Lecture Notes Baste

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty.
Sebastian
 Art 774. Succession is a mode of Acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligation to the extent of
the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by will or
by operation of law.
 What are the modes of acquisition? (OLD TIPS)
O – Occupation L
– Law
D – Donation
T – Tradition
I – Intellectual property P
– Prescription
S – Succession
 Inheritance of a person consists of property, transmissible rights and obligations that survive the person’s
death.
 In the old code such was a virtual subrogation, there was no limit as to Property, Transmissible Right and
Obligations (PRO); but under the NCC the obligations will be to the extent of the hereditary share.
 Art 391. (Presumption of death for purposes of succession)
1. A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage or on aeroplane which is missing, who has not been
heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;
2. A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years; and
3. A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been
known for four years;
4. BUT (Under ART 390) IF SUCH IS AN ABSENTEE it is 10 years to open up succession, unless he
disappeared after 75 years of age, 5 years will be sufficient.
 Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety;

Article 774 provides that by succession, the properties, rights and obligations of a deceased person are
transmitted through his death to his heirs either by his will or by operation of law. Hemady holds that the contingent
liabilities of the decedent are part of the obligations transmitted by his death to his heirs. Accordingly, contingent
claims against the estate of a deceased person arising from the decedent's contractual undertakings under
various indemnity agreements executed in favour of various persons and entities are money claims which may
be proved against his estate and/or heirs. These contingent claims may be proved during settlement
proceedings by an indemnified surety even if in the meantime, no actual liability on the part of an indemnified
surety has arisen by reason of actual payment made under the suretyship agreement. Accordingly, Hemady
holds that the contingent obligations of a deceased person arising from his personal guaranty are not extinguished
by his death.
Thus, GR: Contracts are binding on the heirs as well due to NCC Art. 1311, which refers to the “Principle
of Relativity of Contracts”;
1
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian
Exception: When the obligation becomes intransmissible by the following

1) The nature of the obligation;
2) Stipulation of Law; or
3) Stipulation of the parties
 Pacio v. Billon;
Properties not validly conveyed by a person during his lifetime will form part of his estate upon his demise.
Pacio holds that a parcel of land which was not validly donated (propter nuptias) by the husband to the wife did
not leave his patrimony, and therefore formed part of his inheritance upon his demise.
(It must be remembered in this case the mistake here was the application of the codes)
 Uson v. Del Rosario;

Article 777 provides that the right to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the
decedent. Accordingly, Uson holds that the inheritance pertains to the heirs from the moment of the death
of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to the heirs a deed for the same before
his death. This transmission takes place by operation of law; NCC was to be applied retroactively but could not
impair vested rights. Since Faustino died before the NCC took effect, the illegitimate children could not inherit
because the recognized family had a vested right in the properties. (Art 2253.)
 Bonilla v. Barcena;
The transmission of the hereditary estate from the decedent to the heirs takes place from the moment of
the death of the decedent. A prior judicial declaration of heirship is not necessary to perfect the transmission.
Bonilla holds that claims to or rights over property which were initiated by the decedent during his lifetime by
appropriate court proceedings are not extinguished by his death. These claims or rights over property are
transmitted to his heirs upon his death, thus may substitute the decedent in the said case.
 Butte v. Manuel Uy & Sons Inc. (Yung small portion that ended up getting the whole- mayaman
toh)
The right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code is property. Thus, where a decedent
dies without having exercised a right of redemption (and provided it has not expired), the said right shall be
transmitted to his heirs upon his death. In this event, the right of redemption is part of the inheritance.
However, where the right of redemption was acquired after the death of the decedent, the same pertains to
the heirs directly in their individual capacities, and not derivatively from the decedent. Butte makes a clear
distinction as to when the right of redemption is part of the hereditary estate, and when it is not. Accordingly, Butte
clarifies the issue as to who may exercise the right of redemption.
 De Borja v. De Borja;
The right to the inheritance is transferred to the heirs precisely at the moment of the death of the decedent.
From such time, the heirs are deemed to be the owners of the same. De Borja confirms that from the moment of
death of the decedent, the heirs begin to enjoy all the attributes of ownership, including the right to dispose
(jus disponendi). De Borja holds that the pendency of the probate proceeding is no bar to the exercise of
such proprietary rights, since ownership over the hereditary estate has vested in the heirs from the time of the
death of the testator.
2
De Borja must be distinguished from the prohibition against disposicion captatoria in Article 875 of the Civil
Code. Likewise, it must be reconciled with the provision of Article 784 which states that the making of a will is a
strictly personal act of the testator.
 NHA v. Almedia; (skipped)
 Go Ong v. CA (model case of how things should be)

She took out a loan based on certain land from the ACP after her husband died, now she claims that the loan is
void since there was no judicial notice.
 As per the SC: the mortgage is valid up to the conjugal share and hereditary rights of the surviving
spouse. (nothing more than your supposed to get)
 Important principle: we can dispose from the moment of death.
*Theoretically you can mortgage part of your undivided share, but in reality no one would do that.
 Reganon v. Imperial (new law patterned to this case)

You can garnish or attach share of an heir BUT you cannot garnish or attach a specific property, since the
hereditary share has not been liquidated and you don’t know if he will get that specific property.
 But we must also distinguish between heir and legatee, who can be subject to garnishment or attachment.
 Salvador v. Sta. Maria (a case borne out of stupidity and laziness)

Sale is contended to be void, due to simulation and no payment actually made. There are two cases here in the
same court house but different branches; the seller/owner dies.
Seller/Owner ----------------------- Buyer
Branch II Branch I
1) Handled probate of the will 1) Action for reconveyance (23

people involved in the will) (21 people as substitutes)
3) Decision of the court is to give them 2) went to the CA, who had the property reconveyed The land
to the 21 substitute, since supposedly the contract is void
6) 21 did not want to give land, since the decision of the court is
final and executor and they have valid title
 The problem here 9 people in the will where not substituted and the decision was final & executor.
 SC said “21, your rights are derived from the owner or better yet his estate; subs lang kayo, thus no
ownership
* As per sir: Tanga ang CA, they should have it ordered it back to the estate and not to the 21 substitutes
3
 Ramirez v. Baltazar ( Rights of the heirs)

The creditors initiated settlement proceedings against the estate; Diawan, the deputy clerk of court was made
administrator of the estate since Ramirez failed to qualify. Diawan initiated a trial by commissioners which
was allowed by the court without providing notice to the heirs, heirs in turn was not present since they had no
idea of such proceeding. Diawan was receiving uncontested evidence from the creditors as commissioner.
 The duty of the administrator is to defend the estate, what Diawan was doing was receiving evidence
against estate that he is suppose to defend.
 SC: IF the administrator does not want to do the job as he should, the heirs have a right to assert and protect
their interest despite their being an administrator assigned.
 Requisites for extra judicial settlement

1. No will
2. No debts
3. Heirs are of legal age
 In any case, if such gets questioned, you still bring it to court.
 ART 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.
 Puno v. Puno Enterprises (Art. 777 not applied)

The illegitimate child succeeding from his father’s death, has rights over the property of his father upon the
moment of death of said father. The father had shares of stock within Puno Enterprises. Now the child wishes
to inspect the company’s books.
 The SC held: Despite Art. 777, which is inherent from the point of death, one still cannot obtain the right to
the property right away in certain instances.
 The illegitimate child got his right over the property BUT his right as a shareholder is something else, thus he
cannot check the books of the company and until properly registered as a shareholder as per the
Corporation Code.
 Lesson: though he may have under Art. 777 acquired rights to the stock, he may not inspect the books for the
corporation code provides those who could inspect are stockholders of record, meaning those names
listed in the “Stock & Transfer Book”; thus until your name is listed there, there is no rights to such
 Reyes v RTC (Art 777 not applied even if shareholder)

Almost the same facts as Puno, but here the son who has a stockholder himself in the company wanted to
look into the records of the mother. Naturally the company denied the son’s request for inspection, since the
share he requested to inspect was his mothers.
 The SC decision was: Your (PRO) that you inherit are inchoate.
 As per SC, the estate has to go through liquidation first to pay the debts.
 As per Atty. Sebastian: The use of Inchoate is WRONG!!! Remember the case of Butte? You do not need
to pay the obligations with the property and rights that you inherited, that’s why
4
Angela was able to get the whole property!!! Thus the property and rights are not inchoate until you pay the
obligations since you can choose to pay out such in order to maintain the property as a whole. This is also
wrong for tax and debt reasons. (For Bar purposes unless you can properly defend don’t use).
 Santos v. Lumbao (difference of ideal share from specific prop )

They bought an ideal share or proindiviso share of the property from Rita and then spouses Lumbao built a house
on a portion of the property they bought.
 The SC held: what they bought was an ideal share and not a specific portion of the property, they should
have not done that but in any case they cannot be denied to a portion of the property. An approved
project of partition is required.
 Blas v. Santos (Future Inheritance) read the case before exams (pg.55 ng scra?)
When the 1st wife died, the property was not divided thus when he remarried the PR of wife 1 was infused with
the PR of wife 2. To make sure there would be no quarrel in the family of the testator between his kids from his
1st marriage and wife 2, a compromise agreement was made. The wife gets half and then her half will go
back to the kids upon her death. Wife 2 agreed to such. The relatives of wife 2 questioned such as an
agreement to future inheritance which by law is void.
 SC Held: that what wife 2 compromised where her own shares that she rightfully received.
 Example of future inheritance
Henry C --------------- Big Boy such becomes a future inheritance and is VOID
Worth $6 Billion can inherit $1 Billion
Takes out a loan based on the $1 Billion
he can inherit for 10M a year ₊ 5% Interest
 Art. 781 (relate to Art 440 “accrue”)

 Under Art. 440, the accession follows the principal.
 Succession is a mode of acquisition, once you acquire the property you own such, and with it its’ fruits as an
owner.
 Which is why you file the fruits not as an amended estate tax but rather as part of your
income tax return.
 Art 781 has a purpose nonetheless
 For 1) Taxes & 2) for the creditors
Objects Meaning they cannot claim the fruits unless the creditors are paid
 As per Atty. Sebastian: “is it a stupid provision? NO stupid lang ang pagsulat”
 Art. 793 (Property acquired after making the will)
5
 As per Atty. Sebastian: Para no problem: “if any other property not listed to be divided this way”
 The Difference between Art 781 and Art 793.
781 793
As to application No other application except to ensure Is to still give the testator the
payment of debt opportunity to decide
When it takes place After the opening of Succession Refers to properties gain after making the
will during the testator’s lifetime
Testatrix Dead Alive
 In relation to Art 793, application

 How can you still distribute the totality of your estate?
 Institution of heirs ---- fractional parts
 Requests (Legacy or Devise) – Specific personal prop or specific real prop respectively
 Characteristics of a valid will (usual bar question)

1. Purely Personal – What can be and cannot be delegated; (the what, the who, and the
determination of the portions to give are dispositions which cannot be delegated;
2. Mortis Causa;
3. Dispositive of Properties – must dispose of P&R, if not it is not a valid will;
4. Ambulatory – it is an act of liberality, thus it can be revocable any time;
5. Free Act – done without duress;
 Under Obligations and Contracts what are the essential requisites for a valid contract
(a) Consent - characteristics of a valid consent
1. FREE
a. There is no undue influence (Art. 1337)
b. There is no violence (Art. 1335)
c. There is no intimidation (Art. 1335)
2. INTELIGENCE; and All required for consent
a. There is no mistake (Art. 1331) to be proper
3. SPONTANEOUS
a. There is no Fraud (Art. 1338)
(b) Subject; and
(c) Cause
6. Unilateral Act – there is only one person talking and what he wants is what should happen; as
compared to a contract which requires 2 or more for a meeting of the minds;
7. Formal – follows the formalities provided by the code in Art. 804-808 and Art 810;
8. Statutory Right – you can make a will only since the law allows you to do so.
 As per Atty. Sebastian: no need human rights and& crap daw to explain it.
6
 Art 785 (what can be and cannot be delegated)

 What can be delegated to a 3rd person is the (1) the distribution of specific property or sums of money that he
may leave in general to specified classes or causes and also (2) the designation of the persons, institutions or
establishments to which such property or sums are to be given or applied.
 If a 3rd person is disqualified, since he is not a reputable person, the “trinity of corruption” will take his
place.
 Municipal Mayor, Municipal Judge of the same Municipality & the Municipal Treasurer.
 Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon (Testamentary Preference)

 The testatrix purposely divided her property so that there can be no co-ownership, thus no project
partition was done. The heirs fought since the distribution was not even. The estate was assessed at 1.8M
and what was given to Marina was 1,148,000.00, thus the legitimes of the other 7 were affected. Marina
wanted to pay-off missing amounts to complete the legitimes of her siblings, other heirs wanted more,
SC agreed with Marina.
 SC said, Control of disposition, the testator wanted to favour one of the heirs over the others, who are we to
question such, the testamentary preference of the testatrix must be preserved, furthermore, Art. 906 to
add to what is missing in the legitime.
 Art. 789 (Ambiguities)

 Patent Ambiguity (Apparent) – by reading the will, you see the problem;
 Latent Ambiguity (Non-Apparent) – it is in the execution of the will that you will then see the problem.
 How do you cure the ambiguity
 Rule 130 sec. 9 of the Rules of Court; “Parole Evidence Rule”
 What is written in the agreement of the parties cannot be over-tuned by oral proclamation.
 There are exemptions
 Extrinsic Evidences to such
 Thus we must first look into the will in its totality, then when there is no chance to resolve such, we go
to extrinsic evidence (intention first)
 What is extrinsic evidence
 All kinds of evidence except oral declarations or testimonies of the testator.
 Why no oral testimonies are allowed
 Testatrix cannot refute such, being dead – (Dead man’s statute rule in Evidence)
 Testate Estate of Adruna Maloto v. CA (Extrinsic Evidence)

 Made a will but later got angry with the heirs, had the will burned by the maid, in doing so the requisites for
revoking a will by burning was not met, thus no actual revocation; thus a working
7
draft of the said will submitted by the Atty. for probate was accepted as extrinsic evidence of the said will.
 Villafor v. Juico
 Don Nicholas left his properties to Fausta with a condition that if she would ever remarry after his death, the
said properties would go to Leonor. Fausta on her part never remarried and when she died left everything
to Juico (the supposed lover).
 Leonor laid claim to the properties to which Juico contended that when the properties were transferred to
Fausta she became absolute owner and had the right to do whatever she pleased with the said properties
 SC: what she got was a usufruct being what she got was the right to use and possess and not naked title, if
Nicholas wanted to give it to Fausta, he could have done so without conditions, thus the interpretation
that is to be followed is what gives effect.
 What you look for in a will in terms of validity.
Extrinsic (as to FORM) – form, capacity, due execution

WILL
Intrinsic (as to SUBSTANCE) – substantive provision
Probate only looks at the extrinsic

Form
1) Time – Law in place (what the law is) at the time of the execution of the will.
2) Place – Philippine law or Law of where your located
Substance
1) Time – What the law is at the time of death
2) Place – National Law.
 Bellis v Bellis (Law in play – making of the will vs. when the testatrix died)
 The formal validity of a will depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time of execution of
the will. On the other hand the substantive validity of the dispositions therein are governed by the laws in
force at the time of death of the testator.
 Who can write a will?

