Page 1 of 81
Contents
16 June 2010...................................................1
I. CONCEPT OF SUCCESSION.............................1
21 June 2010...................................................1
23 June 2010...................................................2
28 June 2010...................................................3
II. WILLS..........................................................3
5 July 2010......................................................6
III. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY...........................7
IV. SOLEMNITIES OF WILL.................................9
28 June 2010...................................................9
12 July 2010..................................................12
19 July 2010..................................................14
21 July 2010..................................................18
26 July 2010..................................................21
28 July 2010..................................................22
V. INCORPORATION OF DOCUMENT BY
REFERENCE....................................................22
VI. CODICILS..................................................22
VII. REVOCATION............................................23
2 August 2010 ..............................................26
VIII. REPUBLICATION AND REVIVAL.................26
4 August 2010...............................................28
IX. ALLOWANCE OF WILLS...............................28
X. DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS..........................30
9 August 2010...............................................31
XI. INSTITUTION OF HEIRS..............................31
11 August 2010.............................................34
XII. SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS..........................34
16 August 2010.............................................36
XIII. KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS..........................37
23 August 2010.............................................38
XIV. LEGITIME................................................41
1 September 2010.........................................42
6 September 2010.........................................45
8 September 2010.........................................48
XV. PRETERITION............................................49
13 September 2010.......................................50
XIV. RESERVA TRONCAL..................................50
15 September 2010.......................................53
20 September 2010.......................................53
XVIII. DISINHERITANCE...................................54
22 September 2010.......................................56
INTESTATE SUCCESSION.................................56
23 September 2010.......................................60
RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION...........................60
27 September 2010.......................................62
RIGHT OF ACCRETION.....................................62
29 September 2010.......................................64
ACCEPTANCE AND REPUDIATION OF THE
INHERITANCE.................................................66
COLLATION....................................................67
4 October 2010.............................................68
CAPACITY.......................................................71
CAPACITY
16 June 2010
I. CONCEPT OF SUCCESSION
RECONSTRUCTED FROM WRITTEN NOTES
Own the cabinet, carpenter.
Tradition: actual and constructive
SUCCESSION: mode of acquisition,
Decedent and heirs two parties, a legal
relation
Subjects of succession: mode of acquiring
Absence of prenuptial agreement or marriage
settlement, default is CPG under the NCC. Ergo, marriage
is now a mode of acquiring property under ACP. Its not
only by law, because everything is by law.
SUCCESSION
A. Subjects
a. Decedent (A775)
b. Heir
B. Objects
C. Mode
Underline the word PERSON. What is a natural and
juridical person. There are only 3: corporation,
partnerships and trusts.
Natural person lang yang nasa 775.
May a juridical person be an heir? A1026 allows
corporation to be an heir.
Recipient Leona Hemsley left of estate to dogs. May
dogs be heir? There is an acceptance requirement in CC
1029 dispose property to ones soul for pious works.
Who is the heir here? The soul of the decedent
Cannot be without heirs: churg only managers property,
heredero herencia
Kailangang may namamatay sa succession.
Art. 41: baby/unborn child can be an heir.
21 June 2010
RECONSTRUCTED FROM WRITTEN NOTES
OBJECT - Property acquired through succession. AKA
inheritance or estate of deceased (may be used
interchangeably
What comprises inheritance? Right and obligations,
property which decedent owned during lifetime.
Are all property part of the estate of the decedent? NO,
only those not extinguished by death.
How do we know if extinguished? Nothing is said if
extinguished by death.
Guidelines (what included in inheritance): Purely
personal e.g.
Garcias wife marital status
Support
Suffrage
Are obligations included? YES e.g. Sharons contract to
perform town fiesta in Cebu cannot be inherited by KC,

worth half a million, unjust enrichment so Sharon should
return the amount, contractual stipulation.
MONETARY/PECUNIARY? Not established. Delivery of
things with pecuniary value.
Anabelle Rama pangbato lang ang diamonds. Claimant
after interment, 20M and 10M. Should Ruffa pay other
10M? No. While obligations form part of the estate, it
should not go beyond the values of property in estate
UNLESS conjugal in which case the CPG is chargeable.
Ruffa pays everything. It remains valid obligation under
A1429, not extinguished, but only becomes as a natural
obligation.
BEFORE estate is distribution, obligation must first be
paid. Manner of payment
How about corpse and cadaver? Who will inherit. No one.
Corpse is not property, for it is beyond commerce of
man.
Is it not a right of the nearest of the kin? Right to enforce
provision for
Why not include in the inheritance? Ms. Santos. Tawag.
A777 death.
Inchoate only before that.
Abu Sayyaf example. Actual and presumptive death.
Art 43. E.g. of insurance policies and beneficiary.
Applicability of Rule 132, issue is insurance benefits.
WON one is entitled.
Ms. Santos pa rin.
A390 and 391 v FC
No need for declaration of presumptive death in
succession.
Father of Jose in coma for 6 months. Confined at the
heart center. Intubated to machines, respirator and
feeding machines. Brain dead, life support may be
unplugged to easen his death, allow him to die naturally.
Instructions for death: Creamte, baon, donate. Open
drawers at house and found written document for
disposition of property.
Only daughter 10M@RCBC
Only son 10M@PNB, brand new Mercedes Benz
Jose wants unplugged. Gwapo pa sabi nila Tito at Tita.
Outvoted by needed money, so withdraw at the bank.
Ayaw payagan ng bank so benta na lang yung Benz kay
Ron. 6M actual price pero 3M lang ang benta.
1341? Not transfer to name because sale must be signed
by the registered owner. Forger crime and accomplice
in falsification.
Extrajudicial settlement, executed appointed in will.
Ms. Gutierrez, gather all assets, kwenta lahat ng utang.
Hospital bills not sufficient property.
May Ms. Gutierrez recover Benz from Ron? Yes, because
it was an invalid sale not yet owner yung nagbenta. He
only had mere inchoate right, so invalid as far as estate
is concerned.
Hanggat di bayad ang utang walang paghahatian ang
mga heirs. Kung may natira, saka lang ang mana ng
heirs.
Page 2 of 81
It is the duty and obligation of the executor to recover,
Rons 3m? Principle of relativity. Valid as to one party,
not valid as to estate.
Valid as to Ron and Jose, but may be rescinded as to in
good faith if both are in bad faith. Otherwise, bad faith.
PROVISION OF CC IN SALES
1461: emptio spei - sale of vain hope is void even as
between parties
emptio rei speratae sale of thing with potential
existence is valid (e.g. fruits of flowering tree, may
ultimately bear)
Yung will ng tatay, is it not potential existence?
Assuming it is, then go to 1346 (as to future inheritance)
Expressly authorized by law: what are the two questions?
Bar and good lawyers.
What is the effect, what is the status, what does it say?
Declare nullity expressly? What if it doesnt? Go to A5.
Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or
prohibitory laws shall be VOID, except when law itself
authorizes their validity.
Is 1347 what? What are the telltale signs? Look for
sanctions. E.g. criminal violation: fine, forfeiture,
imprisonment.
What are those exceptions? Memory of an elephant.
Implication: Authorized by law Only valid. Pag
authorized, dun lang sha valid. Otherwise, its not within
authorized exception.
2 questions: Contracts which are valid because
authorized by law. There are 2.
23 June 2010
RECONSTRUCTED FROM WRITTEN NOTES
Principle of presumptive death.
When did they die? Does it make a difference? Heir must
be alive at the time of death.
1347: General rule on contracts on future inheritance.
EXCEPT when the law allows.
What are those 2 contracts? NCC provided for 2 contracts
1. DPN future property (130 takes effect only in the
event of death)
2. Mortis causa, is that a contract? Is it a future
inheritance?
Death of donor conveyance. Donations are advances,
chargeable to the FP.
Is that a contract? Is donation a contract?
Can you contract with yourself? What do you call that
contract? Tawag Miss Santos. Autocontracts!
May donation be enforced? If Ron promises to give you a
Montblanc pen.
Inability to withdraw unilaterally from previous relations.
character of contracts.
BUT in succession, testator can always revoke the
dispositions he made.
Ring of Eva found by Ron in the sink. Can he withdraw
unilaterally? Perfected contract, undone there are
grounds for revocation of donation.

Is DPN a contract? Happen only mortis causa? A donation
but in reality, it is not. DMC is a will, thats why it
required compliance with a form to be valid. Its not a
contract.
DPN is a contract, even if mortis causa.
A132, look at A127 FC. A DPN whether future or present
need only be in writing, not form of will. Compliance with
SOF
A132 DPN withdrawal and revocation, there are 2
grounds.
Mortis causa revocable at will of testator, not revocable
at the will of the donor. In reality, a contract.
Expressly authorized by DPB A130 and !132 but modify
in FC. Not ordinary contract. It is again also a will but
general rule now applies.
Revocable again. Not a contract. ERGO not an exception.
So 1080: isa na lang ang exception: partition inter vivos.
1. SUBJECTS decedents, heirs
2. OBJECT inheritance/estate
3. MODES
a. Testamentary if valid, law will
implement it; decedent must have
executed a last will and testament
(hereinafter, LWT)
b. Intestacy legal succession
c. Mixed failure to dispose everything by
will.
2 lang talaga yan, mali yung Code Commission. Wala
namang separate rule for mixed mode. Inaccurate yung
classification in A780.
Contractual succession
CONTRACTUAL 100M in our conjugal property para ako
only heir mo sa will. Is that valid? Not a sale nor a gift.
But how to dispose estate, not gratuitous either. May
collatilla not allowed because its contractual
succession. Requirements for a valid will.
EXCEPT contract in A1347, i.e. 1080 (dati pwede yung
DPN as contractual succession) but no longer allowed.
TESTAMENTARY there has to be a will.
Memorize A783! Coz it says the characteristics of a will.
Suppose a friend died and you discover a document with
signature, how do we know its a will or not? This is
important because if it is or purports to be, it must have
been prescribed with formalities of law. It must be
invalid/unenforceable if not. It can be enforced for
probate, allowed property in document probate. Need
not be brought for probate, if not will.
What to look for in the document? Provisions that
disposes of property.
Get a copy of unauthorized publication/edition of Magic
Notes Danicon. But sometimes I change my mind.
Take effect mortis causa, then that document is not a
will. Dont apply principles of succession (?) to the
document.
Page 3 of 81
It is not defined as instrument/document: an act of
writing. Noncupative (oral) will not allowed in the
Philippines.
John Paul, son of Eva is my son? Rons diary.
1. Diary with a key? NO
2. Yellow pad. Humiliating me publicly, nothing
goes to my property. Magic notes. Indirect
disposition. Wala kay Tolentino yan!
How about first example, is that a will? It is a will? Part of
estate reserved to son, diba magmamana itong son?
Without acknowledgment, will illegitimate son inherit?
NO, putative must be recognized voluntary or
involuntarily.
How is recognition done?
VOLUNTARY initiative of father, record of birth sign
INVOLUNTARY court action; public document
CJ Davide: for signature to amount to recognition, father
must be aware that he is signing record of birth.
SUPERFICIAL LEARNING TO PASS EXAM. Learn principles
forver, no passion for law practice!
Not thinkable in our time to be in-house counsel no
matter how big gone in 5 years. The UP Law Glong. FC
176.
Anak ka sa labas, Miss Valenton borne 6PM, 10PM.
Nawawala, hinahati ang gabi. What if alam niya lahat yan
kasi abogado sha. Youre not recognized!!! You are not
properly recognized, when your dad dies tomorrow. Wala
ka mamanahin!
Pano ka marerecognize?
1. Confront your father and ask him to execute
something in FC 176
2. Demanda for action for compulsory recognition.
If he refuses, denies having fathered you.
Evidence:
a. Continuous possession
b. Pictures, tuition, report cards, public showing
Will you be able to inherit? NO, not voluntary.
Can you compel estate/relatives? No more. Clemea v
Clemea
Tissue specimen sa lab kasi cancer patient sha. DNA
99.9999% result match. Can you inherit? Not a form of
recognition. It is only an evidence in action (for
involuntary recognition) which I can no longer
commence.
How about a disposition of property in favor of the
illegitimate? Someone became an heir so its a will.
If a will which contains recognition of illegitimate child is
not executed validly, denied probate, will you still
inherit?
2 witnesses lang (law requires 3), invalid din ba yung
recognition?
Denied probate (sampal sa cannot follow) WON the
recognition subsists depends on ground of denying
probate.
If forgery: NO, because its not his act.

If other than forgery: It will not take affect as a
will, but effective as recognition because its still
public document.
Itaga niyo sa batok niyo yan, lalabas yan, sa batok niyo.
Suppose when I die, I appoint Jovie as administrator of
estate? Is that a will? Is there disposition of property
mortis causa? Makinig kayo saken, devote all attention to
me. Im a very very jealous master.
What if I say that I pay him 10K a month? Is that not
disposition of property?
28 June 2010
II. WILLS
In Art 779 Testamentary is defined as succession that
results from
Heir has to be designated in a document that is valid as
a will. Nobody becomes an heir in testamentary
succession unless the testator executes has executed a
will. If there is no will, there can be no testamentary
succession. To be testamentary heir, person point to a
valid will where his name is designated.
Suppose will does not designate an heir. May there be
testamentary succession? We have discussed last
meeting that for document to be a will, it must contain a
disposition of property mortis causa and that designation
may be direct or indirect. Last meeting, for there to be
testamentary succession, there has to be a will, without
which, there can be no testamentary succession.
Testamentary succession results if heir is designated.
What if no designation? Will there be testamentary
succession, where will this happen, suppose a testator
left a disinheriting will. Contains nothing but
disinheritance of compulsory heir. None of property go to
eldest son for having attempted on my life. It disposed
the share of son in favor of other compulsory heirs but
will there be testamentary succession? There is no
testamentary succession. There is a will, but no
testamentary succession. The properties of the testator
will be distributed as in intestacy. This is the reason why
intestacy is not defined in the code. Framers of code
could not agree on its definition. Some authors define it
to mean, succession that results when decedent dies
without a valid will. Wrong. As in this example, there is
valid will yet his estate will be distributed in intestacy.
Inaccurate kasi ang definition sa 779.
The word heir used in 779 is general. Used in its general
sense. Anybody who will receive something from
decedent mortis causa is an heir. Basta tatanggap sha
mortis cause from decedent, he is an heir.
Illustration: testator gave donation MC to a friend, the
friend who will receive something from decedent (the
friend wholl die in the future) is he an heir? Yes he is.
Because DMC is succession, its a will. Pag gumagawa
kayo ng DMC, will yan. Kaya favorite yan ng bar exams
sa forms. It must be executed as a will for DMC to be
Page 4 of 81
valid. Therefore, Donee in a DMC is an heir because hell
receive something from decedent in ___.
What is the difference between DIV and DMC?
Eva <3 Ron, sired two children. Ron says in order for my
children to save on taxes, Id rather give them my
properties while Im still alive. So he made this kind of
document: To my children, I give my property located in
Greenhills, SJ, consisting of 2 adjacent lots of equal area.
However, they shall take possession and ownership of
my property only when I die.
Smartmatic class. Lets put it to a vote. Its inter vivos
because there is difference between perfection and
delivery of the ownership. For as long as the contract is
perfected during lifetime of donor, it is IV although
possession or ownership is withheld. Pero the contract is
already perfected. What if delivery lang?
Pero kung take effect ang condition kapag namatay
sha? DMC
Incidence of the contract are made subject to the
condition DIV
Two kinds of heir: The importance of this distinction is
in preterition.
1. Instituted heir
If he is given the entire estate or an aliquot part
thereof
Aliquot part portion, but we dont know
what properties comprise that portion. Basta
yung value you are entitled to receive is
certain e.g. of the properties
If you are given the entire estate, or instituted as
sole and universal heir
2. Legatee or devisee
Legatee - gift of specific movable (legacy)
Devisee- gift of specific immovable (devisee)
Juridical basis of testamentary succession
Allow person to control the disposition of his estate
beyond the grave. Nasa ilalim na sha pero sinusunod pa
rin natin.
Will, pero how can a dead person have will?
Why do we allow a person to dispose his estate after his
death? In reality, this is not disposition after death, it is
before his death except it is made subject to a condition.
During his lifetime, he is entitled to dispose his property
subject to conditions. He can choose future event to
effect his disposition, why cant it be his death. To some
legal philosophers therefore, succession is a mere
species of disposition subject to disposition. That is the
juridical nature of testamentary succession.
Characteristics of a will
1. Purely statutory
Means that a person is allowed to make a will simply
because law allows him to make one.
To bring discussion to extreme, may congress
pass/enact a law abolishing provisions on wills and
succession? Yes! Thats why in communist countries

where private ownership is not allowed, institution of
laws succession and will become irrelevant.
When that happens where does law left behind go?
Regalian doctrine, revert to the state
Will is only enforced by the court because of the law.
Absent that legal command on the court to
implement the will, everything is just a request.
No longer discuss everything kasi madadaanan naman
natin yan. Wala na naman pasok sa Wednesday, sayang
ang one hour.
Interpretation of wills
1. If provisions of will are susceptible of being
interpreted in different ways. Which manner shall
prevail? Go to A788.
Presumption is that testator left a will for it to be
interpreted.
1. Two kinds of ambiguities in will:
a. Patent or extrinsic (how to pronounce
patent? Pilipino tayo, so short a)
Ambiguity disclosed by the very words of
the will.
E.g. I live my house to some of the 6
children of my brother Juan. Ilan dun sa
anim ang bibigyan?
a. Latent or intrinsic
Cannot be discovered by mere reading of
provision but when factual circumstances
are considered
E.g. I give house to cousin Pedro. But Apat na. Despite passage of new law, Ron did not bother
what if there are 2 cousins, ambiguity
becomes manifest because of
surrounding factual circumstances.
How to resolve? Caguioa says:
a. Latent: same kind of evidence except
oral. I.e. evidence outside body of
provision
b. Patent: same kind of evidence e.g. within
the words of the will, you cant go
outside. Disclosed by very words of the
will
c. Theory of old writers is to cure ambiguity
by same kind of evidence the ambiguity
is disclosed, pero tinanggal na yan lahat
ng 789
Art 789: upon the face means patent, within the
words
Tinanggal ng CC yung type of evidence that can cure
type of ambiguity. All kinds are now admissible except
oral declaration by the testator.
2. 790 madali na yan
3. 791 give effect to everything
4. 794: apply the ordinary rules on accession sa
property. Accessory follows the principal. He who
owns the principal owns the accessory. E.g.
house standing on a piece of land, whoever owns
the land, owns the building.
Page 5 of 81
Exception: Principal follows the accession. FC in
the reverse accession in property relations
between husband and wife, CPG. Bagong rule na
yan, sa NCC regardless of value.
Bobo na kayooooo! You want more proof?
Madami pa yan.
GENERAL RULE: Magkasamang ibibigay yung bahay.
UNLESS: sinabi niyang magkaiba ang pagbibigyan ng
bahay at lupa.
Law governing form
There are two aspects of will: [1] form and [2]
content/substance
1. FORM: manner on how will was written/executed
Sino ba nakapirma, pano pinirmahan
1. CONTENT: yung nakasulat; e.g. Ron leaving half
of his property to mistress Miss Ausan
FORM MUNA:
Question: If Mr. Garcia will execute his will, what law
must he comply in order for the will to be valid? Law at
the time he executed will or must will comply with
requirements of will at the time of his death?
Answer: A795. Time of execution. Kasi kung patay ka na,
pano ka pa magcocomply.
Concrete example: Today, Ron will execute his will after
class. Under the NCC, law requires at least 3 witness, for
his notarial will to be valid. Kayong tatlong Lady Gaga
(Jam, Eds and Ani), kayo witness ko dito. Year after he
made that, congress increased the number required.
to change his will. Ayoko na nabayaran ko na si Atty jan,
nanotaryohan na, so di na niya binago, when he died,
lumabas yung will pero tatlo lang testigo.
Is his will still a valid will? There is no question that at the
time it was executed, it was valid, at the time law
enforce require only three. YES, it is still valid. Why?
Dahil sa A795.
What if A795 was also repealed? A4 pero kasi expressly
provided suppose law provides for retroactive
application, does it also mean retroactive effect in all
cases? Retro application not allowed when it will impair
vested rights and constitutional right to impairment of
obligation of contracts. (Alameda, Velasco, Arias)
Convinced na kayong bobo kayo?
Even when the law does not provide for retroactive
application, it will nonetheless be allowed in what cases?
Intention is to make it curative statute, criminal statutes
that is more favorable to accused, procedural in nature
because its colorless (i.e. does not impair any vested
right) In re will of Riosa (for the first example)
After Mr. Garcia has executed his will, he acquires a
vested right? On what? On the continuing validity of his
will which cannot be impaired by a retroactive
application of a law amending he complied with in
executing his will.

How about the reverse? Today Ron made a will,
requested 3 of friends to act as witnesses, unfortunately,
one of the friends were disqualified from witnessing a
will. (e.g. less than 18) 15 lang si Eds. If he dies today
and submitted for probate, it will definitely deny for
failure to comply with requirement of 3 witnesses. Hindi
pa namamatay si Garcia, year after execution of will,
congress lowered the number of witnesses to two. So
when he died, the law only requires two witnesses. Has
the change in the law validated the will? No, because of
A795. But what if 795 is itself repealed, will you answer
be the same? The same pa rin yun. Ano reason? Invalid
will becomes valid at the time of death? Has somebody
acquired vested right to the invalidity of the will.
Definitely not the disposed heirs dahil inchoate lang sila.
Wala jan sa syllabus niyo. For the same reason, it will
amount to impairment of vested rights.
RULE AS TO FORM: Law that governs validity of contract,
law in force at the time of execution of the will. Not the
law in force at the time of death of testator.
AS TO PLACE OF EXECUTION: What law governs as to
form?
Example: A British subject was assigned by his company
to be a regional operations manager of SE Asia, his office
is situated in HK. Countries included in his jurisdiction are
Japan, Phil, Malaysia, Indonesia and SG but his base is
HK. As ROM he is required to visit all branches in those
countries and confer with officers of company stationed
in those branches. Makes rounds of these branches
regularly. Para shang si Rizal, may gf sa Japan, pag
pinas, may GF sa Mnaila. Ano tawag sa misis mo? Ron
says asawa. Mashado kang bulgar!!! Maybahay ang
asawa, pero pag mistress, maycondo. So he wont be
bored in Malaysia and Jakarta. Para shang si Rizal.
One day in Tokyo, he suffered mild heart attack. While
recuperating in hospital, he was seized of this fear of
dying, to prepare for his eventual death, he executed a
will in Tokyo. I want to execute my lawyer! Japanese
lawyers: Pwede pwede we will execute will in Japan.
What law must he observe for the will to be a valid will?
Supposing executed in Tokyo observing formalities
required under Jap law, but survived heart attack in
Tokyo. Nung nakita si maycondo, this is my will. When
something happens to me, this is how you distribute my
properties. You probate it sabi ni British subject.
Pano pag sa Indonesia namatay, nandito yung will,
executed in accordance with formalities prescribed under
Jap law, susubmit ngayon ni mistress sa Phil court for
probate? Issue: Is the will valid as to form?
If you were the Filipino judge, how do you rule on the
issue. Is it valid as to form? Ano ba sinusunod nating rule
sa Pinas: lex loci celebrationis Locus means path or
place law of the place of celebration, where it was
executed. But thats the general rule and there are
exceptions to it:
A817 general rule
A816 if you read em all, how do we sum up? When the
foreigner is in the Phil, he may observe law of country
which he is citizen (A817) lex nationalii. Eh nasa Pinas
Page 6 of 81
sha at foreigner sha, at Fno lawyer so ang inobserve ay
Fno law. What if British subject, executed in manila under
Phil law? What law applies in determining formal validity?
Yes applying GR A817. Law of place of celebration.
Suppose foreigner is abroad like in first example, British
in Tokyo, what law must British subject executed in
Tokyo for it to be valid in Phil? We apply here conflict
rules (PRIL) A817 ang sagot. May observe Jap law in
executing will.
HK law (place of domicile) in executing will in
Tokyo? Yes, because of A816
UK law for will to be validly executed in Tokyo?
Yes, A816 law of country
Phil law in executing will in Tokyo because
subject for probate in Phil court? (Bakit napasok
ang Phil law? I have 4 students now in Japan,
lawyering. Not Jap law but Phil law in Japan.
Lahat kayang gawin basta me bayad.) Yes, under
A816 when foreigner abroad may observe Phil in
execution of his will.
What if Phil citizen? Suppose son of Phil ambassador to
UN in NY studied law in NYU sa Manhattan for tax laws.
NY bar. Easiest bar ang NY bar, most difficult is California
bar. Remained natural born, never applied for
naturalization. After grad and passing NY bar, come
home for extended vacation with relatives. While in
Boracay, he almost drowned. While in hospital recovering
from drowning, thinking he was about to kick the bucket,
he made a will. But since NY lawyer, wrote will in
accordance with NY Law. True to his premonition, he died
in the hospital. Now submitted for probate in Phil court.
May the will be allowed probate? No, not allowed
probate.
Remember this: A Filipino in the Phil may observe
only one law for it to be valid. Phil law. Yun lang
ang pwede niya gamitin.
What if he is abroad what can he use? A817 lex loci
celeb. But when he is abroad, may he execute in
accordance with Phil law: Law is silent. Pagkukulang ng
batas, see Tolentinos comment. Walang nakalagay kung
ano mangyayari. Agree si Sir kay Arthur. Di naman tama
na di natin payagan. Kung yung punyetang British
subject pinayagan natin, pano pa kaya yung citizen
natin. Otherwise, violation yan ng equal protection. He is
treated a second class citizen in his own land.
Joint will not allowed in the Phil. What is it ba?
Nagkatuluyan si Gutierrez at Garcia. Imbitahan niyo ako
pag nagkatuluyan kayo. Nabuntis na ni Garcia.
Tumatahimik si Ron, uuuy taking it seriously. Gawa tayo
ng will natin. Pirma na you para same tayo will. Is that
allowed? Nope.
Just to be sure you know when a will is joint. Gumawa si
Ron ng will, nakita ni wife. Kinopya niya word for word
except for names, adjusted to make her will. Joint will ba
yun? Nope. Identical joint. Two separate wills may be
identical.
Miss Baviera teacher naming yan. Di sha pinagreretire
kasi ayaw niya. You will acquire the right frame of mind

through Ms. Baviera. Principles behind the law: What is
the reason behind the law? That is the bearing. The only
will that will remain invalid even if valid where it made
executed. Pinakagwapo si Ron sa Timbuktu, joint will
with Princess wife na may buto sa buhok ay valid. Not
valid in the Phil, even if valid there. Public policy against
joint will. Why? What is the public policy? Hindi lang
spouses yan ha, basta dalawa. Encourage parricide. Ang
layo diba? Bakit parricide? Pag-isipan niyo. We
continue next meeting. Next week because of Binoynoys
inauguration.
5 July 2010
Why prohibit joint will? In my opinion, that will also hold
true even if the will is not joint. It will tempt the person
who requested the will to commit murder.
AS TO FORM: only joint wills are prohibited even though
they are executed abroad. Look at Art 819: prohibited
preceding article covers only joint wills. E.g. execute
joint will in Timbuktu and come back here in the Phil. It
will not be probated. Invalid if the spouses are both
Filipino citizens. Suppose one of the spouses to the joint
will was a foreigner and they came home to the Phil and
one of them died and then submitted to Phil court for
probate? Will the Phil court allow the probate of joint will
of foreigner and Filipino? SC has already answer this
before. If the country of the foreigner spouse allows a
joint will, the joint will shall be valid insofar as foreigner
is concerned but invalid insofar as Fno spouse is
concerned. Some writers disagree in such a ruling of SC
but until SC has found or issued another ruling that is
convincing, this decision stands.
Take note that these are conflict rules with foreign
element: whenever several laws applicable, conflict rules
will only be applied if will is before Phil court being asked
to admit the will to probate. Otherwise, no room for
application of conflict rules unless it is before judge in
another jurisdiction country where renvoiz may be
requested to apply. Conflict room of the forum, dun lang
iaapply nung foreign judge yung Phil rule. This is only
material if the will is before a Phil court and judge for
probate.
Law governing content
AS TO TIME: Valid at the time of death of testator -
whether or not valid as to substance: time of testators
death, not the time of execution of the will.
AS TO SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS: determined by law
enforced at the time of testators death.
Miciano v Brimo: Turkish national executed will, Phil law
as to form. Provision: any of my heirs who will contest
the validity of this will shall do so at the expense of
losing his inheritance. One did not agree and filed a case
in court contesting validity of the will.
SC held through Romualdez: In the absence of any proof
as to what is provided in Turkish law, apply processual
presumption. The same laws in case of absence of
information. The provision in the will is simply illegal.
Page 7 of 81
Cayetano v Leonidas: Fino Nurse migrated to US,
pinamanahan yung niece (buti hindi yung DI). Submitted
to Court for probate. Disregarded some of compulsory
heirs. Court: we dont apply Phil law because at the time
of her death, she was already a US citizen by
naturalization. American law has no system of legitimes.
Well have problem here in terms of dual
citizenship. Gumawa ng will niya pero namatay.
Ano iaapply? Isa yan sa loopholes ng dual
citizenship law. Niraise ko yan nung ginagawa
yung law but they were rushing to pass it to get
the overseas filipinos votes.
May the testator choose which law governs the
disposition of his estate when he dies? Do we
allow that? Wala pang parameters.
Problem din sa persons.
Drilon: It should only apply for political matters.
(suffrage) Yung owning of land, political ba yun.
Mahihina yung nandun.
Circular No. 1 ginoma-goma pa. Di UP grad.
Pwede sila makasuhan ng falsification of public
documents dun. Reporting something as not an
official act. In that split second, someone might
have acquired a vested right, therefore
constitutional right violation. So dapat inamend
nila yun.
REQUISITES FOR A VALID WILL
1. Testamentary capacity
2. Animus testandi
3. Compliance with formalities or solemnities
a. General
b. Specific: Depends on whether
i. Notarial
ii. Holographic
4. Free and voluntary act
III. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY
Elements of capacity:
a. Age
How old? Not less than 18 years of age.
What happens when 16 years old, what is the status of
the will? Lets draw some parallelism.
In case of contract, when minor enters into contract?
Voidable. Consent of one of parties is vitiated. Only
the party who was incapacitated may bring an action
for annulment. Only the minor may bring action for
annulment.
In case of two minors: unenforceable Art 1403 (3)
What is the status of the will? Either void or valid. Dalawa
lang yan. Walang rescissible, unenforceable or voidable
will.
Invalid if it did not possess all the requisites of a valid
will. Basta isa jan wala, void ang will.
Suppose the 16 year old testator ratified his will when he
was already 20? Has the will been validated by such
ratification? It depends. Why? We will learn this in
republication. Nandun ang tamang sagot.

I was born 14 Feb 1960. On 12 Feb 1978, I executed a
will. Is the will valid? YES! Take note we dont reckon age
of person by calendar years. A year is 365 days. No
qualification as to leap or ordinary year. At least 3 leap
years yan. Masesetback yung 18th year ko by at least 3
days. CC mode of computation Art. 13.
When I am 18 years old. Must the entire 24 hours lapse
before I am considered 18? Or the start is enough to
consider me 18? 2 rules yan. Yung Spanish and American
rule. Spanish: kailangan matapos lahat ng 24 hours ng
day before your 18th year (not birthday). Sa American
law, pag nagstart na ang midnight, yun na yun.
Considered as completed. Walang midday fractional. May
0 year ba?
Sa pinas, what do we apply. But it looks like we apply
Spanish. Matapos yung 24 hours ng eve. 18th year must
have started. Di magiging kaso yan kasi isang araw lang.
a. Absence of express disqualification
Underline the word express. For somebody to be
disqualified, it must be expressly disqualified. He is
always presumed qualified.
Only one person is exempted if you look at the rules:
person below 18. Expressly disqualified yun.
b. Soundness of mind
Almost always element of legal capacity. In PFR, it is an
element of a valid marriage, for instance. When insane
marries, what is the status? Voidable. Not capable of
giving full consent to the marriage. Who may file? Insane
party lang. Pwede ba shang magfile ng kaso? Sane
spouse. Kung nalaman ko lang sira pala ulo mo, di kita
papakasalan. Only after celebration of marriage. Kung
alam niyang baliw, hindi sha aggrieved party. Dun nga
sila kinasal sa mental chapel. No legal capacity to file
action for annulment because he knew that he was
insane. Insane spouse: Kaya nga ako nagpakasal sayo
kasi sira ulo ko!
Suppose two insane people got married: Parehong sira
ulo. Sira ulo rin yung pari. Voidable pa rin. Si Justice
Paras lang nagsasabi na void yan. Pareho silang
defective ang consent, pero hindi totally absent. We
prescribe book written by Paras to criticize it. Marami
shang questionable positions.
Is the definition of soundness of mind for purposes of
marriage, contract and crime the same in making a will?
NO. law tells us what constitutes soundness of mind. San
nakalagay yun? A799. To be of sound mind NOT
NECESSARY that: SUFFICIENT that he is able to know:
1. Nature of estate to be disposed of
Itong si Garcia namatay. Tong gf niyang si Eva, tiningnan
yung gamit sa locker. Nakakita sha ng will. Nakalagay
dun: I, Ron Michael Garcia of sound disposing mind, with
the blessing of God to hereby publish the ff as my last
will and testament:
a. To my partner in life Eva Gutierez, I hereby give
the QC Memorial Circle
b. To Chi, the Luneta Grandstand
c. To Cams, the UP College of Law.
Page 8 of 81
Res ipsa loquitur. May sayad yang mamang yan!!! Di mo
na kailangang mag-isip. He doesnt know nature of his
estate he shall dispose in his will. Property nang may
property yung dinidispose niya. Though youll find out
later that he may dispose even if he does not own it, so
order executor to acquire of property. Bilhan mo ng
condo unit sa Alexandra si Eva. Kulang na lang ipamigay
ang Malacanang Arlegui house.
1. Proper objects of his bounty
Suppose ganito, namatay ang self-made man. Dami
pera! Nobody knows how he earned that money. of all
my wealth, in the interest of justice, to Batman and
Darna. Res ipsa loquitur din. Doesnt know proper objects
of bounty. No physical existence. Though youll find out
hindi necessarily you know person youre giving to.
Pwede nga complete stranger. I hereby give legacy of
10M to first Filipino who will win gold in the next
Olympiad. Maeestablish naman identity nun. San ba
gagawin yun? London. Natalo kasi ang France.
2. Character of his testamentary act
To my bestfriend, Mr. Tensuan absent no, I give my
favorite Rolex watch but pay 100,000 for it. Mejo may
sayad din. Mana ito, hindi dapat binabayaran. Essentially
gratuitous. No matter how we look at it. May sayad ka,
sir. Res ipsa loquitur.
When not of a sound mind, the will becomes invalid. Not
voidable. The testator did not have requisite capacity to
execute a valid will. Im sure you have learned in PFR
that capacity of natural person is presumed. Standard Oil
v Arenas. He who alleges that person has no legal
capacity must prove it. In the absence of such proof, the
presumption that natural person has capacity shall
prevail.
Presumption is reversed (burden of proof is shifted). Art
800, 2nd Par.
Problem: How do we know she is publicly known to be
insane. Halimbawa yung favorite niyong senador na kung
tawagin ay Brenda. When is publicly known as insane?
Confine to mental institution, asylum or sanitarium.
Halimbawa may bag lady. Lakad ng lakad si Eva taong
grasa, namatay bigla. Ang daming pera nung binulatlat!
Dami niyang napulot. Nobody suspected that the bale
she was carrying on her head was a bale of money.
Theres no case and theres no precedent, no other law
which tells us when an insane is publicly known as
insane. Ergo, it will now upon the sound discretion of
judge to determine WON a testator is publicly known as
insane 1 month or less before making of will.
Supervening incapacity
Sane at the time of the will but became insane later on.
ANIMUS TESTANDI
Made with the purpose and intention to make it his last
will and testament. Manolo Quezon, umakyat nang
paluhod sa Malacanang, walang historical basis. On the
eve, relatives of Rizal went into hiding. Pero bago sila
nagtago, 2 sisters of rizal, Concepcion went to Fort
Santiago to visit Rizal. There, Rizal had personal effects
coz he lived there for months. Waited for his trial and
during his trial. Caliente Adrada, his lawyer. Witnesses
 Page 9 of 81

represented. Pio Valenzuela. Bottle still there, damit and
writing materials. Kept after his execution in 3 or 4
chests. They became national relics overnight when
Americans proclaimed him as hero. Raging controversy
WON he should be our national hero. Heir to fortune left
behind by his landed parents. Pano yung mga shares
niya jan. May isa shang anak by Josephine Bracken, but
he died during infancy so wala shang bloodline unlike
Jesus Christ who according to Da Vinci Code has
bloodline by Mary Magdalene. House of Lauren in France.
The roselins of Scotland. Bat ba tayo napunta dun. Some
of these relatives were claiming those properties left
behind by rizal by inheritance. Outside na kayo sa
recognized as heirs, kasi walang will. He left a will daw!
Yung mi ultimo adios. Its only a title we gave to the
manuscript. Walang title yun. He gave hint to his sister
that something was there in the oil lamp. Copied (kasi
wala pang Xerox). One copy on lap of Andres who
translated to Tagalog and it was reproduced on day of
his execution. Its a work in verse poem, parang poem.
Versos Alejandrinos. Perfect meter, perfect rhyme. 14
syllables. Suspicion that this had been in his mind,
months before execution and wrote it before his
execution. Holographic will ito! Written, signed and dated
by him.
What do you look for in a will to determine won it is a
will. Disposition of property, mortis cause. Yung last
verse po! Kami po yung relatives. Rizal was more than
18. 33 sha when he died. May animus testandi ba? 24
units of Spanish. Tierra. Marcha etc Filipina. Music by
Julian Felipe. Lyrics by Felipe Calderon. Rafael Palma.
Charles something. Is mi ultimo adios a will? And sir
recites it in Spanish. O_o Really nice line I loved. Sobre
dadfaka; mia. Entre las yerba scintilla flor. If one day on
my tomb, you will see sprouting wild grass in the midst.
Milde flor. Humble flower. Bring it to your lips, to my soul.
Frente forehead. Ternura warm soplo rest haplos.
Warmth of your breath halitor kaya nga halitosis. And let
your forehead Feel the tenderness of your caress and
warmth of your breath. WILL BA YON!?!? PARANG WALA
YATANG WILL DUN. When my tomb is forgotten by
everyone, mark the place. Are is hope. Let the hope of a
man till it with a shovel so that it will be disperse. Parang
yung abo sa creamtion. Dig it up and till it. Get my ash
and scatter so it will form the powder. Polvo. Alpombra is
carpet.
invalid. Why? Kasi patay na sha, mahirap tanungin. Baka
mamaya, the will being passed on is a forgery. Baka
naman ang gumawa niyan eh one of the heirs at finorge
ang pirma ni testator. The law allows will to be
implemented by court action. The law allows it only if the
will is indeed that of the decedent. Therefore, the law has
to provide safeguards to ensure that will being passed on
to us is indeed the will of the decedent testator. Ensure
and somehow help ensure the genuiness of will, the law
prescribes certain solemnities that must follow.
Otherwise, there arises presumption that will was not
that of the testator or he did not have soundness of mind
at the time of execution.
VOLUNTARY ACT
Hindi pwedeng pinilit, niloko kasi kung niloko, pinaprima
sa blank piece of paper, hindi valid yung will. Kasi hindi
sha voluntary act. Tinutukan ng baril ni Eva si Ron:
kumuha kang lapis at papel. Bibigay mo sakin lahat kung
indi barili kita!
Pano kung sabi ni Ron, kalabit si Eva. Amoy pinipig ka.
San galing yun? Sa john en Marsha yun. Shows age. Yung
mga bata lalabas sa kwarto. Op op op, walang kakain ng
pinipig unless pripirmahan mo ito. Ano tawag jan: PLAIN
AND SIMPLE BLACKMAIL!!! Dahil gusto niya kumain ng
pinipig, pinirmahan niya. Masarap yan kasi malutong sa
halo-halo. Baka hindi sha free and voluntary.
For threat to vitiate the consent of testator, it must be
enough injury to cost him his life for him OR the threat
must be believable. Kukurutin kita til you die! Di yan
believable, sufficient to vitiate consent of testatrix.
Yung last two na lang ang ididiscuss natin in detail.

Mi Ultimo Adios is not a will. Rizal did not have intention

to have that document his last will and testament. Its an
expression of Rizals sentiment for his countrymen on the
eve of his execution. Thats his only purpose. For his
countrymen to know what his sentiments were on the
eve of his execution. Kung dun sa last verse niya: Dulce
stranger. Josephine Bracken. Sweet Stranger. E di
kasama rin sha sa heredera. Mystery what happened to
her. She just vanished. She went back to Scotland.

Thats not a will because there was no animus testandi.

