CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - Succession

8/16/2019 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - Succession

1/42

SUCCESSION

The phrase “dependent parents” should,therefore, include all parents, whetherlegitimate or illegitimate and whether bynature or by adoption. When the law does

not distinguish, one should not distinguish.

The law is clear that “the biologicalparents retain their rights ofsuccession to the estate of their childwho was the subject of adoption. Whilethe benets arising from the death of anSSS covered employee do not form part ofthe estate of the adopted child, thepertinent provision on legal or intestatesuccession at least reveals the policy on therights of the biological parents and those byadoption vis--vis the right to receivebenets from the adopted.”

!s a result, it was held that “Cornelio’sdeath at the time of John’s minorityresulted in the restoration ofpetitioner’s parental authority oerthe adopted child.”- "artolome v. SSS

-oo#oo-

The survivorship agreement is a contractwhich imposed a mere obligation with aterm!!being death. Such contracts arepermitted under !rticle $#%$ on aleatorycontracts. When &olores predeceasedher husband the latter ac'uired upon herdeath a vested right over the funds in theaccount. The conveyance is therefore notmortis causa.

Suriorship agreement is per se notcontrary to law and no demonstration

here that survivorship agreement had beene(ecuted for unlawful purposes or as heldby the respondent court in order to frustrateour laws on wills, donations and con)ugalpartnership.* +itug v !

"leatory Contract #"rt$ %&'&( * one ofthe parties or both reciprocally bindthemselves to give or to do something inconsideration of what the other shall giveor do upon the happening of an event

which is uncertain, or which is to occur atan indeterminate time.

-oo#oo-

While we agree with the ! that thedonation mortis causa was invalid in theabsence of a will, it erred in concluding that

the heirs ac'uired the sub)ect propertythrough ordinary ac'uisitive prescription.

The sub)ect parcel of land is a titledproperty thus, ac'uisitive prescription isnot applicable. pon the death of"ernardina, /ansueto and !melia, being

her legal heirs, ac'uired the sub)ectproperty by virtue of succession, and not byordinary ac'uisitive prescription.

0orged deed is generally null and cannotconvey title, the e(ception thereto,pursuant to Section 11 of the 2and3egistration !ct 423!5, denotes theregistration of titles from the forger to theinnocent purchaser for value.- 6eralta v. 7eirs of !balon

-oo#oo-

The donation being then mortis causa, theformalities of a will should have beenobserved but they were not, as it waswitnessed by only two, not three or morewitnesses following "rticle )&* of the ivilode. 0urther, the witnesses did noteen sign the attestation clause thee(ecution of which clause is a re'uirementseparate from the subscription of the willand the a+,ing of signatures on the

left!hand margins of the pages of the will.

The signatures on the left-hand corner of every page signify that the witnessesare aware that the page they are signingforms part of the will.

The signatures to the attestation clauseestablish that the witnesses arereferring to the statements contained inthe attestation clause itself.

The witnesses did not ac8nowledge the willbefore the notary public, which is not inaccordance with the re'uirement of !rticle9#: of the ivil ode that every will mustbe ac-nowledged before a notarypublic by the testator and thewitnesses$

The re'uirement that all the pages of thewill must be numbered correlatiely inletters placed on the upper part of eachpage was not also followed.

"ut even assuming arguendo that theformalities were observed, since it was notprobated, no right to 2ot ;os. :


2/42

respect to 2ot ;o. :s name written by anotherperson in his presence, and by hise(press direction

=. must be attested and subscribed by Eor more credible witnesses in thepresence of the testator and of oneanother

1. the testator or the person re'uested byhim to write his name, and theinstrumental witnesses of the will shallsign each and every page thereofe(cept the last, on the left margin

:. all the pages shall be numberedcorrelatively in letters placed on theupper part of each page

s death.-Sicad vs. ourt of !ppeals

-oo#oo-

The determination of who are the legal

heirs of the deceased must be made inthe proper special proceedings in court,and not in an ordinary suit for recovery ofownership and possession of property.

This must ta8e precedence over theaction for recovery of possession andownership. The ourt has consistentlyruled that the trial court cannot ma8e a&@2!3!TAC; C0 7@A3S7A6 in the civilaction for the reason that such adeclaration can only be made in a specialproceeding.

/atters relating to the rights of liationand heirship must be ventilated in theproper probate court in a specialproceeding instituted precisely for thepurpose of determining such rights.

"y way of e(ception, the need to institutea separate special proceeding for thedetermination of heirship may bedispensed with for the sa8e of practicality,as when the parties in the civil case hadvoluntarily submitted the issue to the trialcourt and already presented theirevidence regarding the issue of heirship,and the 3egional Trial ourt hadconse'uently rendered )udgment thereon,or when a special proceeding had beeninstituted but had been nally closed andterminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened. "ut none of these is present inthe case.- 7eirs of /agdaleno Ipon vs. 3icaforte

-oo#oo-

"+nity denotes “the relation that onespouse has to the blood relatives of theother spouse.” At is a relationship bymarriage or a familial relation resulting frommarriage.


3/42

Andeed, “there is no aJnity between theblood relatives of one spouse and the bloodrelatives of the other. ! husband is relatedby aJnity to his wife>s brother, but not tothe wife of his wife>s brother. There is no

aJnity between the husband>s brother andthe wife>s sister this is called "..INI/"S"..INI/"/IS$- Tiggangay vs. Wacas

-oo#oo-"./E0 1E"/23 4E.O0E 1IS/0I4U/ION5 INC2O"/E O067/0"NS8ISSION9NON!/0"NS8ISSIONO. 0I:2/S

/itle or rights to a deceased person’sproperty are immediately passed to hisor her heirs upon death$H The heirs>rights become vested without need forthem to be declared “heirs.” "efore theproperty is partitioned, the heirs are co-owners of the property.

The heirs cannot alienate the shares that donot belong to them. !rticle =?E of the ivilode providesF!rt. =?E. @ach co-owner shall have the fullownership of his part and of the fruits andbenets pertaining thereto, and he maytherefore alienate, assign or mortgage it,and even substitute another person in itsen)oyment, e(cept when personal rights areinvolved. "ut the eGect of the alienation orthe mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion whichmay be allotted to him in the division uponthe termination of the coownership.

Since @nri'ue>s right to the property waslimited to his one-fourth share, he had no

right to sell the undivided portions thatbelonged to his siblings or their respectiveheirs. !ny sale by one heir of the rest of theproperty will not aGect the rights of theother heirs who did not consent to the sale.Such sale is void with respect to the sharesof the other heirs.

7aving established that /arietta ac'uiredno valid title or ownership from @nri'ueover the undivided portions of theproperty, the court nds that no valid

mortgage was e(ecuted over the sameproperty in favor of &"6. Without a validmortgage, there was also no validforeclosure sale and no transfer ofownership of petitioners> undividedportions to &"6. An other words, 14;ac


4/42

until nal )udgment is rendered, and in thecase falling under ;o. =, the e(piration ofthe month allowed for the report.

Af the institution, devise or legacy should beconditional, the time of the compliance with

the condition shall also be considered.

"rticle '&>%. The following are incapableof succeeding by reason of unworthinessF

4%5 6arents who have abandoned theirchildren or induced their daughters to leada corrupt or immoral life, or attemptedagainst their virtue

4$5 !ny person who has been convicted ofan attempt against the life of the testator,his or her spouse, descendants, orascendants

4E5 !ny person who has accused thetestator of a crime for which the lawprescribes imprisonment for si( years ormore, if the accusation has been foundgroundless

4=5 !ny heir of full age who, having8nowledge of the violent death of thetestator, should fail to report it to an oJcer

of the law within a month, unless theauthorities have already ta8en action thisprohibition shall not apply to cases wherein,according to law, there is no obligation toma8e an accusation

415 !ny person convicted of adultery orconcubinage with the spouse of thetestator

4:5 !ny person who by fraud, violence,intimidation, or undue inNuence shouldcause the testator to ma8e a will or tochange one already made

4


5/42

pertains e(clusively to the husband or tothe wife.”HSince Pose Sr. and 2igaya weremarried prior to the eGectivity of the 0amilyode, their property relations weregoverned by the con)ugal partnership ofgains as provided under !rticle %%? of the

ivil ode.

