Transcribed Audio Lecture- Part 6
Wills and Succession
Atty. Crisostomo Uribe
Collation, Legitime
When would there be need for collation?
There would need for such if there was a
donation or an expenses made by the
parents for example or a decedent for certain
heirs which can be considered as an indirect
donation. However if no compulsory heirs
there’s no need for collation.or done whether
direct or indirect donation is also the compulsory
heir or the donation the donation is in favor of all
the compulsory heirs.
Two kinds of collation.
A)
First, is the mathematical operation,
add the value of donation at the time of the
death, premise is valid, if void donation it will
form part of the estate.
B)
second is the actual return. Indirect
donation is subject to donation for example
expenses ng parents in relation to debts of
children ‘binayaran ng parents ang utang ng
anak nila’ subject yun sa collation it might impair
legitimes of other children or ginastos ng anak
ay pera ng magulang in relation sa pagtakbong
congressman at lahat ng gastos ay kay papa
subject to collation, the parents caused the
reapir the house of the child. Pero there are
exceptions: medical expeses kahit extraordinary
pa na sakit. Subject to collation but not subject
to legitime to an heir, e.g. parents donated to
one of their children, sabe ng parents theses
should not be collated, pero not charge to his
legitime.
Transcribed by: Sembrano HyugiNicolae C. (POGI NOTES)
1
Few rules on collation;
The donation was in favor of a
grandchild, B ,ferari was donated to him. Subject
to collation?
issue here is chargeable to a portion to
its estate, dahil grandchild si B ordinarily hindi
siya magmamana, the one who will inherit
would be the child by proximity rule.
Therefore, chargeable to the freely disposable
portionas if the grandchild is a third person but if
magmamana siya maybe nag predecease si A
and B will inherit in his own right therefore
chargeable to his legitime pero kung
magmamana siya by right of representation
meron mga kapatid si A who survived also X so
possibily B magmamana by right of
representation chargeable din ba sa legitime ng
grandson who will inherit by right of
representation?
The answer is YES. Other scenario is
ang Donation is in favor of his father si A,
hindi kay B this time ang donation,ang
problema si A nagpredeceased siya dahil
namatay kasama ang lamborgini total
wrecked, this time if X is survived by another
child, C. C and B will inherit, C on his own right
and B by right of representation , the donation to
A sa anak chargeable to the legitime of B who
will inherit by right of representation even if si B
hindi man naksakay sa lamborgini, By law the
answer is YES, because he is only inherting by
right of representation, he is stepping in the
shoes of his father so whatever donation made
to the latter is also chargeable to his legitime.
Ganun rin sa father, kung may donation sa
father like si X may tatay si F, chargeable to its
portion of the estate, it depends kung
magmamana si father o hindi, if not, bec he is
excluded by a child or grandchild, chargeable to
the freely disposable portion.
Otherwise baka nagpredeceased si A or
nagrenounce si A o si B or incapacipated sila so
the father may inherit, chargeable to his legitime.
Last scenario, parents X and Y donated to one
of the children si A at ung prospective fiancé, w.
ang donation made by X and y magsasawa is in
favor of both of the child and the fiancé, W.
donation is condo and the value is 4M , then X
died.
Donation chargeable which portion and
how much is subject to collation?
-premise is that donation ng magasawa
is
 community property
ang dinonate nila or conjugal property
otherwise bakit sila ang nagdonate, Therefore
isa lang ang namatay subject sa collation HALF
lang , which means 2M lang out of the 4. But
chargeable to its portion of the estate, dalawa.
Ung sa anak nila chargeable sa legitime, dun sa
fiancé hindi naman heir, chargeable sa freely
disposable portion at pag walang designation of
respective shares, equal. 1 M charge to legitime
ng anak and 1 M sa magiging daughter in law.