COMPLIANCE WITH FORMALITIES OR

SOLEMNITIES
Youll have to follow a protocol/formula in executing a
will. If these formalities were not complied with, will is

IV. SOLEMNITIES OF WILL
FORMAL REQUISITES Apply to all kinds of will.
A. General Solemnities
GENERAL
1. In writing
Is there definition of what writing is? Standard English
definition dictionary has it. Did you bother to look? Lagi
kayo dapat nag-iisip? Problems as to implementation.
What do we mean by writing?
Mr. Garcia is Chinese pala. Kaso ayaw niya ng
monosyllabic surname. So ginamit niya yung name ng
sponsor. Sakia Academy and Grace Christian. Marunong
magchinese characters. Submitted to Fino judge for
probate? Valid ba ang will in Chinese characters? Of
course, its a form of writing. Egyptian heiroglyphics. Or
writing of Aryans. Charlemagne pursuit. Higante, blue
eyes. Lost race. Napunta ata sila sa Antarctica. May
rosette stone to decipher ito. Ginawa niya yung code
niya. The bible is written in codes parang da Vinci code
to convey a secret message. Wrote will in that code. Its
certainly a form of writing.
Mr. Garcia, yumaman, dami dami will ko. Record digitally
through a camera, nirecord niya ang last will and
testament. Non-recordable disc. Is that writing? How do
you define writing? Normally, ang definition niyan ay set
of symbols, whose meaning may be perceived by a sense
of sight. Not like mahjong. Di pa sinasalat mo yan. Hindi
mo tinitingnan pero alam mo yung baraha. Braille for
instance. Device invented by Braille to allow blind people
to read. Letters represented by embossed dots. So
kinakapa at sinasalat ng bulag. Configuration of dots on
writing material will make him perceive. Di naman sense
of sight yung nagpeperceive din. Sa record, hindi naman
mata or hipo, but hipo yung magsasabi ng last will and
testament. Nobody will question yung Braille though not
perceived by sense of sight. Person who is not a blind
man e.g. the one who makes transcription can see.
Say: pwedeng gawan ng transcript. Pwede bang maging
will yun? Those are the issues involved in determining
WON document is in writing. Not to mention the material.
Pwede bang nakasulat sa wall of the prison? To present
that as exhibit, gigibain yung prison or judge will ocular
inspection. Pwede sa cloth, pero not sa tubig. Pang-utang
lang yun. With the advent of technology, the issue of
what constitutes writing has arisen. Later on, youll find
out, even if digital recording qualify as writing, its not a
will because cannot comply at the specific requirements.
The writing must be a document.
28 June 2010
2. In a language known to testator
Why? Ensure that what was written was what was
intended. If the will was written not known to the
testator, how was he to know that what was written there
was what he intended? Interpreter not accurate. There
will be a big gap between what was written and the
Page 10 of 81
meaning of interpreted words. And so the law to prevent
fraud against the testator, requires that it be written in a
language known to testator.
Does in writing requirement mean illiterate people
cant make will? No. if you see in code, theres no
requirement that literate. But there is an additional
safeguard/requirement for illiterate.
How? Somebody will write the will for him.
He cant read, how to know if he agrees with the
content? Then ask that person to read it aloud to him.
If written in language not known to him, theres a second
step. On the other hand, if language known to him, all
that needs to be done is to read it. To know that he is not
being defrauded, call another person to read it. Easy for
him to check whether what was written is what he
desired to be written.
Suppose: Garcia comes from Ilocos (GI), genuine Ilocano.
Eva Gutierrez Ibatan. AY Garcia, Ilonggo ka na lang. So
you proposed to Eva after you pass the bar. Uuwi tayo sa
Batanes. Serve my people there. Eh true love. TL. So Ron
accepted the condition and they went to Batanes and
they lived there til old and grey. Namatay si Ron. After
he died, theres a will in one of his drawers in his room
captioned Last Will and Testament in Yvatan. Sabi
ngayon ngkamag-anak ni Ron, that will is invalid because
our brother is Ilonggo. He didnt know Yvatan dialect, so
it wasnt written by him. Must have been written by
somebody else. Notarial will in Yvatan. Is the will a valid
will?
Theres a case assigned: Abangan v Abangan. He is
presumed to know the language/dialect of place where
he habitually resided during his lifetime. There is a
presumption, so since Ilonggo Garcia resided in Basco,
Batanes and it became his habitual residence/domicile,
under the law he is presumed to know the language of
the place. He is presumed to know Yvatan. That
presumption however is not conclusive but merely
rebuttable. He who alleges that despite long years in
Batanes, Ron never learned the dialect, has to prove it.
Its gonna be a matter of evidence. What evidence may
be akin to use to prove that he did not learn it.
Suroza v Honrado: Merong gumawa ng will in English.
Ano nakalagay sa first paragraph of sound disposing
mind hereby publish this will sa dulo nakalagay: the
foregoing is my last will and testament, it was translated
to me in the native language. If he knew the English
language, what was the need for translation. The very
will provided evidence that he did not know the language
tht the will was written. Tiyak na hindi UP Law grad yun.
Gagawa ng krimen, may iniwanang ebidinsiya.
A. Specific solemnities
Depends on:
a. Notarial/Ordinary/Attested
i. Ordinary
ii. Special
a. Holographic

Parang halo-halo at siopao lang yan. Ron, ano nilalagay
pag special halohalo? Icecream? No! Leche flan!
Why notarial? If you look at CC provision, walang special
name givne. So many writers have ascribed many
different names. Some call it an ordinary will some
attested will if you are under Prfo. Balane. Thats how he
calls it. Caguioa calls it notarial Notarial na lang para
mas precise.
Have you checked English dictionary: is there an entry
for holographic. Its from Spanish holografico. Shempre
silent H. Teacher ko sa engineering, sinasabi sa English.
Naubusan sha ng English, pukpokized. Sin of reporters:
English to Spanish.
For this will to be valid, intervention of notary public is
necessary. It must be notarized otherwise, not valid.
What are the ordinary requirements for valid notarial
will?
Embodied in 805 and 806. When I was student, Sir
Balane asks us to recite it. Justice Puno: habang
jumijingle recite.
805: specific ordinary requirements. Minority na ayaw
mag-JD. BA lang ang degree Oxford. Gumaya tayo sa
Ateneo, gaya-gaya tayo.
May the testator in the very will, provide for a waiver in
complying with specific requirements? I hereby publish
my last will and testament. Desire not to follow the
formalities prescribed by law. May the very will provide
waiver? May the testator waive compliance with the
specific requirements? NO, the testator cannot waive
compliance with specific formalities. Compliance with
these specific formalities is MANDATORY. Kasi nga di
natin alam kung sha gumawa. Baka nga kaya winewaive
kasi hindi sha gumawa kaya kapag winaive hindi sila
makakacomply kasi theyre not the testators.
Reason behind formalities: close the door against bad
faith and fraud. To avoid forgeries and substitution of
wills and guarantee the voluntariness of the acts.
WHAT ARE THESE SPECIFIC FORMALITIES?
1. Every will, other than holographic, must be
subscribed at the end thereof.
What is not ordinary in that phrase? Subscribed. What do
you mean by subscribed? Assume I want to be assured
supply of water and newspaper, I subscribe. Oh I
subscribe to that idea! In this context, what does
subscribe mean? Sub means under and script means
write. So write under! Nung araw, wala pang
computers and gadgets to facilitate communication, if
businessman wants to have buyers of newspaper,
naglilibot sha ng papel. Sa papel nakakaannounce we
intend to publish newspaper for community, if you agree
or support this project, pay this much and then write
your name under. Ergo, subscribe. Kaya subscribe to the
newspaper, sulat sa ilalim ng paper.
Page 11 of 81
As used in wills, subscribe means sign or affix ones
signature. Yun ang meaning nya.
Law therefore requires will to be signed by testator.
What is the purpose behind this requirement:
a. Authentication. Express authorship of the
document by signing the document, the
testator admits authorship. That document
was my act. Import of somebody signing a
document. Claiming authorship of the act.
b. Identification. After the death of testator:
identify the document. Kay Mr. Garcia yan,
pirma niya yan eh!
What signature is needed? How must testator sign in
order to comply with this requirement? Initials?
Nickname? Last name? Screen name if he is a celebrity
or movie star? May he sign with his alias? Nom de
guerre, nome de plume? Rizal: Dimasalang (Masonic
name wala shang nom de guerre?) Marcelo del Pilar:
Plaridel. Wow literate kayo.
How must he sign?
What if Ron does this: RON GARCIA (block prints) or in
Ron Garcia (in script) or in pirmang di maintindihan,
artful may pabalik balik pa.
Any mark will do in executing his last will and testament.
Pwede niyang imispell parang si Barbra pero sa birth
certificate niya Barbara yun. Ang kuleet. Binar yung bra.
Braless yung dating. So maski misspelled yan. Yung mga
tumatanda, pati spelling ng pangalann nila
nakakalimutan nila. May mga kliyente akong nalilimutan
yung spelling. For so long as they affix the name,
signature, mark with the intention to use that in
executing last will and testament, that is a valid and
sufficient signature.
How about a thumbmark? May a noreadnowrite testator
sign his will with a thumbmark? Yes and theres a case
assigned in the syllabus. Matias v Salud.
But suppose the testator was very literate. He even has
PhD. But at his death, theres a will but it was only signed
by his thumbmark. Will that be a valid signature for the
purpose of being a will? Yes! Its still a mark! And as long
as he intended it to be his signature, its still valid
signature.
How about if it was a mere cross, is that a sufficient
signature? In Abaya v Salamero, SC held that if it was
intended by testator to be his signature in last will and
testament, it is sufficient. How we establish the intention
is a matter of proof. However in Garcia v Lacuesta, SC
qualified Abaya v Salamero. Insufficient if it is not usual
way he signs his name during his lifetime. And if it
appears that he is literate it is not sufficient. Kailangan
ipakita its one the ways he signs Baka kasi implication
ng cross ay ayaw kong pirmahan. Kaya nga di ko chineck
eh. Abaya was not abandoned in Garcia. Important: Proof
of intention.
Where must the testator sign? Provisions says at the end
of the will. What will be the question you should ask
yourselves? Where is the end of the will?

Problema ba yun? Kung kayo ay imaginative, problema
yun.
Halimbawa iisa lang bond paper niya. Nagsulat sha jan.
nagsulat nagsulat Nako kinapos!!! Nilagyan tuloy ng
arrow. Where must he sign? Logical end
1. Physical end: point in space farthest from
beginning of the will.
2. Logical end: where the dispositions end. Kung
san sha natapos mag-dispose.
In this example, the testator should sign here.
ROOOOON.
Daf;adjaf;dfa;dfkja;djkfa;df;a
Signed: Ron
Date
dkfaj;dfkad;jfka;dfdfaj;fadkfj;adj;adkfa;djfkad;fakdf;adkjfadjkfadf
adadfadfadfadfadfadkdjf;;
What if testator has no hands? Halimbawa si Ron
naaksidente, makakapirma ba yan? Sir yung paa niya.
Pwede kung natutunan niyang sumulat at pumirma using
his feet or mouth while biting the pen, then he can do so.
Wala na kasi shang thumbmark, pano yung toemark?
Valid ba kung hinlalaki ng paa niya. Any mark!!! Intended
by him to be his signature will suffice. Nakakahiya
naman. Suppose di sha natuto. Does it mean he can no
longer make a will? No. he can ask somebody to write his
name for him. Take note how the law was worded. Hindi
sinabi na he shall ask another to sign for him.
Testator may delegate the writing of name for him.
But for that somebody to write the name of testator for
him, two requirements have to be complied with:
a. Upon express direction of testator
Tatay ni Ron nasa ospital, may sakit, nakacoma. So
gumawa si Ron ng will, giving to himself all the wealth of
his father. Punta sha sa hospital, Dad, remember napag-
usapan natin before yun diba. 75% skain. So before you
leave us, gumawa na ako ng will in accordance with your
desire napag-usapan natin before. Kung di ka naman
makapirma, ipipirma na kita. Ipirpirma na kita. Hind
nagshake ng hand!!! Ay hindi nagshake. Ipipirma na
kita! Di pwede kasi nga dapat nga express. Dapat
sabihin niya Oy isulat mo pangalan ko jna. Express
direction.
Who may testator request to sign the name for him? May
a minor of tender age like 15 years, be requested by the
testator as his delegate in writing his name on the will?
Correct answer is it depends. Take note law does not
require delegate to be of age but we can only gather
the qualification of delegate from the requirements for
validity of the act e.g. express direction. He must be of
sufficient maturity to be able to comprehend the
Page 12 of 81
directions of the testator. Must be able to read and write.
In DLCs opinion, those are the only qualficiation for the
delegate:
Read and write
Such age to comprehend and execute
the express direction of the testator
So pwede na yung 15 year old, hs student nay un.
Nakakaintindi na yun. Pwede pa nga isulat pangalan niya
sa will as an heir.
How about one of the witnesses to the will, may he be
the delegate? There are two views:
1. NOT reason later when we reach witnesses
2.
What name must the delegate write on the will?
- Suppose he wrote his name, is the will valid? No. he is
not required to write the name on the will. What he is
required to write is name of the testator. He is not even
required to copy the signature of the testator. He is
required to write the name of the testator.
- Suppose he wrote the name of testator and wrote his
name too, will the writing of his name invalidate the will?
NO. name of delegate written on the will will be treated
as mere surplusage.
But if delegate wrote his name, but not the testator, the
will is invalid. It does not comply with formality that it
must be signed by the testator at the end thereof.
How must the delegate write the name of the testator?
Iho sulat mo yung name ko jan. Nanginginig na yung
kamay ko eh! Kinuha ni iho yung rubber facsimile stamp
with his sign, how must the delegate write the name of
the testator?
In re Balonan v Javellana: Happened in Vigan, Ilocos Sur,
there was this spinster who executed her last will and
testament written in Spanish, the language known and
spoken by the testatrix. Eh nangingig na kamay testatrix
so she asked the nephew to write name on the will. The
nephew typed the name in the. Por La Testadora Dona
Maria Singson De Leon. Pinirmahan nung nephew.
Delegate typed the name of the testatrix pero hindi niya
isinulat with his handwriting. Is the will valid? SC said no
because the delegate didnt write the name.
What is the implication of the courts ruling in Balonan v
Javellana: the delegate must write name of testator in his
own handwriting. Di pwedeng mechanical ang pagsusulat
ng pangalan testator. Thats the obiter implication.
Law requires the delegate to write the name of the
testator in the presence of testator: what if ganito: Sabi
ni sick Eva kay househelp Inday, you go to study room.
Sa first drawer to the right, open it and get my will. You
see there, may papel nakasulat last will and testament.
Ieexecute ko yan. Naku Ate (not Senora, sa old movies
lang yun) , pano kaw pirma nakabandage ka! Pagbalik
niya: Oh ate napirmahan ko na. Nakasulat na pangalan
mo jan. Is the will valid? Strict reading of code, not valid.
Kasi delegate did not write the name in the presence of
the testator. This is mandatory. Signing not in the
presence of testator and confirming the writing before
testator later on is not allowed. Will that be substantial
compliance? Later pag-uusapan natin yan. Substantial

compliance kasi amounts to compliance. But when is
there substantial compliance?
IDISCUSS NA NGA NATIN. TOTAL NASIMULAN KO NA.
Compliance with solemnity:
Compliance
Non-compliance VOID
Full compliance walang problema,
natural VALID when compliance to the
law is to the letter. Literal compliance.
Substantial compliance VALID: manner
of execution followed by the testator was
not in literal compliance with the
provisions of the law. But while the
manner followed was not literal, it
nonetheless served the purpose behind
the required formality. It served the
purpose of formality.
Judge-made doctrine. Never nga namention dati sa OCC
yan. But now meron na in Art 809. Its a new provision.
So sa kaso ni Inday, pinirmahan niya sa kabilang room
pero dinala kagad kay Eva: is that substantial
compliance? We will reserve the discussion when we
reach A809.
Take note that delegate not required to read the will.
How to write, block print, cursive. Pwede ba Chinese
characters kung Chinese yung delegate? Di ata.
a. In his presence of testator
Take note that the testator must sign the will in the
presence of the three witnesses, therefore, so must the
delegate.
Where must delegate write testator? Where the testator
is supposed to sign. At the end of the will.
1. Attested and subscribed by 3 or more
credible witnesses
Testator subscribed lang. witnesses attested AND
subscribed.
Ano yung attested? In the documents issued by
president, it means certified. Pero in wills and
succession, it means observed and witnessed
What must these witnesses witness? The testator in his
act of signing. The testators act of executing his will.
Ang tanong ninyo jan: bakit tatlong testigo na dapat
makakita? Kasi this will will most likely be submitted to
court for probate when the testator is dead so somebody
has to vouch the authenticity of the will. Somebody must
be there. Who the judge will question and opposing
counsel will cross-examine to find out if it was executed
freely and voluntarily.
Sir bakit tatlo? At least may dalawang spare, pag
namatay yung isa.
Mas mahirap nating palitan ang dokumento pag tatlo ang
testigo kasi the law requires them to subscribe. They will
have to sign each and every page of the will except the
last on the left hand margin.
Page 13 of 81
Later on namatay na yung testator, tas mamaya nakita
ng heirs. Binigyan ng malaking mana nung DI sa third
page. Apat na pirma ang pepekein nila kaya mahihirapan
silang gawin yun. Kaya may ganyang requirements.
Testator invited 3 close friends in the morning of a
Saturday to come to his house to become instrumental
witnesses of his will. Dun na kayo magmerienda. 9:00 AM
you will witness in my execution of will. Kaya lang la na
yung testator nung dumating sila. Sabungero kasi, 10AM
sabong na. So ginawa ni testator, wala pa witness niya,
pumirma na sha. Pagbalik niya mejo good mood, nanalo
manok niya. Late kayo! Oo nga pare pasensha. O ayan
pirmahan niyo yan ha. Is the will valid? If you look at
requirements of the law, no literal compliance. Di naman
pinirmahan in the presence, he signed it alone and
acknowledged that the signature on the pages of the will
were his. Is there substantial compliance?
To comply with requirement of witness attestation, must
the witnesses see that testator sign? In one case,
Jaboneta v Justilo yung testator nagschedule ng day to
executive will so invited 3 close friends as witnesses and
the notary public to be there as well. Merong
photographer para nga naman may additional evidence.
Kinodakan yung event. Basta may kumilos, may shot.
Some heirs given less than expected, they want to
oppose probate of will. Walang maisip na ground. Nakita
yung pictures, nakatayo sa likod yung witnesses. Notary
public nasa gilid. In so many photographs, habang
pumipirma yung testator, the witness was chatting with
somebody. Walang kahit isang photo na nakatingin sha.
Disgruntled heirs used this. Therefore there were only
two witnesses kasi daldal ng daldal yung isa he didnt
actually see the testator sign! SC: memorize taon taon
lumalabas sa bar ito: The law does not require the
witnesses to actually see the testator sign his will. It is
enough if the witness could have seen the testator sign
by merely casting their eyes in the proper direction.
Reiterated in the cases assigned.
12 July 2010
Jaboneta v Justilo was reiterated in many cases and in
fact, I assigned to you Nera v Rimando.
Not required to actually see the testator sign. It is
enough that the testator or witnesses could have seen
the other sign had they wanted to do so by casting their
eyes to the proper distinction.
Jaboneta: standing at the back of testator
Nera: one of the witnesses was in the other adjacent
room. Court said: he could have seen it despite the
curtain had he wanted to. Extreme na yun. Still, they
have applied the Jaboneta doctrine.
What is the reason why the law requires witnesses for a
valid will?
To render available proof of its authenticity and due
execution. Witnesses will be proof as to the
authenticity of the will. Why? Eh makikita agad nila,
Ay nako, di yan yung will. Di ko prima yan eh. They
can easily identify the will. The signature appearing
there is not mine. O kaya sabi niya DI yan yung will.

I distinctly remember that the testator used blue ink
instead of black.
They will also be proof as to the mental condition of
the testator at the time of execution. (as to
testamentary capacity) Nako parang wala sha sa
sarili niya.
Purpose why law requires intervention of three
witnesses. Proof of authenticity and due execution
of will.
Bakit three witnesses? Its an arbitrary number chosen
by framers of the code. To insulate against the
supervening incapacity of the witness. Pag sobrang dami,
baka wala na sila pirmahan sa margin. Natabunan na ng
pirma yung will mismo.
Another thing required from witnesses to do:
1. Attest
2. Subscribe affix a signature
Purpose for subscription: identify the will when
presented for probate. Witnesses can identify the
will through signature appearing on the will.
Where will the witnesses sign? In the case of testator,
law is very clear i.e. at the end of the will (thereof) How
about the witnesses, where must they sign.
Unfortunately, the law is silent where the witnesses must
sign. This was decided by the Supreme Court in the case
of Taboada v Rosal. Witnesses signed all pages on the
left margin, not the last page at the end of the will. On
the page which contains last disposition, only testator
signed but not the witnesses. Was the will valid? YES, but
there was a dissenting opinion.
In practice, sa kontrata, pag me piprimahan kayong deed
of sale two pages.
Deed of Sale
Text text text
(Sgd) Seller
Witnesses witnesses
Tas they also sign sa left margin
Dapat ba ganun din sa wills?
Taboada v Rosal:
1. Law does not indicate where they should sign
2. Signatures in the margin served the purpose of
the signature (identify the will later on and
prevent substitution of the page). Parang
substantial compliance yan. All purposes were
served by the marginal signature affixed by the
witnesses.
May a witness sign with a thumbmark? You know that a
testator may sign with thumbmark. Does the same apply
for witnesses? What signature is sufficient for him?
According to Senator Tolentino, if you read him, it
depends if the witness signed with a thumbmark because
he was illiterate, it is void. A witness should know how to
read and write. Otherwise, he is disqualified to become a
Page 14 of 81
witness. If there are less than three witnesses, the
notarial will is invalid.
If the witness knew how to read and right BUT usually
sign with a thumbmark, it will be sufficient signature for
the purpose of making of will.
The testator who is not able to sign may request
somebody to sign his will, he is called a delegate. How
about the witness, is it required that he is able to sign.
May he request a delegate to write his name on the will?
Senator Tolentino says: Witness who was unable to write
was allowed to sign through another in New Hampshire
because it was provided in their law on wills and
testament but same cannot be applied here because law
requires witness to subscribe. There is no law which
authorizes witness to sign through a delegate. Testator is
allowed to sign through delegate because authorized by
law.
IMPLICATION: The general rule is that nobody is
authorized to sign will through a delegate. Thats why
exception has to be provided in law for the testator.
How many witnesses are required? 3 or more credible
witnesses.
What is the effect if there is less than three? Will is void.
What if more than 3 witnesses? No effect. Because law
effects expressly allows more than 3 witnesses. Kahit ilan
niyo pa gusto, pero take note habang dumadami ang
witnesses, lumalaki ang risk na maging invalid.
What is the order of signing? Imagine nakaupo sila sa
long table. Pasa-pasa pasa sila? OR nakabigay na sa
kanila lahat ng kopya tas swap swap sila.
Must the testator sign first before the witnesses? There
are two views. Strict and liberal
1. Strict testator must sign at least one copy. Until he
has signed, theres no will and theres nothing to
assess on the part of the witnesses.
E.g. Dumating lawyer with t copies of the will.
Binigay sa witness para pumirma sila. Hindi valid ito
according strict view.
2. Liberal as long as accomplished in one transaction
and same occasion, the order of signing is
immaterial. In the Phil, no case of such issue has
happened before. Siguro kasi maingat lahat ng
abogado. Prima muna testator before witnesses.
Signed in the presence
Reason for signing: Para nagkakaamuyan sila kung pano
pumirma ang bawat isa. Para kung sakaling may
magsinungaling mamaya, they can easily counter the
perjury. Hoy violet yung ink mo jan dati ah! Bakit iba ang
pirma mo dito?
Itong si Ron decided to make a will. He asked lawyer to
make a draft in accordance with his wishes. He invited
three of his bestfirends to be his witnesses. Nung present
na silang apat and the notary public was there. You
watch me, I will sign tese all! tas biglang inatake
matapos primahan. Nagkikisay dun sa floor si Ron. What
will the witnesses do? Shempre dinala muna si Ron sa

hospital. He has been unconscious for one month. Sabi
witnesses, pipirmahan na natin to? Oh eh sabi ng batas,
in the rpresence of Ron ayan si ron sa hospital oh. Is the
will is valid? No. while they signed it in the physical
presence of the testator, it is not what is required. He
must be conscious that the witnesses are signing his will.
May a blind man make a will? Pano malalaman ng bulag
na yung witnesses eh pumiprima sa kanyang will? Dahil
nakarinig ng lecture yung tatlong witnesses ni Ron sa
hospital. Sabi ni DaniCon di natin pwedeng pirmahan kasi
hindi siya gising. After sleeping for more than 2 months,
he finally woke up and recovered and discharged in his
hospital. Now he is at home. Nagpuntahan na yung
tatlong testigo. O magaling ka na. Pipirmahan na naming
will mo ah! Is it valid? Not valid because execution must
be done in a signle continuous transaction. Di pwede
magkaron ng gap. Kung pwede magkaron ng gap ng 6
months, bakit hindi 1 year. Magkakaproblem tayo diyan
baka nagbago na ang testamentary capacity yung
transaction. Di pwede magkaron ng break. The
witnesses cannot sign on a different occasion.
Suppose the testator couldnt sign his will. May piling na
yung kamay ko, may Parkinsons ako, kaliga mo na si
Michael J. Fox. So you requested somebody to write your
name, he should write in your presence and under your
direction. Must he sign in the presence of your
witnesses? Of course.
In our problem, suppose the delegate wrote the name of
Ron in each and every page of the will, however he had
to leave after completion of the signing. Umalis yung
delegate? Habang pumipirima yung testigo, wala yung
delegate. When testator sign through delegate, must the
witnesses sign in the presence of delegate? No. Kaya nga
agent lang sha diba.
Suppose one of the witnesses is blind, maski anong pihit
mo sa ulo niya, hindi niya makikita talaga. No matter
where you cast his face, hell never see the testator sign.
Is the will valid? No, blind man is disqualified from
witnessing a will.
Each and every page must be signed by testator
and witnesses
Take note: Law requires two sets of signature:
1. Testator is required at the end of the will
Where: at the end of the will
2. Each and every page except the last
Why last? Kasi nga nandun na yung first set
Where: left margin
Who: testator and witnesses
What signature is sufficient for the second set? Issue: In
the case of an ordinary contract, e.g. sale, yung full
signature natin, yung long signature ang inaaffix sa end
of the contract. Usually affix it on top of our printed
name. We are also required to sign each and every page.
Pano pinipirpirmahan ang each and every page? Initials
na lang eh. Pwede bas a will na iba ang pirma sa end at
sa bawat page on the left margin? So far this issue has
not reached the SC. Danicon: there should only be one
signature of a person on all the pages of the will. Pare-
pareho dapat prima niyan. Kaya pag ako ang naging
Page 15 of 81
justice ng SC at makarating sakin ang will na iba ang
margin at kayo ang abogado, isasampal ko sa inyo yan.
Hindi kayo natuto. Dapat pareho ang prima niyo. Wag
lang initial. Although wala pang kaso. Dito makikita kung
gano kagaling yung abogado eh. Dapat pareho yung
prima.
On the left margin
Eh sir sa right margin pumirma? Eh kaliwete eh. O kaya
sa bottom/top hindi sa margin? Sir, naubos kasi yung
space. Will that invalidate? NO because thats substantial
compliance. The purpose is served.
Suppose the will is written on only one page. Isa lang ang
provision ni Ron, I institute my GF Eva Gutierrez as my
sole and universal heir. Kailangan pa ban g marginal
signature? What is important for a valid will is each and
every page must contain FOUR signatures (testator +
witnesses).
Suppose the will was written on two pages pero dahil
Boholano (mas kuripot pa sa Ilocano) yung testator. Pano
magpaypay ang Boholano? *Nods head in front of paper*
WTF Isang sheet lang ng paper, front and back. Sa front
ba kailangan pa ng marginal signature? Yes. Kasi page
nakalagay sa batas, hindi sheet. For all we know, baka
mamaya hindi naman back to back yung will nung
ginawa. Merong separate first page on separate sheet of
paper. Yun ang sinupress at nagtype sila sa back ng
second page to make it appear na back to back. Kakainin
lang yung 1st page tas gagawa ng bago dun sa likod ng
page 2.
What is the effect if not all of the pages were signed on
the margin? The will is void. Apat dapat yan palagi. Basta
nawala ang isa.
Is there an exception? NO! Icasiano v Icasiano is not an
exception. Original copy walang pirma yung isang
witness. Probate was opposed by some relatives on the
ground that will was invalid. One of the witnesses did not
sign one page. They presented the witness in court. He
must have lifted two pages at the same time
inadvertently so he was not able to sign the pages. What
was the ruling of the court? Valid not because it was an
exception, not because the witness testified. What was
the reason the court declared it valid?
1. Di niyo naman kailagngang ipresent yung
original because it was a duplicate original. It
was sufficient for them to have submitted a copy
which was a duplicate original. All of them were
originals.
2. No allegation of fraud or bad faith. Danicon:
Okay to.
3. Sabi ni JBL Reyes, all the marks of the dry seal of
the lawyer, where all concentric. Pag
pinagpatong-patong mo, magkakatugma yung
dry seal. Delikado yung pronouncement nay un.
Dapat tinataktak yung papel para pantay-pantay.
Yung iba salang na lang bigla. Siguro di sha
nagnotaryo dati.
Icasiano is not a case that creates an exception to
the rule.

The testator requested a delegate to write his name on
the will, must the delegate write the name of the testator
on each and every page of the margin? Natural. Di nga
makasulat so sha lahat ng gagawa nun. Pipirma sha at
the end of the page and on each and every margin. Hindi
pirma niya but the name of the testator. How he wrote in
the last page should be the manner how he writes on
each and every page.
All the pages should be numbered
How are the pages should be numbered?
1. In letters
Letters daw oh. So A B utak Manny Pacquiao ata.
Parang cheke yan. May numerals at may letter. Para
walang daya. Yung 1 pwedeng maging 4 at 7. Yung 2
pwede maging 3 or5. Yung 6 pwedeng 8 at 4. WTF
Danicon hahah.
The correct numbering in letters is: One Two Three.
Dapat yan in words kaso trinanslate yan from Spanish
eh. Call, sandali lang baka si Pinoynoy ito. Hindi po si
Pinoynoy yun. In letras may also be interpreted as in
words.
2. Correlatively
Show on the page of the numbering. One/First of five
pages Two/Second of five pages Three/Third of five
pages
Why? Para alam natin kung may nawawala. Alam natin if
some page has been suppressed.
Suppose will was written on five pages, one of the pages
was missing. Can we allow probate of the four remaining
pages? Itaga niyo sa mga batok niyo. Its all or nothing.
Parang si Mayor Lim yan. Enforce the law or enforce
nothing. Why? We dont know whats contained on the
missing page. For all we know, the dispositions in the
first four pages are dependent on a disposition of the
fifth page. Baka nga kaya nawala kasi nandun yung
magic conditions. Ang lahat ng naririto ay magiging
mabisa lamang KAPAG
But SC encountered pagination literally in alphabet. SC
said Aaaay substantial compliance na yan. Alam naman
nating magkakasunod sila.
DaniCon: Pero ilan lahat ng pages na yun? Hanggang san
ba tumigil yung testator. Baka wala ngang pagination
yung will. Tinanggal some pages tas saka nilagyan ng
numbering. But you know, wala pa naman ako sa SC,
hindi pa mababago yan. Thats an actual case but not in
your syllabus. Inallow nila yung letters of alphabet.
PURPOSE: Prevent insertion or suppression of the page.
E.g.They cant have a Page 4-A. Parang Memorandum
Circular 1-A. Hindi UP grad gumawa nun ha!
Suppose only one page. Kailangan pa ba ng page?
Theres no harm if you write pagination on one page.
Pero kung hindi nalagyan, pwede ba yun? Yes. May kaso
na yan. One page on one sheet. Reason: There can be no
substitution or suppression anymore. Pwede na walang
numbering.
Page 16 of 81
Attestation clause
What is it? Written memorandum of facts that attended
the execution of the will executed by the witnesses to
serve as evidence of the wills due execution.
PURPOSE: Preserve in permanent form the record of facts
attending the execution of will such that in case of failure
of memory or causualty due to supervening events. The
execution of the will may still be proven.
What is included there? All the facts required by law to
appear therein. Nakalagay sa Art. 805.
May pipirma ba jan? Witnesses.
Why must they sign? Because its their certification that
their will was executed in accordance with those facts
written in the attestation clause. Inadvance niyo ata
yang relos na yan!
19 July 2010 Happy birthday Renzpot!!! :D
Whose act is the attestation clause? The witnesses and
since its their act, they must sign it.
A805 does not require the witnesses to sign. But in the
case Cagro v Cagro, it is deemed not executed by the
witnesses when not signed. That made the will invalid.
For them to be considered to have signed the attestation
clause, marginal signature where the attestation clause
were written is not enough. They must sign at the
bottom. Thats the only place where signature must be
affixed to be considered signed by the witnesses. The
marginal signatures did not execute the attestation
clause.
Distinguish the case of Cagro in the doctrine of Taboada
v Rosal. Both involved marginal signature of the
witnesses. In the latter, the witnesses did not sign the
end of the will, just the marginal. The marginal
signatures were sufficient compliance with 805. But in
Cagro, the marginal signatures were not enough. Those
marginal signatures did not constitute substantial
compliance.
How may the attestation be written? Art 805 tells us
what is written. But the question is HOW
May it be written as part of the will? Integrated in the
body of the will OR must the attestation be a separate
narration/instrument from the body of the will? The law
does not tell us how the AC should be written. For as long
as the AC is a certification by the witnesses and the
contents enumerated in the law arre all contained in the
AC, that should suffice. However, if it is written as an
integral part of the body of the will. Taboada v Rosal is
no longer applicable. Witnesses must sign at the end of
the will to be considered as valid AC. Pero yung mga
abogado, hindi na natin sinasama as part of the body of
the will. We make it as a separate instrument.
Certification separate from the will. Since its a separate
instrument, it has to be executed bythe witnesses by
signing at the end or at the bottom of the attestation
clause.

May the witnesses execute the AC on a separate
occasion, kasi hindi kasama sa will? Pwede ba nilang
iseparate on a separate occasion. E.g. testator and
witnesses executed will today but Notary Public forgot to
prepare the AC for the witnesses to sign. May the AC be
executed by the witnesses the next day in the office of
the notary public? The law does not tell us that the AC
should be executed on the same occasion. Can it be
executed on a separate occasions. In my opinion, NO, it
cannot be executed on a separate occasion. If it can be
executed on a separate occasion, how long must the gap
be. If its one day, then why not one year? If it can be one
year, why not three or five years? Sandali muna, when
do we stop?
When the AC is executed on a separate occasion, must
the testator be present when the witnesses execute the
AC? Remember what the law provides, testator must sign
each and every page of the will in the presence of
witnesses, witnesses must sign each and every page of
the will msut be signed in the presence of the testator
and of each other.
Whose act is the AC? Its that of the witnesses. The page
which contains nothing but AC must that be included in
the number of pages in the will? Di ba yun ang nakalagay
sa AC? Yung number of pages in which the will was
written. The answer is NO, Abangan v Abangan, SC says
we dont include the number of pages in the will where
the AC was written. Its not part of the will. Its not an act
of the testator. Rather its an act of the witnesses. So we
dont sama that number in the number of pages. Kung
hindi naman pala kasama, therefore, the testator need
not sign the page which contains nothing but AC, all
pages must sign in the marign. Pipirma pa ba yung
testator sa AC sa margin?
Hindi naman pala part ng will, pwede ba gawin ng
witnesses separate from the will? In DLCs opinion: NO,
you have to look at the purpose of AC. Its there to guard
against the treachery of human memory. Therefore, if
theres gap, the purpose wil be lost. Its purpose is to
preserve the facts surrounding the execution. Wala pang
kaso yan. Opinion ko lang iyon.
Must it be written in a language known to the witnesses?
Will is act of testator and the law requires will to be
written in the language known to the testator. AC is act
of witnesses. NO, in fact, last par of 805 provides that if
the AC was written in language not known, the same has
to be interpreted to them, thereby allowing AC written in
a language not known to witnesses.
Must AC be written in language known to the testator?
No, its not his act, he has nothing to do with it. No pint
making it known to him.
Must AC be written in same language as will? No such
requirement in law that they be same language.
What is the effect if there is no AC? If the will is notarial
and without AC, the will is invalid. This requirement is
mandatory.
What must the AC contain? Marami yan.
Page 17 of 81
1. Number of pages
2. Testator signed the will and every page thereof
in the presence of witnesses
3. Witnesses witness and signed the will and every
page thereof in the presence of testator and of
one another
In case testator signed through delegate, what should AC
state? Caused another to sign his name under the
latters express dirrectin, in the presence of witnesses,
hindi sinabi yung testator.
Must the AC state the name of delegate? Walang
nakalagay.
What is the effect if AC failed to state one of those
required by law to appear in the clause?
GENERAL RULE: Will is void.
But EXCEPTION in A809. If you will look at 809, its a new
provision. It was not present in the old code. A809 does
not tell us that the substantial compliance rule applies
only to defective AC. Without AC the substantial
compliance doctrine has been applied by the SC, we
have discussed that in our previous meetings.
Without A809, the substantial compliance doctrine, a
judge-made doctrine is valid exercise of the equity
jurisdiction of the courts. But A809 simply provides a
special substantial compliance rule when the defect
involves the AC. So pagka-AC na yung defective, we
dont apply the general doctrine of substantial
compliance. Meron nang special substantial compliance
rule in A809. Ergo, if the defect is not AC, the general
rule on substantial compliance will apply. Later na natin
ididscuss ang 809, maraming di nakakaintindi niyan.
Must AC be dated? Theres no requirement.
Must AC state place of execution? Hindi rin nakalagay sa
batas yun.
AC being made part of the will? Cuevas v Achacoso
AC _________? Villaflor v Tobias.
Cagro v Cagro: Strong dissenting opinion. Read that!
Essentially sabi niya: Why should we erequired the
witnesses to sign at the bottom for validity when the law
does not require/indicate where the witnesses must sign.
In fact, the law does not reuire AC has to be signed.
Acknowledged
What is meant by acknowledgment? To acknowledge
means to admit authorship of an act. So if somebody
acknowledges a deed of sale before a NP, what does he
acknowledge? He acknowledges that he is a party to the
Deed of Sale either as a buyer or seller. In the case of a
will, what is to be acknowledged?
Who are required to acknowledge? All the four should
acknowledge before a NP
What does testator admit? Authorship of the will, e.g. this
will was executed by me. This is my last will and
testament. Ano pa? That he executed it freely and
voluntarily. Authorship and voluntariness of execution.
How about the witnesses, what will they acknowledge
before NP? Authorship of the AC. Yun ang kanilang act so

thats what they would acknowledge and the
voluntariness of the act. Impliedly, the witnesses will
admit before NP, their having witnessed the execution of
will by the testator.
What is the reason why this acknowledgment is
required?
PURPOSE according to code commission:
[1] ensure authrenticity of the will and
[2] minimize fraud.
It has history. Under Spanish CC which was in force in the
country before Americans came, notarial intervention for
validity of will was necessary but the Americans decided
to do away with the notarila intervention. The Civil
Procedure which amended parts of the Spanish CC,
eliminated notarial acknowledgement. Many frauds were
committed especially at the testators bedside by affixing
his thumbmark. Kaya nirestore ito in the NCC. Akala
nung gumawa ng batas, pag may abogado nag-
intervene, siguradon nang authentic yung dokumento,
sha pa nga ang namemeke. Yung mga abogadong
nagbubukas ng ataul at nonotaryuhin pa niya. Itantedate
pa yung will to make it appear it was made before
testator died. Kaya lang may CSI na ngayon eh. Pag yung
thumbmark inaffix sa document after the corpse has
undergone rigor mortis stage, iba na itsura ng
thumbmark. Pag nagrigor mortis, naninigas rin yung
tissues nay an. Pag ka lumambot yung corpse, hindi na
shag anon kaelastic kaya may nangyayari sa
thumbmark, siguro crumbled. At least ngayon alam niyo
kung pano dadayain. Kailangan mainit init pa yung
bangkay, bago mag-rigor mortis. Ithumbmark tas
inotaryo. Palabasin niyon inexecute before he died. The
code commission decided to return the intervention by a
notary public.
BTW under the old notarial law, hindi lahat ng NP ay
abogado. There are instances where even non-lawyers
were allowed to apply for commission. Ang nacarry over
lang eh yung ability to administer oaths. LGC authorizes
mayors and governors. Petition for authority to
administer oaths if the place where he resides has no
lawyer/mayor.
When must the testator and witnesses acknowledge?
Definitely not before the execution of the will, kasi
nothing to acknowledge before NP. They may
acknowledge only after the will was executed.
May they acknowledge on a separate occasion?
Halimbawa executed today, kaya lang the NP who was
not present in the execution. Pinadala laang yung last
will and testament together with the AC. Sabi nung
lawyer, ay pasensha na po pero meron akong meeting. I
cannot be present in the signing of the will. Since the NP
was present during the signing, the testator and
witnesses could not possibly acknowledge on the same
occasion. May the acknowledgment be done on a
separate occasion? Pwede ang 1 day, 1 year, 1 month.
Where do we stop? According to Justice Eduardo
Caguioa, only one who wrote about this requirement. No
need to acknowledge on the same occasion as execution
on the same day of the will. No other purpose than
making usre that the will was executed by the testator
Page 18 of 81
himself and that the testator have testamentary
capacity. Meanin g he was still alive and executed
voluntarily byt the testator. Walang magbabago even
though acknowledgemnt done on a separate occasion. I
dare not debate with Justice cAguioa, possible na walang
risk or prejudice. Yung nga lang. kung pwede ng 1 day,
why not 1 month, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years. Not only
that.
May the witnesses and testator acknowledge on different
occasions? Pwede bang bukas si testator, without the
witnesses, and then the witnesses will acknowledge 1
month from today. May those four parties on four
different occasions? Kay Justice Caguioa, pwede yun. Eh
kung pwede yun. Pwede ba after the death of the
testator?! What if the witnesses acknowledge it after the
death of the testator. If we follow the logical __ of the
arguments espoused by Justice Caguioa, he will opine
that it can be acknowledge after the death. Nakapirma
na naman sila sa will at AC.
If the four may acknowledge on different occasions, may
they acknowledge before different notaries public?
Pwede ba yun? According to Justice Caguioa, no
requirement that they acknowledge before the same.
Ang mangyayari lang dun. Matatadtad ng dry seal yung
will. Even if they dont acknowledge before the same
notary public pero different occasions, tadtad pa rin yun.
What is the evidence that it was acknowledge before
notary public? The acknowledgement certificate
prepared by the notary before whom it was
acknowledged. NP certifies who appeared before him
citing proper identification (di na sufficient resident
certificate ngayon, it must be an ID issued by the
government). Testator certification that the
acknowledging party acknowledged before him and
executed by him freely and voluntarily. NP must ask the
party about circumstances that will make him conclude
executed the will freely and voluntarily. The moment he
is convinced that it was executed freely and voluntarily
by the party, thats the time NP will prepare the
Ackowledgment Certificate.
AckCertif is usually in fact almost always as a separate
instrument. Kadalasan, nakaseparate na page yan. Pero
kung si abogado ay nagtitipid sa attestation at ackcertif.
Hindi natin ginagawa yun kasi pag nagkamali ka mahirap
naman putulin. Madaling palitan. That sheet of paper
where ackcertif was written, is that part of will? NO.
Must testator and witnesses sign the margin of the page?
No, not part of will.
Must testator and witnesses sign at the end of ackcert?
No, bec its the act of the NP.
Must ackcert state the name of the witneses? (CA
decision) need not mention the names of the testator
and witnesses. Parang di mangayari yan ngayon kasi
they need to identify the acknowledging parties. Pati
yung details ng ID, kailangang maisulat sa AckCert, baka
di na applicable under the present notarial law.
 Page 19 of 81

The ackcert, must it be signed by the testator on the because the testator may have interest in having it a
same occasion that the testator and witnesses secret before his death. Marami makakakita niyan,
acknowledged before him? secretary, messenger, record, national archive. To
Javellana v Ledesma: mayaman at malapit na mamatay. address that concern of testator, the law does not
Signed at the hospital room of the testator. Nako require NP to retain a copy. If not, he has to give copy of
nalimutan ko po yung ackcert, notarial seal and notarized will to the testator.
document and brought at his office. When he arrived at
his office, 5thirsty club na, hindi na nanotaryo. CHI: Pwede bang kamag-anak yung NP?
Kinabukasan, he will appear in court, attend hearings, he
has pleadings to prepare, solo practitioner sa probinsha, SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS ano nga yung halo-
just one secretary and messenger sa probinsha. halo special?
Nalimutan niyang notaryuhin yung will hanggang isang Special testators with special conditions. Not prohibited
umaga, sabi ni secretary. Boss di pa natin nanotaryo will to make a will, but to ensure that the will was not forced
ni Don Pepe, namatay na kagabi. Notaryado na, so upon the testator the law imposes special formal
dinala na sa court. Nag-away si Lawyer at secretary, requirements. Dalawang classes:
nung nag-away sila, ginawa ni secretary, pumunta sa 1. Deaf/deaf-mute
kabila sa mga oppositors ng will. No it did not invalidate 2. Blind
the will. The ack cert is not the act of testator nor the
witnesesse. As far as law is concerned, they have DEAF/DEAF-MUTE
complied with all formalities required by law. Cannot be
Usually, when deafness is inborn, most likely mute din
made to depend on act of np over whom testator and
yan. Without sound to emulate so hindi niya alam kung
witnesses have no control. Besides, the execution of the
pano gagayahin yung sound na yun. But if deafness was
notarial certificate, whether done before or after the
acquired, most likely bingi lang pero nakakapagsalita.
testator does not increase the risk of will being a forgery
Bakit merong special requirements? Eh kasi nung araw,
or fraudulently obtained. DOCTRINE: AckCert may be
ang tining nila sa deaf-mute/deaf eh dumb. Handicap so
prepared and executed by NP not on the same occasion
great they are considered feeble-minded, idiots or dumb.
that the testator and witnesses acknowledged before
Nung araw sa society, itinatago ang deaf-mute baka
him. In fact, it can be done by the NP even after the
nakakadena pa nga. Kulang pa ng social skills. Eh sir
death of the testator.
pano yumaman, eh siguro nagmana o tumama sa lotto!
Pero yumaman eh, magagawa natin? There must be an
If the testator requested a delegate to write his name,
express provision prohibiting. Meron ngang special
must the delegate acknowledge before a notary public?
requirements to allow them.
NO, its not required. The delegate need not appear
because the act of the delegate is supposed to be the act
Under 807: personally read the will if able to do so,
of the principal testator. Therefore, its the testator who
otherwise, he shall designate two persons to read and
should acknolwedge, not the delegate.
communicate in some practicable manner the contents
thereof.
What is the effect if no acknowledgment? If notarial will,
void. The tax code requires a documentary stamp to be
How will these two persons read and communicate? Must
affixed and can___on every ackcert that a notary public
they read at the same time or must they read and
will prepare and execute. Hindi nalagyan ng
communicate one after another? NB If the intention is
documentary stamp ang will, yung ackcert. The first you
one after another, baka dapat A808 yung wording na
will encounter is the application for admission to the bar.
maliwanag. Ergo, mukhang an gang intention ng batas
What is the effect. Under the law, the document that was
eh for these two to help each other. Bakit sila sabay?
notarized is not admissible in evidence. Kapag deed of
Para makita ng testator na nag-aaway sila kung hindi sila
sale tas yung ackdert ay walang stamp, its not
magkasundo kung pano iccommunicate to him the
admissible in court. Si atty, hindi nilagayn ng
contents of the will.
documentary stamp yung ackcert of the will, nung
namatay yung testator, the will was presented in court,
May the witnesses or NP be the two persons who will
ang sabi ni oppositors, the will is invalid because the
read and communicate? According to almost all writers,
ackcert is inadmissible, therefore, since inadmissible, the
no one yet says otherwise, YES, the witnesses and NP
effect is no ackcert and the will is invalid.
may be the two persons.
Gabucan v Manta: No, the absence of documentary
Sir pwede po bang apat ung idesignate niya? Hindi kasi
stamp does not make the will invalid. The absence of the
nakalagay na at least two DLC says: Since the purpose
stamp makes the document inadmissible but may be
of requirement is to ensure is what he wished to be his
affixed anytime. After affixing, it becomes immediately
last will. Anything to make him feel secured should be
admissible. Wala ba? O eh di lagyan!
allowed. More than substantial compliance, more than
full. No prohibition so no reason to disqualify witness and
Ordinarily when a NP notarizes, he retains 2 copies: for
NP for as long as they were able to communicate
his files and the national archives. Submit the notarial
accurately. There should be no reason to invalidate on
register together with the SOlGen. Sol Gen to National
that ground.
Archives. Deed of Sale, four copies yan. In the case of a
will, must the NP retain copy? No, not required to retain.
But may he? Yes, if allowed by testator to retain a copy,
BLIND