3egistration of a property alone in the nameof one spouse does not destroy its con)ugalnature. What is material is the time whenthe property was ac'uired. - An order torebut the presumptive con)ugal nature ofthe property, the petitioner must presentstrong, clear and convincing evidence ofe(clusive ownership of one of the spouses.

Upon the death of Aigaya on Panuary $%,%?9


6/42

by Ta( &eclaration ;o. %%#< is void becausethe sub)ect property is still covered by the@state of !bundio, which up to now,remains unpartitioned.- /edina vs. ourt of !ppeals

-oo#oo-

nder the rules of succession, the heirsinstantaneously became co!owners ofthe 8arcos properties upon the deathof the ;resident$ The propertyrightsand obligations to the e,tent of thealue of the inheritance of a personare transmitted to another through thedecedent’s death$ An this concept,nothing prevents the heirs from e(ercisingtheir right to transfer or dispose of theproperties that constitute their legitimes,even absent their declaration or absent thepartition or the distribution of the estate.-3epublic vs. /arcos-/anotoc

The criterion for determining whether anaction survives the death of a petitionerFdepends on the nature of the action and thedamage sued for.In the causes of action which SU0BIBE3

the wrong complained ofD aectsprimarily and principally property and;0O;E0/F rights3 the injuries to theperson being merely incidentalwhile in the causes of action which do notsurvive, the in)ury complained of is to the6@3SC;, the property and rights of propertyaGected being incidental.

! petition for &eclaration of ;ullity of &eedof Sale of 3eal 6roperty is one relating toproperty and property rights, and therefore,survives the death of the petitioner.

Af the case aGects primarily and principallyproperty and property rights, then itsurvives the death of the plaintiG orpetitioner.- ruK vs. ruK

-oo#oo-

Until the estate is partitioned3 eachheir only has an INC2O"/E right to the

properties of the estate3 such that noheir may lay claim on a particularproperty$

"rt$ '&=) of the ivil ode provides thatwhere there are two or more heirs, thewhole estate of the decedent is3 beforepartition3 owned in common by such

heirs, sub)ect to the payment of the debtsof the deceased. nder a co!ownership,the ownership of an undivided thing or rightbelongs to diGerent persons. @ach co-ownerof property which is held pro indiiso e(ercises his rights over the whole property

and may use and en)oy the same with noother limitation than that he shall not in)urethe interests of his co-owners.

"rt$ ?@>$ Each co!owner shall hae thefull ownership of his part and of thefruits and beneGts pertaining thereto3 and he may therefore alienate, assign ormortgage it, and een substituteanother person in its enjoyment3e,cept when personal rights areinoled$ "ut the eGect of the alienation orthe mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portionwhich may be allotted to him in thediision upon the termination of the co-ownership.- Silverio v !

-oo#oo-

While !./. ;o. #$-%%-%#-S declares that apetition for declaration of absolute nullityof marriage may be Gled solely by thehusband or the wife, it does not mean

that the compulsory or intestate heirs arewithout any recourse under the law.3@/@&IF Compulsory or intestate heirscan still


7/42

necessarily compulsory heirs but theymay be so if the law reserves a legitime forthem. ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( +erily,petitioners are legal heirs. 7aving beendecreed under the rules on intestacy asentitled to succeed to the estate of the

atain spouses due to the absence ofcompulsory heirs, they now step into theshoes of the decedents.

3espondent @lla Dagarani !so8, asdaughter-in-law of the patentees, can beconsidered as among the legal heirs whocan repurchase the land in accordance withSalenillas v. ourt of !ppeals, %:? S3! 9$?4%?9?5.- &evelopment "an8 of the 6hilippines vs.Dagarani

-oo#oo-

Substitution of 6arties The heirs of thedeceased may be allowed to besubstituted for the deceased, withoutre'uiring the appointment of an e(ecutor oradministrator and the court may appoint aguardian ad litem for the minor heirs.4Section %:, 3ule E5

Since the 'uestions involved in these casesrelate to property and property rights, then

we are dealing with actions that survive sothat Section %:, 3ule E must necessarilyapply.

The “legal representatives” that theprovision spea8s of, refer to thoseauthoriKed by lawHthe administrator,e(ecutor or guardian who, under the rule onsettlement of estate of deceased persons, isconstituted to ta8e over the estate of thedeceased.

An applying Section %:, 3ule E, her heirs areher surviving sisters and the children of herdeceased sister, 2ourdes who should be herlegal representatives.- Sumal)ag vs. 2iterato

-oo#oo-

" person must Grst institute a specialproceeding to determine his status asan heir before he can Gle an ordinaryciil action to nullify certaininstruments pertaining to the property

of the decedent$H The primary issue inthis case is whether or not the respondentshave to institute a special proceeding todetermine their status as heirs of !nacletoabrera before they can le an ordinarycivil action to nullify the aJdavits of!nacleto abrera and &ionisia 3eyes, the@(tra-Pudicial Settlement with the Sale of

@state of &ionisia 3eyes, and the &eed ofSegregation of 3eal @state and onrmationof Sale e(ecuted by the heirs of &ionisia3eyes and the heirs of !nacleto abrera, aswell as to cancel the new transfercerticates of title issued by virtue of the

above-'uestioned documents.

The trial court correctly dismissed the casefor there is a lac8 of cause of action when acase is instituted by parties who are notreal parties in interest. While a declarationof heirship was not prayed for in thecomplaint, it is clear from the allegationstherein that the right the respondentssought to protect or enforce is that of anheir of one of the registered co-owners ofthe property prior to the issuance of thenew transfer certicates of title that theysee8 to cancel. Thus, there is a need toestablish their status as such heirs in theproper forum.

! declaration of heirship is improper in anordinary civil action since the matter iswithin the e(clusive competence of thecourt in a special proceeding.- 3eyes vs. @nri'ueK

-oo#oo-

The estate of a deceased person is a )uridical entity that has a personality of its

own Pudgment in a case binds only theparties therein and not the estate of adeceased person which might have beenrepresented at one time by one of theparties.

;roperty receied by compulsory heirsfrom the decedent under an impliedtrust is subject to collation.

"rt$ '??@of the ivil ode statesF There, is

also an implied trust when a donation ismade to a person but it appears thatalthough the legal estate is transmitted tothe donee, he nevertheless is either to haveno benecial interest or only a part thereof.

There being an implied trust, the lots in'uestion are therefore sub)ect to collation inaccordance with "rt$ '&' which statesF@very compulsory heir, who succeeds withother compulsory heirs, must bring intothe mass of the estate any property or

right which he may have receied from thedecedent, during the lifetime of thelatter, by way of donation, or any othergratuitous title, in order that it may becomputed in the determination of thelegitime of each heir, and in the account ofthe partition.- ;aKareno vs. ourt of !ppeals


8/42

-oo#oo-

D@;@3!2 32@F heirs are bound bycontracts entered into by theirpredecessors-in-interest

@@6TAC;F when the rights and obligationsarising therefrom are not transmissible by4%5 their nature, 4$5 stipulation or 4E5provision of law.An the case at bar, there is neithercontractual stipulation nor legal provisionma8ing the rights and obligations under thecontract intransmissible. /ore importantly,the nature of the rights and obligationstherein are, by their nature, transmissible.

“!mong contracts which areintransmissible are those which arepurely personal, either by provision of law,such as in cases of partnerships andagency, or by the very nature of theobligations arising therefrom, such as thosere'uiring special personal 'ualications ofthe obligor. At may also be stated thatcontracts for the payment of money debtsare not transmitted to the heirs of a party,but constitute a charge against his estate.

Thus, where the client in a contract forprofessional services of a lawyer died,leaving minor heirs, and the lawyer, instead

of presenting his claim for professionalservices under the contract to the probatecourt, substituted the minors as parties forhis client, it was held that the contractcould not be enforced against the minorsthe lawyer was limited to a recovery on thebasis of 'uantum meruit.”

There is privity of interest between an heirand his deceased predecessorHhe onlysucceeds to what rights his predecessor hadand what is valid and binding against thelatter is also valid and binding as againstthe former.

An the case at bar, the sub)ect matter of thecontract is li8ewise a lease, which is aproperty right. The death of a partydoesnot e,cuse nonperformance of acontract which involves a property right,and the rights and obligations thereunderpass to the personal representatives of thedeceased.- & 7oldings orporation vs. ourt of!ppeals

-oo#oo-

The conjugal partnership terminatesupon the death of either spouse. Where a complaint is brought against thesurviving spouse for the recoery of anindebtedness chargeable against said

con)ugal property, any )udgment obtainedthereby is void The proper action should bein the form of a claim to be Gled in thetestate or intestate proceedings of thedeceased spouse.

