Succession Syllabus Digests

8/17/2019 Succession Syllabus Digests

1/30

Succession – HofleñaZ.J. Garcia| N.D. Marcelo C2017

I. Art. 774-776

Hu Niu v. Collector o Custo!s

Widowed wife and children want to enter the Philippines. Theyargue that they acquired merchant status upon the death of thehus and as his merchant usiness was left to them.

The assumption of the appellant is that the mere fact of the deathof a merchant ma!es his wife and children also merchants" as itlea#es to them as heirs and ne$t of !in a mercantile usiness as apart of their inheritance. We do not elie#e that this necessarilyfollows. %ut if it does" the fact remains that she is not a residentmerchant. &he is still outside of the Philippine Islands and has ne#erheld the status of a resident merchant. &he must" therefore"esta lish her right to enter as a merchant in the 'rst instance. Thisshe did not do. &he did not present the section si$ certi'cate whichis the only e#idence upon which her right to enter can e ased.

Status is a "ersonal ri#$t e%tin#uis$e& u"on &eat$.

'ule v. 'ule

&aturnino (ule died intestate ut he left no de ts and his propertyhas already een partitioned among his children during his lifetime.)iriaco (ule" an heir" petitioned the court for the appointment of anadministrator. The children of &aturnino opposed this. The *T)e#entually re#o!ed the appointment and refused to appoint anadministrator. Was the *T) correct in refusing+

In this ,urisdiction and y #irtue of the pro#isions of articles 6 7"6 and 66/ of the )i#il )ode" all of the property" real and personal"of a deceased person who dies intestate" is transmittedimmediately to his heirs.

($en t$e $eirs are all o la) ul a#e an& t$ere are no &e*tst$ere is no reason )$+ t$e estate s$oul& *e *ur&ene& )it$t$e cost an& e%"enses o an a&!inistrator. ,$ea&!inistrator $as no ri#$t to intervene in an+ )a+)$atsoever in t$e &ivision o t$e estate a!on# t$e $eirs

)$en t$e+ are a&ults an& )$en t$ere are no &e*ts a#ainstt$e estate.

0alcolm and 1strand 2issenting3 It is asserted that the deceasedleft no de ts" ut it is not unreasona le to suppose that a personwith such large property interest may ha#e had dealings withothers from which claims against the estate may arise" thee$istence of which cannot e de'nitely ascertained until thepu lication of notice to claimants and creditors has een made"pursuant to the pro#isions of section 6 7 of the )ode of )i#ilProcedure. In these circumstances it would seem to e to theinterest of all parties concerned to ha#e the estate de'nitely settledand that can only e done properly through administrationproceedings.

The main opinion cited a e#y of cases all pointing out the lac! of reason for appointing an administrator. %asically" the administratoris not necessary ecause there is nothing left to administrate. Allthe property ha#e een di#ided and transmitted to the children.

There is nothing left for the estate to pay or distri ute.

The dissent says that the cases cited in the main opinion were allmade after the lapse of a long period where no creditors actuallylaid claim to a portion of the estate. In this case" only a short periodhas passed and there was no opportunity for possi le un!nowncreditors to respond to a notice as required y the *1).

D-C Hol&in#s Cor". v C

25) holdings entered into a contract of lease with the option topurchase the property of ncarnacion %artolome. The option waslimited to a year period with 8999 peso monthly consideratione$clusi#e of the rent. ncarnacion died and :ictor was the sole heirof all her properties. :ictor refused to accept the 8999 monthlyreser#ation as well as the rent. 25) sent y registered mail a noticethat it was e$ercising their option to purchase the leased property.:ictor refused. Is the contract entered into y ncarnacion indingupon :ictor+

,$e #eneral rule/ t$ere ore/ is t$at $eirs are *oun& *+contracts entere& into *+ t$eir "re&ecessors in interest

/


2/30


e%ce"t )$en t$e ri#$ts an& o*li#ations arisin# t$ere ro!are not trans!issi*le *+ 1 t$eir nature/ 2 sti"ulation or

3 "rovision o la). In the case at ar" there is neithercontractual stipulation nor legal pro#ision ma!ing the rights ando ligations under the contract intransmissi le. 0ore importantly"the nature of the rights and o ligations therein are" y their nature"transmissi le.

In the case at ar" there is no personal act required from the latencarnacion %artolome. *ather" the o ligation of ncarnacion in the

contract to deli#er possession of the su ,ect property to petitionerupon the e$ercise y the latter of its option to lease the same may#ery well e performed y her heir :ictor. ;e only succeeds to whatrights his mother had and what is #alid and inding against her isalso #alid and inding as against him.

Heirs o 4"on v. Gau&ioso 5onteras

0agdaleno 8? that the allegedsignatures of the deceased to the document are forgeries.

It is argued that the will is defecti#e ecause it does not state thenum er of sheets or pages used in the document" nor the fact thatthe testatri$ signed e#ery page thereof" and that it" therefore" isin#alid under section 6/ of the )ode of )i#il Procedure. Bote thatthe will here was initially in TagalogD it was then translated to&panish. Appellants argue that the translation was wrong.

The translation made y the oEcial interpreter is correctD t$eattestation clause in t$e &ocu!ent &oes state t$e nu!*ero "a#es use& an& also t$e act t$at t$e testatri% si#ne& allo t$e "a#es.