They are not prohibited, in fact there is a special
requirement!
When is testator blind? It may be inborn or acquired.
Inborn hindi nakakasulat, most likely Braille. Sa
elevators, required na ang dots na yan. Pagsulat niya,
may cardboard at stylus tas butas lang sha ng butas.
Invented by a French man ang pangalan ay Braille.
Natural! CAMILLE! Camiy. Pag acquired, nakakasulat yan
yung nga lang hindi pantay-pantay. Regardless of born
blind or became blind later on.
Comply with additional specific requirement: Read twice
but the witness and NP before whom acknowledged.
PURPOSE: to ensure that what was written is what was
desired by the testator.
What is the effect of failure to comply with additional
requirements? Garcia v Vasquez: will is invalid.
Should the fact of compliance with these additional
requirements appear in the AC? No need. Sufficient to
establish in probate proceedings. Mascarinas v Angeles.
Should the testator be deaf-mute and blind, kawawa
naman. No expresss provision, disqualification. If the
testator is deaf, mute and blind. What specific additional
requrieemnts must the testator comply with? Both bang
807 and 808? Kasi kung comply with 807 pano
idedemonstrate? Kahit anong monstra monstra gawin mo
jan, hindi makikita. Kahit anong basa sa kanya, walang
maririnig! How do we ensure that this poor fellow who is
wealthy? Pano? Dapat siguro disqualified na lang.
How about ILLITERATE no read and no write? No express
prohibition and disqualification.
Must the illiterate comply with special specific
requirement? YES, 808. In the eyes of the law, the
illiterate person is blind.
How does the law define blind? Somebody who cannot
read his will is a blind man. No matter how hard he looks,
he cannot read.
Alvarado v Gaviola: Told his nephew who was a lawyer.
After a series of conference and draft correction, they
finally agreed on the final copy of the will, lets schedule
a day for the execution. Atty. Nephew. Tumawag ng
tatlong testigo at isa pang lawyer who will act as the
notary public. Gave one copy of the will to the witnesses
and the NP. Read aloud slowly the contents of the will,
addressed to the testator. Okay nay an. Thats my will.
The testator was blind. I will sign na! Art. 808 requires
two readings, but only one witness. Lawyer nephew was
a not a witness, nor the NP. There was no compliance
with all the additional reliance. Yes. There was
substantial compliance. Why? There was no literal but
the manner followed in executing the will served the
prupose behind 808. How come? Ang purpose lang
naman two readings ay para masiguro ay kung ano
nakasulat ay yun ang nakasulat. Kung iba ang sinabi
nung nephew kesa sa nakasulat eh di nagreklamo yung
testigo! Since none of the witness, the NP even did not
raise an objection. What was read was what was written
CHI: May the drafting lawyer be the same NP?
Page 20 of 81
21 July 2010
Substantial compliance rule in Art. 809
A judge-made doctrine, its not in the law, but the courts
in the exercise of their powers in the interest of justice,
created this substantial compliance doctrine. That is still
with us. Its still being followed and applied by the courts
but special substantial compliance rule was incorporated
in A809.
BUT the A809 applies only when it involves the
attestation clause. The defect involves form or language.
If the defect involves form or language, A809 applies.
Provided theres no BAD FAITH FORGERY FRAUD UNDER
IMPROPER PRESSURE AND INFLUENCE. Prove that the will
was in fact executed and attested in substatntial
compliance with all requirements of the law.
What do we mean by defect in form? The manner by
which the attestation clause was prepared and executed
did not comply with formalities. E.g. attestation clause
was incorporated into the body of will instead of being
written as separate instrument. This is a defect in the
form of AC not the language.
Defect in language? Sense conveyed by the written
words of the AC is ambiguous, unclear or unintelligible.
Words written in attestation clause. Rey v Cartajena is in
point.
Defect consists in an omission of a fact required by law
to appear in the AC?
Is that a defect in form? Definitely not.
In language? Acdg to JBL Reyes, yes, thats a
defect in language. But acdg to Jurado, an
absolute omission of a fact required by law to
appear is neither a defect in form or language.
This was the ruling in Gil v Murciano. An old case.
In the first ruling of court in Gil v Murciano, SC
ruled that a total omission of a fact required by
law to appear in AC cannot be cured by showing
of substantial compliance by the testator.
May nag-dissent in the decision, si Justice Tuazon. Sabi
kasi ng majority, we can only allow showing of
substantial compliance if nothing is missing in AC. There
is a defect merely in language. Dapat walang kulang. If
something is missing in the AC, that cannot be cured by
showing that the fact missing was complied with by the
testator. Wala naman nakalagay sa AC. Pag sabi ng iba,
hindi natin pwede payagan na maski wala dun eh
kinomply naman. Gano kadaming facts ang pwedeng
mawala? Suppose wala lahat, hindi sinabi sa AC. Will we
allow introduction of evidence to show that there was
substantial compliance kahit wala? Eh di tanggalin na
lang ang AC, mawawalan ng value yung AC.
Dissent ngayon si Tuazon. Theres a built-in limitation,
we allow showing compliance with a requirement omitted
in the attestation clause if such substantial compliance is
shown by the four corners of the will. Evidence outside is
not admissible to show that compliance with the
requirement omitted in the AC was substantially

complied with. Because of that dissent, MR was filed.
While MR was pending, the composition of court
changed. I think nag-resign si Roman Ozaeta to become
the administrator or executor of the estate of Carlos
Palanca Sr. in his place was appointed was Justice
Labrador, yung moot court sa taas. Appointed by
brother-in-law, Ramon Magsaysay. MR was taken up,
nagbago ng botohan. Justice Labrador sided with Justice
Tuazon. The minority ponentia became the majority
ponentia by margin of one vote.
Ano ngayon ruling ni Justice Tuazon which is the doctrine
in Gil v Murciano. A total omission of a fact of
compliance with the requirement of the law can be
cured if substantial compliance with such omitted
requirement is shown by the four corners of the
will. Ano example nito? Each and every page was signed
by the testator and the witnesses. Pero kung ang nawala
ay yung total number of pages. Baka may sinupress.
Evidence outside the body fo the will is not admissible.
Naging minority si Justice Jugo. Tuazon lifted heavily from
JBL Reyes opinion.
Comes the case of Caneda v CA: same problem, the AC
omitted totally a fact of compliance with the
requirement. Proponents of will attempted to show and
prove to the court that there was substantial compliance
with requirement. Assuming substantial compliance was
proven, will it cure? Ang sabi ni Regalado (San Beda yan
eh no. Highest bar daw sabi niya. That will not make him
UP grad. Highest grade nga, San Beda pa rin sha.)
Researcher of REgalado, cited as authority of Desiderio
Jurado (Phil Law School yun, hindi naman UP) and JBL
Reyes. Pano niyo sinite si JBL? Parang yung case yan
ngayon ng SC sa comfort women. Kinuote niya lang isang
portion, di niya nakitang contrary positions sila. What is
the remedy against good justice of SC? Impeachment
lang naman yan? Is commission of plagiarism palpable
violation of constitution? The best they can do is to force
him to resign just like MVP resigned in the Ateneo Board.
Caneda adopted the interpretation in Gil v Murciano.
Total omission, hindi kasama yan. AND assuming that a
defect is one of form or language. The only evidence
admissible are those found in the four corners of the will.
Iniba ni Caneda: Total omission not curable. Pero pag
form or language, curable pero by intrinsic lang.
When examiner pretends to know his law? Sir made
some point here. Review!
HOLOGRAPHIC WILL
When will is holographic will. Only 3 Requirements.
1. Entire written by the hand of testator
2. Signed by the hand of testator
3. Dated by the hand of testator
Must HW be in a language known to testator? Of course,
general requirement yun eh diba?
Sandali muna. Suppose testator is illiterate. May an
illiterate man execute a will? Of course, no express
disqualification in the law. If he maeks a notarial will,
theres an additional requirement. In the eyes of law,
illiterate = blind. But suppose he wants to make a
holographic will? Can he do that? Merong isang writer na
Page 21 of 81
ang sabi, YES, si Paras! The imagination of Paras is
fertile, very fertile. How? Kakausap ng isang taong
bumasa at sumulat. By dictation. Gawin mong block
print. Dinikta ko ngayon kay Garcia. Basahin mo nga, o
akin na. kokopyahn painstakingly tapos thumbmark. Si
Paras lang nakaisip non! Sige nga. Think of an argument
to demolish Justice Edgardo Paras.
Suppose blind man could read and write in Braille. Before
death, he made will in Braille. Is that a valid will? Yung
una nating pinag-usapan, entirely written in hand of
testator. Yung Braille eh kanya bang sinulat? Kamay
naman niya yung ginamit sa pagpuncture. Kung ganon
argument mo, kamay niya rin anman ang nagpagalaw sa
typewriter. The issue is what do we mean by
handwriting?
Sir, walang kamay pero adept magsulat gamit ang paa.
Parang yung Filipina who was armless despite handicap
became a pilot in US. Kung marunong dumarive ng
eroplano using foot, marunong din sumulat. Written
entirely by foot. Is that a valid will? A sir, substantial
compliance yan. No literal compliance but purpose
behind requirement is served. Science has shown that no
two people have the same handwriting. Imposible na
pareho sila handwriting kay apinapayagan as long as
entirely written. ABA kung yung sinulat ng kamay hindi
magkapareho, di lalo na yung paa! Tiyak na magkaiba
yun. Madidiscover kagad the forgery.
Under the law, theres no other requirement other than
those three which I mentioned. Kailangan ba ng
witnesses? Hindi po. Pero may witness eh. Kumuha tatlo
kaibigan. Regarded as surplusage. Hindi kailangan ng AC
yan, pag gumawa sila, treated as surplusage. Kailangan
bang notaryuhin? Suppose testator is deaf as old age,
gumawa ng sulat, pero teacher/lawyer, kailangan pa ba
magcomply sa special requirement? No, they only apply
to notarial will, kasi iba yung nagtype at gumawa ng
notarial will.
What is the form of a holographic will to be valid? May it
be in the form of a letter to the testaors wife? YES, for as
long as there was animus testandi. It may even be in the
form of a poem, parang si Soc Rodrigo (Im sure hindi
niyo na kilala yun) senator of Republic before martial
law. He was a columnist and wrote in Tagalog pero maski
sumusulat or nagtatalumpati, parang si balagtas, my
rhyme at meter pag nagsalita. Parang tumutula. So nung
gumawa sha ng will para ring tula. Valid will as long as
theres animnues testandi at time of execution.
What is the effect if not entirely written by the hand of
the testator? The will is void.
What is entirely? Nagkatuluyan si Garcia at Gutierrez.
Isang araw, nakita ni Gutierrez si Garcia sa table
nagsusulat. Sweatheart ano sulat you? Gumagawa me
LWT na HW. E di pinabayaan ni Gutierrez. Tas
pinakeelaman niya habang natutulog si Ron. Curiosity
kills the cat. She didnt like what she read. Kinabukasan,
kinonfrotn niya si Ron, nakita ko LWT mo ha, di ko gusto.
Ano ba gusto mo? Gusto ko bigyan mo yung DI ko. O sha
sige sulat mo jan. di pa kasi tapos will niya. To my wifes
DI, I give legacy of 50K.

Will Evas insertion take effect? NO, kasi hindi niya will
yun. It will not take effect.
How about the will as written in the hand of Garcia? Of
course not. Because not entirely written. The entire will is
void.
Iba ang solushon kung tinapos niya na yung will. Nung
makita ni Eva, may pirma at date na. She prevailed him
to give something to DI. O sige, isulat mo after the
signature. Tapos pinirmahan ulit. Will the PS added by
Ms. Gutierrez in her own handwriting but signed and
dated by Mr. Garcia take effect? Of course not.
How about the original will, will it take effect? Of course,
because that will. I will show you later on na hindi
kasama yung PS sa will. PS is an attempt to make a
codicil.
There are more problems to discuss when we reach
alterations.
What signature is sufficient? Pwede ba yung initials?
Sabi ni Paras, hindi pwede! Mali ang mental processing ni
Paras kaya absurd.
Pwede bang pumirma with a thumbmark? Baka akala
niyo settled yan ha. Sabi Justice Edwardo Caguioa and
Prof. Hector De Leon, a testator cannot execute HW by
sigining it with a thumbmark. Why? Kasi daw nakalagay
sa batas, A811 (in the probate of HW will and signature
are in the handwriting. Underline handwriting. Its a
mark of the thumb. Impliedly required by 811. Pero nasa
810 eh yung hand lang. MAY KAKAMAY PA BA SA
THUMB? MAY MAS KAMAY PA BA DITO? Literal sila
Caguioa at De Leon. Eh di yung Fil-Am armless pilot eh
invalid na rin! Footwriting yun.
Ano ba purpose for requiring handwriting?That is itself an
identification. Ganun din yung thumbmark. Bakit naman
kasi nasulat na nga yung body ng pirma, thumbmark pa
nilagay niya. Patay na kasi nung tinumbmark. BUT that is
a question of fact, evidentiary in nature. Pwede rin kasi
sinulat nung kaya pa niya, tapos pinirmahan na lang
nung mahina na. Buti na lang hindi ganon view ni
Tolentino.
SIGNATURE.
Where must testator sign? Sa notarial, at the end dapat.
Sirs PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Upon coming back from
master, senior partner was legal luminary from UP Law
with masteral degree in Yale who became concom
delegate. May asthma. Namatay. Week later, pumunta
sakin biyuda. Doctorate Natural Science ng Harvard. Ang
tito mo ay may iniwang LWT. Patingin? Three pieces of
yellow pad. Boss ko yun eh so kinocorrect yung
pleadings namin, alam ko handwriting. Very nice. Ay
walang pirma. Nako tita. This will is void. Why?! Walang
pirma ni tito. Bakit kailangang pirmahan, until then, di
tayo sure na tapos na niya. Pag di pa tapos, di pa pwede
probate. Baka may hindi sha nailagay na provisions upon
whch the other provisions depend. Lulugo-lugo si Biyuda,
di makapaniwalang *insert credential here* gumawa ng
Page 22 of 81
invalid na will. IHO aggressive. Nakalagay ba ang
batas kung san nakapirma ang tito mo? Look at the will.
I, Juan de la Cruz of sound and disposing mind, by the
grace of God, do hereby declare and publish the
following as my last will and testament.
Iho, tingnan mo ito. Di ba ganyan ang pirma ni tito mo?!
Wrote his name is the way he signed. Technically, this is
his signature.
Oo nga tita. Pero hanggang dito lang valid yan. (yung
line na merong signature) A812 (below signature). The
moment testator signs, sinasara na niya. Everything
beneath will constitute a new will, which we will call,
codicil.
Later on I will show you that he was brilliant and
intentionally left it unsigned to save the widow and
children from expense of probate.
The law does not tell where testator must sing BUT A812
implies that it must be at the end.
Ms. Gutierrez bat parang gustong gusto mong tinutukso
kita kay Ron?
DATE.
What date must testator write on the will? Lets get a
concrete example. Today, Mr. Garcia decided to write his
will. This is a magnum opus!!! Im exhausted! So he
decided to rest. The opening paragraph, July 21, 2010.
Nalimutan niya hanggang August 21, 2010. Kinuha ulit
ang pad paper. Ano ba ang aking first disposition. To my
loving girlfriend, Eva Gutierrez, I leave itutuloy ko na
lang. Sept. 21, martial law yun. Naalala niya. Naku, may
will ako. Nag-add ng second disposition. To my loving
nephew, tago ulit. October 21, 3rd provision tas tago ulit.
Nov. 21 inilabas ulit. Sabi niya wala na ako idadagdag,
isasara ko na!!! itinago. Kelan niya pinirmahan? Nov. 21.
Dec. 21, kinuha ulit, I will look at my magnum opus. Ay
nako! Walang date! this will is invalid! No date!
Can he add the date on Dec. 21? No provision in the law
as to when he must affix the date. No before while after
date. Ang sinabi lang for validity, it must be dated.
ERGO, on Dec. 21, he may complete the will by dating it.
Until then, hindi complete. Sarado lang, hindi complete.
What date will he write? First day of started writing will,
Aug 21 - First disposition? Sept 21 2nd dispo? Oct. 21
third? Nov. 21 - signed? Dec. 21 discovery that it did
not bear a date? According to writers in Civil Law. Write
the true date, not false date. When is a date true date?
Any date which has a connection to the exeution of the
will is a true date. Therefore, all of those may be written
to complete the HW because all those have to do with
execution of will. Pag April 21, 2010 ang nilagay, false
date kasi without connection to the execution of HW.
That will be a false date that invalidate the entire will.
In Roxas v De Jesus: ang date ay Feb 61. Eh kung
jejemon, pano issusulat yan? Panahon ngayon ng mga
illiterates. Is that sufficient date to make will valid? Yes,
sufficient, the will was valid. Di ba kulang ng day? Aaah
sabi SC, kasi alam niyo, under old CC, the law was very

clear as to date requirement. For a HW to be valid, the
day, month and the year must be written on the will.
Pero iba na kasi yung formula sa NCC, tinanggal yung
day, month and year. Date na lang. there must be reason
behind the change. If the intention is to imposed same
requirement for date of valid HW, then the lawmaekrs
whould have simply carried over the wording of old law.
Eh binago nila. Alam niyo naman, pag may binago,
theres peresumption ng reason for the change. Even
assuming the same was intention of congress in
changing formula or wording of provision. Substantial
compliance yan. I.e. Substantial compliance rule
equally applies to HW.
Kung kayo ay naguguluhan pa, panahon na para
magdrop. Magdoktor na lang kayo.
Where must date be written? Beginning, body, after will
but before signature, or after signature, back page?
Anywhere, but it must be conclusive that the day is an
integral part of the body of the will. Kung front page ang
will tas likod ang date, hindi qualify yun kasi hindi parte
ng will.
ALTERATIONS
Art 814: pwede pa ba ialter ang Notarial Wil? Pwede pa
ba ialter ang NW? YES, you can alter or modify your NW
but only through the execution of a codicil. Execute
another will. Pwede bang icorrect na lang? Lagyan ng
caret at ng additional dispositions in his own
handwriting? Will that take effect? Natural hindi. Kasi
hindi naman kasama yang alteration nung inexecute with
the witnesses. Hindi kasama sa will. Ibang wil kasi yan na
tinestiguhan ng tatlong testigo and acknowledged before
NP. For this to be modified and order. Execute another.
When we reach codicil, halimbang pinirmahan ni Ron ito
with date. In his own handwriting, will that qualify as
HOLOGRAPHIC CODICIL?
Pero ang general rule: Notarial will cannot be altered
and modified without codicil.
How about a holographic will, pwede bang i-alter at will?
YES.
How? Tatlong ways to alter a written document.
1. Alteration by insertion
2. Alteration by deletion
3. Alteration by substitution (bura tas singit)
Congresswoman Juanita Nepomuceno of Pampanga lola
ni Kiko Pangilinan yan. Mr. Speaker. Yes, what is your
desire? Sponsor my bill calendared for 2nd reading.
Congressman from Mindanao. Yield to me? Will the lady
accept an insertion from this gentleman? You cannot
withdraw it without my consent!
To be a valid alteration of a holographic will. It must be
handwriting of the testator and it must be authenticated
by the full signature of the testator.
Sa kasong ito gumawa si Ron
1. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
2. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
3. Disposition disposition ^alteration alteration then initialled
disposition disposition
Page 23 of 81
(SGD) Ron Garcia (long signature)
Eva: Punyeta ka. Bakit 5k lang kay DI. Di ba usapan natin
10k?
It was not a valid alteration. Initial lang dib a dapat full
sig?
Ibahin natin ngayon.
1. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
2. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
3. Disposition disposition ^alteration alteration then initialled
disposition disposition
(SGD) RBG
Sabi ni Paras, hindi pwede initials. Dapat full
signature. Kaya nga as far as Paras is concerned,
invalid lahat kasi initial lang. hindi kasi gets ni
Paras yung full signature hindi naman sinabing
long signature.
What is a full signature? Kung ano ipinirma dun sa ilalim
yun ang pirma kapag inauthenticate ang alteration.
Example.
1. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
2. Disposition disposition disposition disposition
3. Disposition disposition ^alteration alteration then full signature
Ron Garcia
disposition disposition
(SGD) RBG (initials lang)
Alteration wont take effect either kasi the law
means full signature is the one at the end. Law
wants only one form/type of signature. Akala kasi
ni Para sang full signature ay long signature.
Magkaiba yun. Kaya nga maraming namamatay
sa maling akala.
Alteration is invalid, how about will in its original tenor?
Will it still take effect? Aujero v CA: Since original will is
valid, it will take effect. What will not take effect is the
alteration.
Buti yan kung alteration eh insertion lang. may
matandang dalaga (kelan ba ang matandang dalaga?
Senior citizen stage 60 years. Matanda na, dalaga pa
rin).
I institute my brother Jose Julian as my sole and
universal heir.
(Sgd) Juana Change
July 21, 2010
Valid ba ito? Hindi nagsasabing hindi valid, papalabasin
ko!
Kaso nagkagalit si Juana at si Jose. So binura niya,
ginawang Abad. Nakalimutan niyang pirmahan hanggang
sa kamatayan nia.

Sino na magmamana sa settlement proceeding? Jose:
Julian was designated by way of an alteration. Not
authenticated by testatrix but it will not take effect.
Julian: Erase naman yung name mo! Jose: Alteration din
ang cancellation of my name. It did not take effect! Kung
hindi nagtake effect ang designation ni Julian at erasure
ni Jose, sino ang magmamana? Kalaw v Relova. Major
errors of SC in succession. Ang sabi SC nobody none
was entitled to inherit.
Not Julian: because his designation was
clearly an alteration and for that
alteration t be effective, it msut be
authenticated. Since it was not, it was
invalid.
Not Jose: it was not an alteration but just
revocation of provision through
cancellation. Revocation does not require
authentication to be effective.
Sirs opinion as shared by Vitug (di ko lang alam kung
sino nauna): What is the nature of Joses erasure? Yes it
may be revocation. Pano papalitan kung hindi nirevoke.
WON revocation, it is immaterial. We still apply 814 not
820. This is a particular form of revocation amounting to
alteration governed by specific law, 814. Hindi dapat
mag-take effect. Theres danger nab aka mamaya may
nagcancel ng provision na hidni ginawa ng testatrix. How
do we know that it was testator himself who cancelled it
out? Dun papasok si Aujero v CA. Delikado yung kanilang
ruling in Kalaw v Relova. Dangerous precedent.
26 July 2010
PNoys first SONA
Page 24 of 81
28 July 2010
V. INCORPORATION OF
DOCUMENT BY REFERENCE
We are now in incorporation of document by
reference Art 827
Sometimes, a testator has so much property to dispose
that to identify each and every property in the will shall
result in the will becoming extra-long or voluminous.
Lets suppose testator has 100 pieces of real property, if
each and every property identified in the will. You can
just imagine how long that will become. And you know,
the longer the will gets, the risk that it will not comply
with the formalities also gets bigger. Halimbawa, 20
pages na yan, e di possibility of witness lifting two pages
at the same time becomes greater. The shorter the will
therefore, the better. Eh pano yan, katakot-takot
properties of testator. Yung isang client ko, nakafile lahat
ng TCTs sa isang filing cabinet. Tatlong drawers puno ng
titulo. Ganon kayaman yung client ko. Inventory ganito
kakapal. Kung lahat to papangalanan, can you just
imagine how long it will become. To aid the testator in
making a short will, A827 allows the testator to
incorporate by mere referece another document or
paper. It is incorporated in the will by mere reference.
E.g. Inventory of all his assets. In his will, ganito na lang
nakalagay. To my oldest son, I give all properties in page
1-4.
However for incorporation to be effective, there are
requisites enumerated in Art. 827,
1. Document or paper referred to in the will must
be in existence at the time of the execution of
the will.
Implications of this requirement: The
incorporation is invalid. Only the
incorporation, not the will itself. The will
remains a valid will, but the incorporation
will be ineffective.
1. The will must clearly describe and identify the
document or paper stating among other things
the
a. Number of pages of the document or of
the paper
2. Signed by the testator and the witnesses on each
and every page, except
a. Voluminous books of account or
documents
3. During probate the document must be identified
in court as the document referred to in the will.
Must AC of a notarial will state about the incorporation
by reference of a document or a paper? No requirement
Are all these requirements to be effective, mandatory?
E.g. signed by testator and witnesses on each and every
page. DLC opinion: It is not mandatory because there is a
built-in eception. How do we know whether its
voluminous? How many pages should there be and so
the signature on the pages may be dispensed with.

Suppose its not an inventory but another paper, how
long must the paper be to be voluminous so that the
requirement be dispensed with.
How about a holographic will, may a holographic will
incorporate by reference another document? If you will
look at 827, theres a requirement that each and every
page must be signed by the testator and the witnesses.
BUT there are no witnesses in the case of the
holographic will. Does that imply that incorporation is
allowed only in notarial will? Eh sir, sabi mo hindi naman
mandatory yun, so siguro pag holographic hindi na rin
kailangan. Anyway, wala pa naman sigurong
nangyayaring ganyan. Baka makickout kayo dahil dito sa
subject na to sa college na ito pero mabibilang sa daliri
yung hahawak or nakhaawak ng settlement of estate
cases. In my yers of practice, 5 settlement case lang
nahawakan ko.
Remember the principles on incorporation, this will be
discussed later in republication.
VI. CODICILS
As we have discussed in our past sessions, the testator
may modify or alter his holographic will by simply writing
or inserting in his own handwriting the alteration or
simply cancelling the portion of his will he wanted to
delete or delete and insert a propvision. But for this
alteration to be effective, it only requires the
authentication by the testator with his full signature. How
about in the case of a notarial will, how may a testator
modify his notarial will?
He can modify through the execution of a codicil. Under
A825, it is a supplement or addition to a will made Holographic will kasi separate document. Pero kapag ito
after execution of will, annexed to be taken as part
thereof. Function of explaining a disposition contained in
the original which may be ambiguous, in order to remove
the ambiguity there is the codicil to explain it away.
Codicil may also revoke some dispositions of the prior
will. Ayaw na bigyan mana si Pedro so tinanggal na,
hereby revoked.
Disposition may be modified. I leave to Pedro of my
entire estate, nagbago ang isip, mashado malaki so
1/3 na lang. disposition in favor of the nephew reduced
to only 1/3.
For this codicil to be valid, it must be executed in
accordance with all the formalites and requirements of a
valid will.
Ano nga yung mga reuirements na yun?
1. At least 18
2. Testamentary capacity
3. Animus testandi
4. Compliance with the formalities prescribed by
law
5. Executed freely and voluntarily
Pag nag-concur yang lima na yan, will was duly
executed.
Difference between a will and a codicil
Page 25 of 81
INSOFAR AS REQUIREMENTS FOR VALIDITY: no difference
San nagkaiba? Codicil necessarily refers to a prior will. If
it doesnt hindi sha codicil.
Suppose the will was a notarial will, may the testator
execute a holographic codicil? Should they be the same
form? No, a codicil need not be executed in the same
form as the will it refers to.
Why? Kasi yung wording ng A826: ang important word
diyan? Kung hindi naunderline-an, hindi pala ako
brilliant? Ang uunderline jan, yung word na a !!! Iba
yan kung the which means dapat same form as the will
it refers to.
Ergo, holographic will may have holographic codicil and
notarial will may have holographic codicil. Pero may
problema tayo jan.
Notarial will.
MARGINAL SIGNATURE 4X
4. disposition disposition. ^ALTERATION signature and date
5. disposition disposition
PS modification modification signature and date
Will the modification take effect?
2nd one (PS) suppose PS was written on separate sheet of
paper?
tinanggal sa page na ito. Cut out natin yan, wallang
meaning. Kasi ininesert sha in such a way na may
kinalaman sa number 5. There will be no problem kung
separate sheet PERO PS In relation to disposition
number 5. Yung changes dito maiintindihan mo lang kasi
nakasunod sha sa number 5.
Will this qualify as holographic codicil?
As it is, magkaqualify yung PS. Pero pano yung may
caret, ininsert lang sa notarial will, may prima at date.
Take note that law does not require codicil to be a
separate instrument. On the page where the prior will is
written. Dun na rin niya isinulat. Wala pa kaso yan. Pero
nakaencounter na ako niyan. Alam mo naman mga Pinoy
mahilig sa ganayn. Notarial will na, kinocorrect pa.
DLC opinion: Yung PS maliwanag na holographic codicil
pero yung insertion sa taas, hindi pa ako kombinsido na
holographic codicil. Pero baka pwede rin kasi will di
naman yung kinorrect niya. Why not take together? One
becomes holographic codicil of the notarial will.
Maliwanag yan Malabo? Maliwanag yan.
When theres conflict between original will and
subsequent codicil, which one prevails? Codicil prevails
because it is a much later expression of the tsetators
will. Sha yung amendatory law kung batas pinag-
uusapan natin. Its the latest amendment prevail over
dispositions of a prior will.
 Page 26 of 81

1. Must be done freely and voluntarily

VII. REVOCATION
TYPES/MANNER OF REVOCATION
REVOCATION
Revocation are of two types.

Act of the mind of testator terminating the capacity of By operation of law

the will, manifested by some outward or visible act or E.g. the guilty spouse in case of
sing symbolic thereof. annulment
Testator will render the entire will ineffective OR will Testator has nothing to do with it
render a disposition/s contained in the will inoperative or
ineffective. Act of the testator
When may testator revoke? Art 828: Any time before his
Formalities of revoking will
Formalities of act of destruction
death
What law governs the formalities of a valid revocation of
On what grounds may testator revoke his will? No ground
will or disposition thereof? Under the law, the applicable
required by law to justify revocation fo the law. As a
law depends on whether testator is domiciled in the Phil
GENERAL RULE thereof, the testator may revoke his will
or is effected in/out of the country. If done in the Phil by
at his pleasure. No matter what his reason is, he may
a resident, resident has to observe Phil law. If the
revoke his will.
resident is an alien. Can he revoke the will in accordance
with law of his nationality? 829 does not tell us that he
Maliwanag Malabo? Maliwanag yan.
can, rather it has to be revoked in accordance with Phil
law, applying general law, lex loci celebrationis.
May a testator bind himself for a valuable consideration
not to revoke his will? Halimbawa gumawa ng will si kiko
How about done in the Phil by a non-resident? Same rule,
pangilinan. Pamamanahan ko si KC. Sabi ni Sharon,
lex loci celelbrationis. Non-resident has to apply Phil law
sigurado ka bang pamamanahan mo si KC?!
if revoke will in the Phil
Magcocontribute ako ng 1M sa campaign fund mo upon
the condition na hindi mo irerevoke yan. Sige!!! Lets put
What if done outside Phil by a non-resident? Law of the
that into writing. Later nag-away sila ni Sharon dahil
place where will executed or the testators domicile.
hindi bumoto si Tito Sotto sa kanya. Kiko may still revoke
How about law of place where will is to be revoked?
his will. A828 prohibits any waiver on the right to revoke
Silent 829, yes he may observe law of place where
the will. Also prohibits any restriction on any right of
revocation takes place. Lex loci celebrationis in A17.
testator to revoke his will.
Will revoked abroad by a resident of the Phil? No special
When is revocation valid?
rule, hence apply A17. Law of the place where revocation
May sinusunod din tayong requirements:
will take place.
1. Testamentary capacity
But may the Filipino testator revoke his will outside the
a. Age
Phil in accordance with Phil law? Law is silent. But DLC
b. Soundness of mind
that should be allowed because that is the normal runt of
c. Not expressly disqualified
things. Pinoy abroad and resident of Phil will not have
knowledge of the law of the place where he is and where
Sandali lang sir, di naman ako gumagawa ng will ah. Bat
he will revoke the will.
pa kailangan niyan? In revoking a will, He is actually
disposing estate indirectly. Indirect disposition of his
FORMALITIES when testator will revoke his will by
estate kapag nirevoke ang will. Ron decided not to
marry, tumandang binata, nameet niya ngayon ang executing SUBSEQUENT AND REVOKING
kaibigan niyang DI. Ang gaganda ng mga DI na babae WILL
diba? Walang isang kusing mga kapatid niya. Pwede yun.
Ron has no compulsory heirs. Pero nagalit sha kay DI so If you will look at 830, the law speaks of some will, codicil
nirevoke ang will. Kanino mapupunta ang mga estate, e or other writing executed as provided in case of wills.
di sa mga kapatid niya sa legal heirs. Indirect disposition Other writing executed as provided in case of wills
in favor of his legal heirs. whats this animal? DLCs opinion: refers to a donation
mortis causa. To be valid must be executed as in the
2. Animus revocandi case of a will. If a donation mortis causa executed
3. Compliance with the formalities prescribed by without complying with formalities of the will, its invalid.
law for a valid or effective revocation Ang macocover ng other writing donation MC.

It depends on how revocation will be done. Pano When a subsequent will is executed by testator to revoke
ba nirerevoke ang isang will? SO TYPES/MANNER a prior will, revocation of the entire will in which case
OF REVOCATION total , if only some dispositions partial

PARTIAL (disposition only): Such revocation may also be
total (delete the entire disposition) or partial (reduced
to smaller amount)
May revocation be subject to a condition? Pwede pala
conditonal yan. Im sure you have learned in ObliCon
what a condition is. A condition is a future event the
happening of which is uncertain. Suppose the event is a
past event, may it be a condition. In what instance
does it become a condition? If the happening is yet
unknown. Impossible condition pamamanahan ko si
Ron kapag siya ay naging gwapo, pag nanganak si Ron,
pagputi ng uwak. Eh pano yung albino.
Condition may either be suspensive or resolutory.
May the revocation of a will subject to a suspenseive
condition? Yes, the revocation is made subject to a
happening of a condition.
Resolutory condition? No, the moment a will is revoked,
revocation takes effect instantly. For that condition to be
set aside, the testator must republish the will. The
happening of a resolutory condition, is not a form of
republication. Revoked ka ngayon ha, pero this
revocation will terminate pag natapos yung condition.
If the testator will revoke his prior will by executing a
subsequent will, revocation may be express (when there
is a revocatory clause; e.g. I revoke the prior will I
executed in 1988) OR implied/by implication (when
the subsequent will contains no revocatory clause but
the dispositions are inconsistent with dispositions of the
prior will to that extent the prior will is revoked.)
REQUISITES for the revoking will to be valid. The same as
in the case of any ordinary will.
1. Testamentary capacity
2. Compliance with formalities
a. notarial
b. holographic
3. Animus testandi
4. Freely and voluntarily executed
Revocation will only take effect when the revoking will is
allowed probate. If denied probate, the prior will remains
unaffected. Para marevoke niya yung prior will
subsequent will must be admitted to probate. Pag
nadeny ng probate, walang mangyayair, prior will
remains unaffected.
PHYSICAL ACT OF DESTRUCTION
Testator is allowed to revoke a will by destroying it
physically, i.e.
burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating.
Are these acts exclusively? Pwede rin yung crumpling
and throwing it in the waste basket.
For a physical act of destruction to take effect, ganon din
ang requirements. Yung 5 points. + physical act of
destruction.
NB The physical act of destruction must appear on the
face of the will. Pano mo sasabihing sinunog kung buong
buo pa yung will. There must be an act of destruction
appearing on the face of the will.
Page 27 of 81
Illustrate:
Si Ron, decided to remain a bachelor forever. Nagkagalit
sila ni Eva. Heartbroken and in despair kaya naging
woman-hater. Di na mag-aasawa. He lived in the
company of his nephews. Isa dun sa nephew ay paborito
niya, hindi namna niya minomolest. He made a will
giving of his estate to his favorite nephew, lets call
him Berto Isang araw nagalit sha kay Berto kasi he
learned that Berto was courting the daughter of Eva. E
diba galit sha kay Eva? Tinawag si Berto I want to make
this very very clear. Kapag napangasawa mo ang anak ni
Eva, tatanggalan kita ng mana. Kaso pag puso na pinag-
ususapna, over the objection of Ron, nagtuloy-tuloy ng
ligaw si Berto sa daughter ni Eva na itago natin sa
pangalang Eva II. Eh yung kanyang maid si Annie,
nagsumbong, sabi kay Ron, Kuya, mag-on napo sina
Berto at Eva. Sigurado ka. Nagkikissing kissing po doon.
Sabi ngayon ni Ron, in one family gathering hosted by
him. Birthday niya. Inannounce niya publicly sa mga
kamag-anak. Mabait sanang bata pero suwail (defiant in
English). Sa kanya ko sana ipapamana yung half, pero
ngayon pa lang inaannounce ko sa inyo, tinatanggalan
ko na sha ng mana! Inutusan niya si Annie, kunin mo
yung will sa kwarto ko. Sa sama ng loob, inatake sa puso,
nalalag sa floor at namatay. Di na nakuha ni Ani yung
will. Will Berto inherit the one half given him in will?
Depends on the validity of the will. Of course it is still
valid because it was not revoked.
Mere expression of an intention is not enough. Testator
must do something! Revoking will or sirain niya yung will
physically.
Baguhin natin yung script. Hindi inatake sa puso si Ron.
Inutusan niya si Ani, kunin ang aking testamento, pronto!
Eto po. Ito ba? Ito nga! Itinapon niya sa bonfire. Matapos
itapon, umalis kasi ihing ihi na sha. Ito naming si Ani,
crush pala si Berto, snatched the enveloped from the
fire. Ang nasunog lang eh yung envelope. Yung will eh
unscathed. Wala man lamang sign na sinunog. Hindi
alam ni Ron yun. Namatay si Ron. The will he thought he
already revoked is submitted for probate. Still a valid will
because the act of destruction must appear on the face
of the will. Only evidence of destruction is the will itself.
Must destruction be total for the will to be effective? No.
Hindi naman kailangan. If the testator burned the will,
not required that the entire will be burned into ashes.
Enough that there is sign of act of destruction performed
by the testator on the will.
For the same reason, it was accidentally destroyed.
Naglilinis si Ron ng kwarto, nakakita ng old envelope
without realizing that it was his will. Was the will
effectively revoked? No, no animus revocandi. Animus
revocandi must be coupled by act of destruction
appearing on the face of the will.
Suppose this happens: Ani get my will. Sisirain natin!
Pinunit na ni Ani before pa umabot kay Ron. Destruction
may be done by 3rd party but to be valid:
1. Destruction must be done at the express
direction of the testator
2. Done in the presence of the testator.

In case of Ani, not expressly directed/instructed to
destroy the will. She did it on her own volition. She
destroyed the will not in the presence of the testator. Eh
sir napunit na, pano pa irerevoke yun ngayon? Eh di
sunugin natin! Valid pa rin yun kahit punit na. The
burning of the torn pieces will effectively produce
revocation. Ang problem suppose sa halip pinunit ni
Ani, sinunog niya. Ani is always ahead of her amo. Hindi
pa hinihinigi ni Pinoy, nakaprepare na. Pano pa irerevoke
ni Ron? Eh di gagawa na lang sha ng subsequent will?
Katawa-tawa absurd diba? Senator Tolentino,
commented on that possibility. Absurd to require testator
to revoke a will that was already burned into ashes.
Common sense dictates that ratification of revocation by
testator should validate. Opinion lang ni Arthur yun. Law
abhors the absurd.
Act of destruction must be completed while animus
revocandi is existing. Ron pahinging scrap paper na
SCRA. Umiiyak si Ron, pumasok si Berto break na sila.
Natigil yung pagpunit halfway. So tinape niya ulit. Will
was not revoked because as far as Ron is concerned, the
act of destruction was not yet complete. Nagbago yung
isip niya. Kaya nga pinaste niya.
What if natuloy yung punit tas tinapon sa waste can.
Kinabukasan binreak ko na po, Tito bireak ko na. I love
you tito! Kinuha niya yung will at iniscotch tape niya.
Makakapagmana pa ba si Berto?
Was the will revoked? Yes, kasi nung pinunit at itinapon
na. as far as law is concerned, act of destruction already
complete!
The moment act of revocation completed,
revocation takes effect immediately and totally.
Pinagdikit naman niya! Hindi ba yung intention to make
the will valid again? It may be so, but you can only make
a revoked will valid again through act of republication
and pasting them together is not republication under the
law! Maliwanag Malabo? Maliwanag yan.
ACTS OF DESTRUCTION
Burning sinunog
Tearing pinunit
Cancelling how different is this from obliteration? An
act which shows the state of the mind of the testator to
remove/delete a word from but without rendering it
illegible. To render the entire document a nullity.
E.g. Notarial will.
WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
T
WWW
There IS A LINE drawn diagonally. Mas maganda kung
merong written word na cancelled or void. Not
obliteration kasi readable pa yung words but the line
implies something.
Page 28 of 81
Obliteration is to render a written word illegible or
unreadable. Kung amkikita niyo yung original manuscript
ni Rizal ng Noli me Tangere, hindi mo makita. Pero
ngayon kita na sa spectography. Xray or other radiation,
makikita yung original word na gusto sana niyang
gamitin.
Kung one line lang yung strikethrough, cancellation yan.
If one word lang, only the disposition where the word was
used will be revoked, not the entire will. In which case
revocation of a dispostion not revocation of a will.
For obliteration/cancellation to be effective, does it
require authentication by signature to be effective?
Cancellation may be proven in the probate as having
been done by the testator. Proven by competent
evidence, not required that it should be authenticated by
the testator. Prove in court that it was Ani on her own
volition without Rons instructions.
How about in the case of a holographic will?
On testators own handwriting WILL WILL WILL WILL
WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL
WILL WILL WILL
T
No need for an authentication. This is not an alteration of
the will. Its a cancellation and not a revocation of the
entire will. We apply A830, entire will was revocation. Not
just a mere alteration. Ang problem is Kalaw v Relova.
Ang sabi dun:
I institute Jose Juan is my sole and universal heir.
T
Anong sabi dito? Isa lang ang provision ng will. Its a
revocation (which does not require authentication by
signature) but its an alteration of the body of the will. It
has to be authenticated by the full signature of the
testator. Otherwise, application of the law will not only be
absurd but also funny. Anything that will change is
always a revocation since increase or reduce of
disposition is partial revocation.
Ang sabi ng Kalaw, if it will amount to revocation, hindi
kailangan ng authentication. Kapag nagbabago ang
disposition, pwede ialter hindi kailangan authentication.
Pero kung iaalter yung provision na walang effect,
kailangan ng authentication. Bakit pa eh wala nga effect
diba?? Application of A834 will become absurd. In effect,
any modification that will not alter needs to be
 Page 29 of 81

authenticated even no effect on the substance of the How about if will was revoked through act of
provision. Pero pag magbabago, pwede walang destruction? Can we prove that destruction was
authentication. I join Justice Vitug in his comment. Its a moved by a false ground? Yes, kasi wala naming
wrong decision! Dapat nga mag-amount sa partial nakalagay sa batas, kaya lang delikado, mas
revocation para iauthenticate niya! Yung mga mahirap mahirap patunayan. In the absence of any law to
na tanong nasa exam yan. the contrary, if the act of revocation was through
destruction of the will, then it may be proved by
2 August 2010 all kinds of evidence to show that revocation was
based on a cause and that the cause was false.
The last topic was applicability of provisions of
revocation to holographic wills. i.e. If its an alteration of
a holographic will, even if such alteration will amount to
partial revocation (it always does), it should comply with
814 otherwise, we will be having absurd results. Every
change in the holographic will will amount to partial
revocation of the altered provision. If we follow Kalaw v
Relova, alteration will apply only if the change introduced
in the body of the holographic will will not amount to
partial revocation. Walang ganun, thats absurd. Walang
nagbago sa will yet it has to be authenticated by the full
signature.