! deceased person does not have suchlegal entity as is necessary to bring actionso much so that a motion to substitutecannot lie and should be denied by thecourt. !n action begun by adecedent>s estate cannot be said to havebeen begun by a legal person, since anestate is not a legal entity.- +entura vs. /ilitante

-oo#oo-

The general rule is that a party’scontractual rights and obligations aretransmissible to the successors.

;etitioners being the heirs of the late0osendo "lare3 they cannot escapethe legal conse


9/42


10/42

successional rights or undulyprejudiced their legitimes.

Succession 6artition @(tra-Pudicial6artition Special 6ower of !ttorney;artition among heirs is not legally

deemed a coneyance of real propertyresulting in change of ownershipHit isnot a transfer of property from one to theother, but rather3 it is a conGrmation orratiGcation of title or right of propertythat an heir is renouncing in faor ofanother heir who accepts and receiesthe inheritance Since a &eed of E,tra! Judicial ;artition cannot be consideredas an act of strict dominion3 a specialpower of attorney is not necessary$An fact, as between the parties, even an oralpartition by the heirs is valid if no creditorsare aGected. The re'uirement of a writtenmemorandum under the statute of fraudsdoes not apply to partitions eGected by theheirs where no creditors are involvedconsidering that such transaction is not aconveyance of property resulting in changeof ownership but merely a designation andsegregation of that part which belongs toeach heir.

;reterition is thetotal omission of acompulsory heir from the inheritanceHit

consists in the silence of the testator withregard to a compulsory heir, omitting him inthe testament, either by not mentioninghim at all, or by not giving him anything inthe hereditary property but withoute(pressly disinheriting him, even if he ismentioned in the will in the latter case.6reterition is thus a concept oftestamentary succession and re'uires awill.- reta v reta

The 1eclaration of 2eirship can be madeonly in a special proceeding and not in acivil action.

Iaptinchay and @nri'ueK, plaintiGs> actionfor annulment of title was anchored on theiralleged status as heirs of the original ownerwhereas in this case3 the respondents’claim is rooted on a sale transaction$- 2imos vs. Cdones

The rights to a person>s succession aretransmitted from the moment of hisdeath.

The inheritance of a person consists ofthe property andtransmissible rightsand obligations e,isting at the time ofhis death, as well as those which have

accrued thereto since the opening ofthe succession.Since 3ufo lost ownership of the sub)ectproperty during his lifetime, it only followsthat at the time of his death, the disputedparcel of land no longer formed part of his

estate to which his heirs may lay claim.Stated diGerently, petitioner andrespondents never inherited the sub)ect lotfrom their father- "alus vs. "alus

The declaration of heirship can be madeonly in a special proceeding inasmuch asit involves the establishment of a statusor right.! civil action is dened as “one by which aparty sues another for the enforcement orprotection of a right, or the prevention orredress of a wrong” whilea special proceeding is “a remedy by whicha party see8s to establish a status, a right,or a particular fact.”- Iaptinchay vs. &el 3osario

“ontract of Sale” and “&eclaration of7eirship and Waiver of 3ights,”&istinguished.

An a Contract of Sale, one of thecontracting parties obligates himself totransfer the ownership of and to deliver adeterminate thing, and the other party topay a price certain in money or itse'uivalent.pon the other hand, a declaration ofheirship and waier of rights operatesas a public instrument when led with the3egistry of &eeds whereby the intestateheirs adjudicate and diide the estateleft by the decedent among themselves asthey see t. At is in eGect an e,trajudicialsettlement between the heirs under3ule


11/42

either a sale3 or a donation3 or anyother deriatie mode of acs common law partner.

The law gives the right and duty to ma8efuneral arrangements to 3osario, she beingthe surviving legal wife of !tty. !driano. Thefact that she was living separately from herhusband and was in the nited States whenhe died has no controlling signicance. Tosay that 3osario had, in eGect, waived orrenounced, e(pressly or impliedly, her rightand duty to ma8e arrangements for thefuneral of her deceased husband isbaseless. The right and duty to ma8e

funeral arrangements, li8e any other right,will not be considered as having beenwaived or renounced, e(cept upon clearand satisfactory proof of conduct indicativeof a free and voluntary intent to that end.

!rticle E#< of the ivil ode providesF

"rt$ >&=. The funeral shall be inaccordance with the e(pressed wishes ofthe deceased. An the absence of suche(pression, his religious beliefs ora+liation shall determine the funeral rites.An case of doubt, the form of the funeral

shall be decided upon by the person obligedto ma8e arrangements for the same, afterconsulting the other members of thefamily. ((( !s thoroughly e(plained earlier,the right and duty to ma-e funeralarrangements reside in the personsspeciGed in "rticle >&* in relation to"rticle '@@ of the 0amily ode.

!rt. E#1. The duty and the right to ma8earrangements for the funeral service of arelative shall be in accordance with theorder established for support under !rt.%?? of the 0amily ode (((

!rt. %?? 405. Whenever two or morepersons are obliged to give support, theliability shall devolve upon the G personsin the order providedFa. Spouseb. &escendants in nearest degreec. !scendants in nearest degreed. "rothers and sisters

onsidering the ambiguity as to the true

wishes of the deceased, it is the law thatsupplies the presumption as to his intent.;o presumption can be said to have beencreated in +alino>s 4common-law spouse5favor, solely on account of a long-timerelationship with !tty. !driano 4deceased5.Should there be any doubt as to thetrue intent of the deceased3 the lawfaors the legitimate family$! +alino vs. !driano

0amily 7ome Cne signicant innovationintroduced by The 0amily ode is theautomatic constitution of the familyhome from the time of its occupation as a family residence without need anymorefor the )udicial or e(tra)udicial processes.

At being settled that the sub)ect house 4andthe sub)ect lot on which it stands5 is thefamily home of the deceased and his heirs,the same is shielded from immediatepartition under !rticle %1? of The 0amily

ode.

!rticle %1?. The family home shall continuedespite the death of one or both spouses orof the unmarried head of the family for aperiod of ten years or for as long asthere is a minor beneGciary, and theheirs cannot partition the same unless the


12/42

court nds compelling reasons therefor. This rule shall apply regardless of whoever

owns the property or constituted the familyhome.

To this end, it preserves the family home as

the physical symbol of family love, securityand unity by imposing the following3@ST3ATAC;S C; ATS 6!3TATAC; 4of 075Frst, that the heirs cannot e,tra! judicially partition it for a period of '&years from the death of one or bothspouses or of the unmarried head of thefamily, or for a longer period, if there isstill a minor beneGciary residingtherein andsecond, that the heirs cannot judiciallypartition it during the aforesaidperiods unless the court Gndscompelling reasons therefor.

@ven if the family home has passed bysuccession to the co-ownership of the heirs,or has been willed to any one of them, thisfact alone cannot transform the familyhome into an ordinary property.- !rriola v !rriola

SUCCESSION7EPUI/"4AE /I/AE L AE:"A /I/AE72EI0S L ES/"/E70UAES => 5 @'3 0UAES O. COU0/

pon the death of a shareholder, theheirs do not automatically becomestoc-holders of the corporation andac'uire the rights and privileges of thedeceased as shareholder of the corporationHthe stoc-s must be distributed Grst to

the heirs in estate proceedings, and thetransfer of the stoc-s must berecorded in the boo8s of the corporation.&uring such interim period, the heirsstand as the es estate and her heirs5, does notbind the corporation and third parties. /hetransfer must be registered in theboo-s of the corporation to ma-e thetransferee!heir a stoc-holder entitled

to recognition as such both by thecorporation and by third parties$

The probate court, and not by a specialcommercial court, has the power to enforcean accounting as a necessary means to itsauthority to determine the properties

included in the inventory of the estate to beadministered, divided up, and distributed."eyond this, the determination of title orownership over the sub)ect shares 4whetherbelonging to !nastacia or Cscar5 may beconclusively settled by the probate court asa 'uestion of collation or advancement.- 3eyes vs. 3egional Trial ourt of /a8ati,"r. %=$

.orms of ills3 Et Se)

"rticle )&?. @very will must be in writingand e(ecuted in a language or dialect8nown to the testator.