The )ourt e$amined the two translations and are of the opinion thatthe one made y the oEcial translator is correct and in conformitywith the idiomatic usage of the Tagalog tongueD that anyonefamiliar with the language" reading the Tagalog #ersion of theclause in question" would understand it in the sense gi#en it y theoEcial translatorD and that the literal translation furnished y theappellant" while word for word correct" is not idiomatic.

There is "racticall+ no evi&ence ten&in# to s$o) t$at Jose aDionisio )as o unsoun& !in& " at the time of the e$ecution of the alleged will.


3/30


The signatures in question are genuine. We share with the trial ,udge his distrust of the testimony of the Fe$pertF Pedro &erranoGa!taw" and we are also of the opinion that such !inor&i erences as t$ere are *et)een t$e &is"ute& si#naturesan& t$e a&!itte& si#natures o t$e &ecease& are &ue to&i erences in $er "$+sical con&ition . At the time the will wase$ecuted she was e$tremely fee le and practically a paralytic" afact which naturally would aCect the appearance of herhandwriting.

8n 9e: (ill o 9iosa

ose *iosa left a will made in the month of anuary" / 9 . The willwas duly e$ecuted in accordance with the law then in force"namely" section 6/ of the )ode of )i#il Procedure . The will wasnot e$ecuted in accordance with Act Bo. 64 " amendatory of saidsection 6/ " prescri ing certain additional formalities for thesigning and attestation of wills" in force on and after uly /" / /6.

The new law" therefore" went into eCect after the ma!ing of the willand efore the death of the testator" without the testator ha#ingleft a will that conforms to the new requirements.

Three #iews3/? The rule laid down y the courts in many ,urisdictions is that thestatutes in force at the testatorHs death are controlling" and that awill not e$ecuted in conformity with such statutes is in#alid"although its e$ecution was suEcient at the time it was made.

? ustice &harswood >Taylor#.. 0itchell / 6 J" 7 Pa. &t." 9 ? isregarded to e the est considered. In this opinion is found thefollowing3 9etros"ective la)s #enerall+ i not universall+)or; ine#islature to #ive t$e! a retros"ective e ect ise%"ressl+ &eclare& or is necessaril+ i!"lie& ro! t$elan#ua#e use&. In e#ery case of dou t" the dou t must eresol#ed against the restrospecti#e eCect. The will of ose *iosa is#alid.

?&a. De @nri=ueA v. *a&ia

(ather &ancho A adia e$ecuted a document purporting to e hisGast Will and Testament. Andres nriqueK" one of the legatees" 'leda petition for its pro ate in the )ourt of (irst Instance of )e u.&ome cousins and nephews who would inherit the estate of thedeceased if he left no will" 'led opposition.

The trial court found and declared the will to e a holographic will.Bote that holographic wills were not yet permitted at the time thewill was e$ecuted and at the time of the testator@s death. ;owe#er"holographic wills were already permitted during the hearing.

The will is #oid. At the time (ather A adia died in / 48" holographicwills were not permitted. Article 7 of the new )i#il )ode e$pressly

8


4/30


pro#ides3 B,$e vali&it+ o a )ill as to its or! &e"en&s u"ont$e o*servance o t$e la) in orce at t$e ti!e it is !a&e.B

,$e a*ove "rovision is *ut an e%"ression or state!ent o t$e )ei#$t o aut$orit+ to t$e a ect t$at t$e vali&it+ o a)ill is to *e testamentary capacity? requires3

>a? That testator !nows the nature o t$e estate to edisposed of >character" ownership of what he is gi#ing?

> ? That testator !nows the "ro"er o* ypersons who for some reason e$pect to inherit somethingfrom him L li!e his children?

>c? That testator !nows the c$aracter o t$e testa!entar+act >that it is really a will" that it is a disposition mortiscausa" that it is essentially re#oca le?

It is true that the testimony discloses the fact that the testator atthat time of e$ecution of the will was e$tremely ill" in an ad#ancedstage of tu erculosis complicated with se#ere attac!s of asthma.%ut all the e#idence of physical wea!ness in no wise esta lishes hismental incapacity or a lac! of testamentary capacity . Mere)ea;ness o !in& or "artial i!*ecilit+ ro! &isease o *o&+/or ro! a#e/ )ill not ren&er a "erson inca"a*le o !a;in# a)ill " a wea! or fee le minded person may ma!e a #alid will"pro#ided he has understanding and memory suEcient to ena lehim to !now what it is a out and how or to whom he is disposing of his property.

GalveA v. GalveA

The second will of :ictor =al#eK was denied pro ate in the trialcourt on grounds of incapacity.

8n or&er to $ol& t$at ?ictor GalveA/ on account o serioussic;ness/ )as not t$en o soun& !in& an& &i& not $ave ull;no)lee o $is acts an&/ t$ere ore/ )as inca"a*le to

4


5/30


e%ecute a )ill " it is necessar+ t$at t$e "rocee&in#s &iscloseconclusive "roo o $is !ental inca"acit+ an& o $is evi&entlac; o reason an&


6/30


are circu!stances )$ic$ even i ull+ &e!onstrate& *+"roo coul& no lea& t$e court to esta*lis$ a conclusioncontrar+ to t$e !ental soun&ness o a "erson )$o is to *e"resu!e& to *e in t$e ull en


7/30


Art. !(. #$ery will must be acknowledged before a notary publicby the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not bere'uired to retain a copy of the will, or )le another with the * ceof the +lerk of +ourt.