We go now to: DESTRUCTION BY A THIRD PARTY

Not effective but how will the testator revoke it? Invalid
already. Impractical to Follow senator Tolentinos
suggestion to allow confirmation by the testator to allow
such destruction.

REVOCATION BASED ON A FALSE CAUSE

While it is not required to have a cause to revoke will,
common sense dictates he will not revoke unless with a
reason, no matter how capricious it is, law will recognize.
How about if the cause is false or illegal? What is the
effect, under A833, revocation is null and void.

When is a cause false? How do we establish that a cause

is false? Acting on a false cause. Ano ginawa mo kay
Eva? Bakit nawawala si Eva? Nawala yung favorite
nephew ni Ron, sabi ni Ani nakipagtanan sa anak ni Eva.
Eh hindi naman pala nagtanan, sanga-sanga lang talaga
dila ni Ani. Ron revoked his will. Thats false cause.

How do we establish the falsity of the cause? It depends

on the manner the will is revoked.
If the will is revoked by a subsequent will or
codicil, the false cause must appear in the
revoking will. It is now for the oppositors of
probate of the will to prove the falsity of the
cause at hearing. If no cause is stated in the
revoking will, then we cannot prove by evidence
that the revocation was the cause of a cause and
that the cause is false.

E.g. Ron executed a will, ganito lang nakalagay, after

machismisan ni Ani, I revoke the disposition in favor of
my nephew Jose Madrigal in the will I executed in 2001.
Hindi niya sinabi sa revoking will kung ano yung reason.
Pwede ba yung kanyang nephew sabihin, I oppose the
probate of the revoking will on the ground of false cause.
He revoked it acitng on a mistaken belief that I eloped
with his former gf. Can the court act favorably for the
nephew? No, we cannot prove this cause. If he did not
state in his revoking will, theres no cause to be proved.

DOCTRINE OF DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION
Illustration: Series of factual circumstances.
1. Testator made a will. Later, he revoked the will by
executing 2nd will expressly revoking the 1st. It was
declared in the 2nd that should 2nd be denied probate,
revocation shall nonetheless be effective.
The will containing revocation being void,
revocation contained in the will must also
be void. Hindi pwedeng valid yung
lalagyan pero valid yung naklaagay.
Is this an application of doctrine of
relative revocation? No, kasi hindi valid
yung revocation.
Pano ba nagkakaron ng application of DDR?
1. Testator executed a will. Later on, he executed a 2nd
will expressly revoking 1st. Believing 2nd will is valid,
testator destroyed the first. But the 2nd will was
invalid and denied probate for failure to comply with
certain formal requirements. Was the first will
revoked?
In reality if you analyze the facts, DDR is
a species of revocation based on a
false cause. The destruction of the 1st
will was based on the false cause that
the 2nd will was valid.
Act of destruction is therefore void. 1st
has remained valid.
Yung mga writers jan ang daming
sinasabi. Its an example of a revocation
based on a false cause.
Favorite ko yan. You might be surprised how the
problems come out.
VIII. REPUBLICATION AND
REVIVAL
What is meant by republication?
The process of giving validity to a will which is useless or
has become useless because it was void OR because it
had been revoked. A will which is void, if you want to
make it valid, republication is the process.
Ano yung revival?
The process of restoring the operation of a previously
revoked will by operation of law. Validity of the will
revoked is restored not by act of testator but by the act
of law.
REPUBLICATION REVIVAL
Necessarily act of Not act of testator but operation
testator of law
Both void and revoked Only revoked will
will
How is republication accomplished?
Under the law, it is accomplished in 2 ways:
Page 30 of 81
1. By re-execution (Art 835)
2. By reference in another valid will or codicil (Art
836)
RE-EXECUTION
Make a new will from scratch. Testator has to execute his
will by complying with all the formalities for making a
valid will.
E.g. Testator executed notarial will. Later he changed his
mind and revoked the will by cancellation. So nilagyan ng
line yung face ng will + cancelled. Later on nagbago isip
niya so naglagay sha ulit ng line Will restored.
Cancellation void.
Was the will that was previously revoked restored to its
validity? No, dalawa lang manners of republication, re-
execution when he cancelled/set aside the cancellation,
its neither reexecution nor reference in another
will/codicil. He has to start from scratch i.e. sign a will at
the end thereof, presence of instrumental witnesses, sign
again each and every page, in the presence and
attestation clause. Appear before a notary public to
acknowledge execution of a will.
The notarial will was executed by a testator but later on,
it turned out that one of the witnesses was disqualified
(previously convicted of crime involving falsification,
false testimony and perjury).
What was the effect of disqualification? Net effect is the
invalidity of the will. There were only two witnesses to
such a will, it will certainly be denied probate when
presented.
How may the testator make this will valid? Ang ginawa
nung testator, kumuha ng piece of paper and executed a
holographic will, I Ron Garcia of sound and disposing
mind do hereby order that the will I executed in 2010 be
republished through this holographic will. Iyan ay
parang reference to a void will in a subsequent will or
codicil.
Was the first will republished through this reference in
the subsequent holographic will? No, it was not
republished. Because A835 is very clear. A will which is
void as to form cannot be republished except by
reexecution, not reference by another will or codicil.
Since void as to form, only one way to publish it e.g.
reexecution.
Kung gusto niya ng holographic, kopyahin niya yun by
hand. Kung gusto ng notarial will, eh di iexecute ulit.
When is a will void BUT NOT as to form?
IMPLICATION: Void for a reason other than as to form,
reference by codicil is enough.
Go back to the elements of due execution.
1. Testamentary capacity
2. Animus testandi
3. Compliance with formalities (Art 805 and 806)
4. Freely and voluntarily

Void as to form - nullity is because of number 3. For
instance, if its due to testamentary capacity, pwedeng
irepublish through reference in a codicil.
If the will is to be republished by reference in another will
or codicil, must the reference comply with the
rerquirements of A827 (incorporation of a document by
reference)? Ano yung requirements dun? document
incorporated not only referred and identified, but signed
in each and every page by testator and witnesses. Sa
kasong ito, holographic will si Ron, order the
republication of the first will executed, kailangan ba
magcomply sa A827? So far, only one author (believed,
dahil patay na sha) Justice Desiderio Jurado is wrong.
A827 refers to document and other papers, they are
short of a will. Kapagka will, A836 ang mag-aapply.
Binura niya yung pirma at the end of the will. He wanted
to make will valid, so pinirma niya ulit. Was the will
restored to validity? Of course it was not restored.
Reaffixing is not reexecution. Eh sir, kung hindi re-
execution yun, can he just make holographic will by mere
reference to the subsequent will? That cannot be
republished by mere reference, after blotting out
signature, it was will void as to form and not
republishable by direct execution.
Problem discussed by Paras in his book. Inaassign si
Paras pero laging binabanatan sa discussion, para
masaya. Pag hindi tayo nakakontra sa UP, hindi tayo
masaya. The moment naging pro-institution tayo,
Atenista na tayo. Laging tayong against institution. In UP
once, issued an order requiring candidates to pay.
Property qualification yun protesta kami tas withdraw
sila.
The testator made a will with only two witnesses at the
time law required three. Law was amended reducing
number to two. Much later the testator executed a valid
codicil making reference to the prior will, was the first
will republished? Accdg. to Paras, a will republished by a
codicil is deemed to have been made/executed as of the
same date as the codicil was executed. San niya nakuha
yun?
Ergo, law that will govern the form of the prior will should
not be the law in force at the time prior will was
executed but by the law in force at the time it was
referred to at the time of the codicil. San niya nakuha
yun? If hes correct, the reference is sufficient to
republish the prior will. Any question?
REVIVAL
Executed a first will. much later, he changed his mind
and executed a second will expressly revoking the first.
Eh pababago-bago talaga ng isip, he executed a third will
expressly revoking the second.
Assuming that all the three wills are valid as to form/duly
executed, valid talaga when it comes to due execution.
Yung bang 1st will ay effective pa? Aha youve read your
magic notes! You learned your lesson. No, there is no
revival.
Page 31 of 81
Assuming they were all executed, nung inexecute yung
2nd, revoked na si 1st will. For the 1st will to be restored, it
has to be republished by testator or revived by law. Yung
third will, hindi ba republication of 1st will yan when he
revoked the 2nd? No its not. Reexecution ba yan? By
reference? Lalong hindi.
Sabi ng batas, first will not revived by the execution of
the third will. Mangyayari lang ito kapag duly executed. If
the 2nd will was not valid, it did not produce any effect at
all, same reason that third will produce any effect. Ang
presumption ditto ay duly executed lahat.
Sabi ng batas, hindi revival ito under A837. If not, when
is there revival? Only instance of revival: When the 2nd
will only impliedly revoked the 1st will, and the 3rd
will expressly revoked the 2nd will.
Suppose the 2nd will impliedly revoked the 1st will, but the
2nd will was revoked by destruction? Its possible for the
two wills to be valid as to provisions that are consistent
with each other.
Suppose the 2nd will is impliedly revoked by a 3rd one,
what happens to the 1st will? Its not proper to talk about
revival kasi 1st will did not go out of existence. So there
are three wills which may be effective at the same time
insofar as provisions not inconsistent.
If the 3rd will expressly revoked the 2nd which impliedly
revoked the 1st? The execution of the second will did not
render the provisions of the 1st ineffective, but only those
inconsistent with the 2nd. Ang marerevive lang eh yung
mga narevoke. Revocation of the 2nd will removed the
inconsistency which revived the 1st. revival of the
impliedly revoked provisions
Also true if the removal of the inconsistent provisions
were by execution of 3rd revoking will. Revocation of 2nd
will therefore will come about even if the revocation of
the 2nd was done through an act of destruction. Pag sinira
mo yun, masisira yun totally. Total revocation, then
revive the provisions which were inconsistent with the 2nd
will.
Bakit kung express yung revocation, bakit hindi revived
yung first? Logically dapat marevive kaso pinagbawal ng
A837.
What is the reason behind 837? Simple lang yan. Eh kasi
daw, between express and implied eh mahirapan tayong
iinfer na revocation of the express revived the entire
thing.
Since revocation may either be partial (disposition only)
OR total (entire will), will revival or republication apply to
a mere testamentary disposition? A835 applies to will
only, not dispositions.
How does he restore the crossed out disposition? Apply
by analogy. Ang problem jan, kapag kinross out niya,
paano sasabihin na void as to form, void for a reason
other than a form.

Pwede ba by mere reference? In Sirs opinion: If that
cancelled provision amount to not valid as to form,
pwede pa rin reexecuting the revoked disposition.
4 August 2010
IX. ALLOWANCE OF WILLS
What do we mean by allowance of wills? The court
proceeding where extrinsic validity of the will is decreed.
Why necessary? In A838, no will shall pass real/property
unless proved and allowed in accordance with RoC. So
there has to be a court order declaring that the will is
duly executed. That declaration is called allowance of
wills. Reason why there has to be a court declaration that
the will was duly executed, to ensure that the will was
indeed that of the testator, that its not a forgery so that
the properties fo the decedent will be distributed in
accordance with his true wishes.
How do we call the proceeding for proving and allowing
wills? Probate. In practice, you dont file action for
probate unless its a pre or ante mortem probate.
What is to be proven in the probate proceeding? The due
execution of the will, otherwise called extrinsic validity
of the will. When is it duly executed, we have discussed
in our past sessions, the four requirements must be
present.
Intrinsic validity of the will is not the subject matter of
probate. This involves the validity of the dispositions
contained in the will. Not included in the probate
proceeding.
Probate of a will maybe before the death or after the
death of the testator.
If before the death call it ante mortem probate.
Filed by the testator himself who must still be
alive during that proceeding. He will be the one
to file it. The caption of the case he will file is
petition for probate of a will
Probate may be done after the death its the
usual case. Very few are the cases where a will is
probated before death of the testator. Most of
the probate cases are done post-mortem. When
it is post-mortem, what petition is filed in court,
petition for settlement of estate
1. Testamentary petition for the settlement of
the testate estate; Divided into several parts:
a. Probate proceeding
b. When admitted for probate declaration of
heirs
c. Partition
But from the time settlement proceeding is filed up to
partition, the estate is under administration. Executor
named in the will applies to be named the administrator.
Pag-aaaralan niyo lahat yan sa SpecPro.
Yung iba ang unang ginagawa, pinag-iisa nila muna. Fuse
together two causes/steps, i.e. Petition for ___ where the
Page 32 of 81
will is attached. Appointment of the administrator and
the probate of the will. Dalawa in two stages.
1. Intestate
Intrinsic validity of the will is not included in the coverage
of probate. Dati kasi kapag probate, it only refers to the
proving of a will. Pag sinabing probate, necessarily
involves proving a will. Pero ngayon hindi na, probate
may also refer to settlement proceeding. Thats why if
you look at RoC the word probate includes the entire
settlement of estate proceeding. They call the
proceeding probate. But technically, settlement
proceeding is different from probate. In reality probate is
a mere stage/phase of the settlement proceeding.
May the heirs choose not to probate the will but
distributed the estate nonetheless in accordance with
the provision of the will. Wag na natin dalhin sa court
yan, gagastos pa tayo. Hire a lawyer acceptance fee
upfront. Madugo ang acceptance fee ni Concepcion.
Hindi naman pwede kasi na lahat ng lawyers pareho,
may mas magagaling. Hindi pwedeng sumingil ng maliit
yung mga magagaling na lawyers. Meron pang
publication yan (cost of publishing setting the initial
hearing of the proceeding). Everytime magkakaroon ng
hearing, natural may appearance fee pa everytime yan.
Kung bago, maliit lang appearance fee. Katulad ni Titong
Mendoza, mamumulubi ka dun. Mabigat bayad dun. At
hindi lang yun. If you submit the will to court for probate,
it becomes a public matter, the BIR can always look at
the properties listed in the will disposed to the heirs.
Baka naman hindi niyo na macontrol yung taxes niyan. It
becomes an open book.
Theres temptation not to submit will to probate. They
agreed among themselves to implement the will to the
letter. Okay ba yun? No, whenever theres a will left
behind by testator, probate is mandatory. A838.
I remember one of my professors, sa klase tinanong niya
kami. Bakit kailangan mandatory, pwede naman isupress
ang will. Under the rules, the person in possession of will
has to submit to court within certain period of time under
pain of contempt. Sabi teacher ko, sino naman
magrereklamo dun? Mag-execute na lang sila
extrajudicial settlement of the estate. Subornation of
perjury. Hindi tatanggapin ng register of deeds kung may
properties kung walang maliwanag nakalagay dun na
decedent died without a will. Pag nilagay mo na left no
will, thats why youre dividing among yourselves,
perjury yun kasi under oath. Required by law to be
submitted to register of deeds. Nabigla si teacher.
Unethical angle yung tinuturo niya eh. Nagtuturo shang
illegal. Mandatory submission to court under pain of
contempt. Settling it extrajudiciary, all the signatories
would commit perjury.
Sir perjury lang naman yun, kaya natin lusutan yan. Kesa
magbayad ako kay Atty. Concepcion ng malaki, sige
pakulong na lang.
When somebody dies without a will, how will the
properties of decedent transferred to heirs?

1. Kung cash dun sa korteng baboy (piggy bank
kaya nga korteng baboy). Buddha na maraming
bata or kawayan or bao ng niyog. Alkansha. Kung
yung pera andun, no need for EJC kasi kukupitin
na lang yun.
2. Pieces of jewelry, walang title yan, easily
distributed. Nobody will run after them.
3. Bank deposit na hindi and/or
4. Vehicles registered in name of decedent
5. Lupa in TCT
How do you transfer documents in name of heirs? There
must be a deed of conveyance. Donation, sale, trust or
succession.
EJD allowed only when decedent left no will. Ngayon
kung meron/wala at nagkasundo-sundo a settlement
proceeding filed in court. Court will adjudicate properties
of estate to the heirs. Document of the conveyance that
you will present to the register of deeds. Authorize them
TCT outstanding and issue new one in the named order.
Kailangan ng court order
May the will itself provide that it should not be submitted
to court for probate? Para makatipid ang mga heredero.
Heirs should execute instead EJS in accordance with my
wishes. Definitely illegal because contrary to A838.
If that disposition is illegal, is the entire will illegal? DLC
says no, only the provision is void because its contrary
to law but the will and other provisiosn contained therein
shall be valid. Yun nga lang, submit to court for probate.
Eh sir bawal diba. E illegal nga! Later on, youll learn that
testator cannot impose illegal conditions for the validity
or probate of a will.
Only the due execution of the will is covered or the only
issue that the court must resolve in a probate. Only the
due execution is the issue that the court will resolve.
Issues which have to do to validity of dispositions in the
will are not covered by the probate proceeding.
HOWEVER the court in Nuguid v Nuguid, created an
exception to this rule. Ano ba nangyari dun? Matandang
dalaga. Age of retirement 65. So wala pang matandang
dalaga dito. Kasi kapag as this late a stage, hindi na kayo
makakapag-asawa. Im talking from my experience!
May dalawang magkapatid na babae. One of the sisters
became wealthy as businesswoman. Living with their
mother na hindi matandang dalaga, biyuda lang. the
wealthy sister who becamewealthy with only one
provision. My younger sister is my sole and universal
heir. Nothing was mentioned about the mother. Siguro
sabi ng daughter, eh matandan na nanay ko, ano naman
gagawin niya sa mana. Magkakaron lang ng tax pag
pinamana pa sa kapatid ko. Walang ni isang kusing na
duling. Everything given to younger sister. Long short,
ate died and submitted for probate. Opposed by mother.
May DI kasi. Ano sabi niya? Will not allowed probate.
Because the provision contained in the will should be
allowed by preterition. I am a compulsory heir. Totally
omitted it is void. Since will is void, its a waste of time
proving the will. Younger sister said: Mama, you may be
correct but cannot raise that issue at probate. It has
Page 33 of 81
nothing to do with due execution but validity of the
disposition contained in the will. Intrinsic validity has
nothing to do with execution. Therefore, jan ka lang
muna, wait for probate to finish. Ano sabi SC? Bunso is
correct. Issue has nothing to do wtihdue execution but
intrinsic validity ergo not covered by probate. But since
preterition of mother is patent on the face of the will,
why should we continue waste our time effort and
litigants money if after allowing this will, provision will
be allowed anyway. Even at probate, SC decided to take
cognizance and ruled on the intrinsic validity of the will.
Basis: Intrinsic nullity of will is patent on its face.
Subsequent development however tells us that simply
because nothing left to compulsory heir in the will gives
rise to preterition. Hindi lang naman will tinitingnan.
Kalahati ng ratio sa Nuguid ay mali.
For our purposes, in case same issue crops up, SC has
exception: Intrinsic nullity of will is patent on the face of
the will. The court may choose to declare the will
intrinsically invalid.
Same issue in Nepomuceno v CA: Ron and Eva wedding.
After 1 year, hiwalay, hindi magkasundo and so Ron
requiested eva to sign document weherein they need to
separate each other and allow to live with own partner in
life. The document pag dinocument, ang kaso niyo ay
disbarment in re cunanan. Although illegal, admissible as
evidence for defense as consent to defeat prosecution
for concubinage and adultery.
Because of that document niligawan ni Ron si Ani, pero di
pwede emagpakasal prior subsisting marriage. Common
law adulterous relationship. San sila titira? So using his
salaries and wages Ron bought a house and lot in a
subdivision project in a nearby municipality. Mas
maganda house ni querida kesa sa asawang eva. Ganun
naman talaga usually ang kaso. Maybahay v Maycondo.
Title in name of land registered in name of Ron married
to Eva. Pag namatay ako kawawa si Ani, aapihin ni Eva.
In order to assure Ani of a house to live in when Ron dies,
he wrote a will provision sa will: give house and lot as
inheritance of Ani para may matirhan sha. Ron died Ani
submitted to court for probate. The legal wife objects.
Sabi Eva, Your honor invalid ang will kasi disposition in
favor of the mistress. Under law, any disposition in
consideration of adulterous relationship is void, since
theres only one provision, the will is useless. Lets not go
on anymore with probate proceeding. Anis lawyer: honor
eva might be correct, but complaint has nothing to do
with due execution, rather it involves intrinsic validity of
disposition contained in the will that thas to wait until
admitted to probate. SC using Nuguid exception since
only disposition contained in wll is patently illegal, then it
will be useless to continue with probate proceeding and
admit the will, it will become useless anyway.
Maninang v CA Objection involving intrinsic validity, not
patent in the face of will therefore the argument to
prevent probate was denied and dismissed by the court.
Allowed by probate proceeding to continue.

On what ground may a will be disallowed probate?
Enumerated in A839, it is exclusive, no other ground to
disallow probate of a will. Yun lang! Maliwanag yan!
After court has admitted will to probate, what is the
effect if the court admits a will to probate? Due execution
of will is duly established. i.e. natural it is a declaration
that tetstator had testamentary capacity, animus
testandi, all the formalities for the making of a valid will
have been complied/substantially complied with,
executed freely and voluntarily.
ERGO, after the order has become final and executory,
the testamentary capacity can no longer be eatacked or
reopened. Voluntariness of execution may no longer be
inquired into and non-compliance of requirements of law
can no longer be questioned. Due execution of will is
conclusively established.
BUT one of the heirs is in US when probate proceeding
was filed and heard by the court, when he came back
from US, the order admitting will to probate has also
become final and executory. In possession of documents
that will prove beyond reasonable doubt that the testator
was at the time of execution was insane. Can he argue
that he was outside jurisdiction? No, it binds whole world,
including those outside jurisdiction of court at the time
proceeding was undertaken.
Even if the signature was discovered to be a forgery.
Illustrate through example: Ron ay nag-iisang anak na
lalaki ng parents niya. Merong 2 older sisters, Ani and
Eva. Bunsong lalaki, paborito ng parents at paborito
dagukan nung dalawa. When father was already a
widower died, sabi Ron, ay may will si Daddy. Eto yung
will, notarial will. The two trusting Ron believed that the
will was that of the father. No reason for them to suspect
that it was a forgery, the entire free portion given to Ron.
Thats of estate. Magkano napunta + 1/3 of . hindi na dinatnan. Malas eh thirteen, ampunin mo na
Favorite naman si Ron, so okay lang yun. Mukha naming
will ni Dad. Admitted to probate by court and partition
was carried out. Later Ron Garcia naging Born Against.
Praise the Lord. Charismatic movement so one day uso
sharing of experiences. Nagshare si Ron, 10 years after
partition of property. nagka-edad tas religious so isang
araw sa congregation sa Araneta. Umiyak. Yung will ng
tatay ko, hindi naman niya will yun, ako gumawa nun,
niloko ko sila. Iyak sha ng iyak. Huhuhu. Maraming
chismoso sa araneta, nagsumbong kay Eva at Ani. Yung
will na submitted to probate was a forgery. Nagalit tong
dalawa.
1. On the basis of such confession, may the
proceeding be opened in order to invalidate the
will? NO, kasi tapos na. after order issue
admitting the will to probate. Its conclusively
established. Cannot reopen proceeding.
2. Idemanda natin ng criminal case, punyeta sha
magbayad sha! Pwede ba yun? Hindi rin. In a
forgery, there has to be forged document. The
body of the crime. Nasan yung document? Eh
sabi ng court authentic yun. Where is the forged
document now? Walang body of the crime.
Criminal prosecution has to be dismissed.
Maliwanag yan!
Page 34 of 81
Is there prescriptive period for probate of the will? No will
was found among his personal effects. 20 years later, it
was hidden intentionally by one of the heirs in order to
prevent the distribution of estate in accordance with its
tenor, may that will be probated? Yes, there is no
express provision in the rules nor in the Code. But in
Guevarra v Guevarra, SC held that probate of a will does
not prescribe.
X. DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS
Whenever submitted to court for probate, its not
ministerial for court to admit it. Court may disallow if a
ground exists under the law. Those grounds are
exclusive.
1. Exception is substantial compliance
2. Insane is equivalent to unsound mind and
un/soundness of mind for making of will has a
definition in the law on succession
3. Force cc has not defined what force is. Nowhere in
the CC is the term force defined. What it defines is
violence in A1335. According to the writers of civil
law, force and violence must be considered the
same. There must be violence as defined in 1335.
Intimidation defined in law of oblicon not in
succession. Writers believe that there are the
same definition.
Undue and improper pressure and influence
not in succession by law of oblicon. Applicable to
improper pressure and influence as used in
oblicon.
Reyes v Barreto-Datu: Hindi magkaanak si Ron and Eva.
Sarthou is the sperm donor kasi best friend ni Ron. After
isang anak, di na magka-anak ulit. Eh naawa naman
kalaro. Si Santos taon taon nangangak, tipid sa Kotex
lang 13th child ko para may kalaro daughter mo. Hindi
ginawang legal ang adoption. Hindi naman talaga
adopted. Ang ginawa ni Eva eh pinalaki lang niya. Eva
treated the two as her daughters, even her own niece as
her own daughter. Yun namnag dalawa, lumaki ng
magkapatid treated each other as sisters. Until mana
happens.
Very close yung kanyang anak at pamangkin. Really very
close. Thinking that the real daughter would like it,
sinabihian niya daughter one day, I have a will in case
something happens to me, then hati kayo equally sa
kahit anong iiwan ko. Contrary to her expectation,
nagalit si daughter. Ma bakit bibigay kalahati sa kanya,
di ko naman tunay na kapatid yan. Bakit kami pantay eh
pinsan ko lang yan. Eh diba parang magkapatid naman
kayo? Eh hindi naman kayo magkpatid. Hindi ibang
usapan nay an. SO everyday niya ninag ang nanay niya,
hindi na binati ang nanay. She gave mommy cold
treatment. Executed a second will changing sharing of
two in this new will, real daughter as sole universal heir
and legacy to niece as paconsuelo de bobo. Hindi sinabi
sa niece yung change so when Eva died, daughter
submitted everything to court. Niece but that revocation
must be done against her will. There was undue and

improper pressure from you. Ni-nag mo yung nanay
natin.
Undue and improper pressure and influence attending
the execution of the second will? NO, there was no undue
and improper pressure. Moderate and reasonable
solicitation and entreaties addressed to the
tetstator. If the testator yielded intelligently and
from a conviction of duty. Daughter was may have
been undue but not improper. She has right to claim
bigger inheritance. Pressure was neither undue nor
improper. Eva yielded coz realized bigger obligation to
daughter, not niece. Bigger duty in favor of real
daughter.
May there be partial disallowance of wills? No. A will is
probated all or nothing. There it cannot be allowed
partially and disallowed partially. See Tolentino p. 148.
Suppose the will was obtained though fraud committed
on the testator. Misrepresentation from some heirs
induced testator to make will requested by heirs. Later
on, the testator discovered the fraud but despite having
discovered the misrepresentation or fraud, the testator
decided not to change his will, and he died without
having revoked the will initially obtained by fraud, is that
a valid will? ISSUE: Has the testator ratified the will when
he chose not to revoke it after discovery of fraud?
Caguiao with whom I agree, will is void
kasi walang voidable will that can be
ratified. Either void or valid, what is the
effect of that ratification?
According to Jurado, it depends: no
reason given, if its void as to form, will is
void and cannot be ratified. If void due to
vitiated consent it will be validated by
subsequent ratification by ttestator citing
Ozaeta v Quarter. Failure to revoke or
otherwise alter as soon as the testator
left house of the person who allegedly
influence constituted silent ratification of
the contents of the will.
DLC says: If the will was executed under
duress or under undue improper pressure
and influence, will was void. It can only
be validated by republication,
reexecution or reference in another will
or codicil. Ratification is not a mode of
republication under the CC. Mas
maganda yung rason ko diba?
Re Migs question may nag-ooppose ba ng will submitted
for ante-mortem probate? Sergio Osmea Jr. opposed
antemortem probate of his father and wanted to declare
him a non compos mentis or prodigal, filed a
guardianship proceeding. This case was handled by my
uncle judge. Concepcion v Osmea: Hermogenes
Concepcion uncle ni Sir. National scandal for the family.
Yung kay Atty. Dona Chito Madrigal Collantes was also
admitted to probate during her lifetime kaya di ko
mawari ano nakain nitong si Jamby at nagwawala ng
ganyan.
Page 35 of 81
9 August 2010 Happy birthday
Rojiboi!!! :D
XI. INSTITUTION OF HEIRS
Well start with INSTITUTIONS
We are done with the formalities for execution of a valid
will so we shall now start with the validity of the written
provisions of the will. For there to be a will, an heir has to
be instituted.
DEFINITION A840: an act by virtue of which
How? By designating him his name and surname under
A843
May testator designate heir by merely describing the
person e.g. faithful yaya/cook bestfriend favorite
nephew? Yes, such description is allowed as a valid
institution of heir provided that such a description given
in the will leaves no doubt as to the identity of the
person instituted.
Bear in mind that nobody becomes an heir unless he
can show a provision of a will or provision of law
designating him as an heir. You have to remember
that. Nobody becomes an heir unless there is a provision
in a will OR a provision of law making him one. If ou
cannot point your finger to provisionof will/law making
you an heir, you are NOT and WILL NEVER BE an heir.
Suppose there are two persons who have the same
name, how will the testator make his designation to
identify who among these people with the same name
was instituted? In A843 the testator shall indicate some
circumstances by which the instituted heir may be
known. If the testator fails to indicate those
circumstances who will inherit? Hindi sinabi. E.g. I
institute my nephew Ramon of my estate. When I died,
admitted to probate but turned out there are two
nephews by the name of Ramon. Who between the two
will inherit when I did not indicate a circumstances which
will identify will inherit.
May evidence be introduced that one of the two Ramons
were intended because this Ramon was a godson of the
testator? That Ramon was closer to the testator during
his lifetime? Under the old code, that was not allowed but
under new code, because of the change/amendment,
introduction of such evidence is now allowed.
E.g. 2 nephews by the name Ramon, one was living with
testator at time execution of will, that is allowable as
evidence that the Ramon living with him was the Ramon
referred to at the time of making of will.
One of those answers in the same name was intended.
But suppose there is no evidence as to who was
intended, what shall we do? Let us divide the inheritance
between the two of them? We cannot divide the
inheritance to the two of them because that is violation
of the testators intention twice. Stole the presidency not
only once but twice.
 Page 36 of 81

1. In instituting one Ramon in the inheritance, Concrete e.g. testator was a frustrated lawyer, 10x bar
testator intended the inheritance to go to only and flunked 11x. Bar review in Ceb, 9 years. Ngayon
one person. Entire inheritance just to one Ramon. hanggang 6 tries na lang. Kung ako yun, 2x lang. after
Nung hinati mo sila, maski sino nakakuha ng than barred from taking the bar. Since hes a frustrated
kalahati, pero hindi kasi yung ang intention niya. lawyer, in his will, he made the following provisions, to
Rather give everything to Ramon mentioned in the bar topnotcher in the bar examination thats held
the will. immediately after my death, I give inheritance of P5M. Is
2. Ayaw niyang bigyan yung ibang Ramon. Yung the disposition valid? Sir, hindi ba disposition in favor of
an unknown person? Its a wild guess for everybody.
intended Ramon get only half and the other
When testator will die, who will take the bar, who will
Ramon he didnt want to give got a half. Double
pass and be topnotcher. Is the disposition valid? Yes, the
whammy.
disposition is valid. We should differentiate between an
unknown person from a person who is not known to the
ERGO, nobody gets the inheritance. Problem din ito. Pero
testator. While 845 uses the term unknown person the
this is a penalty to the testator. Gagawa ka ng will,
real meaning of that phrase as used in 845 is different.
gandahan mo.
The meaning of unknown person is a non-existent
person. Not unknown identity. Somebody who does not
The institution, pag sinabi nating institution of heir,
exist.
designation of anyone to receive something from the
estate. Basta may binigyan kang tao from the estate
The testator was a bachelor. Hindi nag-asawa si Ron, lost
mortis causa, institution yun. If you are named, the
his appetite for Miss Eva and Ani and decided to remain
naming of somebody to participate or receive something
bachelor forever pero yumaman sha. So gumawa sha
is insituttion.
ngayon ng will. Wala shang pamangkin na lalaki. Lahat
ng sisters and brothers, ang anak ay babae. So gumawa
Dalawang klase yang institution.
sha ngayon ng will. Nagbigay sha ng incentive sa
kanyang will. To my nephew who will be born within
three years after my death is given the inheritance of
10M. Is that a valid disposition? For the nephews who
In institution proper, the testator gives an heir the entire
were conceived and born after Rons death, they will not
estate or an aliquot part thereof.
inherit. But for those who were conceived BEFORE his
death, they shall qualify to inherit. The disposition is
Entire estate all my properties. E.g. I give Pedro my
valid it is not a disposition in favor of unknown person
entire estate
because the identity of person maybe known BUT if the
Aliquot - is a determinate (not determined) portion. We
heir is not living at the time of the death f the testator,
know exactly how much the inheritance given but we
he is not qualified to inherit. To qualify he must be living
dont know what properties are exactly included in the
at the time of the testators death. Ergo, if born 2 years
inheritance. E.g. I give Pedro of my estate
after the death of Ron, that nephew will not inherit.
Surely, that nephew was not alive at the time Ron died.
Legacy gift of specific movable property e.g. I give
But if a sister was pregnant when Ron died, then the
pedro 1M; I leave Ron my Mercedes Benz car; I give to
child in her womb shall qualify to inherit if born alive.
Ani my house and lot in Greenhills
Kasi the fetus is considered a person for all purposes
Devise gift of specific immovable property
favorable to it.
Is there a difference between the two? Institution proper
May the testator designate a class of persons as his heir?
v Legacy & Devise. In preterition: institution of heirs is
Yes, however there is a condition. The class must be
annulled while legacy and devise are respected insofar
definitely indicated.
as it does not impair the legitime. That is how preterition
is obtaining under the circumstances.
May the corporation be an heir? Yes, A1026.
Whenever the testator will make his will, must he
If the testator designated many heirs, how will they
designate an heir for all his properties? Must he dispose
share in the inheritance? If the testator indicated their
of his entire estate by naming or instituting heirs
shares in the will, then their shares as indicated will be
therefor? No, under A841, the testator is not required to
respected. If the testator however did not indicate the
dispose of his entire estate to instituted or designated
share he designated, they shall inherit in equal
heirs.
shares. Thats the first rule in institution.
Those disposed of by will shall be respected insofar as
Sir mahina sa arithmetic yung testator. Kaya nga nag-
not violative of provisions of code on legitimes and those
law. Oi hindi lahat ng naglolaw mahina sa arithmetic. Ako
which were not disposed of in will shall be distributed in
nga math teacher eh. The testator made a will. Sabi niya,
accordance with provisions of code dealing with
I give my entire estate to A,B and C. A shall get , B
intestacy.
and C 1/3. Nagmarunong eh, kala niya magaling sha sa
arithmetic. Pagpalagay natin 600 M ang estate. 150, 150
In A845, every disposition in favor of an unknown person
and 200 for a total of the 500. Kulang diba?
shall be void unless by some even or circumstance, his
identity is asserted.
 Page 37 of 81

Hindi pwede ibigay sa legal heirs kasi nga entire estate testator to have a reason in designating an heir in his
kay ABC lang. so yung 100 na tira, hahatiin natin sa tatlo will. Testamentary disposition is essentially a gratuitous
pro rata. act, an act of liberality on the part of the testator. No
need for any other reason than liberality or generosity.
Entire Estate to: (Art 852) While it is true that no requirement of reason and the
A 150 150/500 180 testator may institute somebody without a reason,
common sense tells us that testator will not make such
B 150 150/500 180 designation unless he has a reason. But suppose the
reason is false, the reason behind his institution was
C 1/3 200 200/500 240
false, what is the effect of such falsity on the disposition.
Under A850, the statement of a false cause is
600
disregarded. Thats the GR: Pag naglagay ng rason na
hindi pala totoo, the false reason shall be disregarded.
Pano kapag sobra naman? Since the statement of a false cause will not affect the
validity of the disposition the heir so designated will
Entire Estate to: (Art 853) receive his inheritance but there is an exception, i.e.
when it appears from the will that the testator
A 1/3 40 [40/140]2 would not have made such institution had he
0 known the falsity of the cause.

B 1/3 40 [40/140]2 Let us illustrate the application of that principle in a

0 concrete example. Itong si Ron gumawa ng will, in his
C 1/2 60 [60/140]2
0 in his undergrad course here in UP. As a reward, summa
140 120
If the estate is 120M, reduce the inheritance of heir pro
rata. So minus
But when the testator did not indicate the shares of the
heirs, we aply the first rule of institution: EQUALITY. They
shall inherit in equal shares. (Art 846, 848)
Ano yung 2nd rule? SIMULTANEITY. The heirs are deemed
instituted simultaneously and not successively or
alternately. (Art 849)
Last rule: INDIVIDUALITY. The heirs are deemed
individuality instituted and NOT collectively. (Art 847)
will, he gave a nephew an inheritance of P5M kasi he was
informed that the nephew graduated summa cum laude
cum laude pala yang punyetang yan. How did he give it
in the will? To my outstanding nephew, Jose, I give 5M.
Ron died, submitted to probate, nung maghahatian na,
yung mga P100K each nephews nagreklamo saying bakit
merong 5M ito? Nako hindi po totoong suma cum laude,
hindi nga nakagraduate on time, bolero lan yang gagong
yan. In order to reduce the inheritance of the scalawag,
may the other nephews go to court and prove that his
institution to a 5M was based on a false cause and that
uncle testator could not have made the institution had he
known the real facts? No, they cant go to court, why
not? How can they show that there was a false cause
when the will itself does not state a reason. Under the
law, the exception must appear on the face of the will.
Kung wala nakalagay sa will kung ano ang rason, e di
you cant go to court that there was a reason and the
reason was false. Hindi pwede magtestify ang abogado.
False cause must appear in the will.

Illustrate second rule: SIMULTANEITY
The testator has two brothers: A and B. Testator made a
will with the following disposition: I give my entire estate
to my brother A, to my brother B and his children. Ilan
anak ni brother b? Dalawa. How many heirs are entitled
to inherit? Apat yan. Kasi the children of b were
instituted simultaneously with their father B, hindi sila
alternatively instituted.
Suppose the provision is worded like this: I hereby
institute my entire estate, my brother A and the children
of my brother B. How do we divide the estate? Divide
the estate equally into three, because the two children
were deemed individually instituted, not as a group. If
the intention of the testator was to divide into two and
limit the two children to the share of their father, the
testator must indicate so in the twill in more express and
categorical terms.
When the testator designates an heir in his will, must the
testator have a reason? No, the law does not require the
Sir nakalagay sa will na yun ang rason, For my nephews
outstanding performance in his undergraduate course in
UP dahil nakalagay na yung rason sa will, may the
other nephews go to court, present the witness and
prove the falsity of the cause? No still. Yes it may be
shown to be a false cause but the statement of the false
cause is DISREGARDED. And so the heir will still inherit.
Ano dapat patunayan? Testator would not have made the
institution had he known the falsity of the cause.
Pwede ba witness ang abogado who drafted the will that
no institution if only to reward the nephew? NO, the fact
that the testator would not have made the institution had
he known must appear in the will. It cannot be proven by
any evidence outside the body of the will. Dapat ganito
nakalagay: and to my nephew, for his outstanding
performance for graduating suma cum laude, AND ONLY
FOR THAT REASON yun lang yung dahilan kung bakit
sha pinamanahan.

TRANSMISSION OF RIGHTS TO INHERIT OF AN HEIR
(Art 856)
Testamentary succession: kasi may will. Kapag walang
will, hindi pwede magkaroon ng testamentary
succession. Basic yun.
The testator, binata si Ron, made a will and gave an
inheritance to Eva, the former girlfriend whom I did not
cease to love. I give an inheritance of P10M. kaya lang.
naunang namatay si Eva. Survived by her two daughters
by 2 different fathers. Ron did not bother to change the
will even after Evas death. So namatay si Ron and
admitted to probate, kanino na ang mana? Makukuha
ban g daughters? NO, Eva must be alive at the time of
the testators death. Since she died ahead, she inherited
nothing. Since she inherited nothing, she transmitted
nothing to her own heirs.
Baguhin natin sitwashon, naunang namatay si Ron kaya
lang the will of Ron was not discovered til after a year
from the time he died. At the time the will was
discovered, eva was already in the hospital fighting for
her life. He died a year later. Pelikula yan eh.
Nagsunuran sila, she died of a broken heart. Talagang
nakakamatay yan. Im not kidding. Mga lovebirds ganyan
eh. Theres scientific evidence that somebody can die of
broken heart. Who will get the 10M inheritance given by
Ron in his will. Matatanggap ba yun ni Eva. Sir buhay si
Eva when Ron died. Yes, eva inherited because she was
alive when Ron died. Di nga lang nya natanggap. Iba
yung actual receipt of inheritance from inheriting.
Nakainherit na sha upon Rons death. Since she inherited
when she died, what she inherited from Ron although not
yet delivered to her became part of her own estate. That
was included in the estate inherited by her two
daughters. Pwede ngayon habulin nung dalawang anak
yung inheritance ng nanay nila sa estate ni Ron. They
are simply enforcing the right of the mother in the estate
of Ron so that when mothers right has been received,
Eva will be able to inherit.
What may a testator dispose in his will? Can he dispose
his entire estate by will? It depends if the testator has no
compulsory heir, he can dispose his entire estate freely.
Without compulsory heir, the entire estate is free for
disposition. Kanino pwede ibigay, since no compulsory
heir, Ron may leave it to anybody of his choice including
complete OR total stranger. Pwede charitable
organization, pwede sa tiyahin. Ang babaeng DI hindi Di
ang tawag, GRO. Pag lalaki DI, ang tawag dun, attorney.
Parang nakakainsulto sa profession natin no? Pati pulis
attorney na rin. Pag abogado na kayo at hinuli kayo sa
traffic, saibhin Boss pasensha na abogado po ako. Tawag
jan professional courtesy. When I was a student in
England, lawyers are very unpopular even back. Sabi nga
ni Shakespeare, kill all the lawyers. Base relief na
sandstone. Kailangan law related. Two farmers
quarreling over a cow, one by horns pulling it. The other
farmer holding by tail pulling it in the other direction. The
two lawyers were busy milking the cow. Nakangiti pa sila.
Ganyan tayo ka-unpopular. I dont know why you are
here. I was given second time around, definitely not a
lawyer.
Cel Gamo found the pic
Page 38 of 81
But when a testator has compulsory heirs, the law
reserves a certain portion of the testators estate for the
compulsory heirs. Reserved portion is called legitime.
Later on you will learn who the compulsory heirs are. The
testator is allowed to dispose by will only that part in
excess of the legitimes, excess is called free portion
every disposition in excess of free portion is reduced, not
necessarily invalidated for having impaired the legitimes
of the compulsory heirs. The system of inheritance
reservation is that observed in all civil law jurisdictions.
There are some which do not observe the system of
legitimes or inheritance reservation in favor of certain
heirs. Sa atin, sinusunod pa natin yan. Changes were
introduced by the NCC insofar as illegitimate children are
concerned and the surviving spouse. Under the old cc,
the surviving spouse does not inherit from the other
spouse, rather he will inherit only when a child survives
but the inheritance is limited to a usufruct. Hindi talaga
sha nagmamana ng property. pero kung walang anak,
ibabalik ng pamilya ng lalaki ang babae sa dati niyang
pamilya. Hindi ka na namin kaano-ano. Pero kung may
anak may usufruct hanggat diba lumalaki yung bata,
may usufruct. Under the old code, illegitimate children
were not heirs at all. Kaya nga ang bastardo ay
mayroong stigma. Nasa lower class ng society. Walang
mana. But the NCC recognized rights of illegitimate
children to inherit. Kasalanan naman ng mga parents ang
pagiging bastardo nila. Not penalize children for
indiscretion committed by their parents.
Next meeting SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS
Read: fideicommissary institution. PCIB v Escolin and Vda
de Kilayko.
11 August 2010
XII. SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS
What is substitution? A857 appointment of another heir
so that he may enter into inheritance in default of the
heir originally instituted.
E.g. I institute Ron as my sole heir, if in any case he
cannot succeed, I institute eva as my legal heir.