"rticle )&*. @very will, other than aholographic will, must be subscribed atthe end thereof by the testator himself orby the testatorOs name written by some

other person in his presence, and by hise(press direction, and attested andsubscribed by three or more crediblewitnesses in the presence of the testatorand of one another.

The testator or the person re'uested byhim to write his name and theinstrumental witnesses of the will, shallalso sign, as aforesaid, each and everypage thereof, e(cept the last, on the leftmargin, and all the pages shall be

numbered correlatively in letters placedon the upper part of each page.

The attestation shall state the number ofpages used upon which the will is written,and the fact that the testator signed thewill and every page thereof, or causedsome other person to write his name,under his e(press direction, in thepresence of the instrumental witnesses,and that the latter witnessed and signedthe will and all the pages thereof in the

presence of the testator and of oneanother.

Af the attestation clause is in a languagenot 8nown to the witnesses, it shall beinterpreted to them.


13/42

"rticle )&. @very will must beac8nowledged before a notary public bythe testator and the witnesses. Thenotary public shall not be re'uired toretain a copy of the will, or le anotherwith the oJce of the ler8 of ourt.

"rticle )&=. Af the testator be deaf, or adeaf-mute, he must personally read thewill, if able to do so otherwise, he shalldesignate two persons to read it andcommunicate to him, in some practicablemanner, the contents thereof.

"rticle )&). Af the testator is blind, thewill shall be read to him twice once, byone of the subscribing witnesses, andagain, by the notary public before whom

the will is ac8nowledged.

"rticle )&@. An the absence of bad faith,forgery, or fraud, or undue and improperpressure and inNuence, defects andimperfections in the form of attestation orin the language used therein shall notrender the will invalid if it is proved thatthe will was in fact e(ecuted and attestedin substantial compliance with all there'uirements of article 9#1.

"rticle )>@. The will shall bedisallowed in any of the following casesF

4%5 Af the formalities re'uired by lawhave not been complied with

4$5 Af the testator was insane, orotherwise mentally incapable of ma8inga will, at the time of its e,ecution

4E5 Af it was e(ecuted through force orunder duress, or the inNuence of fear,or threats

4=5 Af it was procured by undue andimproper pressure and inQuence, onthe part of the beneGciary or of someother person

415 Af the signature of the testator wasprocured by fraud

4:5 Af the testator acted by mista-e ordid not intend that the instrument hesigned should be his will at the time ofaJ(ing his signature thereto.

The statement in the !c8nowledgmentportion of the sub)ect last will and

testament that it “consists of < pagesincluding the page on which the raticationand ac8nowledgment are written” cannotbe deemed substantial compliance. The willactually consists of 9 pages including itsac8nowledgment which discrepancy cannot

be e(plained by mere e(amination of thewill itself but through the presentation ofevidence aliunde.- 2opeK vs. 2opeK

The state of being forgetful does notnecessarily ma8e a person mentallyunsound so as to render him unt toe(ecute a Will.

!rticle


14/42

While it is true that the attestation clauseis not a part of the will, the court, aftere(amining the totality of the will, is of theconsidered opinion that error in the

number of pages of the will as statedin the attestation clause is notmaterial to invalidate the sub)ect will. (((At must be noted that the subjectinstrument is consecutiely letteredwith pages "3 43 and C which is asu+cient safeguard from the possibilityof an omission of some of the pages. substantial compliance.- Samaniego-elada vs. !bena

"rticle ))=. The following areCO8;UASO0F 2EI0SF4%5 Aegitimate children anddescendants, with respect to theirlegitimate parents and ascendants

4$5 An default of the foregoing, legitimateparents and ascendants3 with respectto their legitimate children anddescendants

4E5 The widow or widower

4=5 "c-nowledged natural children, andnatural children by legal ction

415 Cther illegitimate children referredto in article $9s 4notarypublic5 )urisdiction is oid as if the personta8ing it were wholly without oJcialcharacter. ThusF

The compulsory language of !rticle 9#: ofthe ivil ode was not complied with andthe interdiction of !rticle $=# of the ;otarial2aw was breached. Aneluctably, the acts of the testatri,3 her witnesses and "tty$1irecto were all completely oid.- Duerrero vs. "ihis

! failure by the attestation clauseto statethat the testator signed eery page can be liberally construed, since that fact

can be chec8ed by a visual e(amination,

while a failure by the attestation clause tostate that the witnesses signed in oneanother’s presence should be considereda fatal Qaw since the attestation is theonly te(tual guarantee of compliance.

The failure of the attestation clause tostate the number of pages on whichthe will was written remains a fatalQaw, despite !rticle 9#?. The purpose ofthe law in re'uiring the clause to state thenumber of pages on which the will is writtenis to safeguard against possibleinterpolation or omission of one or someof its pages and to prevent any increase ordecrease in the pages. There issubstantial compliance with thisre'uirement if the will states elsewherein it how many pages it is comprisedof$

#witnesses’ signing of each page of thewill is distinct from the signing of the

attestation clause(!rticle 9#1 particularly segregates there'uirement that the instrumentalwitnesses sign each page of the will, fromthe re'uisite that the will be “attested andsubscribed by Lthe instrumentalwitnessesM”Hthe respective intents behindthese two classes of signature are distinct


15/42

from each other. @ven if instrumentalwitnesses signed the left-hand margin ofthe page containing the unsigned clause,such signatures cannot demonstrate thesewitnesses> underta8ings in the clause, sincethe signatures that do appear on the page

were directed towards a wholly diGerentavowal.

The signatures on the left!hand corner of every page signify, among others, thatthe witnesses are aware that the pagethey are signing forms part of the will.Cn the other hand, the signatures to theattestation clause establish that thewitnesses are referring to thestatements contained in theattestation clause itself. Andeed, theattestation clause is separate and apartfrom the disposition of the will.

It is the witnesses, and not the testator,who are re'uired under "rticle )&* tostate the number of pages used uponwhich the will was written the fact that thetestator had signed the will and everypage thereof and that they witnessed andsigned the will and all the pages thereofinthe presence of the testator and of oneanother$

An lieu of an ac8nowledgment, the notarypublic, 6etronio I. "autista, wrote“;ilagdaan 8o at ninotario 8o ngayong %#ng 7unyo %# 4sic5, %?9% dito sa 2ungsod ng/aynila.” "y no manner ofcontemplation can those words beconstrued as an ac-nowledgment. !nac8nowledgment is the act of one who hase(ecuted a deed in going before somecompetent oJcer or court and declaring itto be his act or deed. At involves an e(trastep underta8en whereby the signoractually declares to the notary that thee,ecutor of a document has attestedto the notary that the same is his9herown free act and deed$

! JU0"/ is that part of an aJdavit wherebythe notary certies that before himVher, thedocument was subscribed and sworn to bythe e(ecutor.

Een if we consider what was a+,edby the notary public as a jurat3 the willwould nonetheless remain inalid3 as the

e(press re'uirement of !rticle 9#: is thatthe will be “ac-nowledged3M and notmerely subscribed and sworn to$

! notarial will that is not ac8nowledgedbefore a notary public by the testator andthe witnesses is fatally defective, even if it

is subscribed and sworn to before a notarypublic.- !Kuela v. !

"rticle )&) applies not only to blindtestators but also, to those who, for onereason or another, are “incapable ofreading their wills$M

Since "rigido !lvarado was incapable ofreading the nal drafts of his will and codicilon the separate occasions of their e(ecutiondue to his “poor,” “defective,” or “blurred”vision, there can be no other course for usbut to conclude that "rigido !lvaradocomes within the scope of the term “blind”

as it is used in !rt. 9#9.

!lthough there should be strict compliancewith the substantial re


16/42

"ttestation clause which does not statethat testament “was signed by thewitnesses in the presence of oneanother and of the testatorM renders thewill null and oid.

Cmission which can be supplied by ane(amination of the will itself, without theneed of resorting to e(trinsic evidence, willnot be fatal and, correspondingly, would notobstruct the allowance to probate of the willbeing assailed.

The defects and imperfection must only bewith respect to the form of the attestationor the language employed therein. Suchdefects or imperfection would not render awill invalid should it be proved that the willwas really e(ecuted and attested incompliance with !rticle 9#1. Theseconsiderations do not apply where theattestation clause totally omits the factthat the attesting witnesses signedeach and eery page of the will in thepresence of the testator and of eachother$ An such a situation, the defect isnot only in the form or language of theattestation clause but the totalabsence of a speciGc element re


17/42

- Darcia vs. +as'ueK

"rts$ )'& 5 )'?7 #2OAO:0";2IC

IAA("rts$ )>)3 @'

"rticle )'&$ ! person may e(ecute aholographic will which must beentirely written3 dated3 and signedby the hand of the testator himself. Atis sub)ect to no other form, and may bemade in or out of the 6hilippines, andneed not be witnessed.