,a*oa&a v. Hon. 9osal

1n the 'rst page >which contained the entire testamentarydispositions?" the testatri$ signed at the ottom" while thewitnesses signed at the left-hand margin. 1n the second pagewhich contained the attestation clause" the testatri$ signed at theleft hand margin" and the witnesses signed elow the attestationclause. The attestation clause also did not state the num er of pages.

;eld3 :alid. ,$e si#natures o t$e instru!ental )itnesses ont$e le t !ar#in o t$e frst "a#e o t$e )ill atteste& not onl+to t$e #enuineness o t$e si#nature o t$e testatri% *ut alsot$e &ue e%ecution o t$e )ill as e!*o&ie& in t$e attestationclause.

The o ,ects of attestation and of su scription were fully met andsatis'ed when the witnesses signed at the left margin of the solepage which contained all the testamentary dispositions.

The failure to state the num er of pages would ha#e een a fataldefect were it not for the fact that" in this case" it is discerni le fromthe entire will that it is really composed of only pages duly signed

y the testatri$ and her instrumental witnesses.

Auela v. C

ugenio Isoglo e$ecuted a will wherein he instituted his nephew(eli$ AKuela as his heir. The pro ate of the will was opposed y=eralda )astillo" the attorney-in-fact of the / legitimate heirs of

ugenio.

The &upreme )ourt notes three >8? errors aCecting the will./. The attestation clause failed to state the num er of pages

used in writing the will. The num er of pages used in the willis not stated in any part of the will" which does not contain

any notarial ac!nowledgment wherein the num er of pagesof the will should e stated. This is a fatal Maw" since thepurpose of the law in requiring the clause to state thenum er of pages on which the will is written is to safeguardagainst possi le interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages to pre#ent any increase or decrease in the pages.&u stantial compliance would e$ist where the will stateselsewhere in it how many pages it is comprised ofD howe#er"in the case at ar" there was no such statement" hencethere was no su stantial compliance.

. The attestation clause was not signed y instrumentalwitnesses. While the signatures of the witnesses appear onthe left-hand margin of the will" they do not appear at the

ottom of the attestation clause which consists of theira#erments efore the notary pu lic. An unsigned attestationclause cannot e considered as an act of the witnesses"since the omission of their signatures at the ottom thereof negati#es their participation. (urther" Art. 9 particularlysegregates the requirement that witnesses sign each pageof the will from the requirement that the will e attested andsu scri ed y the witnesses. The two classes of signaturesare distinct from each other. The signatures on the left-handmargin signify that the witnesses are aware that the pagethey are signing forms part of the will" while the signaturesat the ottom of the attestation clause esta lish that thewitnesses are referring to the statements contained therein.

8. The notary pu lic wrote" F ilagdaan ko at ninotario kongayong -! ng unyo -9 - dito sa /ungsod ng 0aynila. F

These words cannot e construed as an ac!nowledgment"which is the act of one who has e$ecuted a deed in going

efore some competent oEcer or court and declaring it toe his act or deed. It is possi le to construe the a#erment as

a jurat >part of aEda#it where the notary certi'es thatefore him" the document was sworn to and su scri ed y

the e$ecutor?. #en so" the will remains in#alid" since Art.6 e$pressly requires that the will e Fac!nowledgedF ant

not merely su scri ed or sworn to. A notarial will that is notac!nowledged efore a notary pu lic y the testator and the

7


8/30


witnesses is fatally defecti#e" e#en if it is su scri ed andsworn to efore a notary pu lic.

In summary" a will whose attestation clause does not contain thenum er of pages on which the will is written is fatally defecti#e. Awill whose attestation clause is not signed y the witnesses isfatally defecti#e. A will which does not contain an ac!nowledgment"

ut a mere jurat " is fatally defecti#e. Any one of these defects issuEcient to deny pro ate. A notarial will with all three >8? defects is

,ust aching for ,udicial re,ection.

Guerrero v. i$is

The will was ac!nowledged y the testatri$ and the witnesses atthe testatri$@s witnesses in NueKon )ity efore a notary pu lic whowas commissioned for and in )aloocan )ity.

;eld3 In#alid. Notar+ "u*lic )as actin# outsi&e t$e "lace o $is co!!ission/ an& t$is &i& not satis + rt 0 . Bo notaryshall possess authority to do any notarial act eyond the limits of his ,urisdiction.

The Botarial law pro#ides3 & )TI1B 49.Territorial ,urisdiction. The ,urisdiction of a notary pu lic in a pro#ince shall e co-e$tensi#ewith the pro#ince. The ,urisdiction of a notary pu lic in the )ity of 0anila shall e co-e$tensi#e with said city. Bo notary shall possessauthority to do any notarial act eyond the limits of his ,urisdiction.

Since tt+. Directo )as not a co!!issione& notar+ "u*licor an& in IueAon Cit+/ $e lac;e& t$e aut$orit+ to ta;e t$e

ac;no)le!ent o t$e testrati% an& t$e instru!ental)itnesses. In the same #ain" the testrati$ and thei nstrumentalwitnesses could not ha#e #alidly ac!nowledged the will efore him.

Thus" (elisa Tamio de %uena#entura@s last will and testament was"in eCect" not ac!nowledged as required y law.