Q’S:
X died intestate in 1985 leaving 3 legitimate
children A B and C and 2 acknowledge natural
children D and E,he donated 30k to F a friend
in 1970, to A 40k in 1975 to D 50k in 1980, he
left an estate amounting to 100k with debts of
40k.
who will inherit from the estate and give
the respective share. Ung estate amounting to
100k is the result of the inventory ng
assets,from the gross estate which is 100
deduct the debts 40k, 60 k is the result
which we call the net hereditary estate, thus
this is the only amount to be distributed to
the heirs,
ordinarily. Unless there would be a need
for collation, where there are donations that are
inofficious. Don’t collate bago magdeduct ng
debts. Distributable estate is the basis of
computation of legitime. Then, computation of
legitimes. From 180k of distributable estate, 90 k
be given to 3 legitimate children, thus 30 k each.
Legitimes of 2 acknowledge natural children 15
k each taken from the free portion. Then,
CHARGING, kung ano mga dinonate icharge
na, to which portion mo icharge> sa legitime
kung compulsory heir sya, or free portion if not.
Thus, donation to F which is 30k where
a F is not a compulsory heir then charge it to
free portion, to A 40k charge to his legitime kaso
lumampas sa legitime niya, kailngn mo iaadd mo
sa free portion baka may maimpair na legitime.
And D 50k minus 30k sobra rin so charge din sa
free portion.
All in all 105k ang charge sa free portion
na 90 k so may sobra ng 15k. meaning there is
inofficious donation to the extent of 15k.
somebody has to return 15k.
next problem is who will return?
Transcribed by: Sembrano HyugiNicolae C. (POGI NOTES)
2
eto na ang reduction or annulment if
needed. The rule here is ‘priority in time,
priority in write’ in other words, kung ung isa
ay donation intervivos ung isa mortis causa,
prefer here is intervivos, mortis causa shall
suffer reduction. But if pareho intervivos
lahat ang mag susuffer ung ‘LAST’. Last in
first out. So in the case the last is D, he shall
return the 15k. UNA, ‘inventory’ , then deduct
debts,the collation then compute for
legitime pag alam mo na ang distributable
estate. Basically divide into 2 ung para sa CH at
sa free portion then Charge whether CH siya sa
legitime kung hindi sa free portion, then kung
inofficious then somebody shall suffer a
reduction the rule again is priority in time priority
in write and then restitution or return. The fruits
shall go to done.
This now pertains to legacies and devises, the
prob now is what if the freely disposable portion
is not sufficient to cover the legacies and
devises, which of them shall suffer a reduction if
not annulment?
Q’S:
X died in 1989 survived by 2 legitmate children
A and B and a brother C, he donated 20k to C in
1980, he left estate 100k and debts of 40k. in his
will X he gave 10k to D as a preferred legacy
20k, 20k to S as legacy for support and 10k to F
as remunatory legacy. Who will inherit from the
estate? give their respective shares? what if
there is donation to D?who will inherit?.
-100k minus 40k=60k, 60k collate as far
as the 20k. don’t collate the legacy bec there is
nothing to be returned kase nasa estate pa ung
legacy. Thus, distributable estate is only 80k,
compute 80k. A and B, 2 legitimate Children=
40k(20 k EACH). And brother is not a
compulsory heir but the donation to him is
chargeable to free portion, so 20 k to him.
The legacies charge to free portion, donation
to D is 10k, then E 20k, then F 10k=60k. eh 40
lang ang estate.
Thus, need to reduce or annul ung
legacies. Which one will suffer a reduction?
the issue here is that there are 2 provisions in
the CC which is applicable to this scenario, in
case the freely disposable portion is not
sufficient to cover legacies legacies and devices
, Art. 911 and 950. If the conflict is not only
among the legaties may kasamang donation
lalo na kung may CH na kasama. Bubt ditto
wla probsa CH, conflict is may kasamang
donation. Then APPLY ART. 911. Thus, if
legaties lang ang nagaaway away ART.
950(as to the second question this is
applicable)when there is no donation.