!rticle 9%%. An the probate of a

holographic will, it shall be necessarythat at least one witness who -nowsthe handwriting and signature of thetestator e(plicitly declare that the willand the signature are in the handwritingof the testator.

Af the will is contested, at least threeof such witnesses shall be re)$ No will shall pass eitherreal or personal property unless it isproed and allowed in accordancewith the 0ules of Court$

The testator himself may,during hislifetime, petition the court having

)urisdiction for the allowance of his will.An such case, the pertinent provisions ofthe 3ules of ourt for the allowance ofwills after the testatorOs a death shall

govern.

(((

Sub)ect to the right of appeal, theallowance of the will, either during thelifetime of the testator or after his death,shall be conclusie as to its duee,ecution.

"rticle @'$ 1isinheritance can beeGected only through a will wherein thelegal cause therefor shall bespeciGed.

.or disinheritance to be alid3 "rticle@' of the ivil ode res document, although it mayinitially come across as a meredisinheritance instrument, conforms tothe formalities of a holographic willprescribed by law. At is written, dated andsigned by the hand of Segundo himself. !nintent to dispose mortis causa can beclearly deduced from the terms of theinstrument, and while it does not ma8e an

aJrmative disposition of the latter>sproperty, the disinheritance of "lfredo3nonetheless3 is an act of disposition initself . An other words, the disinheritanceresults in the disposition of the property ofthe testator Segundo in favor of those whowould succeed in the absence of !lfredo.

nless the will is probated, thedisinheritance cannot be given eGect.

onsidering that the 'uestioned documentis Segundo>s holographic will, and that the

law favors testacy over intestacy, theprobate of the will cannot be dispensedwith. !rticle 9E9 of the ivil ode providesthat no will shall pass either real or personalproperty unless it is proved and allowed inaccordance with the 3ules of ourt. Thus,unless the will is probated, the right of a


18/42

person to dispose of his property may berendered nugatory.- Seangio vs. 3eyes, 1#9 S3! %


19/42

full signature of testator,entire will isoid.

The original unaltered will naming 3osa assole heir cannot, however, be given eGectin view of the trial court>s factual nding

that the testatri, had by her ownhandwriting substituted :regorio for0osa, so that there is no longer any willnaming 3osa as sole heir. The net result isthat the testatri, left no alid will andboth 3osa and Dregorio as her ne(t of 8insucceed to her intestate estate.- alaw vs. 3elova

Af the holographic will has been lost ordestroyed and no other copy isaailable3 the will cannot be probatedbecause the best and only eidence isthe handwriting of the testator in saidwill. At is necessary that there be acomparison between sample handwrittenstatements of the testator and thehandwritten will.

@vidently, the photostatic or ,ero, copyof the lost or destroyed holographicwill may be admitted because then theauthenticity of the handwriting of thedeceased can be determined by theprobate court.

* 3odelas vs. !ranKa

"rt$ )'30ules = L ==3 0ules of Court7"rts$ )'* 5 )'@3 NCC

"rticle )'. The will of an alien who is

abroad produces eGect in the 6hilippinesif made with the formalities prescribed bythe law of the place in which he resides,or according to the formalities observedin his country, or in conformity withthose which this Code prescribes.4domicile,national,6hils5

!rticle 9%1. When a .ilipino is in aforeign country, he is authoriKed to

ma8e a will in any of the formsestablished by the law of the country inwhich he may be. Such will may beprobated in the 6hilippines. 4domicile,6hils5

!rticle 9%


20/42

citiens, will only be eGective in thiscountry upon compliance with the followingprovision of the ivil ode of the6hilippinesF “"rt$ )'. The will of an alienwho is abroad produces eGect in the6hilippines if made with the formalities

prescribed by the law of the place in whichhe resides, or according to the formalitiesobserved in his country, or in conformitywith those which this ode prescribes.”

Thus, proof that both wills conformwith the formalities prescribed by New For- laws or by ;hilippine laws isimperatie$

The eidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills whichhave been probated outside of the6hilippines areF4%5 the due e(ecution of the will inaccordance with the foreign laws4$5 the testator has his domicile in theforeign country and not in the 6hilippines4E5 the will has been admitted to probate insuch country4=5 the fact that the foreign tribunal is aprobate court, and415 the laws of a foreign country onprocedure and allowance of wills

What the law e,pressly prohibits is the

ma-ing of joint wills3 not the jointprobate of separate wills containingessentially the same provisions andpertaining to property which in allprobability are con)ugal in nature. Since thetwo wills contain essentially the sameprovisions and pertain to property which inall probability are con)ugal in nature,practical considerations dictate their joint probate.

With regard to notices, the will probatedabroad should be treated as if it were an“original will” or a will that is presented forprobate for the rst time. !ccordingly,compliance with Sections E and = of 3ule&$ ;o will shall be revo8ede(cept in the following casesF

4%5 "y implication of law or

4$5 "y some will, codicil, or otherwriting e(ecuted as provided in case ofwills or

4E5 "y burning3 tearing3 cancelling3 orobliterating the will with theintentionof reo-ing it, by the testator himself,or by some other person in his presence,and by his e(press direction. Af burned,torn, cancelled, or obliterated by someother person, without the e(pressdirection of the testator, the will may stillbe established, and the estate distributedin accordance therewith, if its contents,and due e(ecution, and the fact of its

unauthoriKed destruction, cancellation, orobliteration are established according tothe 3ules of ourt.

1IS;OSICION C";/"/O0I"F !nydisposition made upon the condition thatthe heir shall ma-e some proision inhis will in faor of the testator or anyother person shall beoid. 4!rt. 9


21/42

the estate of !dria iana. !s such, that )udgment could not in any manner be

construed to be nal with respect to theprobate of the subse'uently discovered willof the decedent. ((( /rial court3 in theintestate proceeding3 was without

jurisdiction to rule on the probate ofthe contested will$- Testate @state of !driana /aloto vs. ourtof !ppeals

63@S/6TAC; C0 3@+C!TAC;Where a will which cannot be found isshown to have been in the possession ofthe testator3 when last seen, thepresumption is, in the absence of othercompetent evidence, that the same wascancelled or destroyed. The samepresumption arises where it is shown thatthe testator had ready access to thewill and it cannot be found after hisdeath$ At will not be presumed that suchwill has been destroyed by any other personwithout the 8nowledge or authority of thetestator.- Dago vs. /amuyac

3@+C!TAC; "I SU4SEPUEN/ IAA

@00@T C0 +CA& 3@+C!TC3I 2!S@! subse


22/42

between the mar8et value of thecommunity property at the time of thecelebration of the marriage and the mar8etvalue at the time of its dissolution.

415 The presumptie legitimes of the

common children shall be delieredupon partition, in accordance with !rticle1%.

4:5 nless otherwise agreed upon by theparties, in the partition of the properties,the conjugal dwelling and the lot onwhich it is situated shall be adjudicated tothe spouse with whom the majority ofthe common children choose toremain. hildren below the age of sevenyears are deemed to have chosen themother, unless the court has decidedotherwise. An case there in no such ma)ority,the court shall decide, ta8ing intoconsideration the best interests of saidchildren.

!rt. %E#. pon the T@3/A;!TAC; C0 T7@/!33A!D@ "I 1E"/2, the conjugalpartnership property shall beli


23/42

not necessarily proe that the realtiesare their conjugal properties$

Af there is a controversy before the court asto who are the lawful heirs of thedeceased person or as to the

distributie share to which each person isentitled under the law, the controversy shallbe heard and decided as in ordinarycases$

"n estate is settled and distributedamong the heirs only after thepayment of the debts of the estate3funeral charges3 e,penses ofadministration3 allowance to thewidow3 and inheritance ta,$! !gtarap vs. !gtarap

Court approal is res permission.

Where other heirs did not consent to thesale of their ideal shares in the inheritedproperty, the sale will only be limited to thepro indiviso share of the selling heir.