 Natural person, 18 years of age and of sound mind
 Requisites for sound mind:
1) He knows the nature of his estate; though because of Art
2) Proper objects of his bounty (knows who is going to get such); and 799 not necessary req
3) The character of the testamentary act anymore (need not In
perfect mental health)
8
 De Guzman v. Intestate of Franciso Benitez

 The important factor here is that the medical records of the testator influenced the factual findings of
the probate court.
 Lee v. Tambago ( 3 fold objective of the formalities of a will)
 Lee accused Tambago of notarizing the will without the formalities of law being followed. Lee claims that
there is no actual will, since no residence certificate was obtained, no copy of the will can be found in the
archive and the signatures of the witnesses may be forged.
 Residence Certificate use to be a valid form of identification, under new law gov’t id with picture
is needed. (pero TIN is allowed, WTF?)
 The Atty. Herein denied such but by blanket denial (Thus under RoC becomes admission)
 SC agreed with Lee and gave the 3 FOLD DOCTRINE OF THE FORMALITIES OF A WILL as provided, which
are as follows:
1) To close the door on fraud;
2) To prevent substitution of pages; and
3) To guaranty the will’s authenticity.
 Why do we have so many stringent rules for succession that are not applied in other form of documents
such as contracts?
 Lesson: “A will is actually a dead man speaking to us”, since the testatrix is dead he cannot
challenge authenticity duh!
 As per Atty. Sebastian there are 2 things wrong with the decision
1) The only actual issue in the case was if the will was actually notarized, Justice Corona did not answer the
said question instead he gave out a definition of a will and the requirements of such. What is the
relation to the issue? I don’t know but thanks for the 3 fold objective that came from interpreting such.
2) Tanga! How can anyone say that as a rule, if there is no residence certificate and was written in
the acknowledgement was the testatrix old residence certificate, the will is not valid? The purpose of a
residence certificate is for identification of those who are witnesses in front of the notary only?
Magisip-isip naman sila.
Atty. herein should have been disbarred, bobo kasi!
 Definition of “acknowledgement” before a notary public

 Jurat – sworn statement/ affidavits This is what the notary should
 Acknowledgement – Deed/ Contracts attach or affix.
 Thus must be remembered a will is not a statement but rather a deed (disposition of prop)
 Suroza v Honrado (language must be understood)

 The opening paragraph of the will it was stated in English that the testator understood English but in the
concluding paragraph it stated the will was read and translated to Filipino for the testatrix. This coupled
with the fact that she did not sign such will but rather thumb marked it, infers that she was actually
illiterate.
9
 Atty. Sebastian: The reason for the language or the dialect must be known to the testator is because of
the 3 fold rule held in Tambago. Because of the bad faith or fraud, how can you now be sure of its
authenticity? The judge here made a stupid decision, the heir lost out, thus only correct to go after him,
dapat ma disbar din toh, isa pa tong tanga!
 Reyes v. De Vidal ( Disputable presumption)

 Testatrix died and a will, there was no descendants or ascendants only sibling involved, where one got and
the other did not. Lower court ruled against the probate citing language not known to the testator, since there
was no admission that the testatrix knew the language in the will.
 SC: you do not need to state if the language is known to the testatrix since there is a disputable
presumption that they do in deed know.
 In the case at hand, first of all it should have been presumed that testator knew Spanish and the other
siblings who contest such, must now bare the burden of proof to show otherwise. But what really killed
this case was the fact the atty. was “bobo” submitting a letter that showed the testator had written such in
Spanish, who submits contrary evidences to your own claim?
 Balonan v. Abellana (for 3rd persons, where to put testators name)

 The will here in was written at the bottom Juan
Abello and not Anacelto Abellana who
happens to be the testator.
 The will is then denied probate since it was void
for not following Art 805; which requires that the
testator himself shall affix his signature or by
the writing of the testators name for a 3rd person.
 Atty. Sebastian: the reason for such is technical;
It is to clarify whose will it is or better said who
is the actual testator of the will (substantial compliance cannot apply herein); it does not matter who signed
such, what matters is the name of the testator, it can always be clarified as to who signed such anyway in
the attestation clause.
 Garcia v Lacuesta ( Don’t lie, admit mistakes)

 What was written in the will is simply his name. The problem came about in relation with the attestation
clause which said it was signed by the testator himself as accompanied to what was stated in the will under
the testator’s name, which said at the request of the testator. This created doubt if the testator did
actual sign such.
 Because of the doubt and “+” mark beside the name of the testator that is claimed to be his signature,
there can be no assumption of compliance.
 Atty. Sebastian: To better understand this case you have to look into historical aspects of such, which first in
the 40’s and 50’s people were more trustworthy thus it was accepted the “+” mark was a mark of an illiterate
and was accepted as their signature. Secondly the testator was not an
10
illiterate, the lawyer only claimed such to say there was no doubt, which is wrong; SC took it out on the
testator will being that the lawyer lied, so don’t lie, if you made a mistake admit it and they might show
favour upon you.
 Nera v. Rimando (Test of Presence)

 There was 2 rooms, a big room and a small room that could not
Accommodate everyone. Thus all but one of the witnesses were In the
small room with the testator. Thus a question if the third Witness
actually witness the execution of such will.
 SC: The test of presence does not ask whether they actually saw each
The others sign, but whether they might have seen each other sign; in the case at bar, though the 3rd
witness was in a separate room such in itself would not be necessarily the factor for the failure of the test, it
is that, coupled with the fact that there was a curtain that blocked his view that caused the failure of the test
of vision and proximity.
 It must be remembered a witness has 2 capacities: 1) to attest and 2) to subscribe; both of which must
be done in the presence of the testator, witnesses and of one another.
 Taboada v. Rosal (Attestation v. Subscription)

 There is a will which consist of 2 pages. The 1st page contained the entire testamentary disposition
which was signed at the bottom by the testatrix alone and by the 3 witnesses on the left margin. The 2nd page
contained the attestation clause and the acknowledgement.
 The Issue herein is the fact it must be subscribed at the bottom of the will.
 SC: The denial of probate was wrong and emphasized the difference of attestation and
subscription and their purpose as well.
 Attestation – consist in the witnessing of the execution of the will and to take note mentally
that the requisites of the will were followed.
 Subscription – is the signing of the paper for the purpose of identification.
 Icasiano v. Icasiano (good idea to keep a copy)

 One of the pages of the will was not signed by one of the witnesses, thus the will’s authenticity was
questioned.
 SC: There is a duplicate original which has all the signatures on all pages of the will, the said duplicate
cures the defect, furthermore this case was a mere oversight, witness could be correct in saying that she
might have lifted it and flipped 2 pages by accident.
 Carbon copy – used carbon completely
 Duplicate copy - the documents are copied but the signatures are all original
 Note: no computers pa back then!
 Atty. Sebastian: emphasized that “fraud and undue influence are mutual repugnant and exclude Each other,
their joining as grounds for opposing probate (as like in this case), shows an absence of definite evidence
against the validity of the will.”
 Art. 1338 – provides for what is fraud – voluntary act
11
 Art. 1337 – for undue influence – non-voluntary act

 In other words BOBO ang lawyer, can’t be the same.
 Cargo v. Cargo (Attestation Clause must be signed below)

 This case must be correlated with the Taboada case wherein The
placing of the signature was at question.
 The difference in this case is what is concerned was the
Attestation page, which serves a different purpose as
Explained in the Taboada case
 Since the signature was on the left margin and not at the Bottom of
the page, the will is void for the formalities of the Law must be
followed.
 Atty. Sebastian: An attestation is a statement of a witness that
If it is not signed, then it is as if there is no attestation for in turn there is no actual statement made
because of the lack of the signature.
 The purpose of an attestation clause is for the witness to admit that the formalities of law was without a
doubt followed.
 Lopez v Liboro ( 2 page sequence)

 The will consists of 2 pages. The first page for the
Dispositions, the other for the attestation
 Art. 805 requires that the pages be numbered, in order To
prevent pagination/substitution of the pages.
 It must be noted: this case was covered under the old Code,
which does not require a notary public but the
Reasoning is still sound nonetheless. (If there is a notary there will be other ways to redeem the said defects.
 As per the SC: the 1st page clearly follows the 2nd, thus there is no pagination and possible fraud was
avoided.
 Samaniego-Celada v. Abena (Attestation Clause is part of the will)

 It is being argued that the will consist of 2 pages but the attestation clause state 3 pages.
 Error in the attestation clause as to the number of pages is not necessarily fatal.
 Atty. Sebastian: Bobo! Don’t even know how this got to the SC or even why it is assumed the attestation
clause is not part of the will.
 There are really 3 pages, and without the 3 page which is the attestation clause, the will is void, so
duh kasama yan!
12
 Abada v. Abaja ( no. of witnesses need not be stated on the attestation clause)
 The facts are too long, the main point as to succession is even if the attestation clause does not state the
number of witnesses, if it can be seen in the will that there was 3, then there is substantial
compliance (seen in the sense 3 signed duh!)
 Lesson: Art 809 provides for the liberalization of interpretation in the Attestation Clause, thus it must be
remembered substantial compliance only happens in regards to the attestation clause.
 Reason for such: Is the fact that the Attestation Clause is not an act of the testator but of the witnesses
combined, thus should not fault the testator as much as possible.
 Azuela v. CA (Stupidity/bayaran)
 There are 3 defects in the case at bar that the court overlooked.
 1st the AC did not state the no. of pages – As per SC, cannot apply Taboada since in Taboada the number of
pages is stated elsewhere in the will, in this case it is not.
 2nd AC, witness did not sign at the bottom – Completely forgot or ignored the principle laid down in Cargo.
 3rd The notary attached a mere jurat instead of an acknowledgment – Atty. Sebastian, “ first of all “nilagdaan
ko at ninotario ko ngayon 10 ng Hunyo” is not even enough to be a jurat, being in a jurat there is a statement
the such is to “certify that such is the truth” as you know it.
 Furthermore, in the will everything was left to Felix the nephew who supposedly took care of the
decendent, despite the fact the decendent had a daughter in the states and the grandchildren,
meaning the will should have been set aside since the decendants were petirited. (thus obvious bayaran).
 De Ramos v. CA (credibility)
 Main issue is if the testimony of the 2 witnesses who opposes to what they have attested to, will be good
enough to deny probate of the will.
 Decision of the SC; Since the attestation clause is placed there to ensure that all formalities be complied
with and beyond such the lawyer was involved in every stage before passing it to another lawyer who
notarized such, both lawyers gain nothing, nor is there any showing of mischief on their part. – Relate
to function of notary.
 As per Atty. Sebastian, there was 2 problems:
 (1st) is the credibility of the 2 witnesses; and
 (2nd) Parole Evidence Rule – when the terms of an agreement (includes wills) have been reduced to
writing, it is considered as containing all terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties
and their successor in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of a written
agreement. (Rule 130 sec. 19 of the rules of court – there are exemption also).
 Garcia v. Gatchalan (Article 806 is a must)

 Art 806 must be followed, the will must be notarized before a notary public by the testator and instrumental
witnesses.
13
 This is to make sure the will is authentic but void for non-compliance.
 Cruz v. Villasor (Notary as a witness also – stupid if notarizes such)

 Issue here stems from the fact that one of the instrumental witnesses is also the notary who notarized the
will, thus there is a question now as to the fact of whether there was a lack of witnesses to the execution
of the will.
 Lesson: A notary cannot be a witness to what he is supposed to notarize himself.
 Atty. Sebastian: “Bobo, claro ng 806 notarized before the notary public; to notarize is an act of swearing
that such is the truth, how do swear under oath to yourself? Bobo talaga!” More so the function of a notary
public is to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements, in the said case such purpose was
defeated.
 Guerero v. Bihis (It is the responsibility of the testator to check the authority of the notary)
 The will was notarized in QC but the notary was commissioned only for Caloocan City.
 SC: the will is void despite the fact it could be authentic, for lack of authority of the notary to notarize such,
the testator should have checked the credentials.
 Atty. Sebastian: Mga tanga what part of “before a notary” don’t people understand, wag
magtamadtamad at puntahan na lang yung notario sa office niya to notarize.
 Gabucan v. Manta (Doc Stamps)

 Atty. Sebastian: Court should have just ordered the doc stamp requirement to be complied with instead of
denying probate
 Lesson: get doc stamps for what documents need doc stamps, mura lang naman yun!
-------------------------------------------- End Art 804 – 806 -----------------------------------------------------
 Art 807. (Deaf or Deaf-Mute Testator)

 If the testator be deaf, or deaf-mute, he must personally read the will, if able to do so; otherwise, he
shall designate two persons to read it and communicate to him, some practicable manner, and the
contents thereof.
 Art 808. (Blind Testator)

 If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing witnesses,
and again, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged.
 Garcia v. Vasquez (what is blind in the legal sense)

 The issue herein is to determine is whether or not the testator is blind for purposes of Art. 808.
 The witness said she saw the testator read the will silently but the doctor on the other hand testified that
because of her glaucoma she would not have been capable to read the will, despite being able to
relatively see things.
 … (lost portion)
14
 Alvarado v. Gaviola (Substantial Compliance – blind)

 Like the previous case, testator had glaucoma, SC ruled though that there was substantial compliance
despite the fact the provision of law as provided in Art 808 were not complied with, specifically the two
readings, 1 by a subscribing witness and by the notary; SC used Art 809. As basis for the substantial
compliance.
 Atty. Sebastian: Substantial compliance should only be in regards to the Attestation Clause, as
provided by Article 809.
 Article 1234 of the NCC (law on substantial compliance)
 As per Tolentino, The following are the requirements of substantial Compliance:
1. Attempt in good faith to apply such;
2. No wilful deviation;
3. Deviation must be slight; and
4. Deviation must be technical or unimportant.
 Atty. Sebastian comment: the ruling was most likely made because of the illegitimate son, to ensure that
he would not inherit just like the testator wanted; but the manner of how the SC did it was still wrong.
 Gil v. Murciano
 Art. 809 enunciates the doctrine of liberal interpretation; Absence of bad faith, forgery, fraud or undue
influence or other defects, such will not render the attestation clause invalid and if the will is in fact proven
to be executed and attested, substantial compliance will do.
 In the case at bar, it was not stated in the attestation clause if the testator signed in the presence of
the witness but was stated that such happened in the body of which, thus the SC allowed such under
substantial compliance.
 Caneda v. CA
 Affirmed the ruling in Gil v. Murciano but denied probate; the circumstances of the case play a vital part.
 The involves a reconstituted will that was obtained from the records of appeal (from the CA), since the
original was lost due to the war. SC did not allow such due to the lack of the original copy of the will.
 Roxas v. De Jesus (Holographic will and the date requirement)

 The holographic will is being questioned in the case since what was written in the said will was “FEB/61’” as
the date instead of the required format which is “MM/DD/YR”, as stated by the old code. The said will was
also in a form of a letter to her children.
 Atty. Sebastian: The decision is correct pero tang-ina substantial compliance ulit!
 Why is the date important?
1. To check if there is testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will;
2. Testamentary Capacity referring to the fact testator is at least 18 years of age and is
with sound mind.
15
3. Thus depending on the situation of the testator the year alone will do.
 Labrador v CA (Position of the date)

 The case at bar involves a holographic will that is not dated specifically but is nonetheless the date can be
found in the body of the will in the 2nd page.
 Atty. Sebastian: Article 810 does not in any case prescribe where the date should be, thus it is for all
extensive purpose allowed.
 The Secrecy of the holographic will is allowed
 Atty. Sebastian: the purpose of the holographic will or any will is to create preferences, such
preferences makes it understandable to want to keep the will secret. “para yung mga ibang
membro ng pamilya ninyo hindi kayo gagaguhin kasi maskonti yung bibigay ninyo sa nila”.
 Gan v. Yap (Need the will itself)

 The holographic will was lost; it was claimed that 5 people had read it and the testator wrote it in secrecy
since she was afraid of her husband.
 SC: The will itself must be submitted in order that Article 810 be considered complied with, it is needed to
check the genuiness of the hand writing, without such, its genuiness cannot be established.
 Atty. Sebastian: Mga Gago talaga, rehearsed pa yung testimony ng 5, parang they tried to memorize
everything. Lesson ditto always submit the will for probate.
 Side comment: Decision cited photostatic copy, such are not valid anymore, still need the original
now.
 Rodelas v. Aranza (Photocopy not allowed and why)

 In this case the holographic will was also lost.
 SC cited in footnote 8 of the Azola case which said a machine copy should be allowed, thus the SC sent the
case back to the trial court.
 Atty. Sebastian: Still need the will itself to prove authenticity. How do you prove authenticity?
 With the handwriting in the original copy
 What do you look for in the original?
1. The strokes;
2. The pressure applied to the document; and
3. Speed applied in writing such.
- Such can only be seen in the original, not in the photocopy!
 Action – there is a plaintiff and a defendant, where the results will declare one or the either the winner of
the case.
 Special Proceeding – There is no plaintiff and defendant here instead what you try to establish here is the
existence of a right, fact or status; thus there is no winner necessarily;
16
 Atty. Sebastian: The Rodelas decision is WRONG!!! They did not have to disturb the principle laid down in Gan
v. Yap; furthermore such was a special proceeding, they didn’t have to decide the way they did to make a
winner, mga bobo!
 Azola v. Singson (contested Art. 811 of the 3 witness rule making such DIRECTORY only)
 Art. 811 is clear, if the holographic will is contested 3 witnesses must be presented but if uncontested
only one is required. The issue in the case is whether the 3 witness rule directory or mandatory in nature.
 Atty. Sebastian: The great JBL Reyes took pains to properly explain why the rule is DIRECTORY, pointing
out that is not as to the quantity of witnesses but rather the quality of the witness that is important. What
makes or breaks such is the credibility of the witness. Thus if all but one of the witnesses died, it would still
be enough provided that the remaining witness is credible.
 Codoy v. Calugay (contested Art. 811 of the 3 witness rule making such MANDATORY only)
 In this case there 6 witnesses that were presented, all of which were not credible at all, thus the SC correctly
ruled that it should be denied.
 Atty. Sebastian: The Justice who decided the case, Justice Pardo whose background in law comes
from the fact he served in COMMELEC (kaya mahina sa civil law), made an error in the manner of how the
case was decided. Pardo basically made the 3 witness rule mandatory based on the word “shall”. His
reasoning as compared to JBL Reyes in the Azola is out classed (mahina talaga yan).
 Further comment: The rule or doctrine of law on how the SC is to overturn a previous decision, is that it
must be En Banc, which in the case at bar did not happen, division lang siya, bobo talaga ba!
 Rivera v. IAC ( Joke time lang case)

 This was an attempt to look into the 3 witness rule once again but was aborted when it was found out the
said illegitimate child was actually an imposter.
 Probate is for Testamentary Succession

 There are 2 parts that take place in a testamentary succession.
 Part 1 – Probate Proper (this and only this happens in a probate court proceeding)
 Must satisfy the following
I. Capacity – which checks if the testator was 1stof proper Age and 2nd of sound mind.
II. Formalities As to Notarial Wills – Art 804-806
As to Holographic Wills Art. 810
III. Credibility – as to witnesses and documents
IV. Free Will
 If all is satisfied, then the court shall issue a probate order which in turn conclusively proves
(items I-IV).
17
 Note: all Items must be present in the will.