ART. 911, dahil babawasan mo ang 40k ng
20k ang matititira 20k, applying 911 unahin
mo ang PREFERRED,which is D,give 10k to
D. ibagay mo ung tira sa dalawang natitira in
proportion.
ART. 950, walang collate, distributable estate
is 60k, therefore ang para sa Ch is 30k, free
portion 30k, may order kung sino uunahin sa
legaties, first is the REMUNATORY, sunod,
PREFERRED, sa SUPPORT, education. The
others PRO RATA.
PRETERITION
This protects legitime, if the CH is preterited he
will still get something in the estate.
Reserval Troncal-
this qualify or limits CH to legitime, in
other words, if X died with a parcel of land, in an
intestate succession the land would go to his
own heirs. But if the property is a Reservable
property it will not go to his children, rather to the
relatives known as RESERVATARIOS.
Disinheritance-
if valid disinheritance the heir may be
deprive of the entire legitime, imperfect
disinheritance otherwise.
It is the omission in the testator’s will of
some,one or all of the CH in the direct line
whether living at the time of the execution of the
will or born after the death of the testator.what
principle is being referred to? PRETERITION-
The fact that the heir is omitted in the will
does not necessarily he was preterited, in
other words the true definition of preterition
is not the omission in the will rather ‘it is the
total omission in the Inheritance’meaning
wala na syng nakuha sa will and did not receive
any in the lifetime and all the properties must
Transcribed by: Sembrano HyugiNicolae C. (POGI NOTES)
3
have been disposed of the will. E.g. the testator
pinamigay ang kanayang properties sa specific
heirs pero may tinira siya wala siyang
pinagbigyan ng kanyang Refrigerator, ibigsabhin
niya sa heir na hindi niya binigyan eh sayo eto
ang ref nay an. Therefore, preterition is not
considered as intentional act for an heir to not
have a share, it is suppose to be omission
lang.parang nakalimutan lang otherwise baka
DISINHERITED siya.
QUESTIONS;
What is preterition?
Total omission of an heir in the direct
line’ the FF. are the reqs of preterition except,
‘the will must not disposed of all.’ The spouse
cannot be preterited because spouse is not
an heir in the direct line.illegitimate child can
be preterited bec in the direct line rin siya
pero in the case of ESCUBIN VS ESCUBIN,
the rulling of the SC was the effect of
preterition is the total annulment of the
institution of an heir. Sc is not right in
holding that ‘The annulment must only to the
legitime of the illegitimate child’ bec the law
did not qualify.
PARENTS can be preterited bec in the direct
line sila pero dapat walang legitimate children
and descendants pero kung may illegitimate
child pwede ba preterited ang father>YES. Bec
father will not be excluded by IC. The heir must
not have been preterited, iba ang effect ng
disinheritance sa preterition. The will is not void
to the latter.e.g. institution is only 10)8 of the
estate pero ang legitime ng preterited heir ay
1)4, I annul mo man ang institution kulang pa
sakanya ang legitime You have to annul the
legacied and devises, then they are innoficious .
EFFECT OF PRETERITION
-e.g. ang preterited heir ang kanayang legitime
is only 1)4 of the estate pero ang institution
pertains to ung heirs in the specific sense ito
ung 1)2, 1)3, iba to sa legacies and devises.
Ang institution halimbawa pertains to 1)2 of the
estate ang preterited heir 1)4 lang ,because total
ang annulment makukuha nan g preterited heir
ang kanyang legitime magkakaroon pa siya ng
share sa remaining 1)4.
In other words preterition ang preterited
heir may get more than his legitime pero kung
ang legitime niya ay 1)4 pero ang institution of
heir pertains to 1)8 kahit iannul mo ang
institution ay hindi siya lalampas ng kanyang
legitime because the annulment of legacies and
devises only would up to his legitime
makumpleto lang ang kanayng legitime so
hangang 1)4 lang yan in that scenario. So ito
ang requites 1)there must be a valid will
2)the will must have diposed of all the
properties of the testator 4)there heir is in
the direct line who must survive the testator
5)the heir did not receive any donation from
the testator during his lifetime and the heri
was not disinherited. Lahat ng ito ay
kailngan in order for an heir to be preterited.