6robate )urisdiction covers all mattersrelating to the settlement of estates and theprobate of wills of deceased persons,including the appointment and the removalof administrators and e(ecutors, ande(tends as well to matters incidental andcollateral to the e(ercise of a probatecourt>s recogniKed powers such as selling3mortgaging or otherwise encumberingrealty belonging to the estate.

The spouse’s share as an heir should bebased only on the remaining half , afterdeducting the conjugal share.

Succession laws and )urisprudence re'uirethat when a marriage is dissoled bythe death of the husband or the wife, thedecedent’s entire estateHunder theconcept of con)ugal properties of gainsH

must be diided e


24/42

onerous in nature and that no one ispresumed to gie H Nemo praesumiturdonare$ No intestate distribution ofthe estate can be done until andunless the will had failed to pass bothits e,trinsic and intrinsic alidity$

Af the will is e,trinsically oid, the rulesof intestacy apply regardless of theintrinsic validity thereof. Af it is e(trinsicallyalid3 the ne,t test is to determine itsintrinsic alidity H that is whether theproisions of the will are alid accordingto the laws of succession. An this case, thecourt had ruled that the will of "lejandrowas e,trinsically alid but the intrinsicproisions thereof were oid$ /hus3 therules of intestacy apply as correctly heldby the trial court.! &orotheo vs. ourt of !ppeals

“An order to be capacitated to inherit, theheir, devisee or legatee must be living atthe moment the succession opens, e(ceptin case of representation, when it is proper.”

Anasmuch as the testator was not survivedby any nephew who became a priest, the

unavoidable conclusion is that the be'uestin 'uestion was ineGectual or inoperative.

Therefore, the administration of thericelands by the parish priest of +ictoria, asenvisaged in the will, was li8ewiseinoperative.

Where a be


25/42

Waiver of laim in the instant case is voidand will not bar private respondents fromasserting their rights as heirs of thedeceased.

An the present case, private respondents

could not have possibly waived theirsuccessional rights because they are yet toprove their status as ac8nowledgedillegitimate children of the deceased.6etitioner himself has consistently deniedthat private respondents are his coheirs.

Illegitimate children who were stillminors at the time the.amily Code too8eGect and whose putative parent diedduring their minority are given the right tosee8 recognition for a period of up tofour years from attaining majority age$4"ernabe v. !le)o5

The court before which a petition for lettersof administration is not precluded fromreceiving evidence on a person>s liationHits )urisdiction e(tends to matters incidentaland collateral to the e(ercise of itsrecogniKed powers in handling thesettlement of the estate, including thedetermination of the status of each heir.- Duy vs. ourt of !ppeals

;reterition, !rticle 91= of the ivil ode,not applicable to the suriing spouse.Ansofar as the widow is concerned, !rticle91= of the ivil ode may not apply as shedoes not ascend or descend from thetestator, although she is a compulsoryheir.

7owever, the same thing cannot be said ofthe other respondent +irginia !. 0ernandeK,whose legal adoption by the testator hasnot been 'uestioned by petitioner."doption ma-es the adopted the legalheir of the adopter.

;reterition annuls the institution of anheir andcreates intestate succession but legacies and deises are alid andrespected insofar as they are notino+cious$

The uniersal institution of petitioner

together with his brothers and sisters tothe entire inheritance of the testatorresults in totally abrogating the will because the nullication of such institutionof universal heirsHwithout any othertestamentary disposition in the willHamounts to a declaration that nothing at allwas written. 6lus, no legacies nor devises

having been provided in the will the wholeproperty of the deceased has been left byuniversal title to petitioner and his brothersand sisters.

The eect of annulling the institution

of heirs will be, necessarily, theopeningof a total intestacy, e,cept thatproperlegacies and deises are alid andmust be respected insofar as they arenot ino+cious$

An order that a person may be allowed tointerene in a probate proceeding hemust have an interest in theestate, or inthe will, or in the property to be aGectedby it either as e(ecutor or as a claimant ofthe estate and an interested party is onewho would be beneGted by the estatesuch as an heir or one who has a claimagainst the estate li8e a creditor.

!t the outset, he appears to have aninterest in the will as an heir, denedunder "rticle =)% of the ivil ode asaperson called to the succession eitherby the proision of a will or byoperation of law$ 7owever, intestacyhaving resulted from the preterition ofrespondent adopted child and the universalinstitution of heirs, petitioner

4brotherVsister5 is in eGect not an heir of thetestator.

3ule that probate ourt>s authority islimited only to the e(trinsic validity of thewill, not inNe(ible and absolute ourt maypass upon the intrinsic validity of the willunder e(ceptional circumstances. -- An;uguid v. ;uguid the oppositors to theprobate moved to dismiss on the ground ofabsolute preterition. The probate courtacting on the motion held that the will in'uestion was a complete nullity anddismissed the petition without costs. Thiswas upheld by the S, induced bypractical considerations$

Trial Court could hae denied outrightthe probate of the will or have passedupon its intrinsic validity where on its faceit appears to be intrinsically oid.- !cain vs. Antermediate !ppellate ourt

The testator gae a legacy to a person,whom he characteriKed in the testamentaryprovision as not related to him, but laterthis person was judicially declared tobe his ac-nowledged natural child, thecase is not a case of preterition but acase of completion of legitime$ The


26/42

institution in the will would not be annulled. There would be no intestacy.

!s successional rights are vested as of themoment of death, the forced heir is entitledto the fruits and increments of his legitime

from the testator>s death.

;o substitution on legitime.HThe legitimemust descend to the forced heir in feesimple, since the testator cannot impose onit any burden, encumbrance, condition orsubstitution.- !Knar vs. &uncan

An a proceeding for the probate of a will,the court>s area of in'uiry is limited to ane,amination of3 and resolution on3 thee,trinsic alidity of the will, the duee,ecution thereof, the testatri(>stestamentary capacity and the compliancewith the re'uisites or solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic alidity of the will normally comes only after thecourt has declared that the will hasbeen duly authenticated. 7owever,where practical considerations demand thatthe intrinsic validity of the will be passedupon, even before it is probated, the ourtshould meet that issue.

Where the deceased left nodescendants, legitimate or illegitimate,but she left forced heirs in the directascending lineHher parents, and herholographic will does not e(plicitly disinheritthem but simply omits their namesaltogether3 the case is one ofpreterition of the parents, not a case ofineGective disinheritance.

6reterition &isinheritance

“consists in theomission in thetestator>s will of theforced heirs oranyone of them,either because theyare not mentionedtherein, or, thoughmentioned, theyare neitherinstituted as heirsnor are e(presslydisinherited.”

“is a testamentarydispositiondepriving anycompulsory heir ofhis share in thelegitime for a causeauthoriKed by law.”

is presumed to be“involuntary”

always “voluntary”

@GectF“shall annul theinstitution of heir”

“annul theinstitution of heirs”,but only “insofar asit may pre)udice theperson

disinherited”

4nullity is limited tothat portion of theestate of which thedisinherited heirs

have been illegallydeprived5

.reedom of 1isposition9"rt$ )?%71eed of Sale7 "gency

!rticle 9=$. Cne who has no compulsoryheirs maydispose by will ofall hisestate or any part of it in favor ofany

person haing capacity to succeed.

Cne who has compulsory heirs maydispose of his estate proided he doesnot contraene the provisions of thisode with regard to the legitime of saidheirs.

Boluntary Succession "nd Aegitime#"rts$ )*@3 )>3 @&?(7 0eal Usufructin faor of "liens .orms ofSubstitution7 ConQict of Aaws

S"STATTAC;4predecease,renounce,incap5!rticle 91?. The testator may designateone or more persons to substitute theheir or heirs instituted in case such heir orheirs should die before him, or shouldnot wish, or should be incapacitated to

accept the inheritance.

! simple substitution, without astatement of the cases to which it refers,shall comprise the three mentioned in thepreceding paragraph, unless the testatorhas otherwise provided.

!rticle 9:E. ! .I1EICO88ISS"0FSU4S/I/U/ION by virtue of which the

Gduciary or Grst heir instituted isentrusted with the obligation topresere and totransmit to a secondheir the whole or part of the inheritance,shall be valid and shall ta8e eGect,provided such substitution does not gobeyond one degree from the heiroriginally instituted, and provided


27/42

further, that the Gduciary or Grst heirand the second heir are liing at thetime of the death of the testator$

!rticle ?#=. The testator cannot deprivehis compulsory heirs of their legitime,e(cept in cases e(pressly specied bylaw.