VULGAR or SIMPLE
Gives testator absolute control how estate disposed of
after his death. Kasi baka mamaya, the heir instituted is
disqualified under the law or the ehri predeceases the
testator, therefore he is not qualified at the time testator
dies.
If he does not provide a landing, to whom will the estate
go?
Legal heirs by way of intestacy
To prevent the legal heirs from inheriting,
he is allowed to appoint a substitute.
Galit sha sa legal heirs, a yaw niya
magmana the legal heirs kaya ayaw niya
mamatay ng intestate to prevent dying
intestate. Pwede maglagay ng substitute.
Art 858: four types of substitution recognized and
regulated by the code. Fideicomisary is englicized form
of Spanish fideicomisaria
When will the substitute inherit? It depends on the nature
of thes substitution provided by testator in his will. In the
example I gave you, its simple/common substitution,
also termed vulgar
BRIEF or COMPENDIOUS
Simple din yan, kaya lang dumami yung parties.
E.g. designated heir appointed more than one substitute
for the instituted heir. Pwede ring reverse. Testator
instituted 2 heirs and appointed one substitute for the
two instituted heirs. One is brief, the other is
compendious
RECIPROCAL substitutes of each other. Ron gets of
estate and Eva the other half and appoint them
substitutes of each other.
If you look at CC provisions, in reality there are only two
substitutions: simple and fideicommisary. Just variations
yung two other of simple, they follow the same rules.
When will the substitute inherit? In case of simple
substitution, in case the heir instituted in the will 1
predeceases, 2 repudiates, 3 becomes incapacitated.
Actually redundant yung three instances for substitute to
inherit. The 2 other reasons are also cases of
INCAPACITY: death and repudiation. Kaya lang nilagay
yan, there may be some consequences e.g. in
repudiation, baka hindi naman available/obtaining in
incapacity in general or predeceased. Thats why 3rd
ground is a catch-all provision.
May the testator limit substitution to just one reason?
Yes, in which case, substitution will not take effect for the
reasons not specified in the will.
Suppose the will is silent as to what will give rise to
substitution, in what instance will substitution occur? 2nd
Par of A859: kasama yung tatlo.
Page 39 of 81
Suppose the testator made the ff provision in his will: I
institute Ron to of my estate. However if Ron dies
within 5 years from my death, Eva is appointed his
substitute. I died (baka sabihin niyo kayo lang pinapatay
ko), admitted to probate and Ron was alive when I died.
But for mysterious reasons, Ron died after my death. Will
Eva inherit as a substitute?
Baguhin ko yung tanong. Will Eva inherit? Yes, but not
inherit as a substitute. Why? Because A859 only says
predeceased, repudiation or incapacity in the case of this
particular testamentary disposition, the supposed
substitution will happen not when Ron predeceases, in
this case he did not predeceased. This will not happen in
case of repudiation, he did not repudiate. This will not
happen in case of incapacity. It will happen after my
death. That is allowed not as a substitution but as a
conditional testamentary institution which we will study
much later. Its a species of a conditional testamentary
institution. In reality, there were two simulatenous
institutions in that testamentary disposition. Rons
institution was subject to resolutory condition while Eva
is suspensive condition.
Going back to substitution, is the enumeration of
instances where substitution will happen given in A859
exclusive? In Kilayko, Justice Romero (teacher ko yan sa
PFR) sabi niya exclusive daw yan. Di niya mashadong
pinaliwanag. Kung titignan mo yung A859, sabi OR hindi
AND. In a way, she is correct because incapacity
encompasses all reasons. Kaya lang, because of
predeceased the general principle we can gather from
A859 (and looking at the first two enumeration then
general term applies) general is limited sa nauna. All
those two will happen on or before the death of the
testator. Therefore the incapacity that will happen in 859
is generally interpreted to INCAPACITY OCCURING ON OR
BEFORE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR NOT INCLUDE
INCAPACITY THAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THE DEATH OF
THE TESTATOR.
Suppose testator instituted an heir and appointed three
substitutes, is that allowed? Yes, under A860. Brief. 1
heir, 3 substitutes.
In case the instituted heir predeceases, what will the
substitutes receive, how will they share the inheritance?
Tandaan ito.
They are entitled to inherit what the heir
originally instituted was supposed to receive.
Substitution is secondary institution of heirs,
therefore all provisions applicable to institution is
applicable to substitution. For him to inherit, he
must be alive and qualified at the time of
testators death. Suppose the substitute died
ahead of the testator, the answer is no.
Suppose three of them were alive, what will the
three substitutes inherit or how will they share
the inheritance? Apply first rule institution, i.e.
EQUALITY, so the three of them will get equal
shares.
May the testator provide for unequal sharing of
the substitutes? Yes. In which case, we also apply
the computation that we discussed. Kung

exceed, there will be pro rata reduction. Pag
kinulang, pro rata increase.
Suppose one of the substitutes, die ahead of the
testator, to whom does his share go?
Depends on the provision of the will. The will is
paramount, unless the provisions are contrary to law,
public policy, morals. Ergo, if the will has provided
how the substitutes inherit, die or inherit, the
provision in the will shall prevail.
If the will is silent, apply rules on institution. If
accretion is proper. If not proper, it will become
vacant and go to legal heirs by way of intestacy.
Break in ko lang kayo sa principles.
Otherway around, 3 heirs, 1 substitute for the three
heirs. One heir dies ahead of the testator. Will the
substitute inherit the share of one of the three originally
instituted? It depends on the wording of the will. If it
allows substitution to inherit the share of one of the
instituted heirs, that shall be allowed. If it does not allow
him to inherit the share of each and every heir instituted,
there should be accretion as for the remaining heirs. All
three heirs must die before bring in substitution.
I institute to Ron, Ani, Eva. As substitute of the
three, Chi is hereby designated. Naunang namatay si
Ron, predeceased the testator, under mysterious
circumstances.
Will Chi inherit the share of Ron? Yes she will. No
intention on the part of the testator to give the
inheritance to no one but the three. Designated
to a specific portion.
I institute to my entire estate Ron, Eva and Ani such
that Ron shall share , Eva and Ani . As substitute of
these three, I designate Chi.
Will it go to Chi? There is accretion as to the
three, all three must die.
TAKE NOTE OF THE INTENTION!
Sir, may the testator appoint substitutes in the
alternative? I institute Ron to of the estate, as his
substitute I appoint Eva OR Chi. Mahirap iimplement ito.
Kasi or, sino ang mag-iinherit.
What happens when disposition is so vague and not
capable of being implemented? Disregard the provisions.
How about substitutes in succession? I institute Ron to
my entire estate, in case he is not entitled to inherit. I
appoint Eva as substitute. Chi is appointed as her
substitute. In case Chi is not able, Ani is appointed as her
substitute. In case Ani is not capable, Eds. Pwede yan.
Kita mo kung gano sha kagalit sa legal heirs niya.
Katakot-takot na substitution ang ginawa para hindi
mapunta sa kanila ang yaman niya.
FIDEICOMMISARY SUBSTITUTION
This kind of substitution was suppressed in the draft
submitted by Code Commission to Congress. But
suddenly they changed their mind.
Page 40 of 81
Testator institutes first heir (who will enter inheritance
BUT is obliged to preserve the inheritance and transmit it
to a second heir).
In reality, what will the first heir get? Hindi naman pala
mananatili sa kanya yung property. What it will enjoy is
USUFRUCT of the inheritance. How is this different from
legacy of a usufruct in A869.
You know in property: Ownership of property, whether
movable or immovable, has two components.
1. Naked title ang titulong nakahubad
2. Beneficial title jus utendi of the property that is
usufruct
Fixed assets mga pag-aaring nakatirik
Liquid assets mga pag-aaring tumutulo
Naked title is registered in the name of Ron therefore
only he may dispose the property because he is the
owner of the naked title. Hindi yung owner ang naked.
Pero maraming gusto makakita sayong naked.
Beneficial may be given to another. Owner may divorce
these two components. Usually done when constituting a
trust. Absolute owner gives naked title to trustee and the
beneficial title to a beneficiary (cestui que trust). Trustor
or settlor may be the trustee himself or the beneficiary.
Usually agreement in a trust agreement with a bank.
Money investment. Legal title to funds is given to the
trust dept of the bank nd they will invest your money and
you will get whatever fruits were generated by your
funds less trustee fee deductible. Kaya nga trust, you
trust that the trust dept of bank will make your money
grow but since your business proposition is pwedeng
malugi yung money. You cannot have recourse with the
bank. It cannot guarantee. Bawal yun.
In A869: A863 it shall not go beyond 1 degree. Hindi ba
the same din yan under A863? Sino OPF dito? Wala?
Bobo ang batch na ito?
One word: Substitution
Second heir will never get legal title to the property.
Limited to his usufruct, when the time comes for SH to
give up his usufruct, the first heir will have complete
ownership. Never will the usufructurary get the legal title
to the property.
In A869
In a fideicomisary, FH is a substitute. There is a
possibility that he will get legal title over the property.
When? In those instances provided for in A867 in realtion
to A86_. Kapag naging invalid yung 2nd heir, mapupunta
yung property to FH.
Sino ang substitute? The first heir. Hindi mashadong
diniscuss ni Tolentino yan. Hindi nga niya diniscuss yan
eh. A863 was considered an entailment of property.
Naka-entail sa kanya til buhay yung usufructuary.
When does naked title go to first heir?

A863: 1st heir and 2nd heir living at the time of death of
testator. E.g. 2nd heir predeceases the testator. When the
testator died, 1st heir alive but the second heir already
dead. What will the first heir get? Usufruct? Kanino yung
naked title? To the first heir because he is the
substitute. Kaya lang, care has to be taken, for there to
be fideicomissary, it must be expressly provided for in
the will. It must be there in the will.
Tinanong ko si Baviera nung student ako. Anak ni
Baviera ang tawag sakin. We shared many views, not so
much with Balane. Kami lang nagkakaintindihan. Litong-
lito classmates ko.
How do we know that a particular provision is a legacy of
usufructuary OR fideicomisary? Matter of intention yan.
Intention should be distilled from the will or
circumstances surrounding the execution of the will.
PCIB v Escolin
Himayin ang kaso, otherwise, you wont be able to use
the case later on. Superficial ang pagkakaintindi niyo sa
kaso. Wont be able to make use of them unless you
encountered a deeper treatment.
Mag-asawa si Linnie Jane and Charles Newton, they
settled in Baguio kasi malamig dun. But during the
lifetime of Linnie, sha yung business woman between the
two of them. Acquired many properties, may parity
amendment pa kasi dati. She died, survived by husband,
no children, descendants. Left behind a will: I leave all
my wordly possession to my beloved husband. Free to do
whatever he wants to do with all those properties. He is
at liberty. HOWEVER, if something remains of those
properties when he dies, the remainder shall go to
borhters and sisters. Died ahead of husband, will
admitted to probate, delivered to husband.
Nung bata akong lawyer not so long ago, I handled a
case of Hodges spouses property in Pangasinan. Merong
attorneys fees. Important sakin yan. Charles was not
very extravagant in his lifestyle. Hindi niya naubos yung
iniwan ni Linnie. Marami natira when Charles died much
later. May natirang kayamanan, may pag-aawayan. Turo
ni Dean Magallona sa amin. You should die broke. So
nothing for your relatives to quarrel about. Die broke.
Sino nag-aaway? Bro and sis of Linnie claiming the
residue vs. bro and sis of Charles
How come, what are the arguments?
MRS: kami po magmamana kasi provided for in linnies
will. Case of vulgar substitution under provisions of the
code.
MR: Hindi yan vulgar, fideicommisary yan. WON Vulgar
happens take at the time of testators death. Nakamana
na si Charles eh! Fideicommisary was void kasi nga
walang nakalagay that Charles was obliged to preserve
and then transmit the property.
Justice Antonio Barredo, alumni of this College:
Escolin is relative of Mike Manotoc being first cousin of
his Grandma who is the sister of Mrs. Disini and yet he
doesnt know.
Page 41 of 81
Not vulgar: heir instituted is not able to inherit. Charles
(original heir) was able to inherit.
Not fideicommisary: such substitution must be intended
by the testator. If the testator intended a fideicommisary
but later on became null and void then we apply A868.
We cannot do so because Mrs. Hodges did not intend to
fideicommisary substitution because allowed husband
to spend. Since not allowed, dont allow 868 provision
on fideicommisary.
It is neither vulgar nor fideicommisary.
Sino magmamana? Bro and sis of Linnie Ann because
Mrs. was a valid disposition. That disposition is a
disposition subject to resolutory as regards Charles, and
suspensive on the part of brothers and sisters of Mrs.
Hodges. tamang decision
Comes the case of Vda. De Kilayko.
Romero was my teacher. Nagpapalock ng pinto yan.
Nalimutan niya sabihin second day of class. I lived in
Valenzuela. Late ako ng 5 minutes. Didnt you know
youre not supposed to enter class when youre late. He
sang in class. Founder ako ng Charivari. Three co-
founders of Charivari.
Discuss why Kilayko is a wrong application case and PCIB
is the right case.
ORIGINAL WILL was written in Spanish so if you know
Spanish, I suggest you look at the original will but youll
have to go to SC to get the files. It was the will of Dona
Maria Lizares of
16 August 2010
Vda. De Kilayko v Tengco
Facts are almost similar to PCIB v Escolin. Will written in
Spanish, there was a legacy/device in favor of favorite
niece who lived with her as they were both spinsters. To
the niece was given to the Hacienda in Negros, colatilla,
should niece die without issue, property goes to
testatrixs brothers and sisters.
The first set of heirs, consisted of brothers and sisters of
Dona Maria Lizares. its vulgar substitution
Second set, brothers and sisters of niece. this is
fideicommisary, but since theres no express provision in
the will required for fideicomissary substitution.
Therefore, inheritance was already in her estate.
Iba lang yung outcome nito, result applied by the ocurt.
SC: Hindi vulgar yung nasa will kasi in substitution it will
happen only in case of predeceased, repudiation and
ncapacity at time of testators dath. Those three are
exclusive according to Flerida Ruth. Since not vulgar,
the supposed substitution happens after the death who
has already inherited, hindi vulgar so you just disregard
the will.
To whom did the court award? To the bros and sis of the
niece it was given. Nothing in the will shows there was
intention to create fideicommisary. To be applicable and
take effect, it must be shown clear and convincing
intention.
Not fideicomisary and not vulgar, then disregard. Whats
the basis? I think the court committed mistake. It should

have applied Escolin its a valid disposition, subject
to two simultaneous conditions. Institution of niece
was resolutory condition and brothers and sisters of
Maria were subject to suspensive condition. Ang baba ng
binigay saking grade niyan 1.5 hindi flat one.
RESTRICTIONS THAT TESTATOR SHOULD OBSERVE
IN MAKING FIDEICOMMISARY
1. Cannot go beyond one degree.
What do we mean by one degree? Pwede bang in
succession yung fideicommisary? I.e. many first heirs.
E.g. I institute A to the inheritance but he has the
obligation to preserve and transmit property to B.
however B has obligation to preserve and transmit to C.
And then to D who will be ultimate owner of property
fideicommissary substitution in several successions
What do we mean by one degree? This has been the
subject of controversy not only here but also where our
code ahs originated. Spain and then Code Napoleon
(ruler of Western Europe)
One degree of TRANSFER or RELATIONSHIP: among
Spanish writers, interprerted to mean as one degree of
transfer. Manresa and SR, one degree of relationship. SC
of Spain had already resolved this controversy a logn
time ago: a degree must mean one degree of transfer.
In the Philippines, Filipino writers in civil law are also
divided. Tolentino, Paras and Padilla: relationship.
Caguiao, JBL, Ricardo Puno, Desiderio Jurado: one degree
of transfer. Unlike SC Spain which resolved this issue in
favor of transfer, it ruled in Palacios v Ramirez, ruled that
it was relationship citing Tolentino. Yung researcher hindi
magaling dapat SC of Spain ang binasa niya.
In my opinion, dont know if this was clearly expressed in
Palacios v Ramirez (kailangan may disclaimer otherwise
baka maakusahan akong plagiarism) based on report of
Code commission, one degree should be read to
mean one degree of transfer. One of the entailment
of property within a group or family. Its one of the
devises/institutions in OCC that entail a property within a
group or property. Marami yan, reservas we shall discuss
later, reversiones. For a long period of time. According to
CC framers, one of the reforms introduced by CC is the
abolition of CC which entail preopty for a long period of
time. Kung yun ang cornerstone, dapat degree of
transfer and not relationship. Kung 10 kapatid yan,
transfer transfer sila sa isat isa. Lahat sila tag-oone
degree. I doubt its the real intention of A863.
Because of this ruling in Palacios v Ramirez, there are
collateral rules we can gather.
a. May a corporation be a 2nd heir?
b. May a corporation be a 1st heir? Definitely there
can be no fideicommisary kasi it has no relatives.
Eh sir pano yung sister and parent corporation
1. Cannot burden the legitime of compulsory
heirs
Page 42 of 81
2. When will the first heir transmit the inheritance to
the 2nd heir? May testator provide that first heir
transmit it after 10 years? Yes, the will of testator
may provide the time. Absence of time frame, when
must the property be transmitted to 2nd heir? It must
be transmitted upon the death. Thats the logical
termination of his right to the inheritance.
Before the death of the fiduciary, may he sell the
property? Theres no prohibition, he may sell the
property but the transferee of the first heir gets it subject
ot the obligation to preserve and transmit property to the
second heir. Occur not upon the death of transferee but
that of fidiciuary. His right ends upon death of the
transferor. Cannot get more rights than transferor had in
the first place. His right was subject to resolutory
condition.
How about the fideicommisary sell the property before
the death of the fiduciary? Back track if fiduciary alive at
time of testator, in absolute title by the first heir. First
heir becomes substitute of the fideicommisary.
2nd heir dies ahead of fiduciary, who gets property? Heirs
of fideicommisary, fideicommisary was alive therefore he
inherited the property.
At time of testators death, fiduciary predeceased
testator and only fideicomissary was alive. Who gets
property? No provision in the code. Its one of the
question, I asked Barbie. Intention was to give absolute
ownership of the property to the fideicommissary.
Dinelay niya lang ng onti. Kung ganon pala intention
niya, maski magpredecease, dapat magpunta pa rin yan
2nd heir. Bilib ako kay Barbie kasi alam niya tamang
sagot.
Both fideicomissary and fiduciary predeceased? No one
inherits, walang substitution. Exactly at the same time
Art 43.
Fiduciary was the substitute of the fideicomissary. First
heir has the chance of getting absolute title. As
compared with legacy. Another instance would be those
under A867.
XIII. KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS
TESTAMENTARY INSTITUTIONS
1. Simple or pure 777 no condition for inheritance to
take place, only event we should wait for is the death
of the testator. Ang impt lang ay mamatay. The
moment he dies, inheritance will follow as a
matter of force. No conditions attached to the right
of the heir to receive his inheritance. Its enough that
succession is OPENED by the death of the testator.
2. Conditional 871 subject to a condition (future and
uncertain condition the happening of which a
juridical act is made to depend).
Can a past event be a condition? Yes, if we dont have
knowledge of it. Perhaps that was possible during thte

time where theres no advance means of communication.
Paglubog ng galleon sa Pacific.
When is a testamentary provision conditional? Validity
or efficacy of a provision depends upon the happening
of a condition (future and uncertain event)
Why is testator allowed to impose conditions on the right
of an heir to inherit? Reason given by writers: if testator
can dispose of properties by will, he is likewise free to
impose conditions upon whom he wish to give such
property. Testator cannot impose condition on the
LEGITIME, only on the FREE PORTION.
Why will testator impose condition on the right of an heir
to inherit? What will move a testator to impose such a
condition? Maybe testator wants to oblige an instituted
heir to perform something. For failure to do so, forfeiture
of right to inherit. OR maybe testator wants to achieve a
particular scenario when particular conditions set in.
Conditions of different kinds or type:
implied/express,
potestative fulfillment depend
exclusively on will of heir
casual chance or will of a third person
mixed fulfillment of condition depends on will of
heir and chance or heir and third person,
suspensive prevents the effectivity of a
disposition until happening of condition
resolutory right to inheritance is extinguished by
happening of resolutory.
Nature: positive required to give or do
an act; negative not do/give anything
Propriety/legality: proper/improper
Take note that those conditions, to be valid, must be
imposed in a will itself or another will. Hindi pwede
in a document incorporated by reference, document
short of a will. Ergo if those conditions were imposed in
document other than a will, but merely referred to
through incorporation, the condition will not take
effect. Deemed as not having been imposed: received
free from any condition.
There was doubt: in favor of absence of a condition.
Why? A testamentary condition is essentially gratuitous
act, in the absence of clear provision that its subject to
testamentary act, we assume theres no burden.
Improper/inoperative conditions. There are 4 of them
under the code.
a. 873: impossible, illegal or immoral
b. 872 in re 904: conditions imposed on the
legitimes of compulsory heirs
c. 874: not to contract marriage
d. 875: Disposition captatoria.
a. What is an impossible condition? Happening is
contrary to the laws of nature, it will never happen.
E.g. Pagputi ng uwak. Pagwapo ni Mr. Garcia,
nanganak si Mr. Garcia.
Page 43 of 81
What is the effect? Considered as not imposed.
Institution shall be considered as pure and simple. Bakit
disregarded, diba intention was really not to give
property to the heir. Tinakaw niya lang yung heir. Inasar
lang niya. Paasa love mode.
Why do we disregard? The testator is penalized by law.
Tarantado ka. Gagawa ka lang ng disposition, nang-aasar
ka pa! penalty incurred by testator for imposing as a
condition an impossible thing.
This is different from act inter vivos (will is mortis causa)
A1123 makes the obligation void if its made subject to
impossible obligation. But under 873, the condition is
merely disregarded.
What is illegal condition? The actors performance
violates the law. E.g. give of my estate if he will supply
my youngest son shabu for life. If that illegal condition is
imposed, considered as not written an imposed.
Where do we reckon illegality if its made subsequent? If
the act was illegal at the time it was imposed, but was
already legal when testator died, the heir must comply.
Compliance has to be done after the death. But those
that happened before the death should be deemed
complied with. Tested after the death of the testator
when heir is supposed to comply with the condition.
What is immoral condition? Performance of the act in
order to fulfill the condition will violate morals of our
country/nation, community. E.g. Indecent Proposal. Pati
sa pelikula illiterate kayo! Di ba si Demi Moore, yung
lalaki Ted Something played husband and wife architects
who were building their dream house in a beach front
property but lost their money. They gambled in Las
Vegas pa nga eh. And then they met this dashing Robert
Redford millionaire. I give you 1M if you sleep with me
one night. Maligo ka na lang after!!! A species of
prostitution na ang nagbugaw eh yung asawa. Pero bakit
nagbreak down their marriage? Demi Moore admitted
she enjoyed it.
Taken in the context of inheritance, pwede rin maging
condition yun. For an heir to receive his inheritance. E.g.
of immoral condition written about by experts in civil
law? Condition for the heir to change his religious
affiliation (mag-Muslim ka for mana!), or a condition for
the heir to quit priesthood (Father Caluag no longer a
Jesuit so one step further, quit priesthood. Temping a
man of God to commit a sin! Sin ba yun? To leave his
vocation). Pano kung I institute Ron Garcia to 1M
provided he becomes a lawyer. Yan ay immoral talaga.
Increase the number of those in the much maligned
profession.
WON particular provision is immoral depend on the facts
and circumstances of the case.
b. Absolute condition not to contract first or
subsequent marriage.
Itong si Ron, nagbreak sila ni Eva. Magaganda pala ang
mga Ivatan. Matagal islang mag-un (MU). Then nagbreak.
Nag-asawa si Eva. Sabi niya sa pamangkin niya. I leave
my nephew of my estate provided he does not marry

an Ivatan. Ganon ka kinamumuhian ni Mr. Garcia.
Without having seeing the will, nag-asawa ang
pamangkin, anak ni Eva.
Matatanggap ba niya yung inheritance? Depend on WON
the condition is a valid condition. Yes its prohibition but
NOT absolute. For condition to be improper, the
prohibition to contract should be absolute. He cannot
marry anyone, anytime, any place. Since the prohibition
absolute (just particular group of people) the condition is
not an absolute prohibition. PERO baka ito naman ay
contrary to morals. Bakit mo pinagbabawalan na mag-
asawa ng Ivatan. Wala pa namang nag-raise ng issue na
iyon? Why is the condition improper? Deemed not
written. Bakit yung absolute prohibition to contract
marriage? May sariling provision, hindi lang contrary to
morals. violation of human right to enjoy his fullest
human existence. Para mong pinutulan yan ng
kaligayahan.
A subsequent marriage prohibition is also improper. Ron
<3 Eva Annie. Annie <3 Migs. Migs die. Ron says: To
my daughter Annie whos widow I leave of my estate,
provided she does not remarry at all. Eh hindi makatiis si
Annie na walang katabi sa gabi lalo na kung malamig.
Gusto niya may hinahug. She wants a warm body for a
pillow so pinakasalan niya si Mr. Pana. Will she receive
the inheritance? Of course, the issue that you should
resolve is WON the condition imposed by her father was
a valid condition. If validly imposed, she cannot receive
inheritance. If the condition was improper, the condition
will be disregarded and she will be able to inherit. Valid
ba or improper yung condition? Yung tatay niya ang nag-
impose eh! Hindi naman biyenan diba so invalid.
1. With a term
2. Modal 882-883
Lets review your ObliCon.
I will not be able to meet you on Wednesday. Aaaaw.
NAKO HA SASAMPALIN KO KAYO. I have an arbitration
hearing on Singapore.
23 August 2010
a. Conditions imposed on the legitime (Art 872)
The testator is not allowed to impose any condition on
the legitimes of his compulsory heirs. When such a
condition is imposed, the condition is disregarded and
the compulsory heirs shall receive his legitime free from
any conditions. Not only may the testator not impose a
condition, he may not also impose a substitution on the
legitime.
N.B. The tesatator cannot charge a burden on the
legitime. It cannot impose any condition on the receipt or
enjoyment by the compulsory heir of his legitime.
b. Disposicion captatoria (A875)
Illustrate through an example: Sharon Cuneta executed
will instituting Kiko Pangilinan as an heir provided Kiko
will institute KC as an heir in his will. That is an example
of a disposicion captatoria. The right of the instituted heir
to receive his inheritance will depend on the heir having
Page 44 of 81
instituted or given by will to somebody specified by the
testator.
When Sharon dies, Kiko did not make a will instituting
KC, when he saw the will he decided to make one so he
made a will instituting KC as an heir? May Kiko receive
the inheritance provided in the will of Sharon, is he
entitled to receive what was given to him in the will of
Sharon, he had already executed a will requested by
Sharon? He will not inherit even if he complied. In the
A875, not only is the condition disregarded, (in an
impossible condition, the disposition is disregarded), the
very disposition contained in Sharons will is void.
TRANSMISSION OF RIGHTS
In the case of a suspensive condition, what happens if
the heir predeceases the testator?
Lets do it one by one:
1st scenario: the condition was fulfilled even before
testator died, however heir subject to suspensive
condition died ahead of the testator.
Lets draw it so you can visualize better:
SUSPENSIVE CONDITION
A.
1. Condition was fulfilled
Before death of testator
2. Heir died ahead of testator
Testator did not change his
3. Heir was survived by his own heirs
Who will get the inheritance? Will the heirs of the heir
instituted subject to suspensive condition? Raise your
hands. NOT GET.
Why? Your answer was right for the wrong reason.
Because since the heir predeceased he never inherited.
For an heir to inherit, he must be alive at the time of the
death of the testator. He did not inherit at all, since that
is the case, he acquired nothing to transmit to his own
heirs.
A.
1. Heir died ahead of testator
2. Condition was not yet fulfilled when testator
died
3. The condition remained in his will
4. A year later, the condition was fulfilled but
the heir predeceased testator
5. Heir instituted subject ot condition has his
own heir
Heir instituted still will not inherit because he
predeceased the testator.
A. Condition already fulfilled before testators death
When testator died, the heir insitituted subject to
suspensive condition was alive
Yes, he will inherit.
B.
1. Heir alive upon testators death
2. Condition not yet fulfilled

3. Heir died when the condition was fulfilled
4. Heir has his own heirs
Who will inherit? Is the heir entitled to inherit at the time
of testators death? Not yet because condition not yet
been fulfilled. Heir must wait until the condition has been
fulfilled. When fulfilled, he will become entitled to receive
his inheritance. This is the essence of suspensive
condition, right of heir to inherit is made to depend
on the happening of an event. Its only when that
event happens that the heir will be entitled to receive the
inheritance.
Suppose the heir died before the condition has been
fulfilled? Its true that he was alive when T died, however,
the heir died before the condition happened. He was
survived by his own heirs, when the condition happened
a year after death of heir, who is entitled to receive the
inheritance? They are not entitled, under A1034 for an
heir to be able to inherit, he must not only be alive at
the time of testators death but also at the time of
happening of the condition. Thats when the right to
inherit gels. If he was already dead at the time of
happening of event, he no longer qualified to inherit.
Since he is not entitled to inherit, he did not transmit
anything to his own heirs.
Before happening of the condition, is he entitled to
receive possession of his inheritance and enjoy it? NO,
that condition will be meaningless if otherwise.
Kanino mapupunta property before inheritance? Under
A880, it will go to an administrator.
When it becomes a certainty that condition will no longer
happen, what will the administrator do? Turn over the
property back to the estate. Hindi na makakainherit si
suspensive heir. I return it to estate and therefore it goes
to the legal heirs of the testator. proceed to intestacy!
RESOLUTORY CONDITION
Right terminates upon the happening of the condition.
E.g. I institute Ron to of my estate but if Ron will not
have a son, his right to the inheritance shall terminate.
Puro babae anak ni Ron, pambayad sa mga utang niya.
Dun sha babawiin. Pambayad utang sa ibang babae.
Nung araw kasi chattels ang babae. Oh ayan pare, bayad
ko sayo, isang anak. That was during the Roman time
when women did not have political rights. They were
considered chattels. At least hindi naman large cattle,
chattel.
The heir instituted subject to resolutory condition should
be alive at the time of testators death. If the heir was
alive, he inherits, however in his hands, the inheritance
will terminate upon the happening of a resolutory
condition. If the heir predeceased the testator, he will not
inherit at all, therefore, he will not receive inheritance
when testator dies. His heirs will not be able to get
anything, there being no transmission of rights. He never
became an heir therefore he acquired nothing to
transmit to his own heirs.
When the heir was alive when testator died, the heir will
enter his inheritance but will keep it subject to happening
Page 45 of 81
of resolutory condition. When that happens, he loses his
rights to inheritance. To whom does it go? To a person
specified in the will, if there is a substitute or
designation. Absent that stipulation, it will go back to the
estate of the testator in which case, his legal heirs will
inherit the inheritance.
Suppose the heir who inherited from testator dies before
happening of resolutory condition, who gets inheritance?
Heirs of resolutory heir will receive the inheritance from
the resolutory heir. BUT they will receive it subject to the
same resolutory condition. Only property that resolutory
heir had over inheritance, thats what he transmitted to
his own heirs. If it was subject to resolutory condition,
thats what he transmits to his own heirs too.
When resolutory condition happens, heirs of resolutory
heirs, they will have to give up the property.
He can sell whatever his vested right is in the property.
The property he will sell is subject to same condition.
Buyer gets same property subject to resolutory
condition. Cant give more than what you dont have. No
absolute ownership, you cant give or sell absolute
ownership.
Suppose the happening of the resolutory condition is
certain not to happen anymore: What happens to the
inheritance? Resolutory heirs OR his heirs will keep
inheritance forever, their ownership becomes absolute.
Usually, when an inheritance is subject to resolutory
condition, the TCT is annotated with the resolutory
nature of the inheritance. Para kanino man mabenta yun
or masangla, alam nung makakatanggap na yun lang
yung extent of interest of transferor. When it becomes
certain it will not happen, annotation may be lifted upon
court petition that it will not happen anymore.
CONDITION v TERM
Term future event the happening of which is certain.
Alam nating mangyayari yan but we dont know when
exactly it will happen. E.g. death of a person, unless hes
a vampire. He will die for sure, when exactly this son of a
gun will die, we do not know.
It may be suspensive or resolutory.
SUSPENSIVE TERM right is suspended until arrival of
the term. Pag condition, happening. Pag term, arrival.
You should be precise when answering questions in the
bar. It shows breeding. Ang sama ng mga SC decisions,
parang gusto mong iedit to correct.
Testator instituted heir subject to suspensive term. Heir
died ahead of testator but survived by his own heirs.
When the testator dies and the will was admitted to
probate, who will inherit? Definitely heir cannot inherit
because predeceased the testator. How about his own
heirs, will they inherit? NO because the heir instituted
subject to a suspensive term never inherited because
predeceased, did not acquire anything from testator to
transmit to his own heirs.
New scenario: when T died, the heir instituted subject to
a suspensive term was alive but the term has not yet

arrived. Before the arrival of the term, the heir died. But
he was survived by his own heirs. Will heirs of the heir
instituted subject to a term inherit? YES they will be able
to inherit under A878. This is the difference between
institution subject to suspensive term and subject to
suspensive condition. Its enough that hes alive at the
time of testators death. His inheritance vest in him at
the time of testators death. arrival of the term is a mere
delay in the delivery of his inheritance. Ownership over
the inheritance is vested on the heir upon death of
testator.
Before arrival of the term, who will get the inheritance?
Not the heir because that violates the express instruction
of the testator. There is a conflict between 880 and 885.
885 applies specifically to a disposition subject to a term,
while 880 applicable to both disposition subject to a
condition/term. Ano masusunod sa kanila?
There is a period for retribution. Tuwang tuwa ako pag di
kayo nagbabasa.
JBL Reyes: There used to be no conflict between the two
because 880 in the old civil code referred only to a
condition institution, did not cover institution subject ot a
term. But when it was being deliberated some smart
aleck stood up and proposed an amendment. Akala niya
kasi magaling sha. Pag-isahin na lang natin ang term at
condition. Dahil hindi sha civilista, hindi niya alam ang
885. They should have suppressed 885 from the draft of
885. End result is a conflict between 880 and 885.
What is the solution proposed by JBL? 885 should control
when it comes to a term because it specifally applies to
disposition subject to a term whereas 880 applies to
general. So far, interpretation of 2 articles has not
figured in a case that reached in the SC. Bihira ang mga
settlement cases. 5 pa lang ang settlement case na
nahandle ko, celebrity politician. Walang lumabas sa
diyaryo.
Bear in mind the comments of JBL Reyes. With whom
Sen. Tolentino concurs. Tolentino has the same opinion
as JBL: Administration is not proper in case of
disposition made subject to a term.
Under 885 when a disposition is made subject to a
suspensive term, the inheritance will go to the legal
heirs. Pano kung sirain ng legal heirs or hindi ibalik?
Walang problema kung immovable real estate, hindi
naman pwede sirain yun. Masisira ang improvement but
real estate remains there for the heir subject to a term to
take over. Pano kung nasira yung improvements or kung
movable yun? What will be the remedy of the heir
instituted subject to a term? Ano ang kanyang remedy?
The law has seen that scenario and so the court has
imposed a condition in order for the legal heirs of
testator to enter the inheritance. They will post a bond
called Caucion Muciana.
Baka itanong sa inyo sa bar: What are those instances
when caucion muciana is required? This is one. There are
two more. Kayo na bahala maghanap nun.
Page 46 of 81
RESOLUTORY - If inheritance is subject to resolutory
term, our discussion on resolution condition will apply.
When the term arrives, the heir will lose inheritance and
give her up in favor of party indicated in will OR in the
absence of such indication, back to estate of decedent.
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION WITH A MODE
Maraming hindi nakakaintindi dito.
Mode obligation imposed by the testator for the heir to
perform. A duty, an act required of the heir to fulfill or
perform. A charge imposed on the heir. E.g. I institute
Eva to of my estate however, Eva should pay my
widow a monthly allowance of P100,000 for as long as
my widow lives.
Suppose Eva fails or refuses to pay the P100,000
monthly allowance, what happens? If she loses the
inheritance for her failure to do so, it must be a
resolutory condition. Its not a mode. Payment must be
the condition that when she fails to perform condition,
she loses the inheritance.
What makes it a mode? Pag hindi sumunod, at nawala
inheritance, resolutory condition yun not mode. When
the penalty for non-performance of the obligation is not
forfeiture of the inheritance. Pag walang ganung
nakalagay na maliwanag sa will an ang penalty ay
forfeiture, dun lang nagiging mode yun. How do we
enforce the obligation of Eva to pay P100K monthly
allowance to my widow, pano natin sha pipilitin?
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE thats the remedy available to
the heir. She goes to court and impose specific
performance. Attach all her properties in order for the
obligation to comply with. Unless she repudiates the
inheritance, wala shang liability at walang charge.
Inheritance is the one that answers for the performance
of the mode imposed on the inheritance. So e.g. yung
kalahati kayamanan consisted of hacienda in Nueva Ecija
earning income from agri production, kumikita
P500,000/yr. ayaw bayad Eva, I can sue for specific
performance and ask to garnish the income for delivery
to the widow. Thats the difference between mode and
resolutory condition.
Theres a case decided by CJ Davide. I wont be
surprised, he was not a civilist. Although graduate natin
yan, batch 1969. If the obligation is with a mode,
caucion muciana. Isa na lang ang hinahanap niyo.
Caguiao in his book raised this question: Suppose heir
instituted subject to a mode, refused to comply or
perform the mode? Hindi niya sinagot ang tanong niya.
The remedy is not to return but to enforce by specific
performance even if it will require attachment of the
property inherited so be it. Kung kailangan sale at a
public auction for the mode to be complied with.
XIV. LEGITIME
Its in 886. Reservation for compulsory heirs. Why does
the law provide for reservation? To protect the
compulsory heirs from the presumed unjust ire or
weakness or thoughtlessness or irrationality of their

parents/relatives which are the testator. Pag nagagalit
magulang hindi nakakapag-isip yan. Tatanggalan kita
mana! Or nabubulagan ang magulang like a widow. Very
early in her life. For lack of entertainment, embark in an
entertainment program, ballroom dancing. Best forms of
physical exercise. Nainlove kay DI. Pag na-inlove tao,
nasisira ulo niyan. Becomes irrational. Pag hindi ka
naging irrational, hindi ka inlove. In lust ka lang.
kailangan maging irrational ka. Tandaan niyo huling kabit
na kayo. Kailangan niyo ng asawa. Ha Eva? Baka
pamigay lahat ng properties sa DI because of undue and
improper pressure and influence.
Walang tutang nauulol. Matatanda lang nauulol. Mad
dog. Nakakakita ka na bang mad puppy. Old dogs, old
bitches.
Members of the family who should be protected.
Who are the compulsory heirs?
1. Legitimate ascendants
2. Illegitimate parents
3. Legitimate chidlren and descendants
4. Illegitimate children
5. Surviving spouse
Lima lang yan under the CC. Under the OCC there were
only 2 (legitimate ascendants and descendants) lahat ng
illegitimate were not recognized as heirs. We gave
premium to legitimate relationships. Kung pareho lang
ng effects, e di wag na lang magpakasal. Gradation of
rights. Wife used to have no right under the old code
except usufruct if theres child. If no child, balik ka na sa
nanay mo.
One writer: in reality there are no illegitimate children,
just illegitimate parents.
Not all of them will inherit at the same time. There are
heirs to exclude other compulsory heirs. Excluded
secondary heirs. Primary compulsory heirs.
Sino ang primary compulsory? Yung hindi pwede
exclude:
1. Unang-una ang surviving spouse. Dati dati wala
shang right to inherit, ngayon, binigyan na nga
ng right, hindi pa sha naeexclude. Para shang
bawang kapag nagluluto kayo.
2. Legitimate children and descendants
3. Ganon din illegitimate children
All the others: are secondary heirs because excluded by
certain by primary compulsory heirs
LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS
Compulsory heirs when only them survive. E.g. Ron
decided to remain a bachelor dahil nabroken heart kay
Eva. Nag-negosyo, yumaman. Mysterious reasons. AIDS
daw sabi ni Ani. Parents lang natira and brothers and
sisters. Who will inherit Mr. Garcias wealth? Nearest
relatives are parents and brothers and sisters. Sino mag-
iinherit? Legitimate ascendants are compulsory heirs.
How about siblings? When there exists compulsory heirs,
Page 47 of 81
exclude all relatives. Pag merong compulsory heir,
excluded lahat sila.
Compulsory heirs din sina Lolo at Lola: Direct ascending
line ad infinitum hanggang sayong ancestors. Collateral
line ang tawag kila uncle. Ginarison yung bahay ng
ninuno ko kaya nung liberation, binomba. Nasira lahat ng
family memorabilia.
Suppose this happened instead:
A-B D-E H-I K-L
| | | |
C - F J - M
| |
G - N
|
O+
Sino papatayin natin jan? Si O. Lagay natin sha sa nitso
hahahhaha
1. Compulsory heirs exclude non-compulsory.
2. Those compulsory heirs in the direct line, exclude
the collateral (though wala naman compulsory na
collateral).
3. Those in the same line the nearer excludes the
more remote.
If they all survive, GN will compulsory heirs of O to the
exclusion of the grandparents and great grant.
What if G is also dead? Definitely N will inherit to the
exclusion of JM HI KL.
Can CF take Gs share? We dont allow that in the direct
ascending line. Hindi pwedeng bumaba sina CF kay G.
Representation is not allowed. THereofre, only N will
inherit. Nearer degree, everbody will be included.
N is in the first degree, she will exclude all those in the
other degrees.
N is already dead din. CFJN will inherit nearest legitimate
surviving ascendants. How? Divide equally portion
reserved for legitimate ascendants? Magkano ba yun? If
alone, of the estate. What happens to the other half,
free portion. Decedent may dispose by will but if he dies
without a will, half portion will be disposed of by
intestacy.
Suppose patay na rin si C? Who are compulsory heirs of
O? 3rd degree are excluded by the 2nd degree. Whats
their share? In the ascending line, the legitime is divided
equally between paternal and maternal lines. of
legitime goes to F for the paternal line and then to J
and M in the maternal line, to be divided them equally.
Malaki ang mana ni F kasi wala shang kahati.
1 September 2010
When ascendants survive alone, only then are they
compulsory heirs entitled to legitime of of the estate
of the decedent.