Sa!anie#o Cela&a v. *ena

;eld3 :alid. Anent the contestantsH su mission that the will is fatallydefecti#e for the reason that its attestation clause states that thewill is composed of three >8? pages while in truth and in fact" the

will consists of two > ? pages only ecause the attestation is not apart of the notarial will" the same is not accurate. ($ile it is truet$at t$e attestation clause is not a "art o t$e )ill/ t$ecourt/ a ter e%a!inin# t$e totalit+ o t$e )ill/ is o t$econsi&ere& o"inion t$at error in t$e nu!*er o "a#es o t$e)ill as state& in t$e attestation clause is not !aterial toinvali&ate t$e su*8?pages inclusi#e of the attestation clause and theac!nowledgement. The position of the court is in consonance withthe Fdoctrine of li eral interpretationF enunciated in Article 9 of the )i#il )ode.

The court also re,ects the contention of the oppositors that thesignatures of the testator were aE$ed on diCerent occasions asedon their o ser#ation that the signature on the 'rst page is allegedlydiCerent in siKe" te$ture and appearance as compared with thesignatures in the succeeding pages. After e$amination of thesignatures" the court does not share the same o ser#ation as theoppositors. The picture presented as e#idence shows that thetestator was aE$ing her signature in the presence of theinstrumental witnesses and the notary.

>ee v. ,u!*a#o

;eld3 In#alid The will in question was atteste& *+ onl+ t)o)itnesses. n t$is circu!stance alone/ t$e )ill !ust *econsi&ere& voi&. This is consonance with the rule that actse$ecuted against the pro#isions of mandatory or prohi itory lawsshall e #oid" e$cept when the law itself authoriKes their #alidity.

The )i#il )ode li!ewise requires that a will must e ac!nowledgedefore a notary pu lic y the testator and the witnesses. The

importance of this requirement is highlighted y the fact that it wassegregated from the other requirements under Article 9 andem odied in a distinct and separate pro#ision. An ac!nowledgmentis the act of one who has e$ecuted a deed in going efore somecompetent oEcer or court and declaring it to e his act or deed. It


9/30


in#ol#es an e$tra step underta!en where y the signatory actuallydeclares to the notary pu lic that the same is his or her own freeact and deed. ,$is ac;no)le!ent in a notarial )ill $as t)o

ol& "ur"ose: 1 to sa e#uar& t$e testatorKs )is$es lon#a ter $is &e!ise/ an& 2 to assure t$at $is estate isa&!inistere& in t$e !anner t$at $e inten&s it to *e &one. Acursory e$amination of the ac!nowledgment of the will in questionshows that this particular requirement was neither strictly norsu stantially complied with. (or one" there was the conspicuousa sence of a notation of the residence certi'cates of the notarialwitnesses in the ac!nowledgment. &imilarly" the notation of thetestator@s old residence certi'cate in the same ac!nowledgmentwas a clear reach of the law. ,$ese o!issions *+ res"on&entinvali&ate t$e )ill. ,$ese or!alities are !an&ator+ an&cannot *e &isre#ar&e&/ consi&erin# t$e &e#ree o i!"ortance an& evi&entiar+ )ei#$t attac$e& to notariAe&&ocu!ents. A notary pu lic" especially a lawyer" is ound tostrictly o ser#e these elementary requirements

:II. Arts. 97- 9

De Gala v. GonAales

Testatri$ signed using a thum mar!. In the attestation clause" it isnot mentioned that the testatri$ signed y thum mar!. %ut" in thelast paragraph of the will" she mentioned that she signed it usingher thum mar!.

;eld3 :alid. It appeared in the attestation clause that the signaturewas aE$ed in the presence of the witnesses" and the form of thesignature is suEciently descri ed and e$plained in the last clauseof the ody of the will. 8t !a+ *e conce&e& t$at t$e attestationclause &oes not/ stan&in# alone/ =uite !eet t$ere=uire!ents o t$e statute/ *ut ta;en in connection )it$t$e last clause o t$e *o&+ o t$e )ill/ it is airl+ clear an&suFcientl+ carries out t$e le#islative intent.

Cuevas v. c$acoso

The main error assigned refers to the alleged lac! of attestationclause in the will under consideration" or to the fact that" if there is

such attestation clause" the same has not een si#ne& *+ t$einstru!ental )itnesses/ *ut *+ t$e testator himself" and it isclaimed that this defect has the eCect of in#alidating the will.

;eld3 :alid. It su stantially complies with the statue. The apparentanomaly is not serious to in#alidate the will" it appearing that rightunder the signature of the testator" there appear the signatures ofthe 8 witnesses.

,$e act t$at t$e t$ree instru!ental )itnesses $ave si#ne&t$e )ill i!!e&iatel+ un&er t$e si#nature o t$e testator/s$o)s t$at t$e+ $ave in act atteste& not onl+ to t$e#enuineness o $is si#nature *ut also to t$e &ue e%ecutiono t$e )ill as e!*o&ie& in t$e attestation clause.

As was said in one case" Fthe o ,ect of the solemnities surroundingthe e$ecution of the wills is to close the door against ad faith andfraud" to a#oid su stitution of wills and testaments and toguarantee their truth and authenticity. Therefore the laws on thissu ,ect should e interpreted in such a way as to attain thisprimordial ends. %ut on the other hand" also one must not losesight of the fact that it is not the o ,ect of the law to restrain andcurtail the e$ercise of the right to ma!e a will. &o when aninterpretation already gi#en assures such ends" any otherinterpretation whatsoe#er" that adds nothing ut demands morerequisites entirely unnecessary" useless and frustrati#e of thetestatorHs will" must e disregarded.

