Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
ALVAREZ v IAC
FACTS 185 SCRA 8 May 7, 1990
- Testator Neri indicated in his will that he was leaving all of his
properties by universal title to his children by his second marriage
with preterition of his children by his first marriage. Aniceto Yanes was survived by his children, Rufino, Felipe and
- Eleuterio, Agripino, Agapita, Getulia, Rosario and Celerina are all Teodora. Herein private respondents, Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus,
Neri’s children by his first marriage. are the children of Rufino who died in 1962 while the other private
- The trial court annulled the institution of the heirs and declared total respondents, Antonio and Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe.
intestacy. Teodora was survivedby her child, Jovita (Jovito) Alib. There are two
- The children by the second marriage filed a motion for parcels of land which are involved in this case.
reconsideration on the grounds that: Said lots were registered in the names of the heirs of Aniceto Yanes.
1) there is no preterition as to the children of the first marriage have Fortunato D. Santiago was issued a Transfer Certificate of Title.
received their shares in the property left by the testator Santiago then sold the lots to Monico B. Fuentebella, Jr.
2) assuming that there has been a preterition, the effect would not be The lots were sold thereafter Rosendo Alvarez. The Yaneses filed a
the annulment of the institution of heirs but simply the reduction of complaint against Santiago, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella, Alvarez and
the bequest made to them. the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for the “return” of the
- The children by the second marriage anchor their argument on the ownership and possession of the lots, and prayed for an accounting of
concept of “heir” whose A814 definition is deemed repealed by that the produce of the land from 1944 up to the filing of the complaint,
of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is maintained that the word and that the share or money equivalent due the heirs be delivered to
"heredero" under the Civil Code, is not synonymous with the term them, and damages. During the pendency of the case, Alvarez sold
"heir" under the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the "heir" under the lots to Dr. Rodolfo Siason.
the latter Code is no longer personally liable for the debts of the
deceased as was the "heredero" under the Civil Code ISSUE: Whether the liability arising from the sale of the lots made by
Rosendo Alvarez to Dr.Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of
ISSUES the late Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate, after his death.
1. WON there is preterition
2. WON there should be annulment of the institution of the heirs and As a general rule is that a party’s contractual rights and obligations
open the estate to total intestacy are transmissible to the successors. However, in this case Petitioners
being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, cannot escape the legal
HELD consequences of their father’s transaction, which gave rise to the
1. YES, there is preterition present claim for damages. That petitioners did not inherit the
- According to the court’s findings, none of the children by the first property involved herein is of no moment because by legal fiction,
marriage received their respective shares from the testator’s property the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their
- Even if clause 8 of the will is invoked (said clause states that the father’s hereditary estate, and we have ruled that the hereditary assets
children by his first marriage had already received their shares in his are always liable in their totality for the payment of the debts of the
property excluding what he had given them as aid during their estate.
financial troubles and the money they had borrowed from him) the
Court can rely only on the findings of the trial court that the inventory
indicates that the property of Neri has remained intact and that no It must, however, be made clear that petitioners are liable only to the
portion has been given to the children of the first marriage. extent of the value of their inheritance.
- Neri left his property by universal title to the children by his second
marriage and did not expressly disinherit his children by his first
marriage but did not leave anything to them. This fits the case of
preterition according to A814, CC which provides that the institution
Vitug v. CA
of heirs shall be annulled and intestate succession should be declared
open.
2. YES G.R. No. 82027, March 29, 1990
- The word "heir" as used in A814 of the Civil Code may not have the
meaning that it has under the Code of Civil Procedure, but this does Spouses Dolores and Romarico Vitug entered into a survivorship
prevent a bequest from being made by universal title as is in agreement with the Bank of American National Trust and
substance the subject-matter of A814 of the Civil Code. Savings Association. The said agreement contained the following
- It may also be true that heirs under the Code of Civil Procedure may stipulations:
receive the bequest only after payment of debts left by the deceased
and not before as under the Civil Code, but this may have a bearing
(1) All money deposited and to be deposited with the Bank in their
only upon the question as to when succession becomes effective and
joint savings current account shall be both their property and shall be
can in no way destroy the fact that succession may still be by
payable to and collectible or withdrawable by either or any of them
universal or special title.
during their lifetime; and
- Since a bequest may still be made by universal title and with
preterition of forced heirs, its nullity as provided in article 814 still
applies there being nothing inconsistent with it in the Code of Civil (2) After the death of one of them, the same shall belong to and be the
Procedure. The basis for its nullity is the nature and effect of the sole property of the surviving spouse and payable to and collectible
bequest and not its possible name under the Code of Civil Procedure. or withdrawable by such survivor
- In addition, Secs. 755 and 756 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Dolores died naming Rowena Corona in her wills as executrix. The deceased Father Sancho Abadia executed a holographic will in
Romarico later filed a motion asking authority to sell certain shares of his own handwriting, numbered and signed by the testator himself
stock and real property belonging to the estate to cover and attested by three (3) witnesses on September 6, 1923. He died on
his advances to the estate which he claimed were January 14, 1943 in Cebu. The will was admitted to probate on
personal fundswithdrawn from their savings account. Rowena January 24, 1952. Some of the cousins and nephews, who would
opposed on the ground that the same funds withdrawn from the inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no will, filed opposition.
savings account were conjugal partnership properties and part of the
estate. Hence, there should be no reimbursement. On the other hand,
Romarico insists that the same are his exclusive property acquired
through the survivorship agreement. ISSUE
ISSUE: Whether or not the funds of the savings account subject of What law should apply as to the validity of the holographic will: the
the survivorship agreement were conjugal partnership properties and old Civil Code when the will was executed or the new Civil Code
part of the estate which could have validated the will?