Bar exam Q’s:
because the eldest son JUAN had
been pestering her capital for a C)JUAN and his brothers 160k each, ito ang
business,JOSEFA gave him 100k, 5 yrs later
JOSEFA died,leaving a last will and testament in
which he instituted only her 4 younger children
as her sole heirs. Walang legacies at devises.at
the time of her death her only property left was
900k in a bank. JUAN opposed the will on the
ground of preterition, how should JOSEFA’s
estate be divided among the heirs.reasons?
- distribution of estate. Isa lang ang
disposition, institution of an heir wala ng iba
kaya lang for us to be able to ans the Q’s on
how the estate to be divided wihout addressing
the claim of JUAN that he was
preterited,because if he was ANNULED ang
institution of heirs. Ang effect niyan
idididstribute ang estate by ‘legal
succession’.kung preterited siya
ANNULMENT,
una legitimes icompute bec if what was
given to him exceeds his legitime,wala na siyang
makukuha pero kung ang binigay kay juan is
less than his legitime he is not preterited thus
his remedy is completion of legitime hangang
legitime lang siya. So, was JUAN
preterited?NO.bec in the facts he received
100k during the lifetime of the testator and
therefore dahil walang preterition possible
nlang na madagdagan legitime niya kung ang
legitime niya is more than 100k. so compute for
legitime. But paano mo icocompute?
FIRST, COLLATE. 900k ang estate plus
100k na donation kay JUAN=100M,Distributable
estate 1M, 1M divided by 2= 500k, 500k divided
by 5=100k each CH.therefore he is not entitled
to any centavo of the estate.
Transcribed by: Sembrano HyugiNicolae C. (POGI NOTES)
4
In other words, 900 divided by 4=225 k
each of heirs. One takes nothing bec he
received his legitme at the lifetime of the
testatrix.
Q’s:
A)JUAN is preterited, apg nagkaroon ng
annulment estate should be distributed by legal
succession, in other words, 1M divided by 5=200
k each. Hence, juan is entitled for another 100k
to his legitime if he is preterited but in the case
he was not.
B)JUAN and his brothers 180k each they would
have to share the property left equally, ang
premise ditto walng donation dito kay JUAN na
dapat icollate, pag hindi ka nagcollate mali din.
worse. Imbis na collate binawasan pa, dpat 100
plus 900, hindi 900 minus 100.
IN relation to preterition, e.g.: IS ERIKA
preterited, namatay si Arthur ang asawa niya si
Erika. Sabe ng testator hindi nakita bibigyan kasi
she would anyway get 1)2 of the house and lot
as their conjugal share. Upon his death it was
discovered that apart from the H and Lot he had
a 1M account to ABC. Was ERIKA preterited?
NO. 2 reasons. UNA, hindi siya CH in
the direct line, SECOND, she was not totally
omitted from the inheritance kase meron pa
palang 1M account deposited to ABC bank, in
other words ang nadistribute lang ni Arthur ay
ibang properties. The spouse was not preterited.
3 children, binigay ng spouses ang kanilang
estate to 2 of the children, obviously the omitted
child is an heir in the direct line. And it appears
that all estate was disposed. Hence one of them
is preterited.
RESERVA TRONCAL
Before the civil code of the phil. There were
several reservations, the code commission
eliminated all of the past because of
socialization. But congress binalik ang
RESERVA bec to balance right of representation
in the descending line.
Q’S; what is the reason for RESERVA
TRONCAL?
A)To protect CH,wrong.kasi nga mapupunta to
sa mga reservatarios hindi sa CH.
B)to promote socialization of ownership,
inconsistent.
C)to protect the property, the right of the
property to dispose, wrong.