 Note: a probate order is a FINAL order, thus the remedy for such will never be certiorari but instead
appeal.
 Part 2 – Partition
 Refers to the Substantive Portion of the will.
 Kalaw v. Relova ( must sign changes to a holographic will)

 Art 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the testator must
authenticate the same by his full signature. (Note: only for holographic wills).
 In the case at bar, testator wrote a will where Rosa was an heir but later due to rumour mongering
which did not put the testator the testator at ease, the testator decided to cross her name off and write
above it Gregorio instead.
Problem herein was that there was no signature as to The
correction as provided for in Art 814.
 There is no question that the hand writing is authentic, The
issue here is whether or not Rosa will get the Inheritance
since the alteration to the will was
Not signed by the testator.
 SC ruled: Rosa cannot inherit based on the rules on
Revocation (Article 830) and Gregorio cannot inherit Based
on Article 814.
 Ajero v. CA
 Ajero upholds the proposition that article 813 & 814 do not form part of the requisites for formal or
extrinsic validity of the holographic will, thus failure on the part of the testator to observe the
requirements of Art. 813 & 814 will not justify the disallowance of the will, but relevant provisions may
be disallowed
 Proof is not appropriate in Part 1 (Probate proper), where only the 4 are looked into.
 VDA. De Perez v. Tolete

 What was probated abroad under foreign law, does not automatically become accepted here. Proof stated
in Art. 816 is required.
 Joint Will
 A joint will is where 2 or more people make a will in a single instrument.
 Such will is VOID, since the characteristic of the will being purely personal is violated.
 Why? You run the risk where one spouse over powers the other spouse with undue influence
if allowed.
18
 Art. 819. Wills, prohibited by the proceeding article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid
in the Philippines even though authorized by the laws of the country where they may have been executed.
 Art. 16 of the New Civil Code. … however, intestate and testamentary succession… and to the amount
of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity… shall be regulated by National law
 Property – Lex Situs – law of the place where the thing is found.
 Exception for testamentary and/or intestate succession
 Order of succession
 Amount of Successional Rights National laws of the decendent; in
 Intrinsic Validity of testamentary provisions re to this lex celebrasionis shall yield.
 De La Cerna v. Rebaca (Joint will that got through)

 A joint will of the spouse was accepted and probated, no one challenged such, thus partition was and it
became final and executory.
 When it was submitted again the 2nd time around when the wife died for the estate of said wife the court
ruled that such will is null and void for being a joint will.
 SC, the final judgement in the 1939 (the first case) an error in judgement as it is, has obtained finality thus
cannot be disturbed, but said error does not bind the court on account of the other spouse (the wife).
 Atty. Sebastian: This will had to be resubmitted since the wife died under the New Civil Code, but if it was
somehow allowed to go through now (despite its illegality but like the situation of the husband), you can
have both probated at the same time, since the new code allows probate ante mortem, which the old
code did not.
 Qualifications of a witness to a notarial will

1. Of sound mind; For capacity and the age also for showing
2. At least 18 years of age; one’s maturity
3. Must not be blind, deaf or dumb;
4. Must be able to read and write; To help the proceeding move faster and
5. Must be domiciled in the Philippines; for better witnesses
6. Must not have been convicted of falsification
of a document, perjury or false testimony; Credibility
7. A witness who is NOT a notary at the same time Cruz v. Villasor
 Relate such to the 3 credible witness (Art. 805) and Competent Witness (Art. 820 and 821)
 Gonzales v. CA (Credibility is determined by the court)

 The witnesses were objected despite their meeting the criteria of Art. 820 & 821, the argument is that they
might be competent but they are not credible.
19
 SC ruled, credibility does not need to be proved by the witnesses; in fact that is the task of the trial court to
determine such, what may be proved is the competence (can be inferred also)
 Sir: ang desperado naman yung atty. masaya siya! Another example of a case that should have never gone
all the way to the Supreme Court.
 Article 823. What happens when the witness is a beneficiary in the will as well?
 When the witness is also a beneficiary, he will remain a valid witness but the provision on the beneficiary
is void.
 Void as to the witness himself, his spouse, ascendants and descendants, and anyone claiming
under such person and ss, asc &dsc.
 Why? The law considers it as an attempt to bribe the witness, the witness may be tempted to do whatever to
get the will to pass probate.
 Exception: when there are 3 other witnesses not including him in the 3. (4 or more duh!)
 Article 1027 ¶4 (Those who are incapable of succeeding)

 … Any attesting witness … spouse, parents or children or anyone claiming under such witness, spouse,
parent or children.
 It does not provide for an Exemption (conflicting laws)
 Art. 1027 ¶ 4 is an attack on one’s capacity
 Art. 823 is an attack on the legacy or devise it self
 Atty. Sebastian: I am of the opinion the incapacity is absolute but there is still no decision on such, so
masaya kayo ulet!
 Article 824.
 When the creditor is a beneficiary also, it is allowed for him to be a witness to the will
 Atty. Sebastian: The reason for such is that the interest is not due, the fact the debt is secured through the
debtor’s estate, thus no interest. (He will get what is his no matter what, yun lang);
 BUT it must be under a written stipulation, if it is not stipulated, tantamount to a donation., then it
cannot proceed anymore
 (Have no Idea what is being discussed here, sorry had too much to drink)
 Doctrine of Incorporation by Reference

 The requisites as provided by Art. 827 are as follows:
1) The document or paper referred to in the will must be in existence at the time of the execution
of the will;
2) The will must clearly describe and identify the same, stating among others the number of pages
thereof;
3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the document or paper referred therein; and
4) It must be signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and every page, except in cases of
voluminous books of accounts or inventories.
20
5) Atty. Sebastian’s example: Yung mga bumbay, the 5/6

 Everything he lent is/are account receivables (AR), if there are 1,300 customers with their own
AR’s, merely use the article to include the listahan into the will.
------------------------------------------ MIDTERMS COVERAGE END-----------------------------------------
 Revocation
 Testamentary capacity is required and it must be ambulatory

 Why must it be ambulatory? Making a will is an act of liberality and cannot be given effect until death, thus
he should get to choose to keep or remove some from the will.
 How to Revoke a Will
 FIRST, By Implication of Law – needs a statutory provision (THERE ARE ONLY 7)

1) Art 936. Revoked if testator brings action for payment of debts (READ!); must connect with Art
935 where:
 Inherit a “legacy of credit” – Accounts receivable
 “legacy of remission” – Condonation of debt
2) Art 957. Provides 3 effects which make legacies and devises ineffective:
I. Change of form of the subject (ex: Flour was left as a legacy but it was later made into
bread;
II. Change of title (ex: A legacy of a car was stated but later sold) – exception though as
to such is through the right of repurchase
III. Specific property is totally lost (ex: there was a legacy of a car than ondoy
happened)
3) Art 1032. Incapable of succession by reason of unworthiness (¶ 4 does not apply since there is
no law)
4) Art 43 ¶5. Spouse who contracted a subsequent marriage in bad faith, cannot inherit from the
innocent spouse – relate to Art 42- reappearance of absent spouse.
5) Art 44. Where both spouse of subsequent marriages acted in bad faith – Marriage is void, thus
donations and testamentary dispositions made in favour of the other are revoked by operation
of law.
6) Art 50. (Must be connected with ¶ 2,3,4 & 5 of Article 43 and Article 44) Splitting of
properties, legitimes and alike.
7) Art 63 ¶ 4. Legal separation, offending spouse cannot inherit from the innocent spouse.
 SECOND, By subsequent will or codicil (can be done in 2 ways)

1) Implied Revocation
 Example:
2001------ Will 1 made ------- Institutes A as universal heir 2011--
---- Will 2 made ------- Institutes B as universal heir
21
-
Being there is no reconciliation based on the facts, thus the latter expression
of intent is given effect and the former is revoked
2) Express Revocation
 Example:
2001 --- Will 1 made ------ Institutes A as universal heir
2011 --- Will 2 made ------ States “I revoke 2001 will; all to B”
- The 2nd will must be intrinsically valid (as to form); If the 2nd will is denied probate
the 1st will can be submitted for probate (Theory of dependent relative
revocation)
- Requirements: A) it must be express and B) revocatory will must be valid.
o The difference of the 2, in regards to a 3rd subsequent will
- Implied
2012 – Will 3 made --- States “I revoke will 2”
 such will make will 1 operative again (it is revived)
- Express
2012 --- Will 3 made --- States “I revoke will 2”
 Despite what is stated will 1 is not revived, since will 2 in its revocating
clause expressly revokes will 1 (thus cannot be revived).
 Third, Overt Acts
o Requisites for Overt acts ( as provided in the Adriana Maloto Case)
I. Intent to revoke;
II. Testamentary Capacity;
III. Preformed the overt act which is authorized by law; and
IV. Substantive completion.
o What are the overt acts mentioned by the codal? (only 4) 1) Burning, 2) tearing, 3) cancelling,
or 4) obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it.
o Atty. Sebastian: Is “scissoring” allowed? In a 1950’s case the tribunal supremo or the Spanish
supreme court said yes but no case yet in the RP
o Is “pouring acid” the same as burning, since the subjective phase is complied with? NO, it should
only be the four stated acts, but lucky for you there is no authority on it yet.
o Subjective phase – depends on the state of mind of the testator.
 Doctrine of Republication (To make the will valid) (2 ways to republish)

 1st, void as to form (Art. 804-806, 807 & 808 and 810)
 Remedy: Redo it again correctly the next time around or for holographic wills rewrite the said
will; ONLY IF IT IS VOID
 2 , Lost its validity – revoked
nd
 Remedy: Execute a codicil;

“I revive the (no. of pages) will which was revoked on (date)” – By mere reference.
22
 Art 832.
2001 --- A is the universal heir
2011--- “I revoke will 1, all to B”
But B repudiates.
 What Article 832 says, A cannot get such on the count of B’s repudiation or incapacity, will stays in effect.
 Exception: If A is also an intestate heir, get from there.
 Revocation based on False Cause

 There is a revoking will - what you do is deny such, show that the testator falsely known such, to which if he
knew the truth he would not have done such
 This is hard to do because of the parole evidence rule
- Thus it is important that the 2nd will state the reason for revocation.
 But in overt acts, no parole evidence rule unlike another will or codicil, parole evidence is a must.
 Cannot rely on oral testimony – Dean Man’s Statute
 Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (The need to probate a will)

 There was a will, and following such will there was an inheritance and partition wherein the heir took
possession of what they were given under the will but there was no probate the happened.
 The issue is if a will not submitted to probate would support a claim of ownership and get the title for the
property.
 Article 838 requires probate.
 Atty. Sebastian: Palpak yung pagkusulat ng decision. J. Ynares – Santiago attacked the issue incorrectly
going after the right to dispose in the case forgetting the fact the testator here was still alive. Bobo.
 Heirs of Rosendo Lasam v Umengan

 It emphasizes the necessity of probate, without which, a purported will cannot be the source of any right and
could not be relied upon to establish the right of possession.
Turingan H Lasaw
(4 Children) (2 Children)
Niece, Vicenta; claims 4/6 Claim that father willed them all
Since she bought out the other 3 heirs
 Vicenta won; no probate of the will (since it was lacking formalities) plus she had a deed of donation
and 3 deeds of sale with her.
23
 Gallanosa v. Arcangel
 In the case at bar there was a probate order which was final.
 In a probate proceeding – probate is limited to testamentary capacity and due execution of the will;
thus final on 3 things 1. Testamentary capacity, 2. Formalities of the will; and
3. Identity; making these 3 now uncontestable.
 Wanted to annul the will and reopen probate.
 Law does not allow to reopen probate proceedings and there is no such thing as annulment of the will.
 Maninang v. CA (exception to the exception – Nuguid)

 Testator Clemensia made a holographic will, in which she left everything to Solidad Maninang & husband
Pamping and she did not recognize Bernardo as her adopted child.
 Bernardo claims he was peterited thus the will is null & void and the will cannot go to probate while the
contention of Maninang is that probate looks only into the extrinsic validity thus there is no basis for
Bernardo’s claim to stop probate and moreover he was also disinherited.
 Bernardo correctly cited the case of Nuguid v. Nuguid and Balanay v. Martinez which allowed the court to
delve into intrinsic matters before determining the extrinsic matters when the situation calls for such.
 SC in this case said the will should not be denied on dubious grounds as a matter of public interest, if
not what would be the point of having a probate proceeding to begin with.
 Atty. Sebastian: the GR is probate is only extrinsic; exception to the rule – Nuguid v. Nuguid; exception to
the exception Maninang v. CA.
 Before the family code – PD 603 adoption, legitimacy was based on blood, thus cannot confer such to an
adopted child.
 SIDE NOTE, SC DIFFERENTIATED PETERITION FROM DISINHERITANCE.
 Petrition – consists of the omission by the testator in the will of one of the forced heirs, whose
effect shall anull the institution of heirs in Toto with exception to devices and legacies.
 Disinheritance - is a testamentary disposition depriving a compulsory heir of his share, the effect
of such; In the case of INEFFECTIVE DISINHERITANCE shall anull the institution of heirs but only
as far as it prejudices the disinherited heir
 Pastor Jr. v. CA (Title of ownership in probate proceedings)

 Atty. Sebastian: This a case where corruption in the judiciary is obvious.
 Spanish father, Alvaro Pastor, left to his illegitimate child, Quemada, 30% of a mining claim. Originally
the mining claim was held by Pastor and two others.
 What happened here was that the process was not followed. The holographic will was probated, wherein the
judge gave 30% to Quemada but did not resolve anything else after such and even worse the court made
Quemada was made administrator. (gago yung judge)
24
 The importance of the case is the jurisdiction of a probate court to determine the issue of ownership.
 G.R.: The court should not rule on ownership but rather only extrinsic validity only of the will itself.
 Exception: For the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should not be
included in the inventory of the estate properties, the probate court may pass upon the title
thereto, but such determination is provisional and not conclusive and is subject to the final
decision in a separate action to resolve title.
 Quasha & Nolasco Law Office v. LCN Construction Corp. (Advance distribution and bond)
 Sec. 2 of Rule 109 of the Rules of Court – Advance distribution of the property is allowed when the court
deems it proper and just, permit that such part of the estate as may not be affected by the controversy or upon
appeal be distributed among the heirs, upon compliance of Rule 90 of the Rules of Court.
 Section 1 of Rule 90 of the Rules of Court – Distribution is allowed, provided they give a bond to be set by the
court, conditioned for payment of said obligation when the court directs such.
 Jimenez v. IAC
 The probate court as a rule cannot pass with finality on issues affecting ownership of the property;
the case at bar provides though that the said limitation applies to proceedings in intestacy also.
 The intestate court can award such provisionally and the parties are not bound be res judicata to institute a
separate and subsequent independent action on the matter.
 Ozaeta v. Cuartero (undue influence must be substantiated)

 The case is in regard to the estate of Palanca. Manuel Roxas was the administrator of the estate but was
later replaced by Ozaeta, who is rumoured to have resigned early from the CA to become the
administrator of such.
 The validity of the will was challenged, there was a claim that undue influence on the part of one of the
heirs (Rosa) took place. The presence of undue influence being a vice of consent should make the will
void.
 SC – The allegation of undue influence must be substantiated by competent evidence of such. Mere
inferences resulting from the circumstance will not suffice, especially when the will was attended by
respectable members of the bar (Roxas and Ozaeta).
 Moreover, after living with Rosa, he left and resided elsewhere for 5 years, giving the decedent time to
rethink the will without the said influence. Thus “even if there was undue pressure and influence to be
proved, the contents of the will would have been deemed ratified, if having be given ample opportunity
to revoke the same”.
 Undue pressure and influence is a frame of mind, if such stops, he can now act on his own and
do as he pleases.
25
 Coso v. Fernandez (mere influence is NOT enough)

 Mere influence is not sufficient to invalidate a will. The influence must overpower and subjugate the mind of
the testator so as to destroy his free agency and make him express the will of another, rather than his
own.
 Atty. Sebastian: SC made a mistake in giving the mistress a portion.
 Pascual v. De la Cruz (repugnant of one another) – skipped case

 Twin grounds were alleged FIRST was undue influence and the SECOND was fraud, the court here only
considered the undue influence which fell short of the standard thus the will was allowed probate.
 Pick one, cannot have both grounds since one ground is repugnant of the other ground herein.
 Ortega v. Valmonte – skipped case

 Roberts v. Leonidas – skipped case
 Nepomuceno v. CA (Intrinsic validity, exemption)

 While the general rule is that the probate court’s area of inquiry is limited to the extrinsic validity of the
will, practical considerations may compel the probate court to pass upon matters of intrinsic validity, where a
testamentary provision is void on its face, probate court may pass upon such provision for the purpose of
proving the nullity of such.
 Dorotheo v. CA
 The case distinguishes between the extrinsic and intrinsic validity of the will. It holds that the admission of
a will to probate does not necessarily mean the provisions of the will can be given effect. Even as the
probate order is issued, it is not a guaranty that the testamentary dispositions is valid. Extrinsic is
one thing, intrinsic is another.
 Article 839, 3 grounds for disallowing the will.