In re: Will and Testament of the deceased REVEREND SANCHO As gathered from the records, the factual background of this case is
ABADIA, G.R. No.L-7188, August 9, 1954 as follows:
20
JUL
[MONTEMAYOR, J.] The land in question is the Eastern portion with an area of Four
Hundred Thirty Six (436) square meters of that parcel of residential
FACTS land situated in Barrio Dulig (now Magsaysay), Municipality of
Labrador, Pangasinan actually covered by Transfer Certificate of Title I
No. 82275 (Exhibit A) issued in the name of Sulpicia Jimenez.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING
The entire parcel of land with an area of 2,932 square meters, THAT MELECIA CAYABYAB, ALSO KNOWN AS
formerly belonged to Fermin Jimenez. Fermin Jimenez has two (2) MELECIA JIMENEZ, IS NOT THE DAUGHTER OF
sons named Fortunato and Carlos Jimenez. This Fortunato Jimenez CARLOS JIMENEZ.
who predeceased his father has only one child, the petitioner Sulpicia
Jimenez. After the death of Fermin Jimenez, the entire parcel of land II
was registered under Act 496 in the name of Carlos Jimenez and
Sulpicia Jimenez (uncle and niece) in equal shares pro-indiviso. As a
result of the registration case Original Certificate of Title No. 50933 THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING
(Exhibit 8) was issued on February 28, 1933, in the names of Carlos THAT MELECIA CAYABYAB, ALSO KNOWN AS
Jimenez and Sulpicia Jimenez, in equal shares pro-indiviso. MELECIA JIMENEZ, HAS NO RIGHT TO SELL THE
LAND IN QUESTION TO EDILBERTO CAGAMPAN.
Carlos Jimenez died on July 9, 1936 and his illegitimate daughter,
Melecia Cayabyab, also known as Melecia Jimenez, took possession III
of the eastern portion of the property consisting of 436 square meters.
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING
On January 20, 1944, Melecia Jimenez sold said 436 square meter- THAT EDILBERTO CAGAMPAN DID NOT BECOME
portion of the property to Edilberto Cagampan and defendant Teodora THE OWNER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION BY
Grado executed a contract entitled "Exchange of Real Properties" VIRTUE OF THE DEED OF SALE (EXH. "1")
whereby the former transferred said 436 square meter-portion to the EXECUTED BY MELECIA CAYABYAB, ALIAS
latter, who has been in occupation since. MELECIA JIMENEZ, IN HIS FAVOR.
SO ORDERED. It has not been proved in these proceedings what the Turkish laws
are. He, himself, acknowledges it when he desires to be given an
Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur. opportunity to present evidence on this point; so much so that he
Melencio-Herrera, J., took no part. assigns as an error of the court in not having deferred the approval of
the scheme of partition until the receipt of certain testimony
requested regarding the Turkish laws on the matter.
Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good [1] NO. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the
morals shall be considered as not imposed and shall not provisions of the will, as provided for by Article 16(2) and 1039 of
prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever, the Civil Code, the national law of the decedent must apply. This was
even should the testator otherwise provide. squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis (20 SCRA 358).“It is
therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be
involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to
And said condition is contrary to law because it expressly ignores the extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has
testator's national law when, according to article 10 of the civil Code specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional
above quoted, such national law of the testator is the one to govern rights, to the decedent’s national law. Specific provisions must prevail
his testamentary dispositions. over general ones.”
Said condition then, in the light of the legal provisions above cited, is [2] NO. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of
considered unwritten, and the institution of legatees in said will is the decedent. (Article 1039, Civil Code) The law which governs
unconditional and consequently valid and effective even as to the Adoracion Campo’s will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is
herein oppositor. the national law of the decedent. Although the parties admit that the
Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all the estate
It results from all this that the second clause of the will regarding the may be given away by the testatrix to a complete stranger, the
law which shall govern it, and to the condition imposed upon the petitioner argues that such law should not apply because it would be
legatees, is null and void, being contrary to law. contrary to the sound and established public policy and would run
counter to the specific provisions of Philippine Law.
All of the remaining clauses of said will with all their dispositions
and requests are perfectly valid and effective it not appearing that
said clauses are contrary to the testator's national law.
So ordered.
FACTS
The testatrix was an American citizen at the time of her death and
was a permanent resident of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that the testatrix
died in Manila while temporarily residing with her sister; that during
her lifetime, the testatrix made her last will and testament according
to the laws of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that after the testatrix death, her
last will and testament was presented, probated, allowed, and
registered with the Registry of Wills at the County of Philadelphia,
U.S.A. An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by herein
petitioner alleging among other things that the intrinsic provisions of
the will are null and void. The petitioner maintains that since the
respondent judge allowed the reprobate of Adoracion’s will,
Hermogenes C. Campos was divested of his legitime which was
reserved by the law for him.
ISSUES