject ot the law of the country where it is
situated. However, intestate and testamentary succession, 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
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country
wherein said property may be found.
Art. 1039: Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
Art. 17: Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for
their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by
laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign
country.
The decedents national law governs the (1) order of succession, (2) the amount of successional
rights, (3) the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and (4) the capacity to succeed.
Testamentary provision that successional right to decedents estate would be governed by law
other than his national law if void, being contrary to article 16 of the NCC.