 First. Lack of capacity;
 Second. Lack of formalities;
 Third. Vice of consent (force, duress, fear or threats and fraud)
 Barreto case (not assigned) – not wrong to influence, what is wrong is undue influence;
pressure alone or influence alone is not enough to invalidate the will.
 Institution of heirs, 2 ways to distribute

 Institution – The beneficiary is the heir – to receive an aliquot part and not specific property.
 Bequest – Beneficiary is Devisee who is to receive a specific real property
Legatee who is to receive a specific personal property.
 Requisites of the institution of heirs

a) It is extrinsically valid (3);
26
b) Dispositions are intrinsically valid;

c) No vice of consent in making the institution;
d) The institution of heir is made personally; and
e) The institution of heir is specifically named of identifiable
 Art 886 (Preserves the legitime for the compulsory heirs)

 Atty. Sebastian: This is primitive, most countries do not this.
 How do you institute an heir?
 State the name or make him/her identifiable
 Objective is to specify a person
 Must be born or conceived when testator dies
 Since succession opens from the moment of death, the entitlement only begins then.
 Can you institute an unknown person?
 Yes, provided it is unknown but certain later.
 How is the sharing?
 Institutes a, b & c to the entire estate worth 150K
 Heirs Shares Total
A 1/3 50K
B 1/3 50K As willed by the testator
C 1/3 50K
Total: 150k
 What is A is a legitimate heir?
 Heirs Shares Total
A +25 75K Atty.: this is a suggestion, in order to B
-12.5 35.5K allow as much as possible the will
C -12.5 35.5K of the testator to apply.
Since the 50K each is what the testator wants, it should be first done, since
this is his wish and it should be respected. THEN we get a total of 25K from B &
C equally to complete the legitime.
This applies only if it is not stated that the legitime is to be paid separately, thus if asked in the bar it
depends on the question.
 If the testator institutes brothers and sisters where some are full and others are half-blood?
 Article 848, they are inherently equal unless provided otherwise.
 Article 1006 for intestacy, full blood gets double the share of the half-blood (2:1)
 Article 849. (When the testator calls to the succession a person and his children, they are deemed
to have been instituted simultaneously)
 Ex: “Toto and his children” and there are 6 children, they acquire it together.
27
 Thus, if the estate is 240K it will be 7 ÷ 240 = 34.2 each

 This article was made if not only Toto would acquire such – which would be generally void unless
under Art. 863.
 False Cause
 GR: gratuitous transmission of property based on a false cause does not make such transmission void, thus
just simple ignore such.
 Exception: if it shown that the testator would not have done such transmission if he had known that such
was false.
 2 things to remember
a) The cause must be stated; and
b) You are limited to the parole evidence rule and the dead man statute rule.
 Austria v. Reyes (False Causes)

 Establishes the rule on false causes, which are as follows:
1. Disregard such, unless can be proven testator would not give such if he knew the truth.
2. Check if the cause is stated
a. If not disregard.
b. If it is, is there substantial evidence of such; if there is none disregard it will be classified as
inference and conjectures only.
 Preference on testamentary over intestate succession.

 The migration to intestate creates vacancies.
 Remember DRIP
 D – Disinheritance (controlled by the testator)
 R - Repudiation
 I – Incapacity not controlled by the testator
 P – Predecease
 Remedies
 (1) Substitution - an act controlled by the testator – limitation: no legitime
 (2) Repudiation – limitation: The heir of the heir who repudiates has no right of representation.
 (3) Accreation – Inherent and taken from the free portion (only when these 3 cannot take place do we go
intestate.
 Other Theories
 Paras – ISRAI
 I – Institution, S – Substitution (if not appropriate), R – Representation (if not appropriate), A –
Accreation, and still cannot be I – Intestate.
 Puno – The theory of Paras is good but in complete since there are time you do not need to go to SRA in
ISRAI which is in cases of P – Peterition, and R – Reserva Troncal.
28
 Thus PRISRAI
 Atty. Sebastian – it is still in complete. PRISRAIRA (not sure of my notes is r is for representation again
and A for accreation again, must research)
 Article 851 & 852

 Are examples of vacancies caused not by DRIP but rather failure in math
 Para sa mga tanga sa math.
 Article 851 (example)

 Given:
a. Total estate – 150K
b. Will states no Compulsory heirs
c. Institutes X – ½, Y – 1/3 and Z – 30K
 Numbers Equivalent:
X – 1/2 of 150 = 75K Does not match the estate of 150K
Y – 1/3 of 150 = 50K and cannot subtract 5 to make 150K
Z – 30K = 30K Thus share must be adjusted.
Total = 155K
 Formula to adjust the share

(Total inheritance x share of heir) ÷ Total distribution
X - = 72.5
Y - = 48.3 Total = 149.82
Z- = 29.02
 Another Example – same given but now X – ¼ and Y – ¼

X – ¼ = 37,500 45K missing, cannot just add the said amount.
Y – ¼ = 37,500 must apply the same formula to
Z– 30K increase the shares.
Total = 105,000
X – (150,000 x 37,500) ÷ 105,000 = 53, 571.42
Y – (150,000 x 37,500) ÷ 105,000 = 53, 571.42
Z – (150,000 x 30,000) ÷ 105,000 = 42, 857.14
Total = 149,999.94
 Peterition
 The Philippines is the only country that does legitime (California does also but not a country).
 This is made effective through Article 906, 854 and 1061 of the Civil Code, all of which aims to protect the
legitime.
29
 Article 906 – add is missing

 Article 854 – peterition
 Article 1061- collation
 Requisites of Peterition
(1) There is total omission (2) of a Compulsory Heir (3) in the direct line and (4) he/she must be alive or
conceived at the time of death.
 Reyes v. Barreto – Datu (What is meant by total omission for peterition)

 In the case, he received something thus, 906 is the correct article to apply.
 Total omission requires
1. Heir who was excluded got nothing by will;
2. Gets nothing by intestacy (free portion fits);
3. Nothing by way of advances – like donations (as per NCC every donation is considered an
advance)
4. Support but must distinguish from FC and NCC, thus must distinguish between support and gift,
since gift can stop peterition.
 Article 856 (there are only 3 compulsory heirs)

1. Descendants Legitimate
Illegitimate
Adopted
2. Ascendants Grandparent
Parent
3. Spouses
 Balanay v. Martines & Nuguid v. Nuguid

 Heir must be alive to be peterited, since there is no chance to inherit if you are dead, thus when succession
opens he must be present.
 Conceived child is deemed born (300 days? And Art.41, access required)
 Nuguid v Nuguid (exception to the extrinsic validity)

 While Article 854 annuls merely the institution of heirs, the court is justified in declaring the entire will void
if the only testamentary disposition in the questioned will is the institution of the universal heir. In such a case,
the effect of nullification of the testamentary disposition would be the same as the nullification of the will
itself.
 Balanay v. Martinez (extrinsic first then substantive)
 Unless the nullity is patent on its face, the probate court should first pass upon the extrinsic validity of the
will itself before passing upon its substantive validity.
 In peterition you annul the institution of heirs completely.

 Thus heirs gone but legacies and devises remain, so long they do not prejudice the legitime.
30
 Aznar v. Duncan ( peterition and legacy and devise)

 Article 854 can no longer be claimed if the testator gave by way of will, a legacy or devise, thus not deemed
peterited.
 Additionally foreign law not proven so RP law applied (Art. 906 should be applied).
 Cayetano v. Leonidas (no peterition for a foreign testator)

 There is no peterition in case of a foreign testator who omits his/her compulsory heirs in the direct line.
 Seangio v. Reyes (disinheritance is a property disposition)
 Where the sole disposition of a purported will is the disinheritance of a compulsory heir, the
disinheritance is considered a property disposition.
 The failure of the testator to institute an heir or to even mention by name any of the compulsory heir,
per se, does not constitute peterition. Especially here in this case were the only compulsory heirs mentioned
as a witness.
 Acain v IAC
 Surviving spouse should not be peterited and adopted child also, as they were herein
 Atty. Sebastian:
 Intentionally omitted – the institution is void
 Invalid disinheritance – institution is not void, it only affects the legitime
 Peterition may also be accidental
 Seatwork
 Set of facts:
Net estate – 210
Heirs – A, B & C
who are legit kids X
– gets 80 by will Y -
gets 40 by will
Impairment of the legitime
 There are only 2 types of substitution, Simple and Fideicommisary Substitution.
 Simple Substitution
I. Brief – only has 1 substitute
II. Compendious – There are at least 2 substitutes
III. Reciprocal – (69 hehehe)
31
 Implementation
 Brief – is the usually case and it is one is to one, “property to A with B as a substitute” to cover RIP (R –
Repudiation, I – Incapacity, and P – Predecease) of A.
 Compendious –
A B C
Or Note: A will only get B’s share in case of RIP B
C A
 Reciprocal – Legacy or Devise
Note: RIP of B does not give the entire amount to X
and Y
75 = 37.5 each
- A & B Subs for and X & Y; X & Y subs for A & B

Note: Legitime computed separately.
 Seatwork
 The facts:
1) A is the sub for B & C and B
& C are the subs for A;
A repudiates;
A, B & C are voluntary heirs; and
Estate is 210.
Divide the estate.
2) Same set of facts but now

Instead of voluntary heirs they are
all legitimate children and have
different shares as provided.
32
 Fideicommisary Substitution (FCS)

 The goal is to prevent perpetuities in succession. Transfer of property in succession from
One generation to another
Example: UK succession line of the crown
 Perpetuities was allowed in the old code but is no longer allowed in the Civil Code because of the concept
of juridical capacity. Juridical capacity begins at birth and ends through death and since your dead you
cannot own anything, one of the exemptions is Fideicommisary substitution
 What happens in FCS?
 Upon death of the testator, 2 heirs simultaneously inherit.
 1st heir has the right to the beneficial use of what was inherited.
 2nd heir, when the time designated has elapsed or if the 1st heir dies, he/she will receive the thing
inherited.
 Requisites for FCS
1. Institution of 2 heirs only, to inherit simultaneously;
2. The relationship of the 2 heirs is one generation apart (father-son and son-father);
3. At the time of death of the testator the heirs must be alive or conceived;
4. Made in an express manner; and
 Can be done in 2 ways
 Such is directly stated; or
 He states “1st heir is to use and preserve for the 2nd heir
5. The substitution cannot burden the legitime (Art 886)
 Ramirez v. Ramirez – SC ruled that one generation apart means parent (1st) heir then child (2nd heir) OR
Child (1st heir) the parent (2nd heir).
 Article 869. A provision whereby the testator leaves to a person in whole or part of the inheritance, and to
another the usufruct, shall be valid. If he gives to various persons not simultaneously but successively, the
provisions of Article 863 shall apply.
 As per Atty.: an example of which is where title is not given – usufruct.
 Are the heirs in FCS co-owners?

 No because of how it is titled in the papers.
 If the 1st heir dies, the 2nd heir receives it under a simple substitution but if the 2nd heir dies, the1st heir gets it
completely. (double check)
 Since the 1st heir does get ownership over the property, can he have it titled?
 Yes he can, but he still has the obligation to preserve and transmit to the 2nd heir.
 There is no decision issued by the Supreme Court yet, to clarify if the 1st heir is a trustee.
 As per Atty. Sebastian: the 1st heir is not a trustee but rather an owner.
 The institution is not a mere usufruct, it is rather an obligation subject to a resolutory term (due to
the certainty of death at the least).
33
 Succession is a mode of Acquisition, thus the attributes of ownership exists, but such is limited by
the testator in terms of “to preserve and transmit”.
 Can you alienate the FCS?

 There is no case law on the matter yet.
 At first glance the answer should be No.
 Atty. Sebastian (opinion only): If the 1st heir sells such to someone in good faith and for value under the
law of sales it should prosper (but not under the law on negotiable instruments it won’t prosper). Thus it
should also be ok to sell such property but subject to a resolutory term, so the 2nd heir can still get it after.
 Rights of the 2nd heir

 To inherit simultaneously with the 1st heir;
 The right to use is suspended (thus as per Atty.: the 1st heir has a better right than the 2nd heir)
 Article 867 provides for what is void and prohibited. FCS is will not take effect if:
(1) Fideicommisary substitutions which are not made in an express manner,

either by giving them this name, or imposing upon the fiduciary the absolute
obligation to deliver the property to a second heir;
(2) Provisions which contain a perpetual prohibition to alienate, and even a
temporary one, beyond the limit fixed in article 863;
(3) Those which impose upon the heir the charge of paying to various persons
successively, beyond the limit prescribed in article 863, a certain income or
pension; and
(4) Those which leave to a person the whole or part of the hereditary property
in order that he may apply or invest the same according to secret instructions
communicated to him by the testator.
 If the substitution is void but the institution is valid then the will is not affected but not vice-versa.
 If the FCS is to be put in the title, it should read as “X (1st heir), subject to FCS, to Y (2nd heir)”.
 If the 2nd heir predeceases the 1st heir
 (DOUBLE CHECK REQUIRED) It shall go the heirs of the 2nd heir but not through right of
representation but inherit it in his own right, from the 2nd heir and not from the first heir.
 What is a condition – a future and uncertain event (or unknown past event).
 What is a term – a future but certain event.
 Institution refers to an aliquot part not a legacy or devise.
 Example of a term
 Suspensive – 10 years after T’s death.
34
 Resolutory – up to 2019; return everything but the fruits.
 Example of a condition
 Suspensive – A passes 2106 Bar Exams.
 Resolutory – While you remain single.
 Impossible condition
 4 impossible conditions
1. Physical impossibility
2. Legal impossibility
3. By public order, policy, good customs and morals
4. Contrary to the laws of nature
 2 types of impossible conditions
 Absolute – only the obligation becomes void, set aside only the impossible one.
- Shows the perversity of the Testators’ mind, never intended to give
- The law penalizes the testator for making a mockery of such.
 Relative – it is allowable
 Rodriguez v. CA (impossible condition)

 As per Justice Fernando – follow what the dead wants, yield obedience, thus in the case at bar the
testamentary disposition prohibiting the alienation of the property was not held to be void BUT the same
provision in the excess of 20 years was held void.
 Impossible Conditions as to time.

 The best example here is the Dangerous Drugs Act.
 Shabu was not illegal at that time
 Thus if valid, then after becomes not valid = “loss of the thing due”
 At the time said condition was made, it was impossible = such is void even if repealed.
 As to the time for succession

 As per Sanchez Roman – seen in the execution of the will, from that point the perversity was obvious
thus it is void.
 As per Ricardo Puno – In or during the fulfilment of the condition, we only make a judgement as to its
impossibility when the moment arrives, example “when man goes to the moon”.
 Note: Puno sounds good but does not refute Sanchez Roman furthermore there is no decision to what is
correct.
 Suspensive Condition
 You inherit right away but your right to claim is inchoate (administrator while you wait).
 If such condition can no longer be fulfilled – then substitution, accreation and the last option to be applied
intestacy.
35
 Disposcision Captatoria
 They make a condition that each other will, will the other. Making the will contractual in character,
thus is void.
 Alienatory Contract – fulfilment depends on chance.
 Only the survivor gets, thus it becomes like gambling.
 The important factor here is that – there is someone that is required to make a will.
 It is only wrong if such agreement is stated in the will, in order to show each other that they did put such
provision.
 Potestative Condition – Absolutely dependent on the will of the heir.