,estate @state o t$e >ate li"io *a&a v. *a


10/30


in the presence of three witnesses. &he then faults the )ourt of Appeals for applying to the present case the rule on su stantialcompliance found in Article 9 of the Bew )i#il )ode.

The 'rst sentence of the attestation clause reads3 F&u scri ed and

professed y the testator Alipio A ada as his last will and testamentin our presence" the testator ha#ing also signed it in our presenceon the left margin of each and e#ery one of the pages of the same.F

The attestation clause clearly states that A ada signed the will andits e#ery page in the "resence o t$e )itnesses .

;owe#er" )aponong-Bo le is correct in saying that the attestationclause does not indicate the num er of witnesses. 1n this point" the)ourt agrees with the appellate court in applying the rule onsu*stantial co!"liance in &eter!inin# t$e nu!*er o )itnesses. ($ile t$e attestation clause &oes not state t$enu!*er o )itnesses/ a close ins"ection o t$e )ill s$o)st$at t$ree )itnesses si#ne& it. An attestation clause is madefor the purpose of preser#ing" in permanent form" a record of thefacts attending the e$ecution of the will" so that in case of failure of the memory of the su scri ing witnesses" or other casualty" theymay still e pro#ed. A will" therefore" should not e re,ected whereits attestation clause ser#es the purpose of the law.

We rule to apply the li eral construction in the pro ate of A ada@swill. A ada@s will clearly shows four signatures3 that of A ada and of three other persons. It is reasona le to conclude that there arethree witnesses to the will. The question on the num er of thewitnesses is answered y an e$amination of the will itself andwithout the need for presentation of e#idence aliunde . The )ourte$plained the e$tent and limits of the rule on li eral construction"thus3

The so-called li eral rule does not oCer any puKKle or diEculty" nordoes it open the door to serious consequences. The later decisionsdo tell us when and where to stopD they draw the di#iding line withprecision. ,$e+ &o not allo) evi&ence aliunde to fll a voi& inan+ "art o t$e &ocu!ent or su""l+ !issin# &etails t$ats$oul& a""ear in t$e )ill itsel . ,$e+ onl+ "er!it a "ro*einto t$e )ill/ an e%"loration )it$in its confnes/ to ascertainits !eanin# or to &eter!ine t$e e%istence or a*sence o t$e

re=uisite or!alities o la) . This clear" sharp limitationeliminates uncertainty and ought to anish any fear of dire results.

The phrase F en presencia de nosotros F or Fin our presenceF coupledwith the signatures appearing on the will itself and after the

attestation clause could only mean that3 >/? A ada su scri ed toand professed efore the three witnesses that the document washis last will" and > ? A ada signed the will and the left margin of each page of the will in the presence of these three witnesses.

(inally" )aponong-Bo le alleges that the attestation clause doesnot e$pressly state the circumstances that the witnesses)itnesse& and signed the will and all its pages in the presence of the testator and of each other.

The last part of the attestation clause states F en testimonio de ello,cada uno de nosotros lo )rmamos en presencia de nosotros y deltestador .F In nglish" this means Fin its witness" e#ery one of usalso signed in our presence and of the testator.F This clearly showsthat the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing of the will of thetestator" and that each witness signed the will in the presence of one another and of the testator.

:III. Arts. /9- /

0#0*5I6# Art. -!. A person may e&ecute a holographic willwhich must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may bemade in or out of the 8hilippines, and need not be witnessed.

/? If the formalities required y law ha#e not een compliedwith

> ? If the testator was insane" or otherwise mentally incapa leof ma!ing a will" at the time of its e$ecution

>8? If it was e$ecuted through force or under duress" or theinMuence of fear" or threats

/9


11/30


>4? If it was procured y undue and improper pressure andinMuence" on the part of the ene'ciary or of some otherperson

> ? If the signature of the testator was procured y fraud>6? If the testator acted y mista!e or did not intend that the

instrument he signed should e his will at thetime of aE$inghis signature thereto.

These lists are e%clusive D no other grounds can ser#e to disallow awill. Bote that a $olo#ra"$ic )ill is not su*


12/30


0#0*5I6# Art. !. o will shall be re$oked e&cept in thefollowing cases

:-; ;


13/30


Who owns the apartment+ Petitioner.

*espondents failed to pro#e their right of possession" as the ;uling;a ilin at Testamento and the Partition Agreement ha#e no legaleCect since the will has not een pro ated. %efore any will can

ha#e force or #alidity it must e pro ated. This cannot edispensed with and is a matter of pu lic policy. 5artition

#ree!ent )$ic$ )as e%ecute& "ursuant to a )ill t$at )asnot "ro*ate& cannot *e #iven e ect.

0oreo#er" at the time the deed of sale was e$ecuted in fa#or of thepetitioner" testator remained the owner thereof since ownershipwould only pass to his heirs at the time of his death. Thus / aso)ner o t$e "ro"ert+/ $e $a& t$e a*solute ri#$t to &is"oseo it &urin# $is li eti!e.

Ereta v. Ereta

Alfonso e$ecutedU 4 deeds of sale co#ering parcels of land in fa#orof his 8 children >Policronio included?" and his common-law wife tolessen inheritance ta$es. 2espite the saleU" Alfonso continued toen,oy the land until his death. When Alfonso died" Alfonso@s heirse$ecuted an e$tra,udicial partition o#er the land. )onrado" therepresentati#e of the heirs of Policronio signed the e$tra,udicialpartition ut su sequently argued that he did not understood whathe signed.