;either can he impose upon the sameany burden, encumbrance, condition, orsubstitution of any 8ind whatsoever.

8O1"A INS/I/U/ION #institucion sub

modo("rticle ))%. The statement of the ob)ectof the institution, or the application of theproperty left by the testator, or thecharge imposed by him, shall not beconsidered as a condition unless itappears that such was his intention.

That which has been left in this mannermay be claimed at once provided that theinstituted heir or his heirs give securityfor compliance with the wishes of the

testator and for the return of anything heor they may receive, together with itsfruits and interests, if he or they shoulddisregard this obligation.

Successional rights are transmittedfrom the moment of death of thedecedent and compulsory heirs arecalled to succeed by operation of law$

The legitimate children and descendants, inrelation to their legitimate parents, and thewidow or widower, are compulsory heirs.

nder "rticle == of the ;ew ivil ode,IN2E0I/"NCE includes all the property3rights and obligations of a person3 note,tinguished by his death$ onformably,whatever rights &r. Porge 3abadilla had byvirtue of sub)ect odicil were transmitted tohis forced heirs, at the time of his death.!nd since obligations not e(tinguished bydeath also form part of the estate of thedecedent corollarily, the obligationsimposed by the odicil on the deceased &r.

Porge 3abadilla, were li8ewise transmittedto his compulsory heirs upon his death.

At is a general rule under the law onsuccession that successional rights aretransmitted from the moment of death ofthe decedent and compulsory heirs arecalled to succeed by operation of law. Thelegitimate children and descendants, in

relation to their legitimate parents, and thewidow or widower, are compulsory heirs.

Thus, the petitioner, his mother and sisters,as compulsory heirs of the instituted heir,&r. Porge 3abadilla, succeeded the latter byoperation of law, without need of further

proceedings, and the successional rightswere transmitted to them from the momentof death of the decedent, &r. Porge3abadilla.

SU4S/I/U/ION is the designation by thetestator of a person or persons to ta8e theplace of the heir or heirs rst instituted.nder substitutions in general, the testatormay eitherF4%5 provide for the designation ofanother heir to whom the property shallpass in case the original heir should diebefore himVher,renounce the inheritanceor be incapacitated to inherit, as in asimple substitution, or4$5 leae his9her property to oneperson with the e(press charge that itbetransmitted subse


28/42

the testator states4%5 the, ob)ect ofthe institution, thepurpose orapplication of theproperty left by the

testator, or thecharge imposed bythe testator uponthe heir

the condition musthappen or befullled in order forthe heir to beentitled to succeedthe testator.

! “mode” imposesan obligation uponthe heir or legateebut it does notaGect the eJcacyof his rights to thesuccessionthe mode

C"2AD!T@S butdoes not suspend.

The condition

SS6@;&S but doesnot obligate

Since testamentary dispositions aregenerally acts of liberality, an obligationimposed upon the heir should not beconsidered a condition unless it clearlyappears from the ill itself that suchwas the intention of the testator. In case of doubt3 the institution should beconsidered as modal and not conditional.- 3abadilla vs. ourt of !ppeals

The testator cannot impose any lien3substitution3 or condition on hiswidow’s legitime.!rt. ?## of the ivil ode “Af the onlysurvivor is the widow or widower, she or heshall be entitled to one-half of thehereditary estate.” !nd since /arcelle alonesurvived the deceased, she is entitled to

one-half of his estate over which he couldimpose no burden, encumbrance, conditionor substitution of any 8ind whatsoever. 4!rt.?#=, par. $, ivil ode.5

Constitutional proision which allowsaliens to ac


29/42

nder "rticle '&% of the same ode,li


30/42

return to him, e(cludes that of the one moreremote.

What the 3T should have done, assumingfor argument>s sa8e that reserva troncal isapplicable, is hae the reserable nature

of the property registered onrespondent’s titles 4not to orderreconveyance5. An fact, respondent, asreserista3 has the duty to resere andto annotate the reserable characterof the property on the title. An reservatroncal, the reservista who inherits from aprepositus, whether by the latter>s wish orby operation of law, ac'uires theinheritance by virtue of a title perfectlytransferring absolute ownership. "ll theattributes of ownership belong to hime,clusiely$ /he reseror has the legaltitle and dominion to the reserableproperty but subject to the resolutorycondition that such title ise,tinguished if the reserorpredeceased the reseree$ The reservoris a usufructuary of the reservable property.7e may alienate it sub)ect to thereservation. The transferee gets therevocable and conditional ownership of thereservor. The transferee>s rights arerevo8ed upon the survival of the reserveesat the time of the death of the reservor but

become indefeasible when the reserveespredecease the reservor. 4itations omitted5At is when the reservation ta8es place or ise(tinguished, that a reservatario becomes,by operation of law, the owner of thereservable property.- /endoKa vs. &elos Santos

Collation is the act by irtue of whichdescendants or other forced heirs whointerene in the diision of theinheritance of an ascendant bring intothe common mass3 the property whichthey receied from him3 so that thediision may be made according to lawand the will of the testator.

/he purpose is to attain e


31/42

4$5 the same property is inherited byanother ascendant 43@S@3+AST!5 or isac


32/42


33/42

legitimate children and relatives of hisfather or mother nor shall such childrenor relatives inherit in the same mannerfrom the illegitimate child.

!rticle ?#$. The rights of illegitimate

children set forth in the preceding articlesare transmitted upon their death to theirdescendants, whether legitimate orillegitimate.

!rticle ?9$. The grandchildren and otherdescendants shall inherit by right ofrepresentation, and if any one of themshould have died, leaving several heirs,the portion pertaining to him shall bedivided among the latter in e'ualportions.

!rticle ?9?. Af, together with illegitimatechildren, there should survivedescendants of another illegitimate childwho is dead, the former shall succeed intheir own right and the latter by right ofrepresentation.

!rticle ??#. The hereditary rights grantedby the two preceding articles toillegitimate children shall be transmittedupon their death to their descendants,

who shall inherit by right ofrepresentation from their deceasedgrandparent.

!rticle ??$ of the ivil ode or the curtainbar rule is inapplicable in resolving theissue of who is better


34/42

Since Teodoro 3. Iangco was anac8nowledged natural child or wasillegitimate and since Puanita orpus wasthe legitimate child of Pose orpus, himselfa legitimate child Juanita Corpus was

not a legal heir of Fangco becausethere is no reciprocal successionbetween legitimate and illegitimaterelaties$- orpus vs. orpus

"rts$ @@*3 '&&'7 @@7 '&&>7 @%3 @>!@3 '&&3 @)=

!rticle ??1. An the absence of legitimatedescendants and ascendants, andillegitimate children and theirdescendants, whether legitimate orillegitimate, the surviving spouse shallinherit the entire estate, without pre)udiceto the rights of brothers and sisters,nephews and nieces, should there be any,under article %##%.

!rticle %##%. Should brothers and sistersor their children survive with the widow orwidower, the latter shall be entitled toone-half of the inheritance and thebrothers and sisters or their children tothe other half.

!rticle ??:. Af a widow or widower andlegitimate children or descendants areleft, the surviving spouse has in the

succession the same share as that ofeach of the children.

!rticle %##E. Af there are no descendants,ascendants, illegitimate children, or asurviving spouse, the collateral relativesshall succeed to the entire estate of thedeceased in accordance with thefollowing articles.

!rticle ?:$. An every inheritance, therelative nearest in degree e(cludes themore distant ones, saving the right ofrepresentation when it properly ta8esplace.

3elatives in the same degree shall inheritin e'ual shares, sub)ect to the provisions

of article %##: with respect to relatives ofthe full and half blood, and of article ?9


35/42

!rticle ?9sinheritance.

&avid 3osales, incontrovertibly, survived hismother>s death. When /acaria died on #9/arch %?1: her estate passed on to hersurviving children, among them &avid3osales, who thereupon became co-ownersof the property. When &avid 3osales himself later died, his own estate which included hisundivided interest over the propertyinherited from /acaria, passed on to hiswidow Socorro and her co-heirs pursuant tothe law on succession.

