If a compulsory heir is given a part of the free portion and he dies ahead of the testator leaving his own

children and descendants he cannot be represented by his children or descendants in so far as the free
portion is concerned. However, he can be represented by his children or descendants in so far as his
legitime is concerned. There is representation in testamentary succession in so far as the legitime is
concerned.

If the person to be represented is legitimate, the representative must also be legitimate. If the person to
be represented is illegitimate, the representative may be illegitimate or legitimate; either can represent.
For example, let us assume that “X” has two children; “A” as the legitimate and “B” as the illegitimate.
“A” has two children of his own; “C” who is legitimate, and “D” who is illegitimate. “D” has two children;
“E” who is legitimate and “F” who is illegitimate. “A” and “B” both died ahead of “X”. When “X” died, he
was survived by “C”, “D”, “E”, and “F”. Who can inherit by representation in this case? In the case of “A”,
only “C” can represent him because “A” is legitimate and his representative must likewise be legitimate.
What about “D”? He cannot. For one thing there is a barrier between legitimates and illegitimates under
Article 992; an illegitimate child cannot inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children of the relatives
of his parent. Neither can those relatives inherit from him. There is supposed to be a barrier between
legitimates and illegitimates. In the case of “E” and “F”, they can both represent “B” because “B” is
himself an illegitimate. Thus, “E” and “F” can both represent “B”. Justice Jurado even once said to us, “in
the case of this line, ‘F’ is a son of a gun, ‘B’ is a bigger son of a gun, and “X” is the biggest son of a gun of
them all, so there is no barrier”.

“E” and “F” can both represent “B”. However, even in the exercise of the right of representation, let us
not forget the ratio of 2:1 should always be observed in legitimates and illegitimates. Thus, 2:1 is the
ration. For example, if “B” is supposed to receive P30K, P20K will go to “E” while “F” will only get P10k.
the ratio of two is to one between legitimates and illegitimates should always be maintained.
Grandchildren always inherit by right of representation except if all of the children repudiates, that is
the only time when grandchildren can inherit in their own right, applying the provision of Article 969,
not by right of representation. Thus, the distribution will be not per stirpes but per capita.

I have earlier mentioned Article 992. We all know what is that provision; the barrier between legitimates
and illegitimates and we know the reason for that; there is supposed to be an animosity between the
legitimates and illegitimates. The legitimates are supposed to look down on the illegitimates as the
product of sin while illegitimates are supposed to look with envy on the legitimates. Fortunately, this
supposed animosity between legitimates and illegitimates, at present, is not very well pronounced in
our society now. There is a greater acceptance of illegitimates. After all, I have repeatedly stressed,
there is actually no illegitimate children, there are only illegitimate parents. It is not the fault of the
children there because they were not the one who chose. They were not given the opportunity to select
the circumstances under which they would be brought into this world. Anyway, we still have Article 992
up to now. Thus, illegitimates and legitimates cannot inherit ab intestato from each other; the
illegitimate children cannot inherit from the legitimate relatives; the legitimate relatives cannot inherit
from the illegitimate children. The barrier applies only in intestate succession. If you have a half-brother
who is illegitimate, there is nothing which will prevent you from instituting your illegitimate half-brother
as an heir. There is no barrier in testamentary succession. The barrier applies only in intestate
succession