The )A held that the e$tra,udicial partition is #oid since there is nospecial power of attorney gi#en to )onrado y the heirs of Policronio.

As to the #alidity of the sale3It is well-settled in a long line of cases that where a deed of salestates that the purchase price has een paid ut in fact has ne#er

een paid" the deed of sale is null an& voi& or lac; o consi&eration .

As to the #alidity of the e$tra,udicial partition3 #oid. The heirs of Alfonso were of the position that the a sence of the;eirs of Policronio in the partition or the lac! of authority of theirrepresentati#e results" at the #ery least" in the preterition and not

the in#alidity of the entire deed of partition. They argue thatremanding the case to determine proper inheritance is no longernecessary since the issue is purely legal. )onrado then" accordingtothem" should ,ust fully account for what he recei#ed and deli#er to

his co-heirs their respecti#e shares in the inheritance. This cannote gi#en credence at all. Their posited theory on preterition is no

longer #ia le. Why+ There is no will in this case. Preterition haseen de'ned as the total omission of a compulsory heir from the

disinheritance. It consists in the silence of the testator with regardto a compulsory heir" omitting him in the testament" either y notmentioning him at all" or y not gi#ing him anything in thehereditary property ut without e$pressly disinheriting him" e#en if he is mentioned in the will in the latter caseU. Thus" "reterition isa conce"t o testa!entar+ succession. 8n t$e a*sence o a)ill/ t$ere can *e no "reterition.

5ala#anas v. 5ala#anas

*uperta" a (ilipino who ecame a naturaliKed S& citiKen" died singleand childless. In the last will and testament she e$ecuted in)alifornia" she designated her rother" &ergio" as the e$ecutor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the S.&.

WVB a will e$ecuted y a foreigner a road may e pro ated in thePhilippines although it has not een pre#iously pro ated andallowed in the country where it was e$ecuted+

;eld.


14/30


15/30


purport to e a sale" e$change" compromise" donation" ore$tra,udicial settlement. The &upreme )ourt held that the e#idencesu mitted y *e ecca was wanting" consisting of self-ser#ingtestimonies.

The &upreme )ourt held that the e$clusion of 2elia from the deedof e$tra,udicial settlement had the eCect of preterition. ;owe#er"this !ind of preterition" in the a sence of proof of fraud and adfaith" does not ,ustify a collateral attac! on the T)T co#ering the lot.

The relief rests in Art. //94 )) - where the preterition is notattended y ad faith and fraud" the partition shall not e rescinded

ut the preterited heir shall e paid the #alue of the sharepertaining to her.

OI:. Arts. 7- 79

0#0*5I6# Art. ( . A )deicommissary substitution by $irtue of which the )duciary or )rst heir instituted is entrusted with theobligation to preser$e and to transmit to a second heir the whole or

part of the inheritance, shall be $alid and shall take e ect, pro$idedsuch substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted, and pro$ided further, that the )duciary or )rst heir and the second heir are li$ing at the time of the death of thetestator.

?&a. De ranas v. ranas

(r. Teodoro Aranas" a )atholic priest" died. In his will" he stated thatthe special administrator of his lands shall recei#e /V of allproduce and the other /V will e recei#ed y the *oman )atholic)hurch. The 'rst special administrator shall e his nephew :icenteAranas until his death or until he should not want to hold the saidoEceD after which" any one of the sons of )armelo Aranas >(r.AranasH rother? can hold the oEce" and none other. )armelo will

e the one to decide who among them shall hold the oEce" utupon )armeloHs death" the sons will ha#e the power to selectamong themsel#es.

The &) held that :icente as a usufructuary has the right to en,oythe properties of his uncle with all the ene'ts which result from

the normal en,oyment of anotherHs property" with the o ligation toreturn" at the designated time" either the same thing or itsequi#alent. :icente@s right to en,oy the fruits of the properties istemporary" as there is a limitation" namely his death or refusal. The&) held that since :icenteHs designation as special administrator is

limited y his refusal andVor death" the same does not run counterto Art. 79 >FThe dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inaliena le for more than twenty years are #oid.F?

Bote that :icente is not prohi ited from disposing of the fruitsDneither are the other heirs >)armeloHs sons? prohi ited fromdisposing of the na!ed ownership" without pre,udice to :icenteHscontinuing usufruct.

O:. Arts. 7/-

Miciano v. ri!o

The ,udicial administrator of oseph %rimoHs estate 'led a scheme of partition" which Andre %rimo >one of the rothers of the deceased?opposed. oseph %rimo stated" FAlthough y law I am a Tur!ishcitiKen...ha#ing resided for a considera le length of time in thePhilippine Islands where I succeeded in acquiring all of the propertythat I now possess" it is my wish that the distri ution of myproperty and e#erything in connection with this" my will" e madeand disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in thePhilippine Islands" requesting all of my relati#es to respect thiswishD otherwise" I annul and cancel whate#er disposition found inthis will fa#ora le to the personVs who fail to comply with thisrequest.F