D)to reserve certain property to certain
relatives.CORRECT.
Subject property here is called, DETERMINATE
PROPERTY.hindi to 1)2,1)3,. ITO ay tunay na
kotse,lupa,kalabaw.
Q’S:
Right of Reservista, may the reservoir or
reservista reserve the reserved property by acts
intervivos or mortis causa?
By acts intervivos the answer is
YES,bec the reservista in the recent rullings
ng SC is not merely a usucfructuary but he
actually acquires the ownership over the
reservable property pero ang ownership niya
is not absolute ito ay subject sa
RESOLUTORY CONDITION, condition may
be upon his death and there is a reservitario
who may inherit the property, pag ganon hindi
mapupuntaq sa estate niya ang property, it will
go to the RESERVATARIO.
Pero kung binenta ng reservista ang
lupa during his lifetime,may the reservatarios be
able to recover that land from the buyer?YES. IF
the BUYER IS A BUYER IN BAD FAITH. Kung
sa CTC naka annotate ang reservable
character ng lupa BAD FAITH YUN, bound
ang buyer nayan. If cannot prove na badfaith
siya hindi marerecover, ang ‘presumption
good faith ang buyer’buyer for a value in
good faith he will acquire absolute
ownership.’liable lang ang estate sa
RESERVATARIOS’.
But in acts MORTIS causa,NO. bec
property is not part of his estate bec upon
death it goes to reservatarios,ang transferee
niya walang makukuha except kung BEFORE
the death of reservista ‘ngangamatay lahat ng
reservatarios’ or lahat ng RESERVATARIOS
nag RENOUNCE or lahat sila ay
INCAPACIPATED.
Transcribed by: Sembrano HyugiNicolae C. (POGI NOTES)
5
Origin, Prepositus, Reservista and
reservatarios.
When will the reservation start?
instances:
by the name of the first party origin, the
property must come from the deceased
person, from the origin the property must be
acquired by a descendant or brother or sister by
gratuitous title, in other words,
for a reservation to start kailngan ba
mamatay ng ORIGIN?NO. kasi pwede naman
by donation gratuitous title din yun,ang nasa
batas pwede sa brother or sister okaya sa
descendant,
in real life UNA,and madalas the origin
died bec if acquired by descendant is by
gratuitous title succession hindi uso ang
donation sa RESERVA TRONCAL. When
property was acquired by the descendant by
gratuitous title nagstart na ba ang
reservation?NOT YET. You cannot call them
origin and prepositus bec this descendant
acquired the property absolutely, yang
OWNERSHIP niya saknay talaga yan. From this
descendant, this time brother or sister the
property should go an ascendant hindi brother or
sister, ascendant by operation of law ,hindi na
gratuitous title,
in other words ang descendant na ito
mas nauna namataykaya napunta sa nanay niya
or lola niya by operation of law minana. Pag
napunta sa ascendant yan by operation law
the RESERVATION STARTS’ you can now
call that ascendant as RESERVISTA and
descendant as PREPOSITUS, and the person
from where the property came first as the
ORIGIN. HENCE, nagsimula na ang
reservation.
But until when ang reservation?
hangang mamatay ang reservista,when he dies
next issue is who will inherit the reservable at
ang magmamana niyan ay ang
RESERVATARIOS,SINO ang reservatarios?
2 REQUISITES that should concur;
1)THIS HEIR MUST BE FROM THE LINE
WHERE THE PROPERTY CAME FROM,in
other words, kadugo siya ng ORIGIN.(anak
siya,tatay siya,apo siya,basta kadugo).
2) The RESERVATARIO IS AN HEIR WITHIN
THE 3RD DEGREE. Itong 3rd degree na to galing
sa PRESOPITUS, 3 degrees counted from the
prepositus para maging reservatario, kaya
lang dahil marami ang pwedeng maging within
the line who are all within the 3 degrees
pwedeng sampo sila,lahat ba sila magmamana
dahil sila lahat ay within the 3 degrees?