What happens to the other half of the estate? It becomes
the free portion. If the testator made some legacies or
devises and those exceed the free portion, they are
inofficious. Also chargeable against free portion of estate
are donation inter vivos made during the lifetime. If
exceed, they are inofficious and have to be reduced.
legitime shall be divded equally between maternal and
paternal lines. Among the ascendants, the nearer
excludes the more remote.
Suppose ascendants are survive with brothers and
sisters of the decedent, are bros and sis compulsory
heirs? Theyre not under the law.
Who should inherit as compulsory? only ascendant. Eh
yung greatgrandpa natira. Decedent survived by
greatgrandpa and full blood brother.
Pagka gastado na, hindi na nilalagay dito. Sabay itsa ng
marker.
A - B E - F
| |
C - - D
G ---------------- H Kris and James believed in good faith? Belief of good faith
| .
I J - K
Brothers are in the collateral line while
greatgrandparents are in the collateral line. They are not
compulsory heirs. Legal lang. Not compulsory.
1. Rule when compulsory heirs concur with legal
heirs not CH, the LH are excluded.
2. Direct line excludes the collateral.
3. The other half is free portion.
4. Computation of legitime: I didnt catch
LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS
Kailan sila legitimate ascendants? When the ascendants
are validly married to each other.
Dont forget what you learned in PFR, man and woman
living together as husband and wife for a long time,
holding themselves out as husband and wife are
PRESUMED to be lawfully married to each other (Perido v
Perido)
That presumption is merely rebuttable. Interested parties
may prove that the marriage was invalid. Kung invalid
marriage, hindi legitimate si descendant. May isang kaso
na decided by SC which is wrong, this is how poor the
general quality of SC have become. New rule of
procedure promulgated by SC governing declaration of
nullity, annulment and legal separation. Sabi nitong
justice, under new rules, only the spouses of the void
marriage may bring action to make it null and void.
When one party died, you cannot attack.
Void marriage may be attacked directly (filed only by
parties to the marriage, not by a non-party; petition to
declare marriage null and void) and collaterally (in any
action, if necessary for the disposition of the case in that
collateral case e.g. namatay mag-asawa nobody
Page 48 of 81
challenged the validity. Yung anak pag naging
illegitimate, lilit kanyang mana.
Can party interested in having him declared illegitimate?
Yes that may be done and it is a collateral attack). SO
DAPAT KASAL.
Sir yung kasal po ni Kris Aquino, valid ba yun? Practice of
many politicians in the province. Mayor Belmontes
office. Wala yung mayor so kinasal sila ni Pastor pero
pumirma sa contract si Belmonte. Invalid kay Sir, for
Pastor to have an authority, he must have provided at
least one of the contracting parties is a member of the
church, religion or sect of the solemnizing officer.
What is the effect if none of the parties was a member, is
the non-compliance a mere irregularity or is it absence of
authority? Does not affect validity of the marriage, only a
criminal prosecution for solemnizing an officer, if non-
compliance with proviso is absence of authority, then the
marriage is void because formal requisite was absence.
Mere irregularity or absence of authority? Maganda sana
maging amicus tayo jan so we can educate the court.
does not include mistake of law, only mistake of fact.
Authority of the rabbi priest etc is subject to a condition
that one of the contracting parties is a member. Its a
matter of law.
Tolentino says: matters of fact are included in A35 No. 2
eh di our people will might as well marry before
barangay captain, police chief, barangay tanod, school
principal.
Navarro v Domagtoy: judge was only disciplined but they
may solemnize marriage anywhere in the country.
ADOPTING PARENT
Is he a compulsory heir? There are two schools of
thought.
Judge Sempio Diy and many other teachers who believed
her
went very far to claim that in adoption the adopted child
is totally separated from his natural family. All
connections of the child are severed. Natatawa na lang
ako. Parang hindi sila nag-iisip. Of course not! If thats
the case, e di pwede na niya pakasalan kapatid niya dun
sa natural parents. Are you ready to allow that? Only
the parental authority of the natural parent is
severed, but they remain as legitimate parents of
the adopted child.
Under A342 of NCC, it was provided there that adopting
parents are NOT legal heirs of the adopted child. Why?
Because there is a temptation on the part of the
adopting parent to adopt a wealthy child to be his heir.
E.g. Namatay yung parents sa Luneta Hostage. To
remove temptation and that adoption is solely motivated
by desire of parents to make him their own, purely
familial motives, the NCC did not make adoptive parents
as compulsory heirs, not even legal heirs. But this was
expressly repealed.

984 CC1: Hindi heir ang adoptive parents. Companion
provision of 342. Hindi narepeal expressly ang 984, only
342. So what is the standing of the 984? Yes, it is also
repealed, otherwise, therell be inconsistency with the
provisions of FC. Sabi naman ng repealing clause ng FC,
what is his status now? I wrote an article analyzing this
case with the IBP journal. Compulsory heir ang
adopting parent if he does not survive or concur
with natural or legal parents. Article was published
March 2009 about domestic adoption and its effects. One
thing for sure, the adopting parents are legal heirs,
under A1902 of the FC instances where adopting parent
will inherit. Since they inherit, they are therefore legal
heirs but the FC does not make them compulsory
heirs because they dont have legitime and its not
clear that they are CH.
But I made an analysis that the intention it would seem is
to make adopting parents LH but ONLY when they
dont concur or survive with the natural parents of the
adopting child.
Art. 39, PD 603
LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS
Suppose they concur with legitimate children. Legitimate
ascendants are excluded.
What is the legitime of the Legitimate children = of
estate equally divided among the children
Why exclude from inheritance the parents? Bakit ganun
ang batas? According to framers of OCC (which came
from Spain which came from France Napoleon Code)
Love of person is like flow of water in river, it does not
flow up, only down to the sea. It may flow collaterally,
but not flow up. Yung river nila ay wala sa coast. Madrid
is landlocked, so they think, the river really does not flow
up. But here in Manila, it does flow up kapag high tide.
That is the normal behavior of a normal person. He loves
more his descendants than ascendants. Kung may
puzzle, si Ron sumakay sa Bangka kasama ang anak at
tatay. Si Ron lang marunong lumangoy, boat capsized
1 In case of death of an adopted child, leaving no children or
descendants, his parents by consanguinity and NOT by adoption, shall
be his legal heirs.
2 Legal or intestate succession to the estate of the adopted shall be
governed by the following rules:
(1) Legit and illegit C and D and the SS of the adopted shall
inherit from the adopted, in accordance with ordinary rules of
legal succession.
(2) When the parents, legit/illegit, or legit ascendants of the
adopted CONCUR with the adopters, divide the entire estate
to be inherited by the parents or ascendants, by the
adopters.
(3) When the SS or IC of the adopted CONCUR with the
adopters, they shall divide the entire estate in equal shares.
(4) When adopters CONCUR with the IC and SS of the adopted,
they shall divide the entire estate in equal shares, 1/3 to be
inherited by IC, SS and then by adopters.
(5) When only the adopters survive, they shall inherit the estate.
(6) When only collateral blood relatives of the adopted survive,
then the ordinary rules of legal succession shall apply.
Page 49 of 81
but Ron can only save one of the two. Who do you think
Ron will save? Sociologists say father will save his son,
not his father. Gusto niya ngang mamatay na tatay niya
para makamana na sha. Even if Ron will attempt to save
his dad, the father will decline.
The legitimate children exclude the legitimate
ascendants from the inheritance fo the decedent.
But suppose legitimate ascendants concur with
illegitimate children?
Are illegitimate children compulsory heirs? YES, they are.
But they were not under the OCC. Yung mga illegitimate,
they were considered strangers to the family. They have
nothing against the legitimate family. They were not
entitled to any inheritance, not even from the illegitimate
father. Bastardo! Kaya noon may stigma yung pagiging
bastardo. Yung tiyahin ko turned down a suitor who was
rich but bastardo. Naging governor ng province later on.
Ano tiyang nagsisisi ka na ba?
Nung naging famous na ang bastardo, Sharon Cuneta.
Juan Ponce Enrile? Son of Don Alfonso Ponce Enrile,
kasama sa Perkins Law Office. Treasurer of Province of
Cagayan. Armada siguion reyna. Naging lonely si Don
Alfonso sa Tuguegarao. Laundry woman became mother
of Juan Ponce Enrile. Furganan. Johnny Ponce Enrile
looked for his dads law office. Lawyer like you. I will send
you to the best school on two conditions. Best school? UP
Law!!! Live with me and change your surname. Galit
tuloy si Armida. Bakit pinapatira dito ang bastardong
yan. Dahan dahan kayo magsalita, mga bastardo rin
kayo! Hindi kasal si Dona Purita at Don Alfonso.
Sikat na bastardo ngayon.
Illegitimate children under new law are compulsory heirs.
If concur with legitimate ascendants, the legit asc do not
exclude illegit children. They will concur and inherit as
compulsory heirs.
Legit ascendants = of estate
Illegit children = of the estate divided among them
equally
Remaining = free portion
Dont forget however, for an illegit child to inherit, he
must be recognized by putative parent either voluntarily
or involuntarily.
172 FC in relation to 175: only three forms: [1] record of
birth [2] public document of recognition/affidavit of
acknowledgement [3] private handwritten document
signed by putative parent
Recognition will not be effective pag hindi pumirma (?).
Child is voluntarily recognized against illegit parent.
e.g. wala lahat nay un. Pag pumirma ako jan, confession
of philandering yan. Hindi rin sha gumawa ng affidavit or
ng private handwritten document. Pero yung bata kinilala
informally. Pinakilala sa mga kaibigang putik, hawig ko
talaga oh. Sha nagpaaral, tuition, report card, pirma as
parent. Those documents, photographs or public
knowledge that he was illegitimate child, they are not
recognition in itself, only as grounds for recognition.

If he dies without recognition, illegit child could not
inherit. Can file action to compel recognition only during
lifetime, after that, action is barred.
What about DNA? Yung ibang piyesa, hindi nadodonate
yan. Nakadonate ang blood, retina, liver at kidney?
Pwede ba patest DNA ng tatay tas imatch sa DNA test
results? 99.9999999% makakainherit ba illegit child? No,
because its not a form of voluntary recognition. Its just
evidentiary to compel recognition. But the action to
compel recognition is already barred by the death of the
putative parent.
Illegit children will divide legitime of among
themselves equally, maski ibaiba ang nanay or tatay nila.
As far as common parent is concerned, all of them are
illegit children. pare-parehong anak sa labas kaya pareho
lang ng inheritance rights.
Legit asc concur with adopted child
Suppose the legit ascendant is survived by the adopted
child of the decedent who are compulsory heirs, the
adopted child will exclude leg ascendant. Because the
former has all the rights of a legit child. This includes
excluding the right to inheritance of parents of adoptive
parents.
NB for a child to be considered adopted, the adoption
must have been decreed by an adoption court. Decree of
adoption. Kung ipinalista laman yung bata in the name of
the parents to whom he was given, that birth cert is not
proof of his or her filiation. Because that document is a
falsified document. Crime is called: Simulation of birth.
Domestic adoption law: simulation is defined as
tampering of birth cert. napakahina sa choice of words.
Simulation tampering. Otherwise, falsification. Wlaa
kang tinamper dito eh. Falsification is absorbed by
simulation as necessary act for the commission of the
latter.
LA concur with SS
Who are CH? When the spouse is survived by legit issue,
the SS only entitled to usufruct but not real inheritance.
Under NCC, SS is given real inheritance. BUT SS does not
exclude the LA.
IC do not exclude LA because we have to give premium
to legit relationships. Di pwedeng walang pinagkaiba.
There must be a gradation of rights, otherwise, no
motivation to legalize union with partners in life. No
value as social institution ang marriage. Make legit rel
between partners in life. Kung walang effect, bakit pa?
SS does not exclude. Why not? Because blood is thicker
than water. Kaano-ano mo ba yang asawa mo? Pero
nagiintrega ka ng sweldo, sinusunod mo lahat. Yes mam
yes mam pero di mo kaanoano yan. Blood is thicker than
water. Kaya hindi maexlcude ni SS si Leg Asc.
Pag nag-aaway yung mga kilala kong mag-asawa, yung
parents ang topic. Laging nagbibigay ng sustento sa
parents si Ron. Pambili ko ng shoes, nasa parents mo!
Dahan dahan ka. Makakakuha ako sampung kapalit mo,
pero walang kapalit ang parents ko. Di mo pwedeng
palitan ang parents mo pero pwede mong palitan ang
asawa mo.
Page 50 of 81
They concur with each other, the two of them are
compulsory heirs.
Legitimes
Legit Asc = of estate
SS = of estate
Arbitrary yung ng SS para may free portion.
Leg asc concur with surviving spouse and legit children
Who are CH? Leg asc are excluded. Only SS and LCD are
compulsory heirs
Legit asc concur with surviving spouse and illegit children
Hindi maeexclude ng SS and IC ang LA. Kasi nga illegit
and affinity lang sila. IC will not exclude the SS either.
Legitimes
LA = estate
IC = estate
SS = 1/8 estate
1/8 = remaining free portion
Nagloko kasi si Mr., nangaliwa sha kaya lumiit yung kay
misis. Anong suma total? Pinarusahan si Misis nung
nangaliwa si Mister. Bakit ganun? Bakit si Misis
naprejudice? KASI BAOG SHA. She failed to provide her
husband with offspring kaya nag-experiment sa labas
yung asawa.
Noong unang panahon pag hindi nanganak ang reyna ng
lalaki, pinupugutan ng ulo. Catherine of Aragon. Henry
VIII. St. Thomas Moore refused to recognize the divorce
of the king. Cessation of England from the Catholic
Church. Elizabeth I. James I, son of Mary Queen of
Scotts the King James version of the Bible. Bat ba tayo
napunta jan.
Legitime of the ascendants is fixed at of the estate.
Hindi nagbabago yan. Sino ang nagbabago? Yung
legitime nung ILLegit children and SS.
NEXT CLASS OF COMPULSORY HEIRS
ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS
Kanina legitimate ascendants pero ngayon, illegitimate
parents that is significant. Later on you will find out
that illegit ascendants are barred from inheriting.
If survive alone
of the estate as their legitime
NB only illegit parents who recognized their illegit
children are entitled to inherit.
E.g. Ron and Ani are married to each other pero
nagkaron ng affair si Ron at Eva. Si Eva naman kasal kay
Mel. Nagkaanak si Eva kahawig na kahawig ni Ron. Sabi
ngayon ni Mel, bat hawig ni Ron? Napaglihian ko kasi si
Ron. Busit na busit ako jan dati. Child is your child is an
act of faith. Manampalataya ka na lang na anak mo nga
ang anak mo pag sinabi ng Misis mo.
Kaya during the old days to ensure that the crown prince
is a descendant of the monarch, binabantayan yung
prinsesa. Bantay sarado yan. Para sigurado kung
magbubuntis sha, yung crown prince ang tatay. Ganun
din ang reyna. Sigurado dapat na anak ng hari yung anak
ng reyna. Anne Boleyn. Anne Boleyn rumor that she
wanted to be impregnated by her own brother. Executed
for treason. It was just a frame up for a reason to
execute Anne Boleyn so he could marry again.

The Court must be present during Queens labor.
Changeling. Baka mapalitan! Privacy was a luxury that
royalty did not enjoy. Queen Victoria had 11 children but
she considered sex as something dirty. From all her
children, descended all the monarchies of modern
Europe. Even the consort.
Nagkaanak ngayon si Eva kay Ron. What Ron did now is
a affidavit is that Evas son is his illegitimate son. Pag
namatay si Ron, makakamana ba yung anak ni Eva.
Liyao v Liyao. Child of eva is presumed legitimate of Eva
and Mel. Presumption of law, that child is presumed to be
legitimate. Not any tom Dick and Harry can recognize the
child as his illegit chld. That would have no legal leg to
stand on. Thats the realities that the law should address
and require reform. Overthrown by action to impugn
legitimacy. Only Mel can file. During minority of
illegitimate child, by his heirs. Prescriptive period din of 3
years. Hindi basta basta nagrecognize ka, anak mo na.
Recognition of illegit child by putative father is subject to
consent of illegit child. He may refuse the recognition of
the putative parent. Bakit ngayon lang dahil mayaman
na ako? Provision allowing refusal of recognition was
repealed/suppressed in the FC.
Suppose illegitimate child is recognized by 3 fathers.
Parang yung Mamma Mia. Lalabas yan sa bar na ito!
6 September 2010
ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS
Compulsory heirs when they survive alone, they are the
only CH. Entitled to legitime of of the estate of the
decedent and the other half is free portion. The question
is, who are illegit parents? In your PFR, illegit child
cannot compel the illegit parent to recognize him if the
putative parent has already died. Action to compel
recognition may only be instituted before the death of
the putative parent. How about the reverse? Who is the
illegit parent entitled to inherit from illegit child? Who
must recognize the illegit parent to entitle him to inherit
from the illegit child?
In CC, illegit child, over 18 years cannot be recognized by
illegit parent without consent of the child. But thi
sprovision was suppressed in the FC. Suppose very
wealthy illegit child die, someone claims inheritance now
that he is illegit father. Can he prove his paternity after
the death of child. In the CC cannot do that because no
consent if dead. BUT under FC, may someone cliamiing
to be illegit parent, prove his paternity to claim his
inheritance? Hindi maliwanag sa batas. Dont forget
Liyao v Liyao ruling child presumed legit under the law,
cannot be the son of another person claiming him to be
his illegit child. Hindi pwedeng dalawa tatay mo. Isa lang.
Unless somebody mpugned your legitimate filiation.
Pano yung Mamma Mia. Tatlo yung nagkeclaim. Pareho
pang buhay yung tatlo, interesado sila malaman who the
real father is, magpaDNA na lang sila. Buti nga may DNA
ngayon, noong araw wala. Manampalataya kang anak
mo yan. May the three claiming to be the putative father
Page 51 of 81
enter into a compromise agreement? Mukhang mas
kahawig mo, hayop ka. Under the New CC, one of the
matters which cant be the subject of a compromise
agreement. Status of persons. Cannot be the subject of
compromise or agreement.
For our purposes, since wala nakalagay sa batas kung
sino illegit parent: In case filiation is denied by any
interested party, filiation has to be proven by all kinds of
evidence admissible under the RoC. Pwede rin siguro
yung DNA. May client akong popular na movie actor.
Bago sha namatay may nagkeclaim na anak. Bago
inilibing, nakausap ko yung widow. Mam, pinaDNA mo na
ba? Oo shempre.
Same shall apply in case a wealthy child applies and
there are potential claimants claiming to be illegitimate
parent. That evidence should be decisive in determining
the paternity or filiation of the child.
Illegit parents are excluded by all kinds of children.
Legitimate and illegitimate alike.
Are the illegit parents excluded by the spouse? NO, if the
surviving spouse concurs with legit ascendants, more
reason to allow concurrence with illegit parents.
All of them are compulsory heirs
Illegitimate parents =
Surviving spouse =
Remaining half is free portion
What have you observed from this assignment of
legitimes?
IP are given only , unlike LA who are given . Legitime
given to SS is when concur with LA but why oh why is
the SS given the same legitime when they concur with IP.
Kasi its not the spouse. It has nothing to do with issue of
spouse, but legitimate relationship. That should not
benefit the spouse whose legitime remains at
In FC, when legit parents concur with adopting parents:
What is their inheritance? Tag-1/2 sila sa estate. IBP
Journal basahin niyo yun. Baka dun ako kumuha ng
exam.
LEGITIMATE CHILDREN AND
DESCENDANTS
When legit children survive alone as a class, only them
survives, only them is CH. Legitime of estate
What if it came from different marriages and the first
marriage lasted longer than other subsequent marriage?
Yes they will have same legitime. Walang kinalaman
length of parents relationship sa kanilang filiation. It is
only the valid marriage thats required for legitimacy. All
of the children have same right against estate of Ron as
legitimate children.
Suppose legit children concur with legit ascendants. Who
are CH? Only the legit children. The legiti asc are
excluded and I have already discussed the reason why.
Suppose legit children concur with uncles (brothers and
sisters of decedent? Only the children are CH. Kung yung

nanay nga naexclude nila, lalo na siguro ang mga
collaterals.
Suppose legit children concur with stepmother (father
married second time when mother died). Who are the
CH? All of them are CH. All the children by the first
marriage shall inherit as legit children and the law
assigns to them a legitime of of the estate.
What is the legitime of the surviving spouse? The
legitime of surviving spouse is equivalent to one
legitimate child, coming from the other half of the estate.
Remainder after legitime of wife is paid shall be the free
portion.
Whats the conclusion? Habang dumadami ang
legitimate na anak, lumiliit ang surviving spouse. Bakit
ganon? Kasi nga mas matimbang ang dugo sa tubig.
Hindi mo kaano-ano yang asawa mo, Ron. Mahirap
lumaki legitime niya na affinity ang relationship kesa sa
blood relationship. Though di kayo nakakasiguro na anak
niyo talaga kasi yun ang representation ni Misis. Maski di
niya anak yung children, hindi naman relationship sa wife
nirereckon yung relationship ng legit children. Rather,
from the decedent, not from the surviving spouse. The
more the legit children, the smaller legitime of spouse.
Suppose survived by just one legit child and the spouse?
The two are the CH. Legit children do not exclude the
surviving spouse from the inheritance.
Legitimes: If we follow the formula that legitime of
spouse is same as legitime of the child, in this case, the
legitime of legit child is . Then din yung suriving
spouse. If we allow it, nothing left for the free portion.
Hindi pwedeng wala kasi baka maya may donation
intervivos decedent gave during his life time against
which those donations will be charged. Otherwise puro
inofficious sila. Para may free portion, may binawasan
natural yung surviving spouse. Hindi naman kasi sha
kadugo. In such a case, legitime of spouse is reduced to
just of the estate of the decedent so that will remain
as free portion.
Suppose surviving spouse concurs with an adopted child.
Sino CH? The two of them are the CH. Adopted child will
inherit as a legit child. and pa rin ang inheritance.
NB legit children includes legitimated children as well.
Suppose Ron and Ani got married. Okay mas gusto
naming si Eva. Mas popular ang labtim na ito, sorry Ani.
On the 2nd year after celebration of marriage, Eva had an
affair with Mr. Pana. Nagka-anak, whats the childs
status. Presumed legitimate of Eva and Ron. Later. Si ron
nagka-affair kay Ani. Nagka-anak din kay Ani. Lalaki yung
Eva Pana, babae Ron Ani. Ron hid his affair with Ani,
nagmeet yung mga anak nila. Hindi nila alam na may
connection sila. Nagkagustuhan nadevelop. Sabi ni Ani,
itong anak mo ay mamanhikan dito. Sabi Eva, ron
mamanhikan tayo. Pwede ba magpakasal yun? Under the
law, presumed anak ni Ron yung anak ni Eva. So
magkakaron sila ng relationship dito kay Ani. Later on,
natuloy ang kasal. Pwede ba patunayan nung anak ni
Eva at Pana na hindi naman talaga sila related dun sa
anak ni Ron kay Ani. Back it up with DNA results, pwede
bang isave yung validity ng kanyang marriage?
Page 52 of 81
If you allow the son of Pana by Eva to prove that his real
father was Pana, what is the effect on his inheritance
from Ron? CC works on the basis of legal presumptions
and those presumptions will be overthrown only through
a procedure provided for in the law. Until and unless that
procedure is followed to prove a different paternity or
filiation, the presumption will stand.
Suppose there are no legitimate children because they
died ahead of the grandparent, sino na lang natira? Only
the legit grandchildren.
X - Y (1/6)
|
A B C
D EF GHI
Ang legitime nila of the estate. Kasi legitimate children
AND descendants. How will DEFGHI divide among
themselves the legitime? Take what their parent was
supposed to inherit? In compulsory succession insofar as
legitime is concerned, descendants always inherit in
representation of their deceased parents. Thats A898
A, B, C gets 1/3 of of estate = 1/6
D gets 1/6
EF get 1/12
GHI get 1/18
Suppose grandchildren die at the same time during a
hostage. All the greatgrandchildren inherit by right of
representation.
Ang problem natin ay pag may natirang asawa si X na si
Y.
Kung ang natira concurring in the inheritance with the
children is Y.
Assuming children are still alive Y gets 1/6 coming
from the frree portion. 5/6 na lang free portion.
If children are no longer alive. Ano sabi ni Tolentino?
Hindi na kasi kayo nagbabasa. See page 307.
Gumawa tay ong problem na pareho sila ng legitime.
Kuware tagdadalawa lang sila ng anak.
X - Y (1/6)
|
A B C
DE FG HI
Di naman pwede that we compute wifes legitime using
the number of descendants kasi nga otherwise, the
children will all repudiate so that the surviving spouse
will be prejudiced. Illustration: Hindi nila nanay si Y. ABC
repudiated the inheritance, they are not to be
represented, the grandchildren therefore inherit in their
own right. Since the same degree, the legitime will be
shared by all of them equally.
So DEFGHI each get 1/12 - descendants as a GR inherit
by representation EXCEPT in case of repudiation, where
they will inherit in their own right not be representation.
No regard kung ilan silang anak ng magulang nila. Next
nearest of kind. Per capita na sila.
 Page 53 of 81

Prejudice their stepmother by repudiating. Naging 1/12 BCDE = reduced to 1/8 each
na yung legitime niya. We should not allow them to use
repudiation to prejudice. If we follow Tolentino, that Reduction ang tawag jan kasi mauubos yung free
provision on surviving spouse will never be applicable portion. Preferred ang legitimate children. Di pwedeng
any time. Principle of statutory construction, when magpautang para bayarang legitime ng illegit children.
framers insert word there, its intentional, theres reason
why they inserted it. Pag sinunod natin si Tolentino, or WAIT: so pwedeng maubos ng illegit children ang free portion?
descendant phrase will never apply.
Illegit children used to be of 2 types: natural and
Problema pati kung iba iba ang legitime ng mga apo spurious, but under the FC the distinction between 2
dahil iba iba sila ng share. Hindi nagrepudiate lahat ng kinds had been abolished.
anak.
It was a wrong provision of the code. Dapat, it should be Suppose legit children concurred with the spouse.
computed on the basis fo the children. Cannot repudiate, Legitimes:
predecease, incapacitated. Only of the basis of the
legitimate children. Pero magkakaproblem din dun. A - W
Mabuti kung magrerepudatie lahat. What if only A |illegit |
repudiates? C B
Pag nagrepudiate si A, yung linya niya, din a
magmamana. Burado na sila sa hatian, as if he has not W gets
existed. Descendants could not represent their B gets
representing parent. Resulting legitime: C gets
B so EF get 1/8 each Naubos ang free portion, just enough to pay the
C so GHI get GHI get 1/8 each legitimes.
Lumaki tuloy si Y naging sha.
Baguhin natin ang composition.
So anong rule? Application of the rule leads us to Dalawa anak sa labas at legitimate.
problems. Napakadami niyang problema. During my
early years, I will choose subject I will teach. Isa ako sa A - W
pinagpala ng anak ni Carale na nakapagbigay ng |illegit |
ganyang condition. Ako yung namili ng ituturo ko. Hawak DE BC
ko na PFR Negotiable Corpo Succession. Sa exam lagi ko
binibigay yan to test kung naintindihan niyo yung
provision ng 892. Ngayon hindi na kasi extensive Wife gets
discussion na sa class. BC (legiti children) get
DE (illegit children) get 1/8 each
WAIT Supishente pa.
So kapag lahat nagrepudiate, may right of representation all the
descendants. But suppose tatlo anak sa labas.
Pero pag isa lang, excluded totally even the descendants of the
repudiating child.
A - W
|illegit |
When the legit children concur with illegit children Who
DEF B
are the CH? to legit children divided among them
equally, of the legitimate child is the legitime of an
W get
illegit child coming from the other half.
B get
DEF get each
Lets illustrate that:
Between children and spouse, who has preference? Legit
A
illeg leg children has highest preference, has to be paid in full for
| |
the legitime before others are paid. Between wife and
D BC
illegit children, who suffers reduction? Dilemma yan,
under the old CC, not a problem, illegit children had no
D = 1/8 E
successional rights.
BC =
Ngayon sino na preferred natin. Wife without blood
relation or illegit children. Framers of the code reslves
FP = - 1/8(1/4)
the problem in favor of the surviving spouse.
Observation: Habang dumadami ang illegit children,
Bayaran natin ang ni W so the remaining na lang
nauubos ang FP.
ang paghahatian nila DEF. The illegit children suffered
reduction.
A
|illeg |leg
BCDE F ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
When illegit children survive alone as a class, only them
F = 1/2e are CH. How much is their legitime, of the estate.
 Page 54 of 81

Divided among them equally, regardless of the mothers Suppose buhay pa si XAD. Only X (parent) and W will
or fathers. Parang si Dolphy. Kasi wala pa shang inherit. Excluded si AD. X gets wife gets 1/4
pinapakasalan. Lahat ng anak niya ay illegitimate. So
when he dies, he will be survived by illegit children. May That concludes discussion on amounts of legitimes.
anak shang babae, si Sally Quizon. Lou Salvador Sr. isa
rin sha sa walang pinakasalan. Thats one reason they
dont want to get married. Para walang bastardo.
8 September 2010
Panahon ito ng suddenly diba? Legitimate na lang ay
Restriction regarding the legitime
yung kay Zsazsa. 2 yung magiging legitimated na anak
A904
niya. Parang unfair. Kaya parang ayaw na nya
A872
magpakasal. Sayang di ko naisip yung ng maaga-aga.
Must disinherit the CH for the ground provided for in the
When illegit children survive with legit asc? Leg asc
law. A905
illegit children divdided among them equally, FP
remaining
When the testator gives his CH an inheritance less than
legitime, the testamentary provisions cannot be given
Illegitimate children with illegitimate parents? Illegit
full effect. Testamentary provisions cannot impair the
parents are excluded. As they are excluded by all kinds
legitimes of CH. If legitimes are impaired, the law directs
of children.
the payment of legitimes even if such payment of the
balance will result to suppression of the other
When legitimate children with illegit children? You know
testamentary dispositions.
the formula already.
Lets illustrate through some examples the operation of
Suppose illegit child concurs with spouse? Illegit children
these restrictions.
get 1/3 as their legitime divided among them equally,
surviving spouse get 1/3 of the estate as her legitime.
The testator has 2 legitimate children: A and B
Remaining 1/3 is FP.
Testator
When the illegit children concur with legit asc and
|
surviving spouse: Leg asc get , illegit children among
A B
them equally, surviing spouse 1/8 leaving a free portion
of 1/8
Before T died, he executed a will. Giving A = of estate
and B = of the estate. Ano conclusion natin jan?
SPOUSE Paborito si B(unso). If the estate at the time of Ts death
Suppose SS survives with is 240M, divide the estate. Distribute the estate.
brothers/sisters/nephews/nieces of the decedent, who
are CH? Only spouse is the compulsory heir. She is Manresa has given a queer way of solving/approaching
entitled to or 1/3 as legitime, depending on the problem. Since T cannot dispose by will the legitimes
circumstances of marriage to the descendent. When the of CH, then necessarily the disposition in his will can only
surviving psouse was married to the decedent within 30 apply to free portion.
days in articulo mortis (A900), the legitime of the SS is
only 1/3 of the estate. But if married not in articulo Manresas solution: When theres CH
mortis, even if 2 days before the death, .
Heirs Legitimes Will Total
What is the reason behind reduction in legitime if the SS
was married to the deceased spouse in articulo mortis? A 60 30 90
Nagiging fortune hunter si SS. She should not be
rewarded for such an indecent motive. B 60 90 150

Pero kung hindi in AM but dead day after, maski pa under 120 120 240
mysterious circumstances, A900 will not apply.

Suppose the spouse Give them their legitimes first, unless validly disinherited.
What is legitime of CH in this estate? Its of the estate
X = of 240M.
|
ADB - W L =E
= (240M)
W get estate = 120 M
But the FP if not given to anybody through will, A will get
the FP LC1 = 120M/2
Lahat ng CH exclude all legal heirs except SS. SS concurs = 60M
with inheritance, brothers nieces, nephews.
Since theres FP, the provisions in the will apply only to
the FP.
 Page 55 of 81

San manggagaling yung ibibigay natin sa kanila? Kay A

FP = Estate Legitime
= 240 120
= 120 M
and of 120 M
This is the Manresa solution. Pero maraming hindi bilib
jan, isa na ako dun! Si Baviera saka si Balane din. Binigay
na nga legitime, laki pa nadagdag.
DLC says: When testator provides that, thats the
intention of testator. Including the legitime already. If
that is smaller than the legitime, then we have to pay
additional amount to complete the legitime under A906.
So pano solution jan?
A = (240) = 60
B = (240) = 180
So we have to check, naimpair ba legitime niya? Hindi
kasi ang legitime ay 60 rin naman. Therefore, well have
to respect the disposition.
ba or W? Who suffers the reduction? Later on well
discuss that he who received the FP will shell out the
amount needed to complete the impaired legitimes of
CH. If there are more than 1 heir who received a portion
of the FP, all of them will suffer a pro rata reduction.
Since the legitime of A is only 40, he got 40 from the FP.
Wife got 20 from the FP. Two of them will have to share
the burden to complete BCs legitime pro rata.
A = 80/100 (20) = 16
W = 20/100 (20) = 4
20 being the value needed to complete BCs legitime.
*Complete the table using these values.*
In response to a question
T W
|Illegit |
C AB

Tolentino has a discussion on the Manresa solution. Will:

DLC: The Manresa solution will only apply to legacies Legacy of 10 M to D (favorite nephew)
and devises NOT in institutions. E = 240

Testator has three children ABC and surviving spouse. Distribute first the legitime we have to pay because that
would determine the FP from which the legacy will come
Testator - Wife from.
|
A B C Hei Legitime Intestacy
r .
Disposition in the Will
AE A 60
BC = E
B 60
W=E
Estate = 240
W 60

360 in the circle is arbitrary. Marami kasi shang factors. C 30

Heir Will Total 210

A 120 - 16 104
FP will be 240 210 = 30 M
B 30 + 10 40

C 30 + 10 40 Since 30 M yung FP mo, that will be the source of 10 M

legacy.
W 60 -4 56 30 10 M = 20 M
How do we proceed with 20M? Intestacy.
240 240 Divide the 20 M in such a manner that they get 2 parts
each while C only gets one. Basta 1/7 its ahead of you.

Then check whether the total legitime was impaired But suppose naging 2 yung illegit children. Kasali na si E.
L = (240) So magdagdag us ng heir dito. 30 din. D gets nada
= 120 because no more FP left. Sorry na lang you. Hindi lang
LC1 = 120/3 legacies tinatamaan. Damay din minsan ang CH. Yung
= 40 mga illegitimate children. Kung napakadami nila this
Wife gets 40, too much dapat, but since onti na lang natira sa FP (from
which their legitime will come from), their legitimes will
Hindi pwede to kasi naimpair ang legitime ni BC tas be reduced.
sobra mashado kay A and wife. Since BC will receive less
than their legitime, they are entitled to a completion of Forget about the Manresa solution. Its wrong. If we
their legitime. follow that, it will render nugatory the provision of the
Code on preterition. Bangga yan dun.

XV. PRETERITION
A854: If you read it, a phrase is missing there. Omission
is a transitive object. Omitted from where? Dati kasi
omission from the will yan.
So how did SC interpret 854? Now it means omission
from the inheritance
When is a CH omitted from the inheritance? It should be
total omission from the inheritance.
When does total omission happen? When a CH will not
receive from the testator anything by will. By intestacy or
by advance from his inheritance.
What is advance from inheritance? Donation IV given to
CH during testators lifetime is an advance on the
inheritance of that CH-donee.
If T had given donation IV in favor of CH but totally
omitted him from the will, nothing from the will, the CH
cannot cry/complain that he was totally omitted. Anong
totally omitted, nakakuha ka nga ng advance diba?
If you look at standard English dictionary, theres no such
word there. Kastila yan. Englishcized na lang. In the
interpretation of Old CC, preterition is limited to total
omission from the will because of inadvertence or wrong
assumption.
E.g. Yung isang anak ng mayamang royalty in England,
sumama sa isang expedition to East Indies looking for
spices, di nakabalik. Sabi siguro ng magulang, patay na.
So on that assumption, in his will, he gave all his wealth
to remaining children and nothing for the missing son. In
fact, he was not even mentioned in there. Kaso biglang
lumitaw after parents death. Oy sandal yung mana
koooo. Pag mana na ang usapan, lilitaw na. Eh kaso wala
sha sa will. Thats preterition under Old Code. Effect
annul the institutions made in the will. Thats the effect
also in A854.
The concept of preterition has changed under A854. No
longer limited to total omission from the will, but now
total omission from the inheritance.
Who may be preterited (i.e. subject of preterition)? Only
CH.
Yung illegitimate child? CH ba yun? YES.
So may he be the subject of preterition? YES
How about the surviving spouse? CH? YES
May he/she be preterited? NO, because not all CH are
subject to preterition. Only CH in the direct line may
be preterited. (Balanay v Martinez)
How about an adopted child? Is he CH of the adopting
parent? YES
May the adopted child be subject of preterition? YES
(Acain v IAC)
Bakit legitimate children pwedeng subject of preterition?
CH in the direct line (Aznar v Duncan)
Page 56 of 81
What is the effect if a CH has been the subject of a
preterition? The effect is annulment of the institutions in
the will. However legacies and devises shall be respected
insofar as there are not inofficious.
What conclusions can you gather from that?
If the testator executed a will but all dispositions are
legacies and devises, the issue of preterition is
immaterial. Kasi maski meron, wala naming iaanul,
walang institution in the will, everything is legacy.
Also, there can be no preterition if decedent left no
will.
Suppose no CH: pwede ba magkaron ng preterition?
Lalong hindi!
Illustrate: Suppose Ron died a bachelor, no legal or
illegitimate issue. Wala ring parents, asawa. Sino lang
natira? Yung kanyang mga kapatid. How many siblings
does he have. Bigyan nating apat na kapatid si Ron dahil
only child sha. He gave all his properties to his bestfriend
Eva. Baka maging adulterous relationship. Bestfriend
niya si Pana (eh sir mas adulterous) ang kanyang
constant companion. So executed his will giving all his
worldly possessions to Mr. Pana. Can the siblings
complain that they were the subjects of preterition? NO,
because theyre not CH. Hindi nga sila in the direct line.
Collateral pa sila. Therefore, since they cannot complain
of preterition, the will shall be respected and everything
that Ron left behind will be given to Mr. Pana.
Illustrate one with preterition: Lets go back to the case
of Nuguid v Nuguid.
A
|
B C
BC were old maids. Wealthy B gave everything to only
sister C. Bakit ko bibigyan si Mommy mamamatay na rin
lang naman sha. Magkakaproblema lang sha sa tax pag
namatay sha so kay C na lang.
Was C preterited? It depends on whether she was totally
omitted from inheritance.
FIRST QUESTION: Will A receive something from
the will? Nothing, not even a single kusing.
SECOND QUESTION: Receive anything by
intestacy? No intestate portion from which A can
get a share in the inheritance.
THIRD QUESTION: Is there an advance through
donation IV? Nothing
If we answer NO to all, there can be preterition. What is
the effect? Annul institution of heirs.
Will:
Institute C to the entire estate. effect: annulled
Legacy to X in 10M inofficious if exceed FP
Estate of 240 M
Everything will now go to A which is 120 M
FP = 240 M 120 M = 120 M charge the 10M legacy to
the maid. Inofficious ba? Nope.
After legacy, 110 remained in the FP. It goes to A, too.
Sir bakit nawalan si C? Hindi po kasi sha CH. Excluded pa
rin ni A si C. Shes not a legal heir.