The institution of legatees in this will is conditional" and thecondition is that the instituted legatees must respect the testatorHswill to distri ute his property" not in accordance with the laws of hisnationality" ut in accordance with the laws of the Philippines.;owe#er" the &) held that this condition is #oid" eing contrary tolaw" for Art. 7 )) pro#ides" FImpossi le conditions and thosecontrary to law or good morals shall e considered as not imposedand shall not pre,udice the heir or legatee in any mannerwhatsoe#er" e#en should the testator otherwise pro#ide.F And saidcondition is contrary to law ecause it e$pressly ignores the

/


16/30


testatorHs national law" according to Art. /9 )) >FBe#ertheless" legaland testamentary successions" in respect to the order of successionas well as to the amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic#alidity of their pro#isions" shall e regulated y the national law of the person whose succession is in question" whate#er may e the

nature of the property or the country in which it may e situated.F?. Thus" the condition is considered unwritten" and the institution of legatees is unconditional and #alid and eCecti#e" e#en as to Andre>who opposed on the ground that Tur!ish laws apply?. All of theremaining clauses are #alid and eCecti#e.

O:I. Arts. 6- 98 >e$cept /?

0#0*5I6# Art. (. /egitime is that part of the testator%s property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reser$ed it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs. : !(;

Art. 7. The following are compulsory heirs

:-; /egitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants=

:>; In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents andascendants, with respect to their legitimate children anddescendants=

: ; The widow or widower=

:@; Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal )ction=

:"; *ther illegitimate children referred to in Article > 7.

+ompulsory heirs mentioned in os. , @, and " are not e&cludedby those in os. - and >= neither do they e&clude one another.In all cases of illegitimate children, their )liation must be duly

pro$ed.

The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classesmentioned, shall inherit from them in the manner and to the e&tent established by this +ode.

De "aracio v. 5ara#u+a

)onsolacion Gumain de Aparicio is the child of Trinidad 0ontilde>who married Anastacio 0am urao? and a priest (r. (elipe Gumain.

(r. Gumain in his last will and testament ac!nowledged )onsolacionas his daughter and instituted her as the sole and uni#ersal heir of all his property rights. )onsolacion maintains that she is entitled toinherit the property of the deceased on te ground that she had

een recogniKed as daughter of the latter. Parugaya maintains that)onsolacion is not entitled to inherit for the reason that she is anadulterous child.

The &) ore in mind that Trinidad was single on the date)onsolacion was concei#ed. It is a legal presumption that)onsolacion is the daughter of the &ps. 0arum ao ut thispresumption is disputa le and was successfully o#ercome y

Trinidad. The &) declares that )onsolacion is a natural child of (r.Gumain and consequently she can e ac!nowledged y the latter ashis own child. #en in the remote possi ility that )onsolacion is nota natural child of (r. Gumain" the &) maintains that )onsolacion isunder the will entitled to claim the disputed property" she ha#ing

een instituted as uni#ersal heir. ;owe#er" )onsolacion cannotinherit the property of (r. GumainHs rother 0acario" since under Art.

48 of old )) FA natural or a legitimated child has no right tosucceed a intestato the legitimate children and relati#es of thefather or mother who has ac!nowledged itD nor shall such childrenor relati#es so inherit from the natural or legitimated child.F Thus")onsolacion and 0acario ecame co-owners of the properties left

y (r. GumainHs and 0acarioHs parentsD )onsolacion owns /V andthe other /V elongs to the heirs of 0acario. The &) also did notrule on the contention that )onsolacion was a legitimate childDsince (r. Gumain died without any compulsory heir" he was free todispose y will of all his estate in fa#or of any person ha#ingcapacity to succeed" i.e." )onsolacion.

O:II. Art. /

0#0*5I6# Art. 9-. The ascendant who inherits from hisdescendant any property which the latter may ha$e ac'uired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is

/6


17/30


obliged to reser$e such property as he may ha$e ac'uired by operation of law for the bene)t of relati$es who are within the thirddegree and who belong to the line from which said property came.: 7-;

De 5a"a v. Ca!ac$o

(austino 2iKon died intestate and without issue" lea#ing his /Vshare in the 7 parcels of land to his father ustacio. Trinidad>(austinoHs sister? died intestate and her only legitimate child2alisay inherited" thus 2alisay owned /V of the 7 parcels of landas her inheritance from her mother.. ustacio >2alisayHs maternalgrandfatherD TrinidadHs father? died intestate" sur#i#ed only y2alisay. Thus" 2alisay is claiming the other /V y #irtue of thereser#a troncal imposed thereon upon the death of (austino 2iKonand under the laws on intestate succession. ;owe#er" her

grandaunt and granduncles oppose her claim" y #irtue of theireing also 8rd degree relati#es of (austino 2iKon.

The issue >WVB al relati#es of the prepositus within the 8rd degreein the appropriate line succeed without distinction to the reser#a leproperty upon the death of the reser#ista? has een decided in acase where the &) declared the principles of intestacy to econtrolling. *e#ersion of the reser#a le property eing go#erned ythe rules on intestate succession" the grandaunt and grandunclesmust e held without any right thereto ecause" as aunts anduncles of (austino >prepositus?" they are e$cluded from succession

y his niece 2alisay" although they are related to him within thesame degree as the latter. In case of intestacy" the )) pro#ides thatnephews and nieces e$clude all other collaterals >aunts and uncles"'rst cousins" etc.? from succession. Sndert the pertinent pro#isions"

rothers and sisters and nephews and nieces inherited a intestatoahead of the sur#i#ing spouse" while other collaterals succeededonly after the widower or widow.