 Casual –
 Mixed – part will and part chance
 Suspensive Term
The property will be under the care of the intestate heirs
 Cannot appoint an interim heir for it will be violative of Article 863
 The transfer contemplated in Art. 863 is in reference to the one degree apart rule thus only 2 transfers.
 Resolutory Condition
 Return everything including the fruits
 Resolutory Term
Intestate heirs that must be alive at the time of death of
Testator.
Term that is to be enjoyed by he who is named in the

will.
 Rabiddilla v. CA (Modal Institution – Lease, Sell and etc. but do what is obligated)
 Rabidilla received a devise of a sugar land, with the obligation to give Coscoluela 75 export grade and
25 local grade picols of sugar, totalling to 100 picols or 6,000 kilos.
 Rabidilla died and his heir did not continue to give the picols.
 SC said, the language of the will is one of a lifetime obligation, thus the obligation of Rabidilla is now an
obligation of the heir until Coscoluela dies. (PRO)
 This is a Modal Institution, meaning the institution imposes an obligation upon the heir or
legatee/devisee but it does not affect the efficacy of his right of succession. As compared to a Condition,
which must take place or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed.
36
 Condition suspends but does not obligate, mode obligates but does not suspend.
 If there is a conflict the presumption is that it is a modal institution not a condition.
LEGITIMES
 Francisco v. Francisco-Alfonso (legitime – it is not a product out of generosity but rather one
because of statutory law).
 Simulated contracts of sale to the illegitimate children, where
no consideration was given based on the fact
they had no capacity to pay, in order to hide such property from
the legitimate daughter.
 SC, Legitime is a portion of the estate reserved by law for
For the compulsory heirs; the attempt to deprive someone of their rightful legitime is not tolerated by
law.
 Castro v. CA (as to the illegitimate child, liberal application)

 There is no question that the said child is an illegitimate child, therefore she is a compulsory heir thus
deserves to inherit under law.
 SC, applied the more liberal provisions of the family code as the basis for such, stating Article 256 of the
Family Code provides “retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired
rights”.
 Tayag v. CA (as to illegitimate child, strict application)

 Same facts, same law but SC here ruled differently
 Which way to go, hell if I know.
 Legitime – Go ahead and distribute for the legitime does not affect your right to give but ensures that there is
amount reserved to be claimed by the compulsory heir.
 SEATWORK
 A, B and C are heirs
 C is a universal heir but not a Compulsory heir.
 Thus, the distribution of what is willed ok and is valid.

 Correct distribution is A gets 1/3, B gets 1/3 and C gets 1/3
 What is willed does not clash with the legitime.
 Article 887 has a mistake (corrected it in the codal, check it out)

 Connect with Art 992, Segregation of legitimate and illegitimate family
 (Art 887 lc/ld inherit from lp/la etc.)
37
 Article 992. Segregation of mistress

Illegitimate and legitimate family –
law presumes animosity between
the two families.
Legitimate is supposed to believe

that such are a blemish on their name;
oppression against the illegitimate THE IRON WALL, Thus, X cannot inherit from the 3
 Illegitimate child in the Civil Code was changed by the Family Code, there were 3 classes then
 Natural child by legal fiction - attempt to marry but void (1/2 of LC)
 Acknowledged Natural Child – needs fathers recognition or judicial order (1/2 of LC)
 Acknowledged Spurious Child – parents who have impediments to marry (2/5 of LC) NOTE:
NO LONGER EXISTS WITH THE FC
 Baritua v. CA (Legitimate parent excluded by legitimate child and spouse)

 Decedent died in a motor vehicle accident. The family of the victim settled the case to which the parents of
the decedent were not pleased about.
 SC, while legitimate parents are considered Compulsory Heirs of the legitimate child, they are Secondary
Compulsory Heirs and only inherit in default of the legitimate children and descendants, thus they
have no right to request/demand for indemnification for the death of their deceased child.
 Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. (Effect as to divorce)

 A foreign divorce validly obtained by a foreign national in a foreign court against a Filipino spouse
produces the same effect in the Philippines.
 The Obiter Dictum here is what is important - it suggests that the divorce decree should likewise terminate the
status of the foreign spouse as a compulsory heir of the Filipino Spouse.
 3 types of Compulsory Heirs

1. Primary – Legitimate Children and Descendants (including adopted child);
2. Secondary – Parents and Ascendants; and
3. Concurring – Those who do not exclude each other (like spouse and illegitimate children). NOTE:
Connect and memorize with table of legitimes.
 Liquidating – If on 8/31/88 and after Family Code, thus if no prenup ACP, BUT if before Family Code it is CPG.
 Compulsory Heirs: 1) Legitimate/Adopted & illegitimate child IF NONE 2) parents, if their dead other ascendants
IF NONE 3) Surviving Spouse.
 Article 36 of the Family Code: “Declaration of Nullity” not annulment

 Children are still legitimate (still Primary CH)
 Atty.: this is weird nullity nga tapos legitimate pa rin?
 Surviving Spouse is not a CH.
38
 Legal Separation
 The innocent spouse can inherit from the guilty spouse but the guilty spouse is incapacitated to inherit from
the innocent spouse.
 How to Divide
Step 1) if there are Primary Compulsory Heirs – Divide in half

2) Divide between portions provided specifically per Class
heir – LC and adopted child by default and if None LP or
legitimate ascendant.
If any remains, under the control of the testator.
Given: Estate is 120K; “A” is an illegitimate child; “B” and “C” are
Legitimate children with a “Surviving Spouse”.
Step 1) 120 ÷ 2 = 60 (which is now the strict legitime)

Step 2) 60 (strict legitime) ÷ 2 (for B and C) = 30 Step 3)
SS gets same as B & C = 30
Step 4) 30 (share of LC) ÷ 2 = 15 share of illegitimate
Thus, the movement for computation is from strict legitime to free
portion as seen in the diagram.
 Seatwork
 Same facts only there are more illegitimate children “D”, “E”, and “F”
The illegitimate by law should get ½ of the LC which in this case would be 15;
BUT 15 x 4 = 60 which is more than what the estate can provide for in the said
situation. – The legitime of the illegitimate children cannot be met.
The legitime of the LC is protected, the legitime for the SS is protected but the
legitime for the ILC are not protected.
 No such thing is legitimes since it is all part of the estate.
 The Para Frag Test (copied the damn thing but I don’t understand it, so good luck)
Illegitimate share ½ of the LC = ratio is 2:1 (make such as points)
If there are more LC, share of SS gets smaller and the share of the Free
Portion gets bigger.
39
 If the succession goes on a downward motion its “per capita”

 Then just divide then and there.
 If succession is going up then its “per stilpes”

 ½ for the paternal line & ½ maternal line.
 Exclusionary Rule
 When there are LC or ADC; parents and others are excluded.
 Article 900 share of a surviving spouse

 Surviving Spouse share in Articulo Mortis is 1/3 if spouse died within 3 months of marriage.
 UNLESS, they cohabitated for 5 years prior without any impediment to marry.
 Atty. Sebastian: ang gulo ng article na to; since despite the article if the only survivor is the widow or
widower, she or he shall be entitled to ½ of the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse and the
testator may freely dispose of the other half. It should also be applied in intestate succession being it
is the LEGITIME that is involved.
 Seatwork
 Facts: estate is 360 SS, A, B, and C
 A, B and C are LC
 There is a SS D E F IJ K
 A, B and C have children GH
Divide the estate.
 If one of the children dies (A,B & C) their heir will represent Them
and they divide the share among each other.
 But if A, B and C disinherited their children inherit in their Own
right thus 180/8 is what happens
 What about the share of the spouse? There is no law as to Such
but as to PARAS the SS still gets 60, it (disinheritance Or
repudiation should not affect 3rd party share.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40
 Legitime
 Article 886, refers only to a minimum share for the Compulsory Heir.
 Thus, even if you say in the will, “I will give you ½ of the estate” and that such is the same as the legitime,
the objective is met.
 If the testator said give A, B, C, D, E, and F equally and only B and C are legitimate children, this is the
steps to be followed:
1. Do what the testator asks;
2. Check if the legitime of B and C are affected; and
3. If affected reduce others share to make room for the legitime, IF NOT AFFECTED then
apply what the testator had said in its entirety.
(DO THIS DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT TO ALTERATIONS)
 As a rule the Legitime cannot be burdened. EXCEPT (4):

1. Article 1083. – Testator can set a period wherein the property cannot be partitioned, provided
said period does not exceed 20 years. Example: a building - testator wanting to preserve its
commercial value applies Article 1083.
2. Article 1080. – A person, in the interest of his/her family desires to keep any agricultural, industrial
or manufacturing enterprise intact, can do so by ordering that the legitime of the other children to whom
the property is not assigned to be paid in cash.
3. Article 159 of the Family Code – Family Home shall continue for a period of 10 years or for so long
as there is a minor beneficiary and heirs cannot partition it unless the court finds a compelling reason
to do so.
4. Reserva Troncal.
 Legitime is created as a general rule at the moment of death, thus if the legitime cannot be satisfied because of
other dispositions Apply Article 906 complete the legitime and reduce the rest.
 Nuguid v. Nuguid (the exception)

 If the legitime cannot be met in itself, then throw away the provisions for the legacies and devises.
NOTE: only a Compulsory Heir can ask for the completion of the legitime.
 Reserva Troncal (general concept)
3) From the ascendant

To the relatives on (Ex: father or mother)
The other side 1) given gratuitously to the
Descendant
2) Wealth is transferred by
Operation of law and/or
Relatives of the ascendant through the legitime to the
Ascendant on the other side
Intestacy is required to go to step 2

Examples of gratuitous title in general:
Donation – via inter vivos or wedding gifts
Succession – via testamentary, intestacy or mixed.
41
Other examples:
Gambling debts paid by the father, no intention to get back
Son fought in school, killed someone, parent paid but has no intention to recover ANYTHING
OUTSIDE THE CONCEPT OF SUPPORT – Donation.
 Reserva creates a lien to the property.

 Thus the reservist has the right to have the reserva annotated in the title.
 Such right can prescribe though.
 Collationable donation (Atty. Not collationable property no such thing), there is no lien created on the property
unlike reserva. – its up to the prepositus to make or break the reserva.
 Parties in Reserva Troncal

 The origin - the ascendant who gratuitously transfers (meaning by donation or succession) a property to
a direct descendant.
 The praepositus –is he who receives property from the origin gratuitously and subsequently dies.
 The reservista /reservor – he who receives the property from the prepositus.
 The reservatarios /reservees – he who receives the property from the reservoir.
 Accident of law
Mother (ORIGIN) Father (RESERVISTA) this is what is considered as the

Mother dies accident of law - father gets
leaves property property from the mothers side
for the child Child (PRAEPOSITUS)
the child dies, prop
goes to…
 Thus, the father will now hold the properties for the 3rd degree relatives.
 Question: is the whole property given to the father part of the Reserva?
 No only ½:
1. 50% is the legitime, thus by operation of law;
2. 50% if free disposal, not by operation of law.
 Note: Must find out in what capacity does the reservor gets it.
 There is no Reserva with regard to illegitimate and adopted children.

 What this means is that all the parties involved is related to the legitimately, the point of reference
here is the praepositus.
 Double Resolutory Condition

 Reservor dies; and
 Reservatarios survives (with capacity).
 Reservist must be of the 3 degree, the following are the said degrees.
 1° Parents only – no going down – no children.
 2° Grandparents or Brothers and Sisters.
 3° Great grandparents or Uncles and Aunts or Nephews and Nieces.
42
 Another Example:
W1 --------------- H ----------------- W2 1) Gratuitous title to B from W1

2) B donates to C
A B C D 3) C dies W2 gets part of the property
 Reserva applies in the said situation
 According to Paras the relationship of B and C MUST BE half-blood.
 SC did not agree as to the half - blood.
 The 2 theories of division of the reserva, Reserva Minima and the Reserva Maxima
 Given facts:
Land – 100k
Estate – 200k 150 – Legitime thus reservable (by operation/accident of law). Total –
300k 150 – Free portion not reservable.
 Reserva Maxima – Reserve as much as you can
 Land (100K) + Estate (50k) = 150k legitime.
 Reserva Minima – Reduce as much as you can but do not extinguish. Compulsory
Heir – Legitime - Land (50k) + Estate (100k) = 150k legitime
Voluntary Heir – Free Portion – Land (50k) + Estate (100k) = 150k Free Portion
 Residue only, cannot make it 0
 THERE IS NO DECIDED CASE AS TO WHICH TO USE, but as per Atty. Sebastian he believes it
should be Minima.
 But if Testator gives the land as a devise than there can be no Reserva, since it will no longer be an accident
of law, which it must be (Legarda v. Gonzales).
 There is no maxima if the only property is the land (the value of land is 100k). CH
(legitime) ½ of the land
Maxima VH (free portion) ½ of the land
 Thus ½ right away in such a situation.
 Another example of Maxima and Minima
 Land worth 300K and Estate worth 100K for a total of 400K
CH (Legitime) 200 = 200 Land (2/3 Reserva of land) = 200
Maxima VH (Free Portion) 200 = 100 Land + 100 Estate = 200 ----- which would total to 400 Legitime
200 = 150 land + 50 estate = 200
Minima Free Portion 200 = 150 land + 50 estate = 200 ------ which would total to 400
 Reserva Troncal (how to apply).

Origin (Donates gratuitously to Praepositus)
Father subsequently dies
Wife 1 -------------------------- Father (Reservor) Wife 2 30k
Dies 30K each Brother 1 – 30k
30 X 105 Praepositus A B C Brother 2 - 30k
135K Brother 3 – 30k
 For the free portion “father” instituted his 3 brothers Thus, computation for such is
 Fathers estate is 345k total. 345K- estate
 The reservable amount is 105K 105K - reservable
240K – to be distributed among all
 Answer: Everybody gets 30K; even X gets 30k but plus 105K since 105 is reservable.
43
 Reserva Troncal (full blood and half-blood share).

 The full blood gets twice the amount of the half-blood.
 Padura v. Baldovino (how to divide between full and half-blood heir)

 Augustin Padura made a will, where he left all his properties to all his surviving relatives, including
Fortunato, a conceived child not yet born at the time. (He got 4 parcels of land).
 Augustin died in April of 1908, before the Civil Code.
 When Fortunato died in May 1908, property went up to the mom (Belita), who then became the RESERVISTA
for the 4 parcels of land, thus when she died in 1952 (Civil Code in effect) the property had to be
brought to the Reservatarios who were alive at the time.
Gervacia Landig W1----------------------Augustin Padura Belita Garing W2 Manuel
Padura Fortunato Candelaria
One died thus only 7 8 Children 4 children Full blood relation with
Could inherit Half-blood relationship with regard to Fortunato regard to fortunate but 3 died
 SC stated, everyone gets a share, brothers and sisters on Manuel’s side and brothers and sisters on
Candelaria’s side. Reserva Troncal merely determines the group of relatives to whom the property should
be returned to; but within the group, the individual right to the property should be declared by applicable
rules of intestate succession.
 Article 1006 – shares of full blood is double that of a half blood.
 7 Padura’s they get 1 share each
 1 Baldovino gets 2 shares
 Thus (estate ÷ 9) is how to compute for such, to give way to Baldovino’s full blood share.
 Depapa v. Camacho (Rules of intestacy)

Father Wife
Brother and Sisters Son Sister
Niece
 The Uncles and Aunts (who are the brother and sisters of the father) are of the same degree as the Niece,
which is the 3rd degree.
 Question here is how it should be divided among them.
 Answer: It does not get divided among them, it goes all to the Niece, following the rules on intestacy.
(Nieces and Nephews exclude uncles and aunts).
 Rosales v. Rosales (In-law relationship).

 A daughter-in-law is not a compulsory heir of the mother-in-law, due to the absence of blood relationship
between the two.
 Solvino v. CA (check the family line)

 The reservor can never be a descendant of the supposed praepositus. Thus when it goes down from the
origin, it should go up to the other side of the family, or no reserve; he will inherit in his own right instead.
44
 Endroso v. Sablan
 A reservor’s right to reservable property is not that of a usufruct nor one of a trust relationship.
 Atty. Sebastian: Succession is a mode of acquisition, thus he acquires such as owner and can have the
property titled to him.
 NOTE: The reservees, during the registration proceeding should intervene solely for the purpose of ensuring
that the reservable nature of the title is property inscribe on such. Otherwise, a clean title issued
pursuant to a decree of registration, may in a proper case extinguish the reserva.
 Sienes v. Esparia (Right to sell and the Double Resolutory Condition)
Father Mother Sold to Esparia, did not go to the

Reservatarios as it was supposed to
2 Brothers and 2 Sisters Child (Praepositus)
The 2nd sister hid the title from the mom thus even if the movement was to go up to the mom, it went down.
Sold to Sienes who took possession of the land.
 First question: was there a double sale? Answer NO.