Ano effect ng preterition? The entire estate went to her
mother. Ayaw bigyan ang nanay. But because of
preterition nabaliktad.
Early in our discussion, I have pointed out: institution on
the one hand and legacy and devise on the other. There
is an important for you to know the difference between
the two and the distinction will be used in preterition.
Mai: As long as theres FP, theres no preterition. (?)
So kapag may binigay na kahit onti lang
icocomplete lang yung legitime niya under 906.
Pero hindi preterition, so respect pa rin ang
institution. Coming from whoever received the
free portion.
Presumptive legitime first appeared in the old marriage
law. Promulgated during American occupation.
Kalokohan kasi yang presumptive legitime. How was it
defined? Legitime children are supposed to receive if we
assume that parents die today. Since that is presumptive
legitime, its subject to adjustment later on (e.g.
naghirap ang mga magulang later). Hindi ko alam kung
ano nakain ng FC commission at ibinalik nila yan. Dun
sila sa matatandang batas sanay kaya ibinalik nila. Kaya
nga tinanggal yun nung 1950. Nagkaron tuloy ng ground
si Kris Aquino.
Ixara: If the advance donation is less than the legitime,
there will be NO preterition.
Thats why Manresas solution is incorrect under the
Philippine system.
Thats why Solano v CA is incorrect decision penned by
Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera. SC corrected itself in a
subsequent case, not in your list. Babagsak sha. But
shes the valedictorian of our class. Serenos class is
debacle, no one landed in the top 20.
Suppose Ron disposed everything through legacies and
devises, no institution. Will there be preterition? NO kasi
nga nothing to annul.
13 September 2010
XIV. RESERVA TRONCAL
May be the last remaining feature of property entailment
under the Old Civil Code. Entail a property within a
family. There were many reservas in the old CC.
Reservas and reversions. Original draft of NCC did not
have reserva troncal but smart aleck congressman from
visayas reinserted it through an amendment through
floor on congress. Kala niya alam niya yung ginagawa.
While 891 is there, there were a lot of companion
provisions that were not restored. All principles that grew
out of reserva troncal are deemed reintroduced even
though hindi sha nakasulat.
A -B F- G B
Page 57 of 81
| |
C - D (Sabrina)
|
E
Sabrina is daughter of driver and labandera. Lolo A
donated inter vivos to E. 10 years old namatay sa
dengue. Ano yung nasa estate ni E when he died?
Hacienda donated to him by Lolo A. Who inherits it then?
Only one compulsory heir: Sabrina. Hacienda now goes
to mother as only CH entitled to inherit.
So ano na sasabihin ni D kay A? Kayo na po ang
labandera at driver naming. Pag namatay si D, kay F and
G mapupunta yan. Theres something wrong with that.
The hacienda used to be ours! This is what sought to
be prevented by reserva troncal. In the hands of D, the
hacienda is reserved. When D dies, property does not go
to F and G but to family where property came from.
From the diagram on the board, there are four parties to
a reserva.
1. Source of the property mediate source A
2. Prepositus E
3. Reservista D
4. Reservatario - A
For reserva to arise, the parties must be LEGITIMATELY
RELATED to each other. When one party is illegitimately
related to the other. Hindi pwedeng magkaron ng
reserva.
How about if E is the adopted child? Suppose E is
adopted by C and D. Pwede ba magkaron ng reserva?
Sino ang natural parents ni E kung adopted sha?
Napunta sa natural parents, will there be reserva. In
determining reservatario, the reservatario must be
relatives of prepositus, hindi rin babalik sa source.
Applying the ordinary rules, defeated yung purpose.
OPEN QUESTION. GO BACK TO THIS LATER.
Who may be the SOURCE?
For there to be reserva, the source must be ascendant of
prepositus OR brother or sister of prepositus. Illustrate
that:
A sibling of B C
|
D
A donates to D. D dies. In the hands of C, is that property
reserved? NOT reserved. Because A is not an ascendant
BUT collateral relative of B. Ang pwede lagn maging
source in reserva is ASCENDANT or BROTHER OR SISTER
OF PREPOSITUS.
Aunt/uncle may not be considered an ascendant. Check
the definition in the relationships part of the code. They
are collateral relatives, i.e. come from common ancestor.
Ascendant lang so dapat direct line lang. E.g.
A
|

| A
C |
If A donates to C, may potential reserva ka na. A is an
ascendant of the supposed or potential prepositus. Dapat
legitimately related therefore if B is illegit child of A and
recognized C as his illegit grand child, there can be no
reserva.
How about a brother or a sister, for there to be reserva,
may the brother or sister of the full-blood or must the
brother of the half-blood.
E - F G - H
| |
A - B
| NB for there to be reserva, the property should be
C D
In the hands of B the property is reserve, for all the
relative of D from the same property.
Ano sabi Tolentino?
Ano sabi ni JBL? Bull shit. Pag full blood brothers, pareho
sila ng relatives.
Purpose of RT is to bring a property back to the family
where it used to belong and ahs gone astray because of
accident i.e. preposterous dying without any issue.
Property getting out of the family.
In the hands of B, property has not gone astray. Its still
under the family of the property of the source.
Legiitmate half blood brother.
F - G H- I yung P10M na pinagbentahan. Is there a reserva on the
| proceeds on the donated properties? NO there is no
A B - D
| |
C E
Namatay si A, biyudo si B nagkaron ng 2nd wife with D
and child as E.
C donated property to E through gratuitous title.
Namatay si E without legal issue so nagmana si D by
operation of law. In the hands of D, hast the peropty
gone astray? YES, Hindi naman sha kaano-ano ni C. not
blood relative. Step mother lang yan. Affinity lang sila.
Left the property of the source. Kaya may reserva kaya
go back when the reservista dies.
Iba ang opinion ni Tolentino. DLC agrees with JBL,
Ricardo Puno and Balane (sabi ni Cams).
Illustrate the application of that principle through
concrete problem: Ron bought insurance on his life for
P5M double indemnity in case of accident. He designated
as irrevocable beneficiary a favorite grandson by one of
his children. Namatay si lolo Ron by accident so
insurance company paid P10M to 3 yo grand son.
Namatay yung father ni Ron son of donor grandfather.
Namatay din si apo. Sino nagmana ngayon ng P10M
insurance? Manugang. In the hands of daughter in law of
Ron, is the P10M reserved?
Page 58 of 81
B - C
|
D
A gave D irrevocable beneficiary P10M insurance. In the
hands of C is the 10M reserved? Anifairs says NO
because P10M proceeds did not come from A. Nagbabasa
sha ng Tolentino. Kanino nanggaling from the insurance
company. It was not donated. It was paid by insurance
company in compliance with aleatory contract of
insurance. Hindi libre yung dahil bayad ang premium
non. A is not the source fo the P10M, he is only the
source of the premium paid, if at all.
acquired by prepositus from the source by gratuitous
title. Donation and inheritance whether testamentary or
intestate. Dalawa lang ang gratuitous acquisition.
PREPOSITUS
Must either be descendant of mediate source OR
halfblood sibling of mediate source. When a property was
acquired by his descendant or brother or sister
gratuitously, may the descendant/sibling-donee dispose
the donated property? YES, in the hands of that
descendant, the property has not restriction as yet. Hindi
pa sha reserved. Pwede pa niya ibenta. Pwede niya sirain
kung gusto niya. In his hands, property has no restriction
as yet.
What if sold to a 3rd party, wala na amamanahin
reservista to prepositus? How about the proceeds of the
sale of donated property? binenta tas nilagay sa bank
reserva. Its constituted on the very property that was
gratuitously acquired, it does not transmit. Proceeds do
not substitute for the property. its not carried over to
proceeds or substitute of the property donated. Reserva
ataches only to very property received gratuitously by
the prepositus. Not attach to the substitute property.
Prepositus becomes the arbiter of the reserva. If he
disposes before he dies, no reserva arise ever. BUT if
choose to not dispose, reserva will arise. Sha yung
arbiter of the reserva.
CK, what if prepositus improves the property? Apply
accession rule: owner of land owner of all improvements.
Iba ang rule for the reservista.
RESERVISTA
Under the law, reservista is another ascendant of the
prepositus.
A
|
B - C
|
D
A donated through gratuitous title to D. In the hands of
B, is the property reserved? According to Tolentino, the
 Page 59 of 81

property is reserved. Ano sabi ni JBL Reyes and Puno? In | |

the hands of B, property did not leave the family. Theres Q G - N
no occasion for us to apply the RT to reserve the |
property. Instead proper interpretation: another S - Rsibling P
ascendant another not limited to ascendant other |
than mediate source BUT ascendant belonging to U - T
another family. Its only then that the property will go
astray. In case of B, hindi naman nawala dahil tatay niya C donated through gratuitous title to P. In the hands of N,
nagbigay. DLC agrees with JBL and Puno. is the property reserved? YES.
For whose benefit? Kanino na pupunta property? We
How must reservista acquire property for there to be count degrees from prepositus.
reserva? Through INHERITANCE BY OPERATION OF LAW.
Di pwede testamentary disposition. Because its not Double consanguinity or double relation test
inheritance by operation of law. ANo yung by operation related by blood not only to the prepositus but also to
of law: the source of the property. within 3rd degree from
1. Compulsory succession prepositus by blood and related by blood to the source.
2. Intestacy
Burahin na natin yung mga hindi kasali.
Does this mean the legitime of reservista Among the remaining, direct excludes collateral.
Among those in the direct, descending excludes
A - B ascending.
| Descending and ascending, nearer excludes more
C - D remote.
|
E What if si A yung source instead of C? He cannot
complain kung bakit kay C napunta kasi ng pinamigay na
A donated gratuitous title by E. D must acquire title by niya. Kung may anak lang si P, dun pa sa apo niya
operation of law. CH (refers to legitime) and intestate napunta yun. (Nearer excludes more remote)
succession. Eh pano kung yun lang talaga yung property
ni E? Ano ang reserved, entire property OR just half of A - B
the property (since cannot impose burden/charge on the |
legitime)? Enitre thing is reserved. Testator is the C D - E
imposer, in reserva troncal, its the law that imposed |
burden or charge. Legitime na niya, nareserve pa. Kaya G F
nga dapat tanggalin yang reserva troncal na yan. Patalo |
yung congressman from Visaya na yan. Di ba kawaa H
naman si D nareserve yung kanyang legitime.
Who are entitled to the property donated by A to F? A
and B, direct line excludes collateral.
Gumawa ng will si prepositus, died single 20 years old But suppose AB also dead now. Si C G H na lang natira.
and with a will. Sabi ni E, I hereby institute my mother as Si G na ang magmamana since CH sha ni E.
my sole and universal heir. Namatay bigla si prepositus, What if G also dead? C and H na lang. Pareho sila ng
nadengue pa. Bumabagsak ang kanyang platelets. St. degree. Between the two of them, H inherits under
Lukes sa The Fort. Casualan lang na nag-uusap na A1009 De Papa v Camacho: Descending collateral
mamatay ka na. Ganun ba, so gagawa na ako ng excludes ascending collateral.
holographic will. Only one property left by E (farm
donated by grandfather). Is there a reserva constituted What if may half-blood relative? They can be
on the property considering there is a testamentary reservatario, provision in CC which says that half-blood
disposition? Yung kalahati lang ang nadispose by will. relative get half share of full blood relative i.e. intestate
Yung kalahati lang naman ang legitime na nadedefeat ng provision. Applicable to RT in Padura v Baldovino.
reserva troncal. Reserved insofar as half. Naacquire niya
not by OPERATION OF LAW, but by testamentary Suppose patay na rin si H pero may anak na si I na lang
disposition buhay. Can I take the place of H so that he will get the 3rd
degree and exclude C in inheritance? NO, Florentino v
Last case decided by SC on reserva troncal is Vizconde Florentino: Among reservatarios, there is representation
Massacre penned by VV Mendoza who isnt civilist but BUT representative must still be within the 3rd degree.
political law lawyer kaya di niya nakita yung RT angle.
A - B
RESERVATARIOS |
Reserved for the relatives within 3rd degree of C D - E
consanguinity. 3rd degree from whom? From prepositus. |
G F H
A - B D - E H - I K - L | |
| | | | I K
Csource - F J - M

May K take the place of H? Yes, because shes still within
the 3rd degree. So kung patay na rin si G, ang natira si
KIC, natural si KI ang mag-inherit. And C is in the
ascending. Thats 1009 as applied in De Papa v
Camacho.
When will it go to reservatario? When reservista dies.
What if reservista is vampire who wouldnt die? Before
reservista dies, what may reservista do with the
property? May the reservista give the property by will? In
the earlier cases, SC said reservista cannot do that
because not part of the estate. That ruling had been
abandoned. Reversed. The rule now says reservista is
now the owner of the reserved property, but it is
subject to a resolutory condition. When she dies,
reservatarios still qualified to inherit, reservista loses the
property and therefore if she will the property in LWT
therefore it cannot be implemented/given effect. BUT
kung ang haba ng buhay ni reservista tas ubos na ang
qualified reservatario, the reservista becomes absolute
owner of the property. Provision in her will will take
effect.
If ibinenta ng reservisa during her lifetime, what is status
of the sale? Valid but subject to resolutory condition.
Nemo dat quod non habet.
Unfortunately if property is subj to reserva but covered
by TCT and transferee did not know about reserved
character of property, wil the 3P partys interest defeat
the reservatarios? In a case decided by my professor
Flerida, Sumaya v IAC. Property was reserved but no one
knows it is such so hindi nakatatak at the back of the
title. Reservista sold the property. Binabawi ngayon from
3rd party buyer. But Im innocent purchaser for value. Ano
sabi ni Fleri Romero? You ought to know that it is
reserved by looking at documents filed with the register
of deeds. Gusto ko ibagsak yung teacher ko sa land reg.
Assuming its there, how would I know Im not lawyer
yung lawyer nga hindi yan alam. Im not supposed to go
beyond the title.
Reservistas are heirs in waiting. They novena mamatay
na sana inchoate right ownership subject to
suspensive condition. What is their right? Since that is
the extent, he can only sell that interest subject to
suspensive condition. Yung buyer ngayon ang
magnonovena na mamatay na si reservista habang
buhay pa si reservatario. Dahil kung namatay si
reservista na patay na si reservatario, hindi sha naging
reservatario at all.
15 September 2010
Absent si Sir. Yaaay!
20 September 2010
Administrative matters: Make up class kasi out of country
on 30th, back on the 4th. Nov 3 ang enrollment up to 5.
Discuss among yourselves between 18 and 22.
Suppose A married B and has a son C.
D - E F - G
| |
Page 60 of 81
H A - B
|
C
D donated Lot 1 to C. Now H donated also Lot 2 to C.
those 2 lots are same size, adjacent to each other in the
subdivision and more or less same value.
A died, shortly after him, C followed. Those 2 lots
therefor were inherited by B by operation of law as the
only heir. H will not inherit because collateral. EDFG
wont inherit because excluded by B who is nearer in
degree. DEFG in direct line but are more remote so only
B will inherit all properties left behind by C. Now C left
behind 2 properties, lot 1 and 2 for same value. In the
hands of B, are those two lots reserved? Yung lot 2 hindi
uubra kasi galling sa uncle not being a descendant,
definitely not. About lot 1, is the entire lot reserved?
Operation of law, so how did B acquire lot 1, by operation
of law both as CH and as intestate heir. Therefore, entire
lot 1 is reserved. Lot 2 is not reserved because did not
come from ascendant/brother or sister. Maliwanag yun.
Ano ang nareserva? Lot 1 because it came from an
ascendant. It was inherited by C prepositus and all of it
was inherited by B by operation of law. Intestate heir.
Suppose C left a will. In his will, he instituted mother B as
sole and universal heir. Nung mamatay ngayon sha,
mayroon bang reserva. Is lot 2 reserved? NO way. Lot 2
will never be reserved. How about Lot 1? The entire two
lots will go to B, pero different concepts. One as
testamentary heir and CH so walang intestacy (all
properties disposed by will). Therefore b will receive
legitime as CH and receive the free portion by way of
testamentary succession. legitime and FP is also .
The FP that B will receive by will is not subject to reserva.
Which of these two properties is acquired by FP and
which property is acquired by legitime? Sabi ngayon ni B.
Itong lot 2 is half so yan ang aking legitime. Yang Lot 1,
yan ang aking gagawing testamentary disposition by will.
Acquired by legitime. If you allow B to do that, mawawala
ang reserva. If we allow him as the of the estate
acquired by her by will, that property will not be
reserved. If we allow her to treat lot 2 as acquired by
legitime, it will not be reserved because lot 2 did not
come from an ascendant (H). if we allow B to do that, she
will become the arbiter of the reserva. Sha magsasabi
kung may reserva or wala. Treat or classify properties
according to her discretion which cannot be allowed. She
cannot do the classification of property herself,
otherwise, she will become arbiter of the reserva. Sino ba
dapat ang arbiter ng reserva? Prepositus lang dapat yun.
What to do now? 2 options.
1. Magkano ba legitime? E. Gawin nating legitime
yung lot 1, therefore entire lot is reserved.
Kawawa naman si B kasi we imputed lot 1 as
legitime, naging reserva na lahat. Ang tawag
dito: reserva maxima maximize reservation
of property by imputing the property subject of
reserva to the maximum amount that may be
covered by that part inherited by operation of
law. Isinaksak ang lot 1 dun sa pwedeng
saksakan ng legitime. Unfair ito.

2. Reserva minima each and every property in
the estate of prepositus shall be considered to
have been acquired half by legitime and half by
testamentary disposition (will). Therefore, lot 1 is
legitime, of lot 1 is testamentary. Then of
lot 2 is legitime and the remaining half of lot 2 is
testamentary. Lot 2 will never be subject to
reserva because did not come from ascednat.
Only lot 1. How much of lot 1 acquired by
operation of law (yung of legitime lang).
therefore only of lot 1 is reserved applying the
principle of reserva minima.
Ngayon, gugulo ang computation kung hindi sha
instituted as universal heir. E.g. B is instituted to of the
estate. Kalahati is deemed to have included her legitime.
The other half is FP by intestacy.
Mas magugulo ito kung hindi institution but devise. E.g.
to my mother B, I give of Lot 1. Iba na naman ang
solution niyan.
But in all those testamentary varioations, all you have to
do is apply reserva maxima or reserva minima to find out
what part of property that is reservable was acquired by
operation of law. That part acquired by operation of law
is part that is reserved.
What do we follow in the Philippines? SC is not yet given
opportunity to rule which is applicable. Maxima or
minima but all writers in Phil Civ Law believe that reserva
minima is the fairer of the two. Maliwanag Malabo?
Tolentino has a good example on application of reserva
maxima and minima.
Who wants to discuss the homework? Reserva adoptiva.
XVIII. DISINHERITANCE
What do we mean by this? Earlier we learned that
system of legitimes, where a part of estate of decedent is
reserved by law to CH. The testator cannot impose any
condition, any burden on the legitime of his CH. May he
deprive his CH of legitime. Yes. A decedent may deprive
his CH of their legitimes through disinheritance. Ano
naman kaya ang ground to disinherit or deprive a CH of
his legitime.
Under A915, a CH may be deprived of his legit for causes
expressly stated by law. Underline expressly stated
Decedent not allow to disinherit CH for ground not
expressly stated in the law. For disinheritance to be
valid, be able to point your finger to a ground written in
the law. If you cant, disinheritance must be ineffective.
Nasan yung mga grounds?
1.To disinherit children and descendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate Art 919. There are no other
grounds, exclusive yan. But there are special laws
which disqualify a CH from inheriting e.g. FC. In case of
legal separation, the guilty spouse is disqualified to
inherit from the innocent spouse whether by intestacy
Page 61 of 81
or by testamentary succession. Take notein such a
case, its not disinheritance but disqualification. In
disinheritance, testator/decedent has a choice whether
to keep CH as an heir or to deprive him of his
inheritance. To exercise that choice, testator will
disinherit that CH. Doon sa FC, hindi disinherit,
disqualified by law. Unless you can show a provision
elsewhere, either in this code or other special laws,
then there are no other grounds to dishinerit children
or descendants.
2.To disinherit ascendants Art 920.
3.To disinherit spouse Art 921
How is a CH disinherited effectively?
Only one way to do that. Through a valid will.
Lolo at lola ni Mariel. Imagine kinasal sha nang hindi sila
nasasabihan. Pwede bang habang iniinterview si Lolo ni
Mariel bigla niya sabihin Mashado sumama loob naming,
so tinatanggalan naming sha ng mana. Nabroadcast sa
buong bansa. Is that disinheritance effective? Not an
effective disinheritance. Noncupative will/oral will is not
recognized in the Phils. Kailangan gawin through a valid
will, either notarial or holographic.
Eva Carino, the Igorot mother, will also disinherit Robin,
what should she write in the will for the disinheritance to
be effective? Not enough to write the desire to deprive of
inheritance. Not sufficient for testator to simply write in
his will not to leave anything to his CH. For disinheritance
to be effective, T must specify the legal cause for the
disinheritance. Kailangan ilagay doon kung ano yung
cause/ground for disinheriting a CH.
Pag di nakalagay yung specific cause for disinheriting a
CH, what is the effect? It is ineffective. Must the testator
escape the ground as written in the law? Hindi niya
kailangang kopyahin kung ano yung nasa batas. The
specific act ang dapat niyang ilagay. E.g. there was this
wealthy widow who executed a will disinheriting her
oldest daughter on the ground that eldest daughter
refused to cook for her her favorite pochero. Nagkwento
pa na dati dati daw ipinagluluto sha, pero lately despite
her repeated requests na ipagluto ng pochero, hindi sha
pinagluluto kaya masama ang loob niya at dinisinherit
niya. Ano kaya meron dun sa pochero? Ba marunong si
Ani, we will ask her to cook it. Yan ba yung may
sawsawan na inihaw na talong at vinegar. Hindi kayo
marunong kumain. Yung isa pochero and cocido.
Different sauces! Cocido is tomato sauce and olive oil.
Pochero is the talong with vinegar and tons of garlic. You
dont know. Malamang madisinherit din kayo.
That act complained about by the mother if that falls in
any of the grounds enumerated in the law, that will be a
valid cause for the disinheritance of the daughter. BUT if
the act complained of the mother does not fall in any
grounds enumerated in the law, then disinheritance is
ineffective.
Oh sige, inilagay na ni Ron yung brillante sa tenga. May
protocol yan. Pag sa kaliwa or kanan. Pag sa kanan. Sa
ibaba ka po naghikaw. May hidden metal. Lagi kang
tutunog sa airport. Nagalit nanay ni Ron. Punyeta ka bat
ka may hikaw?! Tatanggalan kita mana kasi naghikaw

sha. Is that a valid ground to disinherit Ron? Well look at
A919. Find out if the act complained of falls in any of
those grounds enumerated in law.
Refusal without justifiable cause to support the
parent/ascendant. Suwail na anak. May student na
makitid mag-isip. Nagtanong, bakit pa magpapamana
kung kapos pala? Maikli pisi mo ng analysis! Dati
mahirap pero tumama sa lotto. Ngayon anak gaganti ako
sayo anak, wala kang mana!
May the heir subject of disinheritance deny the existence
of ground complained about? Yes.
Who has burden of proving when heir denies the
existence of ground for inheritance? Rest upon the other
heirs of the testator. Those who want to enforce the
disinheritance. All the disinherited heir will do is simply
deny.
Kung biglang may proof pala sila, Ron will now present
proof to the contrary.
If disinheritance is ineffective, what is the effect?
Suppose T left nothing but a disinheriting will. The will he
left behind had only 1 provision. A provision depriving his
CH disinheritance. Una, yung legitime makukuha ba yun
ng CH? Hindi kasi nga yung A915.
How about the FP, makakakuha ba sha dun? Hindi na yun
legitime. Hindi rin sha makakakuha ng share kasi nga the
effect of an effective disinheritance is TOTAL
EXCLUSION/DEPRIVATION OF THE HEIRS inheritance.
Pwede bang ilagay ng testator sa kanyang will, I hate
Ron so much because he refused to give me support
those times I neded support more therefore, I am
reducing his inheritance by half. Pwede ba yan? NO
because law does not recognize galit ka lang ng
kalahati Hindi pwede ang major major *grabeng grabe*
Its either galit or hindi galit. Symbol na lang, wala nang
salitaan. So so. Ano ba yung ginagamit niyong salita?
Keri. In my radio program, the listeners send txt msgs.
Nasisira ulo naming dahil di mabasa ang text. Lintek ang
abbreviation. Parang crossword puzzle solving. What is
this word.
Anger/hatred that T has must be of such nature to
compel that T to do the ultimate act of depriving
his CH of inheritance.
Suppose the T had already executed a disinheriting will,
may the T change his mind later on? Of course, will is
revocable anytime before the death of the T. he may
change his mind before he dies. But suppose its the
other way around, before he executed the disinheriting
will, the T had already a prior will wherein the T
distributed in detail all his properties to named legal and
CH. One of the heirs named in the will was this CH who
was disinherited will in the subsequent will. We know
that because of that disinheritance, the CH will not
receive his legitime. Not receive any share in the
intestate part, how about the earlier will which gave him
testamentary deposition and first will was not revoked by
the disinheriting will executed subsequently.
Page 62 of 81
Will CH disinherited in the disinheriting will get
inheritance in the earlier will? NO kasi nga total effect
ng disinheritance, pati testamentary disposition given
in prior will is also revoked.
Suppose after executing the disinheriting will, the T
executed a 3rd will giving the disinherited heir a legacy of
1K. what is the effect of that legacy? Ano effect?
Reconciliation. Pinatawad. Hindi uubra na meja meja lang
ang galit. So when he gave the legacy of 1K. what is the
effect of reconciliation? A922. A subsequent.. .
How do we know whether there is already a
reconciliation, that he has already pardoned the
offending CH? Its a matter of evidence but there is recon
when T had forgiven the offending heir so as to restore
him back to all his rights. E.g. Galit na galit Rons daddy
kasi suwail at naging callboy. Ground yan!
Dishonorable/disgraceful life (no. 7). What is
dishonorable about that, Im happy! So lahat tayo as
abogado pwedeng madisinherit. Lawyer and police may
be disinherited. Marami shang kliyente rito ah.
Dinishonor sha ng kanyang mother. Baguhin natin yung
ground.
Yung father ni Ron, widower. When wife has been
convicted of concubinage and adultery with fathers. Ron
goes to videoke bar. Tinetable. Takehome later. Nakita
ng tatay ni Ron, nainlab tas pinakasalan. But one night,
nahuli ni tatay yung misis in bed with Ron.
Nagkukwentuhan lang po kami. Iba spelling ng
kwentuhan nio. Father filed a case of adultery against
ron and his stepmother. Final judgment. Covered ng
probation kasi maliit lang ang kulong jan. So niligawan
niya yung tatay asking for apology. Nako kung ang diyos,
nakakapagpatawad, bahala na ang diyos sayo. Ano
tawag sa Tagalog dun? Bulaklak ng dila. Kasi you want to
be polite. Hindi naman pinapatawad but the words will
somehow be polite to the person asking for forgiveness.
Its a matter of evidence won the offending heir has been
forgiven. It must be of such nature that the T has
restored the offending heir back to all his rights as a CH.
Meaning of reconciliation in A922.
Supposed the disinheritance of Ron was effective.
Talagang adultery with the stepmom. Ron will not get
inheritance, so who will get what hes supposed to
inherit. If he has children, then his legitimate children
takes his place i.e. representation. Thats A923. Eh
namana ng anak ni Ron. Si Ron ang gagamit. But the
disinherited parent shall not have usufruct/administration
of property which constitutes the legitime as well as
inheritance.
GROUNDS for CHILDREN
1. Attempt against the life - Found guilty must be by
final judgment. Unless convicted with finality,
presumed innocent for which he shall not be
penalized.
2. Require a formal complaint? How about accusation of
crime given verbally captured by media and aired
over by broadcast medium? E.g. si Gonzales the
deputy ombudsman. Binigyan ko nga P150K yan eh
inaccuse of birbery. Sufficient ba yan kung ang nag-
aaccuse eh anak? Must there be a formal charge?

E.g. nagtestify lang yung anak sa charge, became
inevitable for child to declare under oath a fact that
constitutes an accusation of crime against the father.
Acccusation must be found groundless, who must
find that? Court/official proceeding that will declare
accusation groundless. Nasa comment yan.
3. Nadiscuss na natin yan.
4. Walang problema jan.
5.
6. Define maltreatment is cold treatment? Hindi
sinasagot ang text, phone. Walang hi hello etc.
deadma si mommy. Is that maltreatment? Some
writers WON maltreatment viewed from POV of T kasi
sha ang nasasaktan. Pano yung pochero. Is that
maltreatment? Yes sabi ni Baviera. Kaya kapag
nagsabi sha ng gusto niya ng ganito, bigyan niyo na!
7. To a testator, pwedeng disgraceful ang mga bagay
noong unang panahon e.g. showbiz
8. Civil interdiction is a penalty imposed by RPC, not
SPL. Crimes committed as penalized in the RPC.
GROUNDS for PARENT
1. Abandonment meaning in FC. 3 months sa FC failed
to communicate or provide support to tell other
spouse the whereabouts. May 3 months ba dito?
Maybe we can use if theres definition in the child
abuse law. Maybe we cannot use that as a rule
unless show that child abuse law is curative to fill in
gaps. Ibinugaw. Pano kung si Ron ang ibinugaw? May
dilemma tayo jan. under a915, grounds expressly
stated by law. Dito naman hindi kasali ang son,
grandson. Pwede bang lalaki ang ibugaw? Wala pang
kaso yan, but writers say, nagkamali lang kasi at the
time na ginawa ang CC, hindi pa raw uso ang callboy.
Panahon pa ni Alex the Great, Julius Caesar. Yun ay
mga companions lang. even Achilles, he has a
relationship with a cousin. Dun sa Troy sha yung
pinatay. Companions of the same sex nila.
Braveheart crown prince. James I, son of Mary Queen
of Scotts, cousin of Elizabeth, sa kanya pinangalan
ang KJ version of Bible. While successor to Elizabeth
the 1. Shows my love of English history. Unheard of
daw prostitution of male during time drafted or
promulgated during the law. Ngayon hindi na sha
unheard of. Maybe we should adjust interp of
provisions in order to give life to it. Interpret in a way
that will give life to each and every word. The letter
that giveth life, not the interpretation.
NB Only CH are disinherited. For that disinheritance to
be effective, it has to be done in a valid will.
Suppose Ron remained a bachelor, did not marry. No gf,
meron shang companion. Naubo ka sir. Where a person
dies without CH, who will inherit from him? As GR legal
heirs inherit from him i.e. relatives within 5th degree of
consaguinity. Including kapatid, pamangkin, apo sa
pamangkin, great grand children sa pamangkin.
A1 - B1
| will that is not accurate because the testator may have
H2 C2 D0 (Ron)
| way of intestacy. When will that happen? Suppose when
E3
| of a CH. OR testator left behind a will but the institutions
Page 63 of 81
F4
|
G5 great grand nieces/nephews
So kung ayaw niya pamanahan si C, pwede kay
companion, Boy Abunda. Who was that FBI director who
had a companion. Yung flag nasa companion. Then he
has to make will to anybody of his choice. Valid yun
because he has no CH. A person who has CH may give
everything to anybody of his choice. Entire estate is free.
Pwede ba reklamo mga kapatid? Hindi pwede kasi hindi
CH.
Suppose ang ginawa lang niya ay Mejo galit si Ron kay
H kasi lagi shang inaasar. Galit ako sa punyetang yan. So
Ron made a will with only 1 provision. None of my
properties shall ever go to my brother H. Did not specify
a reason.
Will the brother H inherit when Ron dies? No, hindi
naman kailangan idisinherit ang brother kasi CH lang ang
dinidisinherit. That is called an exclusion. A legal heir
may be excluded from inheritance by the testator. No
ground is necessary, a valid will alone is sufficient to
exclude him from the inheritance. Later on when we
reach intestacy, you will find out who the legal heirs are.
May isang heredero jan na di pwedeng iexclude from his
inheritance. We meet again on Wednesday: Legacies and
devises, just read the comments. They are considered as
insituttion (specifically secondary institution of heirs)
Go straight to intestacy on Wednesday.
22 September 2010
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
Just to raise our discussion in the proper context, in
testamentary succession, if the testator has no CH, then
there are no legitimes to be impaired. The estate of the
testator is free for his disposition. But if there are CH and
CH are instituted, the legitime of the CH are deemed
included in the institution. The excess will be considered
chargeable against the FP. If there are legacies and
devises, not inofficious if not exceed FP. If they exceed,
then those legacies have to be reduced. Hindi inofficious
yung term, dapat pang-donations lang yun. If decedent
dies with out a will, then how do we distribute his estate.
We distribute his estate to his legal heirs (LH). When
does intestacy occur?
If you will look at NCC, there is no provision which tells us
what intestacy is. There is an enumeration of the cases
when intestacy will occur but there is no definition of
what intestacy is. The original draft of the NCC used by
the Code Comission as its working paper has a definition
of intestacy. If my memory is correct, the definition is
that which proceeds when decedent dies without a valid
will. Definition was not adopted by Code Commission
because of its being inaccurate. Dying without a valid
left a will and yet all of his estate shall be distributed by
executed a will with only one provision i.e. disinheritance

therein because CH in the direct line was subject of
preterition, all those institutions in the will shall be
allowed and nothing in the will to implement. Therefore
the entire estate of the decedent will be distributed by
way of intestacy yet the decedent left behind a valid will.
Because of inaccuracy of definition, code commission
decided not to adopt it.
What do you think is the better definition? Tolentino and
other writers, they simply enumerated instances when
intestacy will happen.
A960 four instances when intestate succession shall take
place. Is the enumeration exclusive? NO. There are other
instances where intestate succession takes place. In the
absence of a will, who shall receive the estate of the
decedent? The legal heirs. Who are the legal heirs?
1. Legitimate ascendants
2. IP
3. LC and D
4. Illegitimate children
5. Surviving spouse
6. BSNieces Nephews
7. Other collateral relatives within 5th civil degree of
consaguinity
8. State
Observation: you must have observed that all CH are LH.
But not all LH are CH. The collateral relatives are not CH
but they are LH. How do these LH inherit? Do all of them
concur with each other? In the OCC, the system of
intestate succession was one of exclusion. It was not a
system of concurrence. Only one class of heirs will
inherit, all the others will be excluded. Di pwede
magsabay ang dalawang classes of heirs. That was
understandable because under OCC, illegitimate children
did not have any successional rights. Neither did the
surviving spouse. SS if at all was entitled to a mere
usufruct of the estate of the deceased spouse should
legit children survive. So sino lang LH under OCC? Only
two. LA, LC and collateral relatives within 3rd degree of
consanguinity.
Under the NCC, inasmuch as illegit children were given
inheritance rights as well as the surviving spouse. Strict
application of exclusionary rule will be harsh. For this
reason, the NCC has tempered the exclusionary rule by
providing for some concurrences of LH. There are some
situations where LH will concur with each other in the
inheritance of the decedent.
LEGITIMATE ASCENDANTS
If the decedent is survived by nobody but his LA, only the
LA are CH. They are entitled to receive the entire estate.
That is their intestate share in the estate. The entire
estate. BUT since LA are also CH, they will receive the
inheritance in two characters. First, in the character as
CH, in the character of legitime. Second one, they will
receive the FP. In the character of intestate share. The
intestate share therefore provided in the law necessarily
includes the legitime. Pag of the entire estate, kasama
yung legitime at the same time testamentary disposition.
ERGO, suppose Ron died and he was survived by nobody
but his parents, who will receive the inheritance of Ron?
Page 64 of 81
His parents. How much? Entire estate. Half of the estate
theyll receive as their legitime, half they will receive by
intestate succession. That part responds to the FP.
Suppose Ron was survived by grandparents and parents.
Who are the LH? Only the parents are the legal heirs.
Why? Because we follow a rule in intestacy that the more
remote is excluded by those who are nearer in degree. In
legitimes, legitimes reserved by law for the legitimate
ascendants is divided equally between paternal and
maternal line. The same applies in intestacy. Dinidivide
din natin yung intestate estate equally between maternal
and paternal line.
Among the legitimate ascendants, the nearer excludes
the more remote. Suppose the legit ascendants/parents
of Ron concur with his brothers and sisters of Ron. Who
are the LH? All of them are LH but not all of them are
entitled to inherit. Nakalista diba? Not all of them will
inherit. Among the LH, we apply rules of intestacy.
What is the first rule? Direct line excludes the
collateral. Direct line yung parents tapos collateral lang
brother or sister. Only parents inherit the entire estate of
Ron.
Suppose the legitimate ascendants concur with the legit
children of Ron, who will inherit? Legit asc are excluded
by legit desc.
We follow the second rule: Among the relatives in the
direct line, the descending excludes the
ascending. Only the legit children will inherit.
What will the legit children receive? The entire estate, to
be divided among themselves equally. Each desc will
receive the inheritance in two characters. The first as his
legitime, the 2nd as his share in the FP.
Why do I keep on saying share in the FP? in intestacy,
you should know who got the FP because they are
responsible for paying the legacies and devises. Kasi nga
laging sa FP kukunin yun. Pwedeng magkaron ng legacy
and devises kahit na intestacy. E.g. may will pero
nakalagay lang eh legacy and devises tas intestacy na.
pay in proportion of their shares in the FP. Those with
bigger part, shall share a bigger part of the legacy.
Not only are legacies and devises are chargeable against
the FP. Donation inter vivos given during lifetime are
chargeable against FP. This is the reason when the
donation exceeded the FP, the donation is inofficious and
must be reduced because theres no excess in which it
can be charged against.
ALWAYS REMEMBER in INTESTACY: Who received the FP?
How much of the FP was received?
Suppose the legit asc concur with illegit children. Who
will inherit? It will not be wise to make the illegit children
exclude the legit asc. Mashadong revolutionary ang
reform. Dati rati hindi nagmamana ang illegit children tas
ngayon pati magulang maeexclude na. hindi naman
pwede iexclude ng parents yung anak. Anak pa rin yun.
Pero hindi rin pwedeng parehong rights sila. Babangon si
JBL Reyes, sha ang champion ng gradation of rights of
illegit and legit children. lahat ng doctrinal cases were
penned by JBL Reyes. Clemena v Clemena, Matabuena v

Cervantes (donation between common law spouses is
void although theres no provision in the CC) Enrique
Fernando penned that but cited as authority a decision
by JBL Reyes in the CA. San ka nakakaita ng ganyan? SC
decision citing a CA case. Sabi ni JBL, di pwede pareho
ang rights ng illegit at legit. Put premium on legit
relationship.
Ano na ngayon ang kanilang intestate share? Legit asc
and illegit children get the other half of the estate. Who
got the FP? Nakakuha ban g FP yung legit asc? Nope.
Because their legitime in that concurrence is of the
estate. Eh diba the intestate share also includes the
legitime. What is the legitime of the ilelgit children? of
estate. Leaving of the FP. Pero in intestate, magkano
nakuha nila, of the estate. Lumaki diba? Kasi nakuha
nila lahat FP na . Ergo, pag may legacy at devises,
illegitimate children lang magbabayad nun to the extent
of FP that they received.
In CH, adopted child concurring with legit parents/asc.
Will adopted children exclude the legit parents? YES, that
has been decided by the SC already.
Suppose the legit asc concur with surviving spouse. Who
are the LH? All of them are LH. Will all of them inherit?
YES. Ganun din ang dilemma nila. SS cannot exclude the
parents. Dugo pa rin ang nanay/tatay. Di pwedeng
exclude . Win win formula. of estate to LA. Other half
to other ss. In intestacy. The entire estate is distributed
among legal heirs entitled to inherit. To whom does FP
go? No. because their legitime is only . Ano ba legitime
ni SS in that situation? 1/4 . so ang remaining sa FP.
Mnapupunta lahat yank ay SS.
Suppose the legit asc concur with ss and the illeg
children. ano ang kanilang intestate sharing.
legit asc
ss
illegitimate children.
Sino nakakuha ng FP? Nakakuha ba legit asc? Hindi kasi
din legitime nila? Hindi rin illegit children.
Magkano ba FP? 1/8. Kanino napunta itong FP? Surivivng
spouse!
, , therefore if there are legacies and devises, only
the wife is bound to pay them to the extent of 1/8 FP that
she is supposed to receive by way of intestacy.
Suppose the legit asc concur with BSNN. Excluded no.
For the same reason, legit asc all other collateral
relatives and also the state from the inheritance.
Page 65 of 81
ILLEGITIMATE PARENTS
In the case of legit ascendants pero pag illegit,
parents lang. kasi they will be barred by A992.
F* - G*
|
D ------ A - B*
| |
E C
* - legitimate relative
A loves B but had extracurricular activities with D. A has
child with D which is recognized. Pumirma.
IF A will die, may E inherit from A? YES. What will he
inherit? His legitime and in case of intestacy, he is
entitled to share in the intestate part. CH and LH sha.
Suppose F dies. Then A dies. Can C inherit from A? Yes.
F? Yes. Legit desc. How about E, may he inherit from F?
NO, under A992.
A992: the iron curtain bar. Binigyan ng mana ang illegit
children pero hindi pa rin kinonsider ng batas na sila ay
kapamilya ng legitimate family. the illegit child is not a
member of the legit family of the illegit parent.
An illegit child cannot inherit ab intestate by intestacy
from the legit relatives of his illegit parent. And vice
versa. i.e. F, G, B and C cannot inherit from E.
Because of A992 imposible magkaron ng illegitimate
ascendants.
There is a situation however where the illegit ascendant
will inherit. E.g. A is also illegit child of B. A has wife and
then had an affair.
B illegitimate ascendant
|
D ---- A - C - Kiko
| |
E F - rankie
Sharon is an illegitimate daughter.
D is Gabby, sirs cousin
B is Mommy Elaine. A is Shawee. E is KC.
Namatay si A and B. E may inherit from mommy Elaine
because mommy Elaine is not a legitimate relative of
shawee.
How about Frankie? No, she may not inherit from
mommy Elaine. Sharon is an illegit child. And as an illegit
child, she cannot inherit from the legitimate relatives and
neither may legitimate relatives from the illegitimate
child.
MAGULO PO SIR. Sir retracts. F is still illegitimate as far
as B is concerned. Makakainherit si F. hindi mag-aapply
si 992 sa kanya. When we reach representation, we will
discuss why.
 Page 66 of 81

Hanggang illegitimate parent lang. walang illegitimate So dapat ang makukuha ni B ay not less than 60 so we
ascendants. The ascednatns will be barred by A992, the scratch this and modify the distrib so B will get 60.
exception is the KC lineage. The remaining 60, yun lang ang paghahatian nilang tatlo.

Hindi pwedeng bawasan ang legitime ng legit children.

IF illegitimate parents concur with legitimate children. dapat laging buo kaya poprotektahan palagi.
Illegit parents are excluded. LC receive the entire estate.
Get the inheritance in two characters. Suppose concur: LC+D and SS
Ang nakalagay sa Code: when the spouse survives with
Suppose illegti parents concur with illegitimate children, LC, the SS shall have the same share as that of one legit
they are also excluded. Illegit children receive entire child or descendant.
estate as their inheritance, again in two characters. Kung pareho pala, dapat para shang anak kung
magmamana sha.
If illegit parents + SS IP = of estate, SS gets the
other half. Who got the FP? Two of them receive the FP. Illustration.
Sa ganitong combination, and sila. Pinaghatian nila
ang FP of . A - B
|
Suppose illegit parents concur with BSNN: exclude the C D E
collateral they are latter. Same reason the illegit parent
also exclude other collateral relatives and the estate. Net estate is = 120 M
Distribute the estate.
LEGITIMATE CHILDREN Who are the heirs? All the four are LH.
When only legit children survived, then they are the only Magkano ang hatian?
LH. In case of intestacy, they get the entire estate as
Heirs Intestate Total (new intestate
their entire inheritance, shared equally regardless of
shares sharing)
marraiage they came from. All children will be at par with
each other, all of them legitimate children. They will
C 1 30
receive inheritance in 2 characters, legitime and share in
the FP. D 1 30

Suppose they concur with the the illegit children, all of E 1 30

them are LH. They will share the estate in such manner
that one illegit child shall receive half the share of one B 1 30
legitimate child. One illegit child will share half of one
legit child. In all cases, legitimes of the LC shall be 4 120
respected.

E.g. Ihuli si SS kasi mas mataas ang priority ng legit

descendants.
A Divide 120/4 = 30
|illegit | Then check if legitime of legit children was impaired?
CDE B LLC = E = (120) = 60
L1LC = 60/3 = 20
If net estate = 120M Eh nakakuha sha ng 30 so this distribution stands.
Died intestate. Dapat share nito doble ng share nito.
Listing down who the heirs are: BUT suppose only one child.

Heirs Intestate Total (new intestate A - B

shares sharing) |
C
B 2 48 60
Estate is 120M
C 1 24 20 How to distribute intestate estate of the husband? If you
still remember in legitimes, the legitime of the spouse
D 1 24 20 varies. From to 1/8. When the SS survives with 1
legitimate child, yung kanyang legitime nagiging lang
E 1 24 20
kasi pag pinareho na , mawawalang ng FP. In
5 120
intestancy, theres a rule when spouse survives with
children. But theres no similar rule when spouse
survives with only one child. So how to distribute the
Divide 120 into 5 parts. estate? If we apply the rule for spouse with children. ANo
But well have to check if the legitime of legit children magigign hatian jan?
has been impaired i.e. B = E = (120) = 60
B = E = 60
 Page 67 of 81

C = E = 60 In case estate is not sufficient to pay legitime of heirs,

illegitimate heir suffers the reduction.
Sabi ng ibang writers, this is unfair. Entire portion of
was given to the SS. Hindi nag-improve yung inheritance
ng legit child. Illustration: Damihan natin yung anak ni A.
Ano ba gusto niyong hatian?
Give legitimes: B gets 60, C gets 30. 30 yung FP na A - B
natira. |illegit |
1. Jurado: Paghatian yung FP na natira. B gets 75 FG CDE
and C gets 45.
Heirs Intestate Total (new intestate
2. Gawin nating pro-rata na 60 30 sila. B is 80 and C
shares sharing)
gets 40.
3. Senator Padilla (who didnt want to adopt the C 2 24 20 legitime; 4 - FP
changes introduced by NCC): dapat jan excluded
na SS. Ibigay lang sa kanyang ang legitime, then D 2 24 20 legitime; 4 FP
entire FP goes to child. Apply the exclusionary
rule. B gests 90 and E 2 24 20 legitime; 4 FP

Which sharing is correct one? SC has already spoken in B 2 24 20 legitime; 4 FP

Santillon v Miranda. Hatiin yan ng hati. Yun gprovision of
the code which gives the wife same share as one legit F 1 12 10 legitime; 2 FP
child shall apply. Tag sila. Tolentino (valedictorian,
G 1 12 10 legitime; 2 FP
weightlifting team, upsi, senate president) and Padilla
(salutatorian, basketball team, apb, majority floor leader)
were classmates in this college. Lagi akong di manalo
dito kay Padilla, lagi na lang ako number 2 dito kay
Tolentino. Ayun, naunang namatay si Padilla. Mas Check impairment of legitime
maraming asawa si Tolentiono. L LC = of 120 = 60
L LC1 = 60/3 = 20
When the LC concur with IC and SS: all of them are Since 24 > 20; Distribution has to be respected.
intestate heirs. How do we share the inheritance? They Magkano yung share received from the FP? 4
will share in such a way that the surivivng spouse shall
get eh same share as one legitimate child and one illegit
child shall get half the share of one legit child. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
If they survive alone: they get everything BUT must be
Illustration: recognized properly.
If they concur with BSNN: BSNN are exluded.
A - B
|illegit | SURVIVING SPOUSE
D C If they survive alone: entire estate goes to him. Sha lang
natira. Asawa lang!
Estate = 120M But suppose SS and BSNN: Under the law, the SS
Poor pa ang 120M ngayon. Hindi ka pa mayaman. Wala concurs with BSNN.
pang bahay sa Forbes Park. P250M ang isang bahay dun. SS =
Ikaw na ang mayaman sir. BSNN =
If there are full/half blood; half blood gets half share of 1
Heirs Intestate Total (new intestate full blood. Rule in intestacy.
shares sharing)
Suppose walang BSNN but concurs with OCR5, who are
C 2 48 60 intestate heirs? Only the spouse. Spouse excludes all
OCR5.
B 2 48 48
Spouse concurs with only one group of legal heirs,
D 1 24 12
i.e. BSNN.
5 120 120
GR: All CH (any of CH) excludes all the LH,
EXCEPT: SS who concurs with BSNN.