'rias C$ua v. C'8

The propositus > uanito? inherited property from his father > ose?. Inthe intestate proceeding" the )ourt ordered uanito and his motherto pay &tandard 1il )o. of Bew prepositus? does not gi#e anything in return. It matters

not whether the property transmitted is su ,ect to any priorcharges. What is essential is that the transmission y madegratuitously" without imposing any o ligation on the part of therecipient. It is e#ident that the transmission of the property was ymeans of a hereditary succession and therefore gratuitous. Theo ligation was imposed y the )ourt" and not y the prepositusHfather.As long as the transmission was free from any condition imposed ythe deceased himself and the property is gi#en out of puregenerosity" it is gratuitous

Su!a+a v. 8 C

registered the property with the *egister of 2eeds" ut the T)Tswere free from any liens and encum rances. ;owe#er" )onsueloe$ecuted an aEda#it of self-ad,udication" which clearly stated thatshe" the aEant )onsuelo" was a lone ascendant and heir to *aul"who did lea#ing properties pre#iously inherited from otherascendants. )onsuelo sold the property to 0ariquita &umaya" whothen sold it to :illa ;onorio 2e#t. )orp. When )onseulo died" thereser#atorios >*aulHs rothers in full lood and his niece andnephews? sought to reco#er the property" which they claimed weresu ,ect to a reser#a troncal in their fa#or.

The &) held that according to P2 / " the registration of theaEda#it of the reser#ista was constructi#e notice to the world" sothe 8rd persons could not rely solely on the clean title. The aEda#itof self-e$ecution stating the source of the properties there yshowing the reser#a le nature thereof was registered with the*egister of 2eeds.

It also appeared that the 8rd persons were long-time acquaintanceswith the respondents" and that the uyers !new all along that theproperties were of a reser#a le character. 0oreo#er" the &) alsostated that it was the duty of the reser#ista to oth reser#e theproperty and annotate it accordingly as well.

/7


18/30


9ioso v. 9oc$a

// parcels of land were acquired y ose *iosa from his father0ariano. After oseHs death" y operation of law" the parcels of land

passed to his mother 0aria )orral" who had the duty to reser#e it.0aria" howe#er" sold parcels /9 and // to 0arcelina )asas andPa lo *ocha. 0agin *iosa" the nearest relati#es within the 8rddegree" 'led an action for the property to e declared as reser#a leand for the reser#ation to e noted in the registry of deeds and todeclare the sale #alid only insofar as it sa#es the right of reser#ation in fa#or of *iosa.

The &) held that 0aria )orral as reser#ista is o liged to ha#e thereser#ation noted in the *egistry of 2eeds. The reser#ista is oundto register the reser#ation within 9 days from the date of the

ad,udication of the property to the heirs y the court. After thisperiod" the reser#atarios ha#e the right to enforce compliance withthe o ligation. Where a reser#a le property is sold y thereser#ista" without ha#ing registered its reser#a le character" theo ligation to register the same is transferred to the purchaser"when" in ma!ing the purchase" the latter !new the facts which gi#ethe property the reser#a le character. 0arcelina )asas and Pa lo*ocha eing the daughter-in-law and nephew of 0aria )orral" the

uyers !new that the parcels of land were reser#a le propertyDthus" the dutyof 0aria of recording the reser#a le character of Parcels /9 and // had een transferred to the uyers.

Men&oAa v. De >os Santos

Placido and 2ominga 0endoKa had four children" among them$equiel 0endoKa. Spon $equielHs death" his properties passed on

to his widow Geonor and daughter =regoria. After GeonorHs death"her share went to =regoria. =regoria died intestate and withoutissue. GeonorHs sister ulia allegedly then ad,udicated unto herself all the properties as the sole sur#i#ing heir of Geonor and =regoria.

The granchildren of Placido and 2omingo > $equielHs nephews andnieces? claim that the properties should ha#e een reser#ed y uliain their ehalf and must now re#ert ac! to them.

ulia" howe#er" claims that the properties were not originally ownedy Placido and 2omingaD that they were ought y $equiel from a

certain Alfonso *amos.

The *T) ruled in fa#or of the grandchildren and ordered therecon#eyance of the properties to them" ut the )A re#ersed thisdecision" holding that the grandchildren failed to esta lish thatPlacido and 2ominga owned the properties and that e#en if thatfact were pro#ed" the pro#ision on reser#a troncal cannot apply asneither $equiel predeceased Placido and 2ominga nor did=regoria predecease $equiel.

The &) ruled that the ownership of the properties should erec!oned only from $equielHs" since he is the ascendant fromwhere the 'rst transmission occurred" or from whom =regoriainherited the properties. The law does not go farther than the

ascendantV rotherVsister in determining the lineal character of the /


19/30


property. It was immaterial for the )A to determine whether$equiel predeceased Placido and 2ominga or whether =regoria

predeceased $equiel. What is pertinent is that $equiel owned theproperties and he is the ascendant from whom the properties indispute originally came. =regoria" on the other hand" is the

descendant who recei#ed the properties from $equiel ygratuitous title.

;owe#er" ulia >GeonorHs sister? is not =regoriaHs ascendantD rather"she is =regoriaHs collateral relati#e within the 8rd degree. (urther"the grandchildren cannot e considered reser#atarios as they arenot relati#es within the 8rd degree of =regoria. They are actually=regoriaHs 4th degree relati#es" eing