 In a double sale there is 1 seller and 2 or more buyers but in this case at bar we have 2 buyers and
2 sellers.
 SC said; Sale to Esparia is allowed, provided the reservation is not destroyed, meaning when she dies it still
goes to the reservees; On the other hand what the 2nd sister sold is future property which is also allowed.
THUS, when the 2nd sister obtains the property after the death of the mother and then Sienes sale
would go through after.
 Provides for the double resolutory condition for reserva to take place
 Reservor dies; and
 Reservatarios survives.
 Distributed under the theory of delayed intestacy
 If the mother outlasted the reservees, she may dispose in her own right.
 Lacerna v. VDA De Corcino

 Reserva only applies where the property sought to be reserved was acquired by operation of law by an
ascendant from a descendant, who in turn acquired it by gratuitous title from another ascendant from the
other line. Thus where the disputed property was acquired by a descendant from an ascendant through
sale, there is no reserva.
 Chua v. CFI of Negros Occidental (What is gratuitous acquisition)

 The interpretation of gratuitous acquisition here was that EVEN if the praepositus had to pay a certain
amount to a 3rd party for the purpose of acquiring the reservable property, if such payment was not
imposed by the origin, the acquisition is still gratuitous in nature.
 The essential thing here is that the person who transmits does so gratuitously, from pure generosity
without requiring from the transferee any prestation.
 Nieva and Alcala v. Alcala and De Ocampo

 Reserva runs only in the legitimate family.
45
 Florentino v. Florentino (Right of representation in Reserva)

 First Issue: is the right of representation allowed in Reserva? YES for as long as the one he seeks to
represent is a relative within the 3rd degree of the praepositus.
 Second issue: is as to Usufruct….. (explained na)
 Sumaya v. IAC (Reserva lost through innocent purchaser)

 The reservatory right of the reservees may be lost to an innocent purchaser of the reservable property.
 Thus, for the protection of the reservees, it is important that the reservable character of the property be
annotated at the back of the title. HOWEVER even if such annotation is absent, if it can be shown that the
3rd party purchaser had actual or constructive notice/knowledge of the reservable character of the
property, then the rights of the reservees should be upheld.
 Carillio v. De Paz (Extinctive Prescription)

 Carillio establishes that rights of the reservatarios to the reservable property may be lost by extinctive
prescription, thus an action to recover must be within 10 years (or 30 years as the case may be) from the
time the right to recover accrues.
 Law on property 10 years if in good faith and with a colourable title to the same property.
 The estate is equal to PRO, and such is used for its valuation.
 P+R-O = estate; (P-property, R-rights, and 0-obligations)
 Value of assets
1. As to land - BIR zonal value NOTE: if there is no CH, then
2. As to improvements - Tax declarations collation will no longer be
3. Shares Traded - closing price required, the purpose of
Listed - book value collation is for the computation
4. Others - market value of the legitime.
Equals - total assets
Subtracted by personal debts
Equals – the net estate the value of which is base
Subtracted by the 30% estate tax at the time it was given
Equals – the hereditary estate
Plus the value of the collationable donations
Equals to the Theoretical estate.
 Example: there are 4 heirs

Assets - 200
Debts - 20 If net estate only 120 = 60/4 =15 each
Equals 180 if theoretical estate 610 = 310/4 = 77.5 each Taxes
- 60 (30%)
Equals 120 Net estate
Collationable D. + 500
Equals 620 Theoretical estate
46
 Mateo v. Lagua (family Code connection, liquidation)

 This case outlines the procedure for liquidation of the estate of a deceased person.
 Article 102 and 103 of the family code if the property regime is under ACP.
 Article 129 and 130 of the family code if the property regime is under CPG.
 Article 102 of the family code procedure
a. Inventory of the property (which is part of the ACP and what is exclusive);
b. ACP debts;
c. Exclusive property given to the spouses
d. Net remainder will be divided equally
e. Delivery of presumptive legitimes
f. Conjugal dwelling.
 Natcher v. CA (how to check if the legitime is prejudice)

 Before any conclusion about the legal share of a compulsory heir may be drawn, the net estate of the
decedent must be ascertained.
 Such is done by deducting all payable obligations and charges from the value of the property owned by
the deceased at the time of his death, THEN all donations subject to collation be added, only then we
can compute for the legitime and ascertain if a donation has prejudice a legitime, which it should not do.
 Tupas v. RTC of Negros Occidental

 The case outlines the step by step procedure for the determination of the hereditary estate of a deceased
person to find out what is the legitime of a compulsory heir.
 The rules are better specified in Article 908, 909 and 910 of the Civil Code.
1. Determination of the value of the property which remains at the time of death of the testator;
2. Determination of the obligation, debts and charges which have to be paid out or deducted from the
value of the properties left;
3. The determination of the difference between assets and liabilities giving rise to the hereditary
estate;
4. The addition to the net value found, of the value, at the time they were made, of donations
subject to collation; and
5. The determination of the amount of legitimes by getting from the total thus found the portion that
the law provides as legitime of each respective Compulsory Heir.
 Bank rupt Estate

Ex: side note: how to screw creditors
Assets – 50 a - 50
Debts – 45 d - 55
5 -5 = screwed creditors out of this portion
Taxes - 10 t-0
-5 – bankrupt thus 0 - bankrupt
Collationable - 50
Donation thus estate remains at 50
47
 (3) of Article 1381 – Rescissible Contracts in fraud of creditors

 The burden is on the creditors to prove such.
 Article 1389 – Prescription, they have to bring it up, while alive or just died after donating.
 How are donations to be treated?

 If the donee is a compulsory heir – the donation is an advance to towards the legitime.
 If not a compulsory heir - the donation is to be charged from the free disposal.
 Seatwork: compute the legitime
Given facts:
SS LC-A SS Computation for such
1 ILC estate - 240
4 LC (a-d) LC-B ILC CD - 250
X – Donation of 50 490/2 = 245 for the strict legitime
250 – Collationable (CD) LC-C FREE = 245 for the free portion
240 – Estate PORTION 245 of strict legitime ÷ 4 = 61.25
ILC – got 100 advance LC-D such would be the shares of the LC
1 LC (d) – got 100 advance
Strict Legitime (245) Free Portion (245)
THUS
The legitime as computed will be: A –
61.25
B –61.25
C – 61.25
D – 61.25 deemed paid (38.75 to be taken from FP) SS –
61.25
ILC – 30.63 deemed paid (69.37 to be taken from FP)
 If there are compulsory heirs, then you must collate to determine the proper legitime.
 In order to make the donation Rescissible, bad faith must be shown and must follow the rules on contracts,
Article 1380.
 How do you treat the collation if the testator declared the donation was made NON-collationable?
 Charge it towards the free portion half.
Article 911 Article 950

1. So many collationable donations made here, 1. The estate is not sufficient to cover all legacies
destroys the estate; and devises;
2. There is a compulsory heir 2. No compulsory heir required
3. Order of preference: 3. Order of Preference
a. Legitime a. Remuneratory legacies
b. Donations (w/n the free disposal) b. Legacies or devises declared by the testator to be
c. Honor legacies/devises ( Preferred) preferential
d. All other legacies and devises (pro-rated) c. Legacies for support
d. Legacies for education
e. Legacies or devises of a specific, determinate thing
which forms a part of the estate
f. All others pro rata
48
 Disinheritance, a testamentary act to deprive a compulsory heir of the legitime.

 Requirements for disinheritance
1. Execute a valid will;
2. Should be done against a compulsory heir; and
3. Must conform to the reasons for disinheritance as provided for in Article 919 (for
descendants), Article 920 (for ascendants) and in Article 921 (for the surviving spouse);
4. Person to be disinherited is identified; and
5. The disinheritance must be total and can never be partial.
NOTE: Art. 920 not applied if there are descendants and the enumeration of each are exclusive. Atty.
Sebastian: the cause of the disinheritance should be stated, to afford due process, (in order to check if such
cause given would fall under the 3 stated Articles.
 Stated the ground provided in the 3 articles and such ground existed when the will was executed or
written.
 Must be true and certain, cannot be conditional.
 Needs substantial evidence to overturn a charge of disinheritance
 Article 918, refers to the 3 types of defective disinheritance:

1. No Cause – a disinheritance made without specification of a cause to disinherit the heir;
2. Cause but not under the law – does not fall under grounds provided in Art. 919, 920 or 921; and
3. Cause truth of which is contradicted.
 It is sufficient for the testator to mention merely the act constituting the ground.
 Burden of proof will be on the other heirs if contradicted by the disinherited heir.
 Effect of defective/invalid disinheritance
 Unlike peterition (Art.854) it does not totally annul the institution of heirs. It only annuls the institution
of heirs in so far as it is prejudicial to the legitime of the disinherited heir.
 As to the legacies/devises, Article 918 will conform to Article 911 – Reduction.
EX:
Estate – 90; A – disinherited 15
Three heirs A, B & C. B – 45 - 7.5 = 37.5 actual
Invalidly disinherited A –thus apply 918. C – 45 - 7.5 = 37.5 distribution
Compute for legitime: 90/2 = 45/3 = 15 each.
The 2 theories on how to
 Seatwork- Estate – 255 divide the remaining 42,500
Heirs and institution Share Legitime Cagiua Tolentino
“A” - Disinherited w/o cause ------ 42,500 X 14,166
“B” – 1/6 42,500 42,500 21,250 14,166
“C” – 1/6 42,500 42,500 21,250 14,166
Total = 212,500
Difference of 42,500 with estate
 The Cagiua interpretation refers to the intent of the testator, while Tolentino’s refers to the technicality
of the law.
 No ruling yet by the SC on which one to follow.
 Grounds for disinheritance in table form - look at annex

 Article 919, 920 and 921 (also 1032).
49
 Article 919. (8 Grounds)

 Grounds/Causes to disinherit children and descendants whether legitimate or illegitimate.
 Grounds are exclusive.
1. When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
spouse, descendants or ascendants.
 Does not need to be a legitimate child not does it have to be his mother it can be the 2nd wife of the
father.
 BUT it still requires final judgement of the court and that the attempt before the writing of the will by
the testator.
 CRIMINAL LAW aspect – Principal, accomplice and accessory = (equally liable but different
penalties to be applied).
 Must be an intentional act for our purposes
 No justifying circumstances – since such would mean no crime
 No exempting circumstances – since such would mean there is a crime present but no
criminal.
2. When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes
imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation is groundless;
 If in a civil case any of the following must be present:
 Need to file a complaint OR
 Take the stand as a witness against the testator OR
 (where there is no decision yet ) Withhold evidence to prove innocence OR
 (where there is an admission) the accused needs to be acquitted.
 That’s right you need to know your criminal law well.
3. When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
 Final conviction not necessary; such can follow.
4. When a child or descendant by fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence causes the testator to
make a will or to change one already made;
 Testator must have succumb to such actions in the 1st will, then disinherits the same person in
the 2nd will he makes.
5. A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent or ascendant who disinherits such child or
descendant;
 Needs of the supportee and the resources of the supporter must be taken in account.
6. Maltreatment of the testator by words or deed by the child or descendant;
 As per Sengaio, the maltreatment spoken here must be hurtful, “feel na feel” the hurt.
 No need for conviction by a court, mere proof of such will do
7. When a child or descendant leads a dishonourable or disgraceful life; and
 Keyword “lead” thus cannot be based on a single act.
8. Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction.
 Crim again!
 Civil interdiction is the accessory penalty attached to the penalty of reclusion temporal or higher.
50
 Article 920. ( 8 Grounds)

 Grounds/Causes to disinherit parents or ascendants whether legitimate or illegitimate.
 Grounds are exclusive.
 Grounds no. 2,3,4,5 and 7 are common grounds thus will not discuss again.
1. When the parents have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life
or attempted against their virtue;
The abandonment here does not have to be criminal abandonment but rather the complete
neglect of parental obligation.
Inducing alone is enough; does not need to actual happen.
2. When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
spouse, descendants or ascendants.
3. When the parent or ascendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes
imprisonment for 6 years or more, if accusation has been found to be false.
4. When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the
testator;
5. When the parent or ascendant by fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence causes the testator to
make a will or change one already made.
6. The loss of parental authority for causes provided in this code
Must follow the family code in the matter.
Article 228. Parental authority terminates permanently:
1. Upon death of the parents;
2. Upon death of the child; or
3. Upon emancipation of the child.
Article 229. Unless subsequently revived by a final judgement, parental authority also terminates:
1. Upon adoption of the child;
2. Upon appointment of a general guardian;
3. Upon judicial declaration of abandonment of the child in a case filed for that purpose;
4. Upon final judgment of a competent court divesting the party concerned of parental authority; or
5. Upon judicial declaration of absence or incapacity of the person exercising parental authority.
Thus it is important to differentiate between term, suspension and deprivation.
 TERM – not to apply under Article 920 (thus not a ground)
 SUSPENSION With automatic reinstatement
Without automatic reinstatement
 DEPRIVATION Permanent deprivation
2 different theories on the loss of parental authority that is subsequently regained.
 Manaresa – was regained, there is no more ground to speak of, and for him there must be a
continuing fact of loss.
 Sanchez- Roman – Mere fact of loss is enough to disinherit
 Note: in Article 921 (4) & (5) – “giving cause/ground” but in article 920 it is only loss.
 Atty. Sebastian: comparatively Sanchez-Roman is correct.
Family Code Article 230. (Civil interdiction)
 Suspended – civil interdiction; reclusion perpetua = 20 years penalty
 What is the point you can regain parental authority by law
o 13 and 1/3 years at the minimum, meaning the age of the child will 39
o Clearly not thought out by the framers of the FC and how it affects
succession;
o Should not be a ground since you didn’t do anything to the child.
NOTE: (3) of Art. 239 FC – wait until at least 18 years of age since no Testamentary capacity but still a ground.
51
 Article 231 FC – Deprivation

o The loss here is as if “you never had it” but with the possibility that you can regain it.
 Article 232 FC – Permanent Deprivation, cannot regain it.
7. The refusal to support the children or descendants without justifiable cause;
8. An attempt by one parent against the life of the other, unless there has been reconciliation between
them.
 Article 921 (6 Grounds)

 The following are the sufficient causes to disinherit a spouse.
 Codification of laws – a single theory of law wherein everything is inter-related in one way or another. –
This was destroyed with the inclusion of the family code wherein the causes do not completely fit in. There
are now 10 grounds given by the FC (for legal separation) and there mere giving of cause is enough
by it.
 Common grounds again are 1, 2, 3 and 6, will not be discussed.
1. When the spouse has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her descendants
or ascendants;
2. When the spouse has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for 6 years
or more, and the accusation has been found to be false;
3. When the Spouse by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence cause the testator to make a will
or change one already made;
4. When the spouse has given cause for legal separation;
5. When the spouse has given grounds for the loss of parental authority; and
 Under the FC na yan!
6. Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or the other spouse.
 Disinheritance – remedy under Article 922 is reconciliation

 The mere forgiving is not enough
 Incapacity (Article 1032) – remedy is a written Condonation, thus the situation herein contemplates one that you
may not be disinherited but your nonetheless incapacitated to inherit since there is no written Condonation.
 Seatwork (right of representation due to disinheritance)

 Given facts:
Estate – 90 F M (25) IF there was no X and Y, clearly no right A
was disinherited representation and B, C and M would A, B
and C heirs A (25)B C (25) get a total of 30 each.
X and Y – A children BUT since there is a X and Y must compute X
Y for the legitime.
Compute for the
Legitime: 90/2=45 strict portion÷3 Compulsory Heirs = 15 which would be the legitime of A, B and C. Thus X and Y
gets 15 ÷ 2 = which is 7.5 each.
The remaining 30 will be divided among B, C and M equally = 25 each.
What if there was a legacy given to X = 10?

Answer: give the legitime first, then what is to be divided by the 3 is 20 instead.
52
 Seatwork
 Estate – 234 234/2 = 117(strict legitime)/3= 39 Legitime
 Shares and Legacy for X Equivalent = 177(free portion) – 60 (legacy) = 57
A – 1/6 39
B – 1/3 78 1 Ratio step 1
C – 1/2 117 2 2:1 step 2
X – 60 -
  Thus answer is:
 A – 39 39
 B – 78-20 78 step 3 60 60 1 x 20 = 20
 C – 117-40 77 (ratio) 1+2 = 3 = 20 2 x 20 = 40

X 60
 234
 Article 931
 The testator orders that a thing belonging to another is to be acquired in order to give to a legatee or
devisee - do as the will demands.
 If it cannot be done - then you are obliged to give the just value of what was to be acquired
forthe legatee.
 Void – gave by mistake, since the testator did not know that it did not belong to him; This is the
general rule as to wrong belief of ownership
 As per Paras - it is VALID since what Article 931 requires that you first acquire such;
 As per JBL Reyes - NOT VALID, the law uses the word “order” – there must be an express
instruction or mandate. Furthermore the old code the said word “order” was not present,
thus showing a manifest intention to change the current law.
 Article 932
 No claim if the legatee/ devisee owns it already; cannot ask for the just value.
 Article 934
 Testator bequeath or devise something pledged or mortgaged to secure a recoverable debt before the
execution of the will.
 The estate is obliged to pay for such unless the contrary intention is seen in the will.
 Article 935
 Legacy of credit not applicable to the debt; paying debts that is not his also void.
 Intestacy (died without a valid and effective will).

 This becomes the “presumed will” of the testator.
 The reason a lot of rich people die without wills, is to hide their wealth. Thus, intestacy usually happens for
them despite their knowledge of the law on will.
 Ex: hide precious stones or metals and convert such to an off-shore account
 Note: estate tax is 30%.
 Article 960. When legal or intestate succession takes place.

1.
a. Dies without a will;
b. Void will - Article 838 (probate of the will) – (check for non-compliance with the form and if there are
vices of consent present); or
c. Dies with a will which subsequently lost its validity – meaning it was revoked or there was a change
as to the substantive part of the law.
53
2. Does not institute an heir or does not dispose all of the property, thus as to the remaining property of
the testator intestacy is to apply.
3. Suspensive condition attached to the institution of the heir does not happen or is not fulfilled or heir dies
before the testator (predecease) or if he repudiates.
4. Incapacity – except in cases of substitution and representation.
NOTE: as per Atty. Sebastian you should not rely on Article 960 but rather understand the concept of law in
succession for jurisprudence shows Article 960 can tend to be malabo.
 Rodriguez v. Borja (Testacy preferred over intestacy).