!rts. ??1 and %##% of the ivil ode.H“!3T.??1. An the absence of legitimatedescendants and ascendants, andillegitimate children and their descendants,whether legitimate or illegitimate, thesurviving spouse shall inherit the entireestate, without pre)udice to the rights ofbrothers and sisters, nephews and nieces,should there be any, under article %##%. “(( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( “!3T. %##%. Should brothersand sisters or their children survive with thewidow or widower, the latter shall beentitled to one-half of the inheritance and

the brothers and sisters or their children tothe other half.” Socorro and herein privaterespondents, along with the co-heirs of&avid 3osales, thereupon became co-owners of the property that originallydescended from /acaria.- +erdad vs. ourt of !ppeals

Escheat

@scheat is a proceeding, unli8e that ofsuccession or assignment, whereby thestate, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps inand claims the real or personal property ofa person who dies intestate leaving no heir.An the absence of a lawful owner, a propertyis claimed by the state to forestall an open“invitation to self-service by the rstcomers.”

! claimant to an escheated propertymust Gle his claim within Ge #*( yearsfrom the date of such judgment.

! )udgment in escheat proceedings whenrendered by a court of competent

)urisdiction is conclusive against all personswith actual or constructive notice, but not


36/42


37/42

The records do not show that the decedentleft any primary, secondary, or concurringcompulsory heirs. 7e was only survived byhis siblings, who are his collateral relativesand, therefore, are not entitled to anylegitime.

2egitime is that part of the testator>sproperty which he cannot dispose ofbecause the law has reserved it forcompulsory heirs.

The CO8;UASO0F 2EI0S may beclassied into 4%5 primary, 4$5 secondary,and 4E5 concurring. The;0I8"0F compulsory heirs are thosewho have precedence over and e(cludeother compulsory heirs legitimate childrenand descendants are primary compulsoryheirs.

The SECON1"0F compulsory heirs arethose who succeed only in the absence ofthe primary heirs the legitimate parentsand ascendants are secondary compulsoryheirs.

The CONCU00IN: compulsory heirs arethose who succeed together with theprimary or the secondary compulsory heirsthe illegitimate children, and the survivingspouse are concurring compulsory heirs.

/he decedent not haing left anycompulsory heir who is entitled to anylegitime3 he was at liberty to donateall his properties3 een if nothing wasleft for his siblings!collateral relatiesto inherit$ 7is donation to petitioner,assuming that it was valid, is deemed asdonation made to a “stranger,” chargeableagainst the free portion of the estate. Therebeing no compulsory heir, however, thedonated property is not sub)ect to collation.- !rellano vs. 6ascual

Collation is only re


38/42

!rticle 9


39/42

3@F ET/0"JU1ICI"A SE//AE8EN/ O.ES/"/E

The title of the property owned by aperson who dies intestate passes atonce to his heirs Such transmission issubject to the claims of administration

and the property may be ta-en from theheirs for the purpose of paying debtsand e,penses, but this does not preventan immediate passage of the title, upon thedeath of the intestate, from himself to hisheirs. The deed of E,trajudicialSettlement e,ecuted eidences theirintention to partition the inheritedproperty. At delineated what portion of theinherited property would belong to whom.

The sale to respondents was made after thee(ecution of the deed of e(tra)udicialsettlement of the estate The e(tra)udicialsettlement of estate, even though notpublished, being deemed a partition of theinherited property, Pose could validlytransfer ownership over the specic portionof the property that was assigned to him. -!lfonso vs. !ndres

/he perpetual prohibition for partitionwas alid only for twenty #%&( years$

The ourt refrained from forthwith declaringthe decedent>s testamentary disposition asvoid and the properties enumerated inlause %# of the will as sub)ect to intestatesuccession. At was held that, in the interim,since the twenty-year period was then stillupon us, the wishes of the testatri( ought tobe respected. Thus, at present, thereappears to be no more argument that thetrust created over the properties of thedecedent should be dissolved as thetwenty-year period has, 'uite palpably,lapsed.

An this case, however, we reach a diGerentconclusion as the testatri( specicallyprohibited the alienation or mortgage of herproperties which were denitely more thanthe two 4$5 properties in the aforecitedcase. The herein testatri(>s largelandholdings cannot be subjectedindeGnitely to a trust because theownership thereof would then eGectively

remain with her even in the afterlife. 4kungforever issubject sa trust yung property,ang eect niya, ang ownership will beforever retained by the dead feet belowthe ground)- Crendain vs. Trusteeship of the @state of3odrigueK

The %?


40/42

necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment which does complete )ustice tothe parties in court. 6rivate respondent isnot claiming the entire area of 2ot %%$% butonly a portion thereof which wasad)udicated to her based on the !ugust %


41/42

not be compelled to submit toadministration proceedings./oreover, a complete inventory of theestate may be done during the partitionproceedings, especially since the estate hasno debts.

- !velino vs. ourt of !ppeals

6artition inter vivos may be done for as longas legitimes are not pre)udiced. "asisF !rt.%#9# of the ivil ode. The legitime ofcompulsory heirs is determined aftercollation, as provided for in !rticle %#:%F@very compulsory heir, who succeeds withother compulsory heirs, must bring into themass of the estate any property or rightwhich he may have received from thedecedent, during the lifetime of the latter,by way of donation, or any other gratuitoustitle (((.

Collation cannot be done where theoriginal petition for deliery ofinheritance share only impleaded one

of the compulsory heirsH /he petitionmust therefore be dismissed withoutprejudice to the institution of a newproceeding where all the indispensableparties are present for the rightfuldetermination of their respectielegitime and if the legitimes wereprejudiced by the partitioning interios$! XaragoKa vs. ourt of !ppeals,

63@T@3ATAC; !;;2/@;T C0 A;STATTAC;C0 7@A3! provision of the Cld ivil ode, whichprovides that “a partition made with theinclusion of a person believed to be an heir,but who is not, shall be void,” does notapply to a case where the partition wasmade between two persons instituted asheirs in a will but it was found out later thatone of them was not the testator>s child.

The reason is that testator was at libertyto assign the free portion of his estateto whomsoer he chose$

Where the testator allotted in his will to hislegitimate daughter a share less than herlegitime, such circumstance would notinvalidate the institution of a stranger as anheir, since there was no preterition ortotal omission of a forced heir$

" project of partition is merely aproposal for the distribution of thehereditary estate which the court mayaccept or re)ect. At is the court alone thatma8es the distribution of the estate anddetermines the persons entitled thereto.

here the court has alidly issued adecree of distribution and the samehas become Gnal, the validity or invalidityof the pro)ect of partition becomesirrelevant.

! partition agreement that was ratiGedby the court’s decree of distributionand was actually consummated bydeliery of the shares to thedistributees cannot be set aside aftera long lapse of time$

/he proceeding for the settlement of adecedent’s estate is a proceeding inrem. It is binding on the distributeewho was represented by her mother asguardian. - 3eyes vs. "arretto-&atu

/rusts L Succession

If the person to whom the title isconeyed is the child3 legitimate orillegitimate3 of the one paying theprice of the sale3 NO /0US/ IS I8;AIE14F A"3 it being disputably presumedthat there is a gift in faor of the child.

The estate of a deceased person is a juridical entity that has a personality

of its own Pudgment in a case binds onlythe parties therein and not the estate of adeceased person which might have beenrepresented at one time by one of theparties.

/a(imino, Sr. intended to give the si(BueKon ity lots to ;atividad. !s 3omeotestied, their parents e(ecuted the &eed of Sale in favor of ;atividad because the latterwas the only “female and the onlyunmarried member of the family.” She wasthus entrusted with the real propertiesin behalf of her siblings$ !s she herselfadmitted, she intended to convey 2ots %#and %% to Pose in the event the latterreturned from abroad. There was thus animplied trust constituted in her favor."rt$ '??@ of the ivil ode statesF /hereis also an implied trust when adonation is made to a person but it


42/42

appears that although the legal estateis transmitted to the donee3 heneertheless is either to hae nobeneGcial interest or only a partthereof$

There being an implied trust, the lots in

'uestion are therefore subject tocollation in accordance with "rt$ '&' which statesF Eery compulsory heir, whosucceeds with other compulsory heirs, mustbring into the mass of the estate anyproperty or right which he may havereceied from the decedent, during thelifetime of the latter, by way ofdonation, or any other gratuitous title, inorder that it may be computed in the

determination of the legitime of each heir,and in the account of the partition.

@@6TAC; TC T7AS !S@F The sale of 2ots %E and %= to 3os!lva

/ar8eting, orp. on !pril $#, %?

Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	joyette-vinas
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - Succession

Documents