NO. bec PH law has not adopted this
common law principle known as ‘RESERVE
INTEGRAL’ lahat ng reservatarios
magmamana hati hati sila. Thus, sino ang
magmamana? WE apply the rules in
INTESTATE succession,who among the
reservatarios, kahit sampo sila pwedeng isa lang
ang magmana bec. We follow the rules in
intestate succession. Ung reservista, prepositus
ang isang nagmana, isang nagsurvived sakanya
ay isang kapatid niya, ordinarily ung isa kapatid,
ung isang reservatario uncle niya ung isa
nephew so parehong same line at parehong
degree, ordinarily dapat pareho silang magmana
pero under the law in intestate successionthe
nephews and nieces exclude the uncles and
aunties.
Q’s:
All reservatarios inherit as a class equal shares
regardless of their proximity in degree>NO. bec
we have not adhered to the concept of reserve
integral, we follow the rules on Intestate
succession.
Q’s:
Mr. luna leaving an estate of 10M, his widow
gave birth to a child 4 mos after his death, but
the child died 5 hours after death,the widow of
mr. luna also died bec of her giving birth, estate
of Mr. luna is being claimed by his parents and
the parents of his widow. Who is entitled?and
why.
If the Q’s is ‘who is entitled’ that is totally
diff from who will inherit. Entitled sila possible
not bec they inherited directly from Mr. luna
but maybe they inherited from somebody
else who inherited from Mr. Luna.
If atleast 2 ang namatay na hindi
magksabay and one inherited from the other
Transcribed by: Sembrano HyugiNicolae C. (POGI NOTES)
6
there is a big possibility na may reservation
pero pag ‘tatlo’ na ang namatay na hindi
sabay sabay and the 2 inherited from the
other ung pngalawa nagmana sa una ung
pangatlo nagmana sa isa pero lahat sila
nangamatay, hence, there is RESERVA
TRONCAL.
In the present case, mr. Luna, asawa
niya at anak namatay.kaya may possibility ng
reservation. But who is entitled to mr luna’s
estate?
common error answer is the parents
of mrs. Luna will not have a share in the
estate bec they are not CH of mr. luna but it
doesn’t mean that they will not have a share
kase ang anak nila asawa ni mr. luna and take
note ang susunod na maling sagot ay MRs.
Luna will not inherit from mr. luna because she
also died, wrong. Bec she died months after the
death of mr. luna,
in other words before she died she
already inherited,ART.777 succession rights
are transimitted upon death’.
Ang last issue dito ay ang anak, did the
child inherit from mr luna? common mistake
here is because the widow gave birth 4 months
after death of mr luna, therefore the child was
less than 7 months old therefore he did not
survived within 24 hours therefore he did not
inherit.WRONG. bec. In the facts mrs. Luna
gave birth after the death of mr luna it doenst
mean na nabuntis lang siya ng papatay na si mr.
luna. Dahil pwedeng 5 mos old na ang baby
before he died hence pwedeng 9 mos na ang
bata. Therefore it doesn’t matter kung mamatay
man siya within 24 hours.the child acquired
juridical personality hence already inherited. To
answer who is entitled to inherit, yo have to
qualify your answer,whether the child inherited
or not.
Mas simple na scenario:
since the wife delivered the child 4 months after
the death it is possible na less than 7 mos old
ang bata so pwedeng 2 mos old palang when
mr. luna died plus 4 mos 6 mos lang then
namatay not within 24 hours therefore hindi
siya magmamana.
In the present case, ang magmamana
ang secondary CH, ang parents ni Mr. luna and
the wife, from the facts there was no will,
intestate succession although ang legitime ng
wife is only 1)4 but dahil intestate ang 1)4
nagiging 1)2.in other words, 50)50 ang sharing,
50 to mrs. Luna and 50 to parents of mr. luna
pero don’t stop dahil namatay si mrs luna, in
other words, whatever mrs. Luna inherited by
her parents which they share equally.