Kaya halimbawa, just to be sure that you understood. We

Check whether legitime of legit child was impaired? of have to illustrate that principle by example.
120 = 60
Hindi niya nakuha kasi 48 lang. so magkano dapat? D - E
Pano na hahatiin yung remaining 60 between SS and |
illegit child? Prefer the SS. Yung natira sa FP, kay SS C A - B
muna ibigay tas kung ano matira, kay D na. |
 Page 68 of 81

F Distribution respected.
|
G Check if legitime impaired:
LC1 = 20 okay lang since 20 40
Only B and G survived. What is relationship between A = (120) = 60; 60/2 children = 30
and G? Grandnephew. Therefore, only B will inherit.
Make up class on Friday, same schedule? Very good.
Another example.
23 September 2010 A - B D - E
| |
RECONSTRUCTED FROM WRITTEN NOTES
C - F
|
RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION G

May A & B represent C to inherit together with F? NO,

A - B representation is only allowed in favor of the descending
| line.
C DP ER
| | | Now suppose:
F GH IJK
AP2 - B
A died survived by everyone. Who are As heirs? B is like |
bawang, laging sahog. CDE concur with their mom. C DP1 E
Granchildren excluded because more remote. | | |
F GH IR JK
Suppose D predeceased A survived by BSNN. Who will | |
inherit? L M
|
Makakainherit ba si D? No, kasi condition na buhay at the N-
time of As death. EXCEPT: Fetus inside womb, but must
be alive at birth. Who inherits?
Who inherits then? C&E exclude GH more remote, BUT B Shempre as bawang.
BECAUSE OF REPRESENTATION, theyll take the place of F No, inexcluded by C
D. they now become 1 and NOT EXCLUDED anymore. D patay na, but represented by H
They can get what Ds supposed to receive had he May L represent G? Yes, in direct descending line,
inherited. representation is ad infinitum. Basta may
descendant, pasa yung right to inherit. H&L now has the
NB: REPRESENTATION takes place in DIRECT LINE in same degree.
DESCENDING and NOT in ascending line. E may be represented by JK
Pwede ba magrepresent si M? No, nagrepudiate tatay mo
Suppose C dies ahead of A. His goes to F. E dies ahead eh, ergo putol ang right of representation.
of A, IJK gets their parents . Is it not unfair to IJK that
they have only 1/12 compared with Fs ? No, they Nung namatay si E, nirepudiate ni I yung mana kay E.
should only take share of respective parents. Kasalanan May I represent for E in As estate? YES.
ng tatay niyo yan. This is called per stirpes
Descendants in direct line have right of
Now suppose A dies buhay lahat sila. E repudiated the representation, EXCEPT in case of repudiation.
inheritance kasi masama loob niya. May tumatanggi ba
sa mana? 100 ha mother of Gibo refused inheritance A - B
from aunt kasi sakit lang sa ulo yan. |
CR DR ER
Who inherits? CD not E. How about IJK? Ayaw ni Daddy, | | |
so kami na lang? No representation in repudiation. F G H I J K
| | | | | |
Suppose estate is 120M, we divide by scratching E. In LM N O PQ R S
eyes of law, he does not exist. 2 na lang ang anak niya.
Everything computed on the basis na 2 lang ang anak. How to compute the share of SS? Use the 3 children or
Ano legitime nina CD? Tumaas ang legitime from 1/6 to shares of grandchildren?
. Pag D repudiates too, C gets legitime, illegit If predeceased always per stirpes.
children becomes problem. If repudiate per capita, in their own right.

B 40 Order of interstate succession: A996 says children

C 40 Of with legitime A892 2nd par says children or
D 40 descendants

Intestate share of the SS on basis of number of children.
maski magrepudiate sila, children pa rin.
PROBLEM: When all the children repudiates.
IF only one repudiates, 2 yung anak. Pag si D rin, 1 anak.
Pag lahat sila, 0 na yung anak. So the 3 can easily
prejudice their stepmom B because ehtey can lower her
inheritance by repudiation.
Follow Tolentinos wise comments: Compute on the basis
of the number of children even if it would make us
inconsistent.
If we follow Arthurs formula:
B=
Grandchildren share on the remaining
If not:
B = 1/7
Grandchildren share with 1/7
Wala kasing provision in law. Cf A999 and 996.
Appreciate application of this problem.
Exam: youre free to choose whichever, if you have
another interpretation, well consider.
In their own right inherit, may LM represent for F? Yes, it
wasnt F who repudiated. Represent F in the inheritance
of A.
NB A982 descendants always inherit by right of
representation except in repudiation.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
A - B Personal relation only to adopted and adoptive. They can
| |
Dillegit C
| |
Eleg Fillegit Hleg Gillegit
CD predeceased. We distribute As estate.
May D represent E in inheritance of A? Look at legitime
A902? Transmitted to own heirs.
Legitime of illegit child there is representation A902.
Intestate portion, is there representation, A989.
May C be represented by H? YES
By G? No, barred by A992
Illegitimate cannot inherit from legitimate relatives of
illegitimate parent.
Eh bakit si E? Kanya-kanyang linis ng kalat yan. While E
is legitimate child of D, as far as A is concerned, E is also
illegitimate. Lahat ng anka ni D ay illegitimate. Kung di
nagkalat si A ng D, eh di sana, hindi rin illegit si E. PERO
hindi kasalanan ni A ang kalat ni C i.e. G.
NB in representation: Representative must be legal heir
of relative who he represents and also the relative from
whome he seeking to inherit. DOUBLE LEGAL
REPRESENTING.
G must be legal heir of C, but barred by 992 to represent
to A.
Page 69 of 81
E is LH of D and A. (allowed by 989 and 902).
F may also represent D and A. Representation in favor
of illegitimate children.
HOWEVER, F still gets only half of E. Good point by
Joni. Gradation of rights, even if in the eyes of law, both
illegitimate as to A.
I cant remember which diagram Cels good question
refers to: What if illegit children both repudiated, who will
inherit? Not G, only EFH. How should they share? Illegit
of LCs share. Give me your answer to that later.
ADOPTION
A married when she was only 18 yo
|
B (abaeng anak), 40yo
} adopted
C
A to B: mag-alaga ka na lang ng aso! Wag ka na mag-
ampon. Pag suwail yan, di na pwede itapon (since no
more rescission of adoption allowed now). Topo topo
barega didila sa baga. Over the consent of her father, B
adopted C who turned out to be a magandang bata,
kahawig ni Maja Salvador. Naging doctor, nagdebut si C.
Napansin ni A, maganda tong naampon ni B. nagkasakit
si A, sabi ni B, dun ka na lang kay Dr. C!
Ano nangyari after? Mapurol ang imagination ni Ron at
Annie! Those who say they cant marry, babagsak kayo
sa bar.
There are no relatives by adoption. Not prohibited by law
for adopting parents parent to marry the adopted child!
marry!
B died ahead of A, may C represent B in inheritance of A?
Teotico v del Val. C is LH of B, no doubt after adoption, C
is LC of B. But C is not LH of A. strangers of each other.
RULE: Double legitimacy for representation.
REVERSE THE SITUATION:
A - B
}adopted
C - D
|
E became a doktora
C: Dad dun ka sa hospital ni E. Ano nangyari? Ani says:
nadevelop sila! You are the guy were looking for!
Strict application of Teotico: Pwede magpakasal.
Law says D and E cannot marry.
How about A and E? DLC does not agree: May kinalaman
si A sa pag-ampon kay C.
Suppose C dies ahead of A. A cannot marry D. Wait, kung
purely personal pala, bakit bawal to? Absurd kung
affinity, not allowed tas yung blood relative pwede.
Relating this to succession: C predeceased A. May E
represent C in As inheritance? Under the law, C became
legitimate child of A, as such C is entitled to all rights of
legitimate child e.g. to be represented by own heirs
 Page 70 of 81

whether legitimate child or illegitimate chld. Therefore, We are now in provisions common to both testate and
DLCs opinion: E may represent C in As inheritance. intestate succession.

Same way that adopted child may be preterited. Because

she is a direct descendant by fiction of law. One right of
RIGHT OF ACCRETION
the legitimate child is not to be subject of preterition.
What do we mean by accretion? A1015. This is the
Is there representation in the collateral line? Yes, there is definition of accretion among testamentary heirs. There
representation, but limited lang - A975. is accretion among those designated as heirs in the will.
Principles:
Is there accretion in intestate succession? Yes, A1018
1. Representation allowed in collateral line, but in Meron ding accretion in favor of compulsory heirs in
favor only of nephews and nieces. ERGO A1021.
DLC: 1st par of A1021 is incomprehensible. Parang may
A - B kulang.
|
C D E F What is accretion? When the testator instituted or
| | | designated 2 or more persons as heirs to the same
G H I J K L inheritance pro indiviso, the share of one of those heirs
| | | who may have [1] predeceased, [2] repudiated or [3]
M N O become incapacitate will go to the other co-heirs. That is
called accretion.
Who are Cs legal heirs? No ascendant/descendant.
Brothers and sisters. Illustration:
D may be represented. I institute X, Y and Z to my entire estate.
Assuming that T has no CH and he died AND assuming
G died ahead of C, may M represent G? XYZ are all alive at the time of his death. Who will inherit
No way, nephews and nieces only.
entire estate? XYZ
How will they share? Apply the rule. Equality in the
Suppose E dies, too. HI may represent.
absence of designation of shares. Tag-wa 1/3 silang
F predeceases, too. JKL? No. only if theres living aunt or
lahat.
uncle.
If all brothers and sisters died ahead of the decedent, no
Change the factual situation. Suppose X predeceased the
more representation, in own right as nearest surviving
testator, BUT despite X having died, testator did not
relative. Per capita na. G is scratched. Only HIJKL in own
bother to change his will. X was survived by his own
right.
children, ABC. After the death of the testator, who are
entitled to inherit? Will ABC represent X in the
If youre a bright student, A975 repudiate/survive.
inheritance of the testator? NO because theres no
representation in testamentary succession. Eh wala ring
E only living repudiates, cannot be represented. FD
substitution so ABC cannot inherit either.
predeceased, physical survival ba ang A975?
Tandaan niyo ito. NO REPRESENTATION IN
Para makita niyo pinagngangangawa ko dito.
TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION.
A - B
If Y is alive, then Y is entitled to inherit. Same goes for Z.
|
Question: Who gets Xs share? It shall go to Y and Z by
C D E F G
accretion.
| | | |
How will they share? The portion that was supposed to
H I J K L M N O
be received by X? IN equal shares.
How will HJMNO inherit in view of Fs repudiation? Bakit
Now, suppose the will says:
di kasali si KL? By their own right na diba?
I institute to my entire estate: X = , Y = and Z =
.
DLC: Survive is not physical. Survive = inheriting
Z predeceased T. May the heirs of Z represent? No, no
together. Apply representation in A975. Favorite ko to!
representation in testamentary succession.
Who will now inherit? Who gets Zs share? To X and Y by
27 September 2010 accretion.
Because you have to look at A1017. Underline the word
Representation as a matter of law? determinate shall not exclude the right of accretion.
May a testator provide for representation in favor of his Pwede pa ring magkaroon ng accretion. How do they
testamentary heirs? YES, but its not called distribution Zs share now? They share it 2 is to 1. Get
representation, but substitution occur as matter of the common denominator. 2/3 go to X and 1/3 go to Y.
testamentary provision. But in such case, its not Add 2 and 1.
representation, but substitution. 2/4 =

 Page 71 of 81

Kaya may math sa LAE. Because of succession.
New problem:
I institute x to , y to and z to remaining of the Estate 240 M
estate.
When Z predeceases, will share of Z go to x and y by
accretion? NO. Tell me the difference between the
previous and current example.
Ano ba mga requirements for accretion to take place?
Heirs must be instituted to the same inheritance, pro
indiviso.
In the first will the phrasing entire estate means that
testator intended that the estate go to nobody but the
three.
In the second will, not the same inheritance. of X is
different from of Y and Z.
1/3 to B
1/3 to C
1/3 to W
B repudiated.
Distribute the estate.
NB since B is aCH, his repudiation applies to both his
legitime and his share in the intestate party. Pero wala
dahil nga the entire estate disposes of it.
Yung testamentary part, is that covered by his
repudiation? YES, because unless qualified repudiation, it
is total i.e. entire inheritance.
Pede bang partial repudiation? Later go there. As a rule,
repudiation is total.

Change the first will: I institute X, Y and Z to my entire How did Jurado solve this problem?
estate such that X , Y and Z . readily see
intention to give estate to nobody but XYZ. HEIR Will Since B Total
While given aliquot part, we dont know what properties S repudiated
comprise that portion.
B 1/3 = 0
Another example: I give of my estate to ABC. 80
Will there be accretion in favor of coheirs? Of course,
intention is same inheritance, i.e. the C 1/3 = 40 120
80
I institute my 10M bank deposit to X, Y and Z.
W 1/3 = 40 120
Accretion in the legacy? Yes, because testator gave the
80
entire 10M to the three.

Pero kung ganito:

I institute of my 10M bank deposit to A, the other half
to B.
No accretion because not instituted to the same
inheritance. They get different half. It might be pro
indiviso, but not the same inheritance.
Is there something wrong with this? YES, legitime that is
part of what was repudiated was included. It should go in
his own right.
How to do that?

ACCRETION in LEGAL/INTESTATE SUCCESSION Tanggalin na si B. DANICON SOLUTION

A1018
Comparing 1015 and 1018: HEIR Will Legitimes, By Total
1. 1015 has three scenarios (predeceased, S considering Bs accretion
repudiation and incapacity) Actually incapacity is repudiation
a catch-all provision.
2. 1018 only repudiation because as GR in legal C 1/3 = 120 20 140
succession, there is representation. Therefore, 80
the share of the interstate heir who predeceased
W 1/3 = 60 legit, 20 fp 20 100
will go to hisown heirs by right of representation.
80
No right of representation in case of repudiation.
200
COMPULSORY SUCCESSION
See 1st par of 1021 may only pa eh. B 1/3 =
Why? I dont understand the FP given to 2 or more, 1 or 80
more of them AND a stranger. I still have yet to come
up with a proper interpretation. Bakit limited lang sa
situation na ito? Provisions respected only if legitimes were not impaired.
Ano ba legitime ni C? LC = 120 (eh isa na lang shang
A - W anak!) not in their accretion but in own right. Lumaki
| legitime ni C.
BR C Wifes legitime = E = 60
|
D E What was giving B under will is 80. The 1/3 given him is
considered given to a stranger, therefore chargeable
Will: Entire estate againt FP. But since it impaired legitime, it is reduced. B
 Page 72 of 81

should have gotten 40. That becomes a vacant share

that goes by accretion to the co-heirs (1018). Who are
the co-heirs in intestacy, C and W. they share alike. 8

Cannot go accretion, but in their own right. DApat alisin

na yung legitime ni B. Testamentarydisposition is Wrong ito. Dinistribute niya legitime ni B among other CH
considered as given to stranger, i.e. chargeable against by accretion.
FP. Napunta sa kanya yung legitime in his own right and DLC opinion: the correct opinion Im sure. In order to
not by accretion. comply with 2nd par of 1021. Solve this problem like this.

Coheirs sila kasi entire estate. Kung hindi coheirs, no Remove B already.
HEIRS Intestate Legitime Reducing, new
accretion but instestacy.
shares s distribution
SUPPOSE wala sa will yung entire estate, wala ring
C 2 80 120 120
accretion.
To whom 40 goes? It goes to intestacy. W 2 80 20 FP; 60 60
legitime
HEIR Will Legitimes, Intestacy Total
S considering Bs E 1 40 60 30
repudiation
D 1 40 60 30; by representation
C 1/3 = 120 20 140
80 (F 20; G 10)

W 1/3 = 60 legit, 20 fp 20 100 6 300

80 Sobra. Di
pwede.
200

B 1/3 =
Check whether legitimes have been impaired. LC =
80
240/2 = 120. Hindi pwede itong distribution, 80 lang
nakuha niya. 120 kasi C acquired in own right the
legitime that was supposed to go to B.
Coincidence lang na pareho. Pero pag illegitimate child
na yung isa, mag-iiba na yan.
So babaan ba natin si Misis? Shes supposed to receive
80. San natin kukunin yung discrepancy na 40 ni C. It
shall come from the FP. Wala na nga FP. Kukunin natin
Another example. Lagyan natin ng illegitimate na
ngayon sa illegitimate child. Matatangal ang 20 FP ni
anak.
Misis.
A - W
|illegit | 1. Since intestacy, divide the estate to shares
E D BR C according to provision of intestacy.
| E = 240/6 (number of shares)
F Gillegit 2. Check for legitime. Isang anak nalang si C kasi
nagrepudiate si B. Had B not repudiated, C will
Walang will, intestate tayo ngayon. only get 60. Tumaas kasi na-acquire niya yung
A had 2 legit by W, B and C. additional legitime in his own right. Nabawasan
D predeceased A but survived by own heir F. ng CH. We did not give it to him by accretion but
by operation of law i.e. in his own right. In
Estate = 240 M compliance with 2nd par of 1021.
3. Para mabayaran ng 120 legitime ni C, we need
JURADO SOLUTION additional 40. Where to source it? From the FP.
If the FP is not enough, then reduce from
HEIRS Intestate Distribute Bs Total the illegitimate children. NB legitime of ss
shares share by is preferred over that of the illegit child.
accretion ISSUE: From 80, nabawasan ang kanyang
inheritance by 20.
B 2 60
BUT since D predeceased, to whom will his share go? To
C 2 60 20 80
his representative, F.
W 2 60 20 80 Suppose D has two children, one legit and another illegit.
Kanino mapupunta ang 30 ni D? Paghatian ni G and F,
E 1 30 10 40 2:1. Hindi ba pareho sila illegit as far as A is
concerned, but they are entitled to get what D is
D 1 30 10 40
 Page 73 of 81

supposed to inherit. Right to represent is not equal. All

authors agreed on this point. Kailangan half-half rin sila.
29 September 2010
CONCEPCION SOLUTION to previous diagram.
Another problem.
HEIR Legitim Will FINAL
S es
A - W
|illegit | B 60 60
C B
| W 30 60 30
Dlegit Eillegit
C 30 30
A left a will
W= Z 10
Z nephew = 10M
B predeceased. So survived by Dlegit and Eillegit.
Estate = 240M
Distribute the estate.
Estate in the amount of 120M
Go to intestacy. May hindi nadispose na kalahati. It goes Nothing is left of the free portion to complete the 60 to
to the LH. BUT Should we include wife in the intestate bring the inheritance of W to 60 as specified in the will.
wife when shes been given with the estate already? Kung may natira sana, z will be the first to be paid. If
Following Manresa, kasama sha, given to her applies wala na natira, wala na ring maibibigay arising from
only to the FP and not the legitime. Pag binigay pa yung institution in favor of the wife.
legitime na . Ang natira na lang ay Inheritance of B goes to D only because E is barred.

MANRESA SOLUTION
Illustration again.
HEIR Legitim Legac Institut Intesta Total
S es y ion cy X - W
|
B 120 - A B

W 60 0 - Will
W = estate
C 60 - Z = legacy of 10M
Estate = 240M
Z 0 -
HEIR Legitim Wi Actual Final
240
S es ll

A 60 60
CAUTION this part.
1. Give legitimes first. B 60 60
2. Remaining FP is 30M (240-210). Charge two
institutions and legacy. Legacy is preferred over W 60 60 50 110
instituted heirs (they only get the legacy).
Donation intervivos DMC is preferred. 10M is Z - 10 10 10
preferred over the institution.
180
3. According to Manresa. of remaining free
portion after legacy deducted goes to wife. (30M
10M = 20M) Free portion = 240 180 = 60
4. Remaining portion for intestacy. 10M Will provision: To complete W's , we need 60 more.
That 60 more comes from the FP. Since the FP is only 60,
wala na natira sa 10 ni Z. but between insitution and
legacy, legacy is preferred, so therefore, you only have
to pay the 10, there is a balance of 50, marereduce ang
institution in favor of W.

X - W
|
Aillegit

Will
W = estate
 Page 74 of 81

Z = legacy of 10M Z 10 10
Estate = 240M
240
HEIR Legitim Wi If this Intesta
S es ll were te
intesta shares 3rd solution
cy w/ Free portion the portion in excess of the legitime.
legacy Maraming charges sa FP e.g. legacies, DIV, institution
that exceeds that legitime. The shortfall between the
W 80 40 120 115 amount given by will and the legitime is also a
burden on the FP. In such a case, part of FP given by
A 80 120 115 will is already disposed of. Itong 120 na ito ni W, ang
legitime jan ay 80 lang. 40 jan ay from the FP which has
Z 10 10 been disposed of. Itong kay 120 ni A (na babawasan
natin ng 10 legacy para kay Z) ay 80 from legitime at 40
160 from intestacy.

Which is the better solution between the two?

DLCs opinion: When the will contains an institution
of CH, unless a different intention can be gathered
Free portion of 80 (240 160)
from the wording of the will, the testator wants to
Remaining free portion after giving Ws and Zs 10 =
limit or increase the inheritance of the CH
30
instituted to the amount or aliquot parts specified
30 will be distributed by way of intestacy. In intestacy, do
in the will. Therefore, number 1 is the better solution.
we still give to W an intestate share when she was
Give , no more no less. The balance of the estate
already given of the estate.
therefore goes to other LH by intestacy and the
heir who was already given the institution should
Ano ang lumalabas dun? Yun lang ang gusto niya ibigay
no longer be considered as an intestate heir.
kay W. the rest therefore should be given by way o
fintestacy and the others given to legal heirs. One
interpretation ito.
Last Problem
The other interpretation: After W has been paid, she
Justice Jurados problem in his Civil Law reviewer:
should also be included in the intestate part.
X had four children, ABCD, with two legitimate childrens
each.
If we follow first interpretation, ibibigay natin kay W yung
120, because that was given to her in the will. Hindi na
X
sha kasali sa distribution of the balance of the estate.
|
Therefore, Z gets his 10
AP BR CI D
W 120 | | | |
EF GH IJ KL
A 110
X died, predeceased by A, B repudiated, C was
Z 10 incapacitated and D was alive, kicking and qualified to
inherit.
240 Will = instituting ABCD to the entire estate.
Left estate worth 720 M, distribute the estate.

PROBLEM: Bakit yung 10 kinuha lang sa share ni A, bat di Proceed to distribution. DANICON SOLUTION.
kumuha kay W. Justification: Legacy should first be
taken from FP which was not yet disposed in the HEIRS Legitim Wi Representa Accreti Final
will. Hanggang may FP not yet disposed of, all those es ll tion on
legacies shold be taken from those not yet disposed of.
So sila yung mauunang magbabayad. Papakialaman lang A 120 18 E - 90 60 E 120
ang FP ni W if the FP not disposed of is not sufficient. 0
F - 90 F 120
2nd solution Manresa principle: Institutions and
legacies are imposed only on the free portion. After C 120 18 I - 90 60 I 120
having been paid what was given in the will, the balance 0
should be available for those given dispositions in the J - 90 J 120
will.
D 120 18 180 60 240
W 120 15 135 0

A 80 15 95 B - 18 - -
 Page 75 of 81

0 360 720

Only the legitime will go to the representatives.

Testate part which goes to D (he benefited from the
B is also in the table because theres an institution but accretion).
since he repudiated, its considered as given to a
stranger. institution of CH who repudiate: as if given to What if intestacy? In keeping with 2nd Par of A1021
stranger, charge to FP (vacant)
HEI Legiti Intest Representa
720/2 = 360 RS mes ate tion
360/3 = 120 (pero kung apat sila) 360/4 = 90 shares
repudiation of B gave the legitime to other heirs in
their own right. A 120 240 E - 120

PURPOSE of listing the legitimes: only to F - 120

1. find out the FP
C 120 240 I - 120
2. test whether the impositions in the will impair the
legitime.
J - 120
FP = 360 D 120 240 240
720/4 = 180
We respect the provision of the will. B - - -
B (who repudiated) cannot be represented because
theres no representation in testamentary 360 720
disposition. Hindi sha entitled to be represented. Its
not as a compulsory heir anymore because he is
instituted as if a stranger. Intestate share is greater than legitime so that
has to be respected.
Accretion na. There is accretion among them because As 240 will go to EF, Cs 240 to IJ.
instituted to same inheritance pro indiviso. 2nd Par of Bs part acquired by siblings in their own right,
A1021 only for legitime. ergo increasing their legitime.
Is A entitled to be represented by EF? Yes, legal
Will the 60 go to EF? Jurado says, no. PERO BAKIT?! sucession kasi yung buong 720. Acquired by law.
Representative is entitled to get whatever the person
whom he is representing would have gotten.

Joni says: Since theres no representation in

ACCEPTANCE AND
testamentary succession, why were A and C represented REPUDIATION OF THE
by his children? VERY GOOD POINT!!! REFORM THE
TABLE. (So in effect, Jurado is actually correct and he INHERITANCE
must thank Joni for making Sir realize that.)
Heir is not entitled to inherit unless he accepts.
HEI Legiti Will Representa Accreti Final
RS mes tion on Acceptance may be IMPLIED, if heir failed to repudiate
the inheritance he is considered to have accepted it.
A 120 180 E - 60 - E 60 Unless repudiates, he is deemed to have accepted it.

[but 60 F - 60 F 60 SC decision: Are the legal heirs co-owners of the estate

vacant]
of the decedent? YES, they are co-owners.
C 120 180 I - 60 - I 60
When will the co-ownership start? After they have
impliedly/expressly accepted the inheritance, BUT
[but 60 J - 60 J 60
vacant]
acceptance retroact to the time of death of the
decedent. Until they accepted, they do not become co-
owners. But when they accept, their acceptance retroact
D 120 180 300 480
to time of decedent.
(120 +
60 +
Are the co-owners co-owners of specific property of
60)
decedent? NO, 2008/2009 decision. The coheirs are
inchoate co-owners of specific properties. They
B - 180vacant bec - - - become co-owners of specific property after all the
of Bs repudiation liabilities of the estate have been paid. Parang
conjugal partnership of gains, until the conjugal
partnership is dissolved, the spouses are not yet co-
 Page 76 of 81

owners. Baka mamaya wala namang natira, its not even
enough to pay liabilities of the partnership.
Coheirs cannot be co-owners of specific properties
comprised in the estate until all liabilities of estate have
been paid. Baka naman kasi kulang pa estate ng
decedent so wala rin silang paghahatian.
Become owners specific only after liabilites have been
paid.
Reasonable donations given to charity. P5000
sha simbahan.
Moderate gifts given to family members on
occasions of family rejoicing or occasion.
A1067 and 1068 - Sums of money spent by
parent to finish basic education or training for
profession.
A1069 Sums paid by parents in satisfaction of
debts of children, election expenses, fines
A1070

Basahin niyo na lang yung capacity to succeed,
partition and distribution. Read the comments of
authors whose work I assigned to you during start of the
course.
COLLATION
What shall be added back? Property itself or the value of
the property? Only the value of the property. The
property itself is not to be returned because DIV
transferred absolute ownership over the properties
to the donees. Whatever increase in the value of
property was realized in the meantime should benefit the
donee, its absolute owner.

What value should be added back? At the time donation

Understood in three senses.
given or value at the time of death of the donor? A1071
is very clear, it is the value of the property at the
In the FIRST SENSE, it refers to ADDING BACK TO THE
time donation was given. Whatever increase in the
ESTATE DIV which the decedent may have given
value of property was realized shall be for the benefit of
during his lifetime. DIV can become inofficious. In fact
donee who was absolute owner of the property.
donation may be reduced if inofficious.
Collation may also be understood in the SECOND
When will DIV become inofficious? If it exceeds the
SENSE, i.e. IMPUTATION.
amount which the testator is allowed to dispose by will.
- Donations in favor of CH shall be considered as
Donations therefore should be considered in the
advances on their legitimes/inheritance.
settlement of the estate of the decedent.
- Donations to strangers are imputed to the FP.
Chargeable against FP, BUT if FP is not enough to cover
Why? Because if we do not consider DIV which the
the DIV, DIV may be reduced.
decedent may have given during his lifetime, and in the
settlement of his estate, he can easily circumvent
Theres no problem if testator gave only one donation
provisions of law on legitimes.
during his lifetime. If the value exceeded at the time of
testators death, the donation shall be imputed to the FP.
Why? Kasi yung gagawin lang ng decedent to circumvent
If FP is smaller than value of donation, the donation is
the legitime, ipamimigay na lang properties during his
inofficious to the extent of the shortfall.
lifetime. Sa mga charitable institutions. Sa mga favorite
people like DI, or pwede niyang ibigay sa favorite na
Kailangan ibalik ang excess to the estate of the donor.
compulsory heirs. E.g. 4 legit children pero isang lang
Act of returning is called collation in the THIRD SENSE,
paborito nung tatay. So before he died, donated all his
i.e. REDUCTION AND RETURN OF THE EXCESS.
properties to the youngest child. May legitime yung 3
anak na mas matanda. How do we compute their
Thats why when you are reading provisions of CC on
legitimes, the sstate is already 0. of the estate is 0 and
collation, analyze which sense collation is used for that
dividing it among 4 children is also 0.
particular provision.
There has to be a check on dispositions given
E.g.
gratuitously during lifetime of the decedent. It is in the
form of collation. Donations added back to the estate.
A1061 in the first sense
May the testator provide in his donation that what was
A1062 in the second sense; imputation
donated should not be collated to his estate? No, he
Maybe exempt from collation in the 2nd sense, not
cannot. Collation in the first sense is mandatory.
considered as advance on the legitime but charged on
Otherwise, it will not serve the prupose for the law
the FP. Donation in favor of a stranger, chargeable
requiring collation. He can simply provide that all those
against FP.
donations are not subject to donation. DIV therefore are
subject to collation. They will be added back to estate of
A1063 in the second sense; imputation
the decedent.
A1064 in the second sense; imputation
A1065 in the second sense; imputation
All DIV subject to collation.
A1066 in the second sense; imputation
Are there DIV which are not subject to collation in the
first sense? Yes.
 Page 77 of 81

So whenever you read CC and encounter the word Take up one problem. Suppose A has two children B
collation, be careful in characterizing the term to find out and C.
in what sense it was used in that article.
A
ERGO, how do we compute the estate of the decedent? |
B C
SERIES OF STEPS
1. Take an inventory, summation of all assets of the Gave donations to:
decedents. Gather together rights and properties left B = 10 M in 1998 when he ran for mayor in the local
behind by the testator. elections.
C = 20 M in 2009
Gross estate = of the values of all the X = 10 M in 2009
assets
Assets include all properties AND rights. Lahat ng When A died, he left no liabilities. = 0
may value. Monetary equivalent. Estate = 200 M
Distribute the intestate estate.
LESS All liabilites = of the values of all
the liabilities Compute the hereditary estate.
Include due, not yet due, contingent E = GE L + DIV
______________ = 200 0 + 40
= 240
Net estate
HEI Legiti Intestate Advanc Final
ADD All DIV subject to collation. RS me shares es distribution
______________
B 60 120 -10 105
HEREDITARY ESTATE or simply, ESTATE
(60 leg; 60 fp) - 5 for X (50 leg; 55 fp)
PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
C 60 120 -20 95
Suppose Annabel Rama died leaving behind a box of
jewelry with a total market value of P20M. Ipinambato na
(60 leg; 60 fp) - 5 for X (40 leg; 55 fp)
niya mga brilyante niya kaya marami na nabawas. May
mga utang sha worth P30M. Total 120 200

Assets 20 M
Debts 30 M FP = 240 120
_____ FP = 120 10M = 110M
(-10 M)
DIV May pambayad tayo, saktong sakto lang! P200M
W. Galvan 6M Next meeting, may donation na lalampas sa FP.
L. Solis 6M

How much is the hereditary estate of Anabelle Rama? 2M 4 October 2010

This is a mechanical application of this process.
What is the implication? Donation will have to be
recovered. Babayaran pa ba dapat natin yun. DIV given
before. Iresearch niyo yan. Next meeting take the top.
Next meeting is the last. Lets just solve four problems in
collation. Ito ba ay 2M. Or dapat pa bang iconsider na 0
yan, hindi na babayaran yung utang from DIV. Estate will
become 12M with DIV. Ibabalit yung donation para
bayaran yung legitime ni Anabelle. Isnt there something
bad about it? May mana sila pero may unpaid na utang
pa rin.
A1063 (i.e. property left by will exempt, unless provided)
is NOT deemed subject to collation. Therefore if a
testamentary disposition is given to CH, the
testamentary disposition should not be considered as an
advanced part of his legitime.
Lets go back to institution: Suppose T instituted a CH to
an aliquot part of an estate. Is the legitime included part
of the institution? DLC opinion: A1063 applies only to
legacies and devises, not institution.

Bakit kukunin ang DIV para bayaran ang mga utang?
Bakit naman natin kukunin ang DIV para bayarang ang
legitimes of CH when debtors of estate have not yet been
fully paid?
Insofar as the estate is concerned. How do we compute
the estate of the decedent?
How about if a donation was given to a son of the heir?
The heir is a CH, the donation in favor of grandchild will
that be subject to collation in the first sense? Of course,
because thats a donation.
Is it an advance on the legitime of father? No, unless the
children inherit by right of representation. But if they
wont, donation in their favor is considered donation
to a stranger, therefore chargeable against FP. But
when father died ahead of T and children inherit by right
of representation, donation in favor of grandchildren is
 Page 78 of 81

considered as an advance on the inheritance of the W 60 - because 40 3 1/3 103 1/3

father whom they are representing in the inheritance. legacy is 2nd
Thats A1064. not an =(60 +
advance 40 +
Yung A1067 (expenses for support, education, medical
attendance, even in extraordinary illness, apprenticeship, A1063 3 1/3)
ordinary equipment, customary gifts): Not subject to
collation in the first and second sense. Hindi iaadd to the Z - - 10
estate, nor will we impute to legitime of the CH. 1st

Ganun din ang A1068. In what sense? 2nd sense; Tota 180 (30) 50 10 200
imputation. Hindi naman maiimpute pero isama natin sa l
computation. But suppose it does not impair the
legitime? Isasama sa first sense, hindi lang iimpute.
Check:
Therefore chargeable to FP.
FP = 240 180
= 60
A1069 alam niyo na yan.
The rest are all self-explanatory.
What are chargeable against the FP?
In this order:
So lets now illustrate principles through concrete
1. DIV
problems.
2. Legacies and devisees
3. Institution
A - W
|
B C Kapag naubos ng DIV ang FP, nothing will be paid
to the legatees and devisees.
Will Among DIV, the first to be made is the first to
W = 40M legacy charge. The last to be made, should be the last
DIV during lifetime to charge.
B 10M, 1990 Therefore, if FP is not enough to cover all, then
C 20M, 1998 only those last to be made shall suffer a
Z 10M, 1999 (nephew) reduction.
___________ Are the donations to B and C chargeable against
40M the FP? No, but chargeable against his legitime.
Gross estate = 200M, Liability = 0. Distribute the estate. Its an advance.
A died, survived by his wife and 2 legitimate children.
Zs donation = 60 (FP) 10M
E = GE L + DIV = 50
= 200 0 + 40 Wifes 40M legacy = 50 40M
= 240 M Remaining FP = 10
LC = (240M) Distribute 10 via intestacy. May 200 tayo! So pasok!
= 120M
LC1 = 60M
Another problem: Intestate naman.
While T left a will, it only contained one provision, i.e.
LEGACY in favor of the wife. Its not considered as A - W
part of the legitime of the wife BUT considered as given |
to a stranger, chargeable against the FP, under B C
A1063.
Estate:
The rest will be given by intestacy. Well only check if the Gross estate = 80M; Liability = 0
legacy in favor of wife is inofficious. DIV
B 70M, 1990
HEI Legiti Advance Wi Intestate Total C 10M, 1992
RS mes s ll Share X 80M, 1998 (nephew)
____________

B 60 (10) 3 1/3 53 1/3 160M

Leg rem: =(50 + 3 Hereditary estate = 80 0 + 160

50 1/3) = 240M

C 60 (20) 3 1/3 43 1/3 LC = (240)

= 120
Leg rem: =(40 + 3 LC1 = 120/2
40 1/3) = 60
 Page 79 of 81

HEI Legiti Intestate Advan Tota Second view: Chargeable against all other co-heirs.
RS me Share ces l
HEI Legiti Intestate Advanc Tota
B 60 80 (60 leg; 20 70 10 RS me Share es l
FP)
(60 B 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 (60) 0
legitime
) FP)

(10 FP
) C 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 (10) 50
FP)

C 60 80 (60 leg; 20 (10 70

W 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 60
FP) legitime
) FP)

W 60 80 (60 leg; 20 - 80 180

FP)
Pero ganon din yung lalabas sa computation.
180 (80) 160
Whose FP is it chargeable? Only the CH or all the shares
of all those who received from the FP?
Since intestate, we give intestate shares first. DLC says: Nakalagay sa batas, legitime lang eh so
excess should be chargeable against all those who
FP = 240 180 received in proportion to their respective shares. Is
= 60 10(yung sobra sa advance ni B) = 50 there any problem with that?
= 50 80(donation to X)
= -30
Another example. Intestacy pa rin.
Where do we charge the Bs advance of 70? 60
chargeable against legitime and the excess 10 is Estate:
chargeable against the FP. Gross estate = 140M
Liabilities = 0
Who will shoulder the 10? DLC says: It should be divided DIV
among the intestate share kaya hindi ko binawas kagad B 80M, 1990
sa 20 ni B. C 20M, 1992
___________

Donation to X is inofficious in the amount of 30M. 100M

First view: Ibabawas yung 10 kay B. Therefore, ubos na Hereditary estate = 240M
FP!
FP = 240 180
HEI Legiti Intestate Advanc Actual
= 60
RS me Share es legitime to
Where to deduct shortfall between excess DIV to B and
be paid by E legitime? FP
Whose FP?
B 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 (60 0
FP) Legitime
)
1st view solution
(10 FP
)
HEI Legiti Intestate Advanc Tota
C 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 (10) 50 RS me Share es l
FP)
B 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 (60 leg) 0
FP)
W 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 60
FP) (20 FP)

180 110 C 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 (20) 60

FP)

Sina B at X ang umubos ng FP (ubos na FP, kaya legitime W 60 80 (60 legitime, 20 80

FP)
na lang ang maibibigay). Pero meron ba tayong 110M to
pay the share of C and W? Wala tayong pera! Wala, kasi 180 140
yung estate natin ay 80 lang. Kulang tayo 30M. Ibabalik
ni X yan, collation in the third sense. Returning back to
estate what is in excess of allowed to be given by will. May pambayad ba tayo? Yes, the gross estate.
Bakit 0 si B? Kasi lahat nung 20 chinarge na yung excess
The CH in whose favor the donation was inofficious sa FP na tinanggap niya in excess of his legitime.
is the only one who bears the burden. B
 Page 80 of 81

2nd view solution is also for his account. So magbabalik sha ng 20M
even if the value of property is only 10M. Not required to
HEI Legiti Intestate Advance Total return the very property but only the monetary value. He
RS me Share s has a choice, sell the property at 10, then come up with
another 10. Heirs may file action for specific
B 60 80 (60 leg, 20 (60) 2/3 of 20M performance. Its not unfair to him because during 20
FP)
years, he enjoyed the property for free.
- 1/3
(20FP) Relevance of the years: First to be made is first to
charge. Who among the donees shall suffer the
C 60 80 (60 leg, 20 (20) 40leg + 2/3 of
FP)
reduction. Suffer a reduction. Last one is last ot charge.
20M
Kung pangalawa pa lang ubos na, then entire has to be
- 1/3 (20
reduced and return. Dont take in inflation. Computation
FP
)
of estate: basis of values at time donations were
W 60 80 (60 leg, 20 - 1/3 (20 60 + 2/3 of
made. If inofficious, return monetary value as computed,
FP) not the property.
FP
) 20M

180 100 + 20M Magkabaliktad:

Donations in favor of CH are ALWAYS
140 chargeable
UNLESS donation provides otherwise.
When its a legacy, its not chargeable against
Sobra ng 20 yung nakuha ni B. Everyone shall bear it. legitime, UNLESS the will provided otherwise.

FP = 240 - 180 If there are donations in favor of CH, date is immaterial

= 60M
Itotal mo lahat. In my view, it has to be against all who
received in the FP, not only against the heir who
received the inofficious donation.
DONATION IS INOFFIOUS.
insofar as value not exceeding legitime is concerned.
Value of donation not exceeding legitime is always
considered advance.
What becomes material: dates of donation
chargeable against FP. As against FP, the first made is
first entitled to charge. Last made last entitled to charge.

What must the donee return? Must he return the In CH, immaterial yung dates.
property or just the value of the property? The law is
very clear the donee must return the value, NOT the
very property. Another problem.

Illustrate: Suppose T during lifetime donated to CH X - W

property consisting of house and lot in Ayala Alabang |illegitimate |
that time worth 10M but when T died 20 years later, B A
property is already worth 40M or increase in value
from 10-40 by 30M. When estate was computed, what Will: A = E; B = E; W = E
value of property shall be returned to estate? Value at
the time donation was made. What value shall be added DIV:
back to estate? 10M C nephew 20M, 1990
D niece 20M, 1991
Suppose in the computation of FP and charges against FP E friend 20M, 1992
that donation was inofficious by 5M, he has to return half F friend 20M, 1993
of the 10. What must he return: Half the property or half _________
the value? That makes difference because if the former, 80M
20M ang irereturn niya. Monetary value lang of the
property, ergo return only 5M. Pagkabayad niya, its GE = 160M, L = 0. Divide the estate.
settled. Inofficious donation has been returned under the
CC. Estate = 160 0 80
= 240
Suppose the value of the property had been
impaired. When the property was donated to a 3P, its LC = 240/2 = 120
value was 40M but with time, value of donation dwindled. LW = 60
From 40M, its value now has been reduced to 10M. LIC = 60
Inofficious yung donation. 20M yung excess that the
donee had to return. Will his return of the property HEI Legiti
discharge his obligation? May obligation to pay additional RS me
10M? Yes. Whatever increase in the value property will
be for his account. But the reverse is true, impairment
 Page 81 of 81

A 120 number of debts. Then the negative sum will necessarily

be deducted from deduction inter vivos. Issue I want you
B 60 to research. Should we pay the debts through the DIV?
Hindi naman nakalagay sa batas diba. Hindi legitime ang
W 60
utang.
240
If we do not consider the negative balance and simply
add the donations, then those donations will necessarily
FP = 240 240 become the estate. Heirs will receive something from
=0 estate because the donations shall be reduced. Bakit
tatanggap ang heredero pero hindi babayaran yung mga
All the donations are inofficious. AND they will have to utang. You will have to have reason for it. I might ask you
return. in the donation. Go back to donation provision.
Since no more FP, hindi na rin ihohonor ang will
(testamentary dispositions). Di rin naman uubra yung will
kasi impaired legitime ni A. CAPACITY
In capacity to succeed, the most important provision is
on unworthiness. Where an heir becomes unworthy, he
Tanggalin natin si B, sha nagpapagulo jan eh. loses the right to inherit. He is disqualified. This is
A1032.
X - W
| Grounds which will make an heir incapacitated. This is a
A matter of law. But if you look on provisions of code on
disinheritance, some causes of unworthiness are also
Will: A = E; W = E grounds for disinheritance. Kapag dinisinherit, at on that
same ground but disinheritance was ineffective. Is heir
DIV: disqualified under A1032?
C nephew 20M, 1990
D niece 20M, 1991 Suppose T disinherited the heir on that ground but the
E friend 20M, 1992 disinheritance was ineffective. Will had a problem. Tama
F friend 20M, 1993 na naging ineffective yung disinheritance but hes
_________ unworthy under 1032, ano sabi ni Tolentino? The view of
80M Sen. Tolentino is that when a ground for disinheriting an
heir is also a cause for unworthiness, T has a choice of
GE = 160M, L = 0. Divide the estate. disinheriting OR doing nothing and let A1032 apply as a
matter of course BUT when the decedent decides to
HEI Legiti Will Total disinherit the heir on that ground but such disinheritance
RS me was ineffective, the heir can no longer be disqualified
under 1032. Waiver daw yun.
A 120 120 120

W 60 120 (60 legitime, 60 FP)

60 DLC disagrees with Sen. Tolentino. 1032 is a catch-all
remedy. Kung dinisinherit niya at ineffective yung
180 180 disinheritance, 1032 will apply. Walang waiver jan kasi
matter of law.

E = 240 Repudiation lang ang walang representation.

FP = 60 Theres representation in incapacity, disinheritance
(which is also incapacity), predeceased.
Who is the first to charge?
FP = 240 180 End of the course.
= 60
- 20 for C (abswelto na) 4 hours exam.
- 20 for D (abswelto na) Somebody has to prepare 2 bluebooks.
Questionnaire and piece of paper with name.
- 20 for E (abswelto na) Passing. Under university code, 70% of maximum possible
----- score. Therefore, if lower passing mark, its purely an act of
0 grace.
Kay Elsa sa office ni sir sa Law Center.
Pero 180 yung legitime. Yung 160M. So si E ang
magbabalik ng 20M para mabayaran yung legitimes ni A
and W.

Annabelle Rama problem last meeting: If we deduct

the entire amount of debts which is less than total