 Intestate succession is subsidiary or subordinate to testamentary succession. This is because intestacy
only arises in the absence of a valid will (as a general rule).
 It is inappropriate for an heir to institute proceedings of intestacy if he knows the existence of a valid will and
neither should a intestate court acquire jurisdiction over the estate of the deceased person, while
proceedings of a testate (or even intestate) is on-going in another court.
 Madarcos v. De la Merced
 The meaning of legal heirs
 Restrictive – heirs called to inherit by intestacy
 Liberal – anyone called upon to succeed either by virtue of a will or by intestacy;
 Court in this case, sought to have a more liberal application rather than restrictive.
 Rules of Intestacy.
 GENERAL RULE: Ascendants
1. Proximity - the nearer exclude the further.
2. Equal division – the same degree, gets the same share. Descendants Collateral
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE: The Different Lines
1. A compulsory heir;
2. The state (can never be excluded and it is always the default); and
3. Exclusionary rule by a person not in the same degree (right of representation)
 If all in the collateral line dies, the next collateral line in a lower degree inherits BUT now in
their own right instead of the right of representation.
 De Los Santos v. De La Cruz (Proximity)

 Emphasizes the rule on proximity, the nearer the relatives exclude the more remote ones, except if the
right of representation can be enforced.
 Bagunu v. Piedad (Proximity vs. the Preferential Line)

 Under the rule on proximity, a maternal aunt (relative within the 3rd ° degree) excludes the daughter of
the first cousin of the decedent (a relative within the 5th degree) even if under the order of intestate
succession, both of them fall under the 6th level of preference.
 Moreover, the daughter of the first cousin is not entitled to the right of representation in order to elevate her
status to a relative of nearer degree because the right of representation in the collateral line is limited to
the children of the brothers and sisters of the decedent.
 Heirs of Pascasio Uriate v. CA (half-blood vs. Proximity)
54
 A half-blood nephew is a collateral relative within the 3rd degree, he excludes the children of the first cousin,
even if the relationship of the decedent to the children of the first cousin is of the full blood relationship.
 The relative nearer in degree excludes those who are more remote, regardless of the full or half- blood
relationship.
 Proximity and Equal Division presumes “love goes down” (GR)

 Exceptions:
1. Where inheritance goes up (per stilpes)

 No right of representation for ascendants.
 Ex: get ½ gets ¼ each
H W H W
*Share is not equal because it is per stilpes
F M
1/2 1/2
D
2. Collateral lines (pro rata)

 Ex:
W1 H W2 *Whether full blood or half-blood it does not
Matter there supposed to get equal shares
D E F G H unless it is as seen here.
Estate ÷ 5 (E gets twice the share because of D)
3. Right of representation.
 Ex:
Estate = 90 *What if “C” disinherited “F” can F still
D Incapacitated represent C?
30 1st step: ask what is the ground for such
A B C 2nd step: if not a valid ground; he can 3rd
step: if it is ARTICLE 1032, cannot.
D E F G
30 15 15
 Relationships
 Consanguinity and affinity
 Affinity is not included in intestacy. You’re not really part of the family, “saling kat ka lang”. Remember
the case of Rosales v. Rosales.
 Article 968 and 969 – stray provisions.
 De La Puerta v. CA (No right of representation for adopted children).

 The right of representation does not extend to the adopted children of the person to be
represented.
55
 The fictional tie that binds the adopter and the adopted does not extend to the relatives of the adopter.
 Grounds for the right of representation.
TYPE GROUNDS SCOPE BENEFICIARIES

1. Testamentary For Compulsory Heirs: 1) Legitime only Descendants only.
disinheritance, 2) incapacity or Collateral lines has no legitime and not
3) predecease (DIP) a CH.
2. Intestacy Incapacity or Predecease (IP) Full intestate Descendants
share Collateral lines can inherit, if there are
no descendants or ascendants.
 Right of Representation A
 It is a statutory right in the nature of the “right of subrogation”.
 You inherit from the decedent and not from the generation above you. B
 Article 992 (relate such).
 The illegitimate child cannot inherit from the legitimate family. C
 In the case of adopted children

No right of representation
Ex1: Ex2: Ex3:
A A A
B Adopted B B Adopted
C C Adopted C Adopted
 No such thing as an adopted grandchild

 Atty. Sebastian: No one can assign a relative to you, you don’t pick your actual family.
 Abellana–Bacayo v. Ferraris–Borromeo (the example to follow for the right of representation).

 As an exemption to the general rule the right of representation is available in the descending line, Article
975 of the Civil Code permits representation in the collateral line insofar as nephews and nieces of the
descendant are concerned. (For intestate only)
 The prerequisites for the exercise of the right of representation is that the nephews and nieces must concur
with at least one uncle or aunt, otherwise they inherit it in their own right, as 3rd degree relative of the
decedent.
NOTE: it is still required, that the representative was alive or conceived at the time of the death of the decedent for the
right of representation to be given effect.
 Malang v. Moson (law in force)

 The capacity of an heir to succeed is determined by the law in force at the time of the conception
of the heir or his birth (?)
 The rights of a Muslim who died during the effectivity of the Muslim Code shall be governed by the said law.
56
 Sayson v. CA (reiteration of malang)

 The right of representation accorded to the legitimate grandchild is reiterated in this case and the
unavailability of the right of representation to the child who was adopted was confirmed by the SC.
 Del Prado v. Santos (illegitimate vs. collateral)

 An illegitimate child succeeds his or her illegitimate parent to the exclusion of the legitimate brothers and
sisters of the latter. The legitimacy of the collateral relatives within the second degree does not create a
preference over the illegitimate status of the decedent.
 Connect with the family code, recognition for filiation.
 Cacho v Udan
 The court reaffirms the exclusion of legitimate brothers and sisters of the decedent by the latter’s
illegitimate child in this case.
 Seatwork
 Given facts: D
Estate = 96
All are universal heirs, but institutes A B C
A –½
B–¼ E D F G H I
C–¼
All children are legitimate Heirs and their shares Equivalent Legitime Free Portion
B predecease and leaves E,D,F & G C A–½ 48 16 32
incapacitated, leaves H and I B–¼ 24 16 8
C- ¼ 24 16 8
 What if the attestation clause
is defective? E, D, F & G (4 each)
Answer: H and I (8 each)
A = 32
B = 32/4 = 8 C
= 32/2 = 16
 Order of Intestate Succession

 Priority as to the heir – ( check out annex b for graph or the next page)
 2 orders the legitimate and the illegitimate. (adoption is not a status)
 Article 190 of the Family Code is NOT an order of succession.
 Does not establish a right
 Special rules created since the Civil Code does not provide for the adopting parent
 Atty. Sebastian: Actually Article 190 should not be constitutional, since it partakes of a rider on
another law.
 Purpose of such is the successional rights of the adopter.
 Article 190 breakdown Corresponding shares
Strict Legitime Free Portion
Parent (L) or (IL) or Ascendant (L) AND adopter 1/2 1/2
SS or IL AND adopter 1/2 1/2
ILLC and SS AND adopter 1/3 1/3
Adopter ALL
57
 Atty. Sebastian: Kalokohan ng FC Commission, it gave the adopter the free portion.
 No order of succession in an adopted child.
 Order of Succession
Legitimate Line Illegitimate Line
1. Legitimate Children and Legitimate 1. Legitimate Children and Legitimate Descendants
Descendants
2. Legitimate Parents and Legitimate Ascendants 2. Illegitimate Children and Illegitimate
Descendants
3. Illegitimate Child and Illegitimate Descendants 3. Illegitimate Parent (old school thinking; blemish
on the name, thus penalized)
4. Surviving Spouse 4. Surviving Spouse
5.Brothers and Sisters/Nephews and Nieces 5. Brothers and Sisters/Nephews and Nieces
6. Collateral Relatives of the 5th Degree 6. State
7. State
 Cuartico v. Cuartico (Article 992, the Barrier) - find the case

 Corpus v. Corpus (legitimate excluded)
 There is no reciprocal succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. Thus such is the instance
where in a legitimate child is excluded from the inheritance of an illegitimate relative.
 Leonardo v. CA (looking at your background first)
 The filiation of a person may be looked into for the purpose of determining his qualification to inherit from
a deceased person.
 It was found out petitioner was illegitimate hence barred by Article 992 from inheriting.
 Diaz v. IAC (Animosity Presumed)

 The presumption is that there is animosity between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family, thus
Article 992 cuts off the illegitimate child from inheriting ab intestate from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father or mother and vice-versa.
Simona Pamuti de Santero
Pablo Santero
Felisa Pamuti (niece)
6 illegitimate children The barrier created by the legal fiction of

presumed animosity between the families.
 What was sad here is the fact Simona really loved and cared for the 6 kids, since she took care of them herself
but since she did not leave a will her grandchildren could not inherit and it all went to the niece.
 Manuel v. Ferrer (same only reverse)

 Just as Article 992 cuts off the illegitimate child from inheriting ab intestate from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father or mother so does the same barrier not allow the legitimate children inheriting from
the illegitimate family.
58
 Suntay III v. Cojuangco –Suntay (Atty. Sebastian: agree with the result but not the decision)
Fedrico (grandfather) Cristine (Grandmother and relative of Emilio Aguinaldo)
Federico adopted
Mistress----------------- Emilio Isabel (youngest sister of Danding Cojuangco) 2
illegitimate children Legitimate Children
 The marriage of Emilio and Isabell failed, presumably because of certain extramarital affairs as evidenced by
the 2 illegitimate children; the legitimate children cut off ties with the fathers side of the family and did not
want to even see them. The said children were ungrateful and shunning the grandparents.
 When the grandmother died the legitimate children claimed her estate to the exclusion of the 2 illegitimate
children.
 Federico did not want the ungrateful legitimate children to get to the detriment of the 2 illegitimate
children who had been loving and caring towards the grandparents. Thus he adopted the 2 children
and slowly sold every property he had.
 J. NATCHURA: based on the facts of the case, the presumption of animosity has been
overthrown and cannot be relied on further.
 Atty. Sebastian: Article 992 no matter how you read it, is a conclusive presumption! Thus unless you right a
will and institute the same, the presumption survives.
 Verdad v. CA (Article 995, where the SS inherits it all)

 When a surviving spouse inherits, she acquires all the rights and privileges of ownership pertaining
to the property that was acquired.
 Hence where surviving spouse becomes a co-owner of the property through the succession of her
deceased spouse, the former is entitled to the right of redemption in the circumstance described in
Article 1620 of the Civil Code.
 Verdad confirms the fact when a widow was granted the right to redeem a property in which she is a co-
owner, that her brothers and sisters-in-law sold to a third party without giving her prior written notice of
such.
 Accession; law on property

 “Accessory follows the principal”.
 Basis: economic reasons
 Ex: form of such alluvium (only for navigable rivers)
Since it would be crazy to register an increase by 2 centimetres as an example
of such.
 Accretion; law on succession (Article 1015)
 If there is RIP, there will be a vacancy, thus find someone else.
 First thing to do is give the testator a chance to die testate
 Thus substitution
 If none, then representation
 If not applicable then accretion.
59
 Requisites for Accretion

1. Unity of object (specified property or aliquot share);
2. Plurality of object;
3. Vacancy due to RIP;
4. Acceptance of one (ex: H&W, either one should accept);
5. No ear marking (refers to co-owners); (ownership pro indiviso, no partition (no specific amount or prop);
and
6. Article 1021, among the Compulsory Heirs the right to accretion shall take place only when the free portion
is left to 2 or more of them, or anyone of them and a stranger.
 Free portion
Compulsory Heir as to legitime no accretion
Voluntary Heir as to Free Portion there is accretion
 Seatwork #1
 Given facts:
Estate – 210 HEIR INSTITUTION EQUIVALENT RATIO ACCREATION TOTAL
A, B, C and D heirs A 1/2 105 4 15,000 120
Repudiate – D B 1/4 52.5 2 7,500 60
All are universal heir C 1/8 26.25 1 3,500 30
All are voluntary heir D 1/8 26.25
26,250 7 210
4:2:1= 7 = 3,750
Repudiation
 Seatwork #2
 Same facts but now all heirs are legitimate children.
HEIR LEGITIME INTENDED EQUIVALENT BALANCE ACCREATION

INSTITUTION FROM
FP
A 35 1/2 105 70 14,000
B 35 1/4 52.5 17.5 3,500
C 35 1/4 26.25 0
D Repudiate d 1/4 0
105 + 87.5 + 17,500 = 210
*Double checking
105 + 87.5 = 192.5 -210 = 17.5
26.5 (D’s Share) – 17.5 = 8,750
8,750 + institution = 26.25
= 35 (legitime)
 Capacity to succeed
 Fitness to receive the inheritance.
 Such fitness is determined in accordance to the law applicable at the time of death of the decedent,
not before or after death.
 What is used as a basis for fitness – Article 16 of the NCC (law where you come from);
60
 Types of incapacity
1. Absolute incapacity – No capacity at all to inherit from the decedent.

a. He died before the decedent died;
b. Those who cannot be identified properly;
c. Corporations that are not allowed by law; and
NOTE: Unborn children, for as long as conceived at the time of the death of the decedent; relate such to
Article 41 of the Family Code.
 Parish Priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Victoria v. Rigor

To be capacitated an heir, legatee or devisee must be living at the time succession opens,
except when representation is appropriate. The decedent herein left all his property to the
nearest male relative who will be a priest, unfortunately no one alive or conceived at the time of
death became a priest nor did it seem that there will be.
THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH DISPOSITION IS LIMITED TO 20 YEARS in order to prevent
perpetuities. (kapal yung pari ditto nag habol pa ng administrators fees pa)
 Cid v. Burnaman (This case is only applicable is principle now, nothing more)
Before the implementation of the Family Code, the Spanish code provided no
successional rights whatsoever to the illegitimate children unless there was recognition. Thus the
illegitimate child needed the recognition of the father.
 Capacity as to Judicial Entities
Disposition in favour of a juridical entities are allowed
What about the “KMU” which is a federation not registered with SEC, yes it is
unfortunately possible so long as they are properly described in the will.
2. Relative Incapacity.
Article 1027, refers to several types of dispositions that have some form of incapacity as to the recipient which
can be or cannot be rectified.
A. The priest who heard the confession of the testator during his last illness or the minister of gospel who
extended spiritual aid to him during the same period. (Atty. Sebastian – the reason of this is the
influence one can bring down on the testator, ex: Friar lands);
B. The relatives of said priest or minister of the gospel within the 4th degree, the church order, chapter,
community, organization or institution to which the said priest or minister may belong to;
C. A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a ward in his favour before the final
accounts of the guardianship have been approved, even if the testator should die after the approval
thereof; nevertheless, any provision made by a ward in favour of a guardian when the latter is
his/hers ascendant, descendant, brother , sister or spouse shall be valid;
D. Any attesting witness to the execution of a will, the spouse, parent or children or anyone claiming
under such witness, spouse, parent or children – Article 823, the 3 other no sufficient);
E. Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health officer or druggist who took care of the testator during his
last illness; and
F. Individuals, associations or corporations not permitted by law to inherit.
NOTE: All of such are conclusive presumptions therefore irrebuttable.
61
 Article 1028
 Refers to rules on donations in Article 739 that shall apply to testamentary provisions;
 Article 739 the following donations are void.
a. Those made between persons who are guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the
donation;
b. The same but found criminally liable for such;
c. Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants and ascendants by reason of his office.
 Article 1029
 (In general terms without specifying its application) Testator disposes in whole or part of his property for
prayer and pious works for the benefit of his soul.
 The executor shall with the approval of the court shall deliver 1/2 of the proceeds to the church or
denomination he belongs to, to be used for prayer and pious works and the other half will go to the state.
 The tripartite of corruption shall decide.
 Article 1032 (look at the annex, graph made in relation to disinheritance)

 (Paragraph 4), any heir of full age who having knowledge of the testators violent death fails to report it
within 30 days.
 There is a problem with this, the full text requires a law but there is no law requiring to report such unlike in
the US.
 Condonation can be done in 2 ways.