Scenario:
what if the child had an intrauterine life
of atleast 7mos but died pero magmamana rin
siya therefore ang parents will be excluded
Secondary CH, ang magmamana ay ang
spouse at ang child.1)2 ang child,1)4 ang
spouse pero dahil intestate 1)4 becomes
1)2.hence, 1)2 to child,1)2 to spouse. But
nauna namatay ang child, mapupunta share
nya sa nanay at hindi sa parents ng tatay
niya because of the proximity rule ang nanay
niya is only one degree ang lolo niya is 2
degrees, in other words whole estate napunta
na kay misis,kaya when she died napunta sa
parents niya? WRONG. Dahil kalahati jan ay
RESERVABLE property ung minana niya
mula sa anak niya ay galling sa asawa niya.
Mapupunta sa RESERVATARIOS the parents
of mr. luna, the line of mr. luna within 3rd
degree from the presopitus from the
grandchild kaya hati rin ang parents. 5 M sa
parents ni Mr. luna, 5M rin sa parents ni Mrs.
Luna.
Scenario: the property may came from H2 it
when to Px probably namatay si H2, so minana
ng isang anak. Si px died leaving children. May
there be reservation>YES.kung itong mga anak
nip x ay ‘nagrenounce’, ‘incapacipated’or
‘Disinherited’.thus the property may go to an
ascendant by operation of law napunta sa nanay
niya, kung galling sakanya galling sa tatay niya
napunta sa nanay, here reservation starts
pagdating sakanya sino sino ang mga
reservatarios>MARAMI.lahat ng within the line
of H2 basta within 3 degrees in other words, si L
ba ay reservatario?
HINDI. Kasi anak siya mukhang sa
unang asawa Ni R, steph son siya, hindi sya
within the same line hence hindi siya
RESERVATARIO..si N within the line dahil apo
siya ni H2 anak ng anak ni H2, also within 3
degrees from PX,kaya lang hindi siya
reservatario dahil illegitimate relation ,sa
RESERVA TRONCAL dapat legitimate and
relation paara ang reservatrio magmana.
Ang nagsurvived si E at si Z, dalawa lang. si E
uncle ni PX within the 3nd degree, si Z
pamangkin sa kapatid 3rd degree rin. Therefore
Transcribed by: Sembrano HyugiNicolae C. (POGI NOTES)
7
both will inherit. Rules in intestate succession
nephews will exclude unlces and aunties.
Nagsurvive kay J at si Q lang ang nagsurvive, si
J kapatid 2 degrees, si Q 3 degrees anak ng
kapatid. Therefore J shall inherit only,
exception if Q will inherit by right of
representation as reservatarios.
What if si T at si Q lang ang nagsurvive,
si Q pamangkin, si T apo sa kapatid. Only Q
will inherit, bec ZT is not within 3 degrees
from the PREPOSITUS, 4th degree kasi siya
pero pwede right of representation?
NO. right of representation only
extends to children of brothers and
sisters.Walang right of represenataion in the
collateral line sa mga apo apo ng mga
kapatid,hangang sa anak lang ng kapatid.
In relation to termination of reservation, with the
renounciation of the reservatarios would there
termination of reservation?
Dalawa ang possible scenario:
A)UNA, all the reservatarios renounce
BEFORE the death of the RESERVISTA, or
renounciation after the death.either way is this
reason for termination,ung una mali bec before
the death of the reservista there is nothing to
renounce, the rights of the reservatarios will
only be vested upon the death of the
reservista. If before death of reservista kahit
nagrenounce sila somebody was born, the latter
is not bound to the renounciation,
B)IF after the death of the reservista,
wrong dahil patay na ang reservista terminated
na ang reservation. Nung nagrenounce sila
talagang terminated na. ang effect lang sa
renounciation nila ay hindi sila
magmamana mapupunta ang share nilasa
ANAK ngreservista.