 First. Where the testator knew of said incapacity and despite such knowledge subsequently writes a will
to institute such heir; or
 Did not know then…….
 Repudiation (read more)

 As to creditors – repudiation can be disallowed, if such is done in fraud of creditors.
 Double tax?
 Partition?
 Purpose of Collation.
 The 1st priority is to protect the legitime of the compulsory heirs;
 To make sure that everybody gets more or less equal share unless otherwise stipulated in a will.
 Arellano v. Pascual (638 scra 826) – no compulsory heir no collation.
 Enforcement of the legitime is ensured through the following:

 One. Article 886 wherein the law provides for a legitime;
 Two. Article 906 – Completion;
 Three. Article 854 – Peterition; and
 Four. Article 1061 – Collation.
62
 Collation is an accounting process

 To account for the value of the donations made by the decedent to ensure the legitime of the compulsory
heirs are not impaired.
 When the legitime is impaired, only then the donee must return the value of what was donated that is not in
excess of the legitime.
 Example:
Estate is 10M Heir share
Gave “A” donation of 10K 1 Legitimate Child 1/2
There are compulsory heirs of Surviving Spouse 1/4
LC, SS and 2IC’s 2 illegitimate Children 1/8 each
Thus, there is no free portion and A must now return the 10K donation
 As per Atty. Sebastian: give back only the value, thus if “A” got 10k worth of land back in the 50’s in what is
today a prime lot, thus you don’t return the land which could be worth millions today but rather its value
then only which is 10k.
 It is the money value of when you received the property not when it is being collated after the death of the
decedent.
 That’s why when accepting donation the type of property matters.
If it is a car – you return the value of the car, usually because of depreciation of said car, it would mean you get the
raw end of the deal.
If it is a Land – you return the price of when it was given to you but the actual value of the land would
appreciate, thus good job.
 Reserva refers to the property and collation refers to the value not the property itself.
NOTE: As stated if the donation impairs the legitime, must return the value of the property, BUT if the donation revoked
by law, return the property itself and not the value of such.
 Basic of collation
1. Estate (E) = Property (P) – Debts (D) + Collationable Donation (CD)
2. CD (CH) Compulsory Heir Advance to the Legitime where toimpute
(VH) Voluntary Heir Advance against the Free Portion
3. Determine if the legitime is affected by what was given from the Free Portion.
 EX#1
 Given Facts: T 190 +50 =240 (theoretical estate)
Estate = 190 equally = 240/3 =80 each
Kids = A, B & C who are legit A B C (50)
C = 50 donation 40 40
Will = to receive equally 80 80 30 from legitime from (FP)
40 – Legitime – 50 CD = 10 donation
 As a General Rule all donations are collationable 40 FP – 10 donation = 30
 Article 1062 – creates an exemption.
 But in order to apply, must first see what is the intention
 Is the intention an advance or
 Is the intention a preference (para lamang yung isang heir)
 The stipulation in a deed of sale makes it an advance towards the free disposal.
63
 EX#2
 Same facts but the donation T
Is now not a collationable donation.
A B C50 (non CD)
1. Honor the donation
- In order to do such check if such inofficious. 63,333.33 Each
190 + 50 =240/2 = 120 50 can fit
50 thus not inofficious
2. 190/3 = 63,333.33
 What if there are plenty of donations?

 “Priority in time equals priority in right”.
 Seatwork #1
E = 210 1. 210 + 30 = 240/ 2 = 120 FITS! Thus step 2
A, B & C are legit kids 30 T
Donation to C = 30 is non CD 2. 210/3 =70 each
A B C
 Seatwork #2
Same facts but now 1. 210 + 100 = 310/2 = 155 Fits! Non 70 70 70
CD is 100 100
2. 210/3 = 70 each still!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seatwork #3
E = 20 1. 20 + 100 = 120/2 = 60 DOES NOT FIT!Non
CD to C = 100 100
Since it cannot fit additional step implemented
1. b. 60/3 = 20, is what A, B and C should get as legitime.
2. T (E= 20)
A B C (non CD 100)
20 20 -20 Transfer from C to D to complete legitime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seatwork #4
E = 120 1. 120 + 240 = 360/2 =180 Cannot fit!
Donation to C = 240 240
Thus 1.b. 180/3 = 60 each as legitime
Amount fits in the estate thus, C still gets 240
2. T (E=120)
A B C
60 60 240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64
 Seatwork #5
Same facts but this time 1. 120 + 240 = 360/2 =180 Cannot fit! C
repudiated thinking it was not fair 240
He got more. 1.b. But C repudiated THUS
180/2 = 90 for A and B as legitime.
2. T (E=120)
A B C 180 (total legitime) 240 (CD)

- 120 (Estate) - 60
90 90 0 60 (Balance) 180 = what C actually got
 C thought he was doing the right thing by his siblings and ended up losing out, thus the lesson is to calculate
first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 EX#3 * thus first thing after

 Given facts: 1. 200 + 10 = 210/2 = 105 can fit step 1 is to provide
E = 200 10 for the legacy.
2 legit kids A & B 2. 200/2 = (legitime) 100/2 = 50 each
Legacy to B 10K = (free portion) 90/2 = 45 each 95
each
3. T (E=200)
A B
(95+10 =105)
95 105
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seatwork #6
 Given facts: 1. Check legacy: 135 + 15 = 150/2 = 75 Legacy can fit
E = 135 15
2 legit kids A & B thus pay the legacy 135-15=120
Donation 15 to A 2. 120 (current E) – 15 (donation to A) = 135/2= 67.5
Legacy 15 to B (donation)15 can fit!
A = 67.5 – 15 (donation) = 52,500
B = 67.5 = 67,500
120,000 (current estate)
Legacy to B + 15,000
135,000 (actual estate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Donations do not create preferences BUT legacies do!
 Article 1063 of the Civil Code

 Atty. Sebastian: Error in translation
 Legacies and devises are charged to the free portion.
 As compare when a gift is given by donation it is a collationable donation.
 If the recipient is a CH charged towards the legitime
 If the recipient is a stranger charged towards the Free Portion.
65
 Article 1064 (Grandchildren)

 Vizconde case
 Presumption of survivorship
 The grandparents should have been excluded in the case but they were not, in the
partition proceedings.
 Vanishing deductions
 Simultaneous death; thus allowing one tax to cover all transfers
 (Reiterated) donation – you don’t return the property but rather the value, it is in reserva that
the opposite happens.
 If the grandchildren are to inherit in their own right, no collation is to happen BUT if
the right is under the right of representation, then collate.
T
Collationable
A (DIP) B C
D E Right of representation
Donor
8M F M 1/2
4M
H W Donor donated to 8M F & M donated to
the ACP Son Wife Son and Wife ACP
4M 1/4 1/4
Son Advance Towards the
on legitime Free Portion
ONLY HALF IS COLLATIONABLE
 If the legitime is affected, meaning there is no free portion to the estate

 Article 908 must be applied to preserve the legitime.
 Article 908. To determine the legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the testator shall be
considered, deducting all debts and charges, which shall not include those imposed in the will.
 Not all donations are collationable

 Specific stipulation that such donation is not collationable, will exclude said property that was donated
from being collated.
66
 More Examples
Given facts: Value of assets 100
2 legitimate Kids (A & B) Debts/Taxes - 10
A received a donation of 50 Net Estate 90
Estate = 100 Collationable Donation +50
Debts and taxes = 10 Theoretical Estate 140
 If collationable
2 legitimate children
BUT SINCE COLLATIONABLE
A B A B
70 + 70 = 140 20 + 70 = 90
 If NOT collationable
 Net Estate 90/2 = 45 each
 AB
45 45 Thus legitime is not
impaired 90
 Article 1070 (Wedding Gifts)

 Partial collation only as to wedding gifts.
 What is not collationable?
 What is not collationable is only up to 1/10th of the estate of the donor, thus so long it does not exceed
10th there is no problem.
 Why 1/10th?
 It is never rare to see large families’ sizes in the Philippines, thus 10 children – 1 share daw.
 What can it consist of?
 Jewellery, clothing and outfits.
 What about cash gifts, should they be included?
 As per Paras: yes, it should be.
 As per Puno and J.B.L. Reyes: NO, the law is specific, thus it should not be.
 Side Note: The reason Puno and J.B.L. Reyes never really differ in opinion is because
they co-authored a book together that which has now long be gone out of print.
 As per Atty. Sebastian: There is still NO court decision as to such but follow Paras, if not you lose
collationable assets.
 Who are the donors concerned here?
 Parents and ascendants.
 WHY is that?
Atty. Sebastian: The situation which the law here takes note off, is that a wedding is supposed
to be a once in a lifetime event that would hold great importance in a person’s life, thus it is to be
expected that gifts be given in honor of this special occasion; Moreover the law understands:
1. The fact that the parents feel obliged to give but
2. On the other hand, the law should try to stop over generosity (how about the other kids daw eh!).
67
Alternative Formula for solving ratios

Legacy to receive Note: Always remember Rodriguez v.
80 105= (the ratio) Rodriguez; always give priority to the
120 Total free portion testamentary provision first
Total Legacy
 HOW DO YOU COLLATE WEDDING GIFTS?

 EX#1. *graphed out
Decedent gave the following A = D (E=150)
40, B= 50 and C = 60
Took into account inflation when It A B C
was given, since the marriages Were 40 50 60 Wedding Gifts
5 years apart. -15 -15 -15 Non-Collationable Donation what
E = 150 25 35 45 is collationable (legitime)
STEP 1.
E = 150 STEP 2.
A = 40 (Free Portion) 150 x 1/10 = 15,000 (non-collationable)
B = 50 (Legitime) 150/3 = 50 (legitime for each)
C= 60
300/2 = 150
STEP 4. (Return all then compute)
STEP 3.
150 Total of non-collationable Heirs A B C
-45 donations (blue line) 45 Non-CD 15 15 15
105 Legitime +70 +70 +70
+105 Total ofthe collationable 105 By way of Advances -25 -35 -45
210 donations (yellow line) Net-estate share 40 35 25
210/3 = 70 each = 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 EX#2 STEP 1. Find allowable wedding gift
D (E=160) E = 160
WG = 30
A B OD =30
20 10 As wedding gift (WG) 220/2 = 110 (Legitime)
20 10 Legacy, advance on FP = 110 (Free Portion)
20 10 Ordinary donation (OD) an = 110 (Free Portion) ÷ 1/10 = 11,000
advance on legitime
STEP 2. STEP 3. Paid Sheet

E = 160 A B A B
L = -30 84,500 84,500 20,000 10,000 (Legacy)
130 20-11=9 for A and -9,000 0 +55,500 +74,500
WG = +9 0 for B since less than 11 75,500 84,500 75,500 + 84,500 = 160,000
OD = +30 -20,000 -10,000 which is also (E)
169/2 = 84,500 for A & B 55,500 74,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68
EX#3:
(E = 750,000) STEP 1. Compute for the legitime D SS
Part 1.
Estate 750,000
A B C predecease x Total WG +160,000
Total OD +200,000
10 50 100 (WG) 1,110,000/2 = 555,000 1,110,000
70 80 50 (OD) = 555,000/2 = 277,500 SS
60 100 100 (Legacy) = 277,500/2 = 138,750
STEP 1. Continued STEP 2 Wedding Gift

Part 2.
555,000 138,750 Free Portion
277,500 SS × 1/10th of such
138,750 13, 875 Non collationable
971,250 Total Legitime to be given wedding gift (NCWG)
(E) 1,110,000 – 971,250 = 138,750 Free Disposal
STEP 4. Return all and Redo the Legitime STEP 3. Subtract from gifts (WG)
Part 1.
Estate 750,000 A B C
Collationable (WG) 122,250 Wedding gift received 10,000 50,000 100,000
Ordinary Donation 200,000 Subtract (NCWG) 0 -13,875 -13,875
1,072,250 36,125 + 86,125
= 122,250
STEP 4. Continued
Part 2.
1,072,250/2 = 536,125 (New Total Estate) - (New Total Legitime)
536,125/2 = 268,062.50 SS
268,062.50/2 = 134,031.25 1,072,250 – 938,218.75
938,218.75 New Total Legitime = 134,031.25 (new Free Disposal)
STEP 5. Pay the legitime!

New Total
Heirs A B C SS Legitime with
Supposed Legitime 134,031.25 268,062.50 268,062.50 268,062.50 The WG & OD
Collationable (WG) -0 -36,125 -86,125 computed
(OD) -70,000 -80,000 -50,000
Totals 64,031.25 +151,937.50 +131,937.50 +268,062.50 = 615,968.75
750,000.00 Actual Estate

615,968.75 New Total Legitime with WG & OD accounted for
134,031.25 Free Disposal
Continued Next Page
69
STEP 6. Give the Legacy

Note: C cannot receive any since he predeceased Decedent
A = 60,000
B = 100,000
160,000 Total Legacy to be given
134,031.25 Remaining amount in the Free Disposal
Thus, cannot fit!
STEP 7. FINAL TOTAL!
Heirs A B C SS
Legitime with WG and OD 64,031.25 151,937.50 131,937.50 268,062.50
Legacy 50,261.72 83,769.53 0 0
Total 114,392.96 +235,707.03 +131,937.50 +268,062.50
= 749,999.99
Practically the value of the Estate
 Atty. Sebastian: always do what the testator wants, just make sure the legitime is not affected.
 Ex#4:
 Given facts: T (E=300) 1. Check the legitime
- A, B and F as per will shall 300/2=150/2=75 each for A&B
inherit in equal shares A B F not affected, thus continue
- A & B are CH and F is a VH
- Estate = 300 X Y legitime = 75
- B = DIP, with 2 children Free Portion = 25
who are X & Y
 To determine accretion check out Heir Institution Representation Accretion

what each got from the Free A 100,000 0 5,000
portion. F 100,000 0 20,000
F got 100 X 0 37,500 75 0
A got 25 since the legitime is 75 Thus Y 0 37,500 0
ratio is 4:1 = 25,000 = 5,000
Total 200,000 +75,000 +25,000
5,000
Missing 25K, thus accretion
70
 EX#5
 Same facts but this time B
Repudiates
Heir Institution Additional Legitime Accretion
 When B Repudiates there comes a
A 100 75 5
new computation
300/2 = 150 Actual legitime F 100 20
X -
 Based again from the FP F Y -
= 100
A = 25 Ration is 4:1 THUS, A= 180 and F = 120
4:1 = 25/5 = 5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s all folks!
71

Lecture Notes Baste

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Lecture Notes Baste

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty.

 What are the modes of acquisition? (OLD TIPS)

 Art 391. (Presumption of death for purposes of succession)

 Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety;

Exception: When the obligation becomes intransmissible by the following

 Uson v. Del Rosario;

 NHA v. Almedia; (skipped)

 Go Ong v. CA (model case of how things should be)

 Reganon v. Imperial (new law patterned to this case)

 Salvador v. Sta. Maria (a case borne out of stupidity and laziness)

Seller/Owner ----------------------- Buyer

1) Handled probate of the will 1) Action for reconveyance (23

 Ramirez v. Baltazar ( Rights of the heirs)

 Requisites for extra judicial settlement

 Puno v. Puno Enterprises (Art. 777 not applied)

 Reyes v RTC (Art 777 not applied even if shareholder)

 Santos v. Lumbao (difference of ideal share from specific prop )

 Example of future inheritance

 Art. 781 (relate to Art 440 “accrue”)

 Art. 793 (Property acquired after making the will)

Testatrix Dead Alive

 In relation to Art 793, application

 Characteristics of a valid will (usual bar question)

 Art 785 (what can be and cannot be delegated)

 Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon (Testamentary Preference)

 Art. 789 (Ambiguities)

 Testate Estate of Adruna Maloto v. CA (Extrinsic Evidence)

 What you look for in a will in terms of validity.

Extrinsic (as to FORM) – form, capacity, due execution

Probate only looks at the extrinsic

 Who can write a will?

 De Guzman v. Intestate of Franciso Benitez

 Definition of “acknowledgement” before a notary public

 Suroza v Honrado (language must be understood)

 Reyes v. De Vidal ( Disputable presumption)

 Balonan v. Abellana (for 3rd persons, where to put testators name)

 Garcia v Lacuesta ( Don’t lie, admit mistakes)

 Nera v. Rimando (Test of Presence)

 Taboada v. Rosal (Attestation v. Subscription)

 Icasiano v. Icasiano (good idea to keep a copy)

 Art. 1337 – for undue influence – non-voluntary act

 Cargo v. Cargo (Attestation Clause must be signed below)

 Lopez v Liboro ( 2 page sequence)

 Samaniego-Celada v. Abena (Attestation Clause is part of the will)

 Garcia v. Gatchalan (Article 806 is a must)

 Cruz v. Villasor (Notary as a witness also – stupid if notarizes such)

 Gabucan v. Manta (Doc Stamps)

-------------------------------------------- End Art 804 – 806 -----------------------------------------------------

 Art 807. (Deaf or Deaf-Mute Testator)

 Art 808. (Blind Testator)

 Garcia v. Vasquez (what is blind in the legal sense)

 Alvarado v. Gaviola (Substantial Compliance – blind)

 Roxas v. De Jesus (Holographic will and the date requirement)

 Labrador v CA (Position of the date)

 Gan v. Yap (Need the will itself)

 Rodelas v. Aranza (Photocopy not allowed and why)

 Rivera v. IAC ( Joke time lang case)

 Probate is for Testamentary Succession

 Note: all Items must be present in the will.

 Kalaw v. Relova ( must sign changes to a holographic will)

 VDA. De Perez v. Tolete

 De La Cerna v. Rebaca (Joint will that got through)

 Qualifications of a witness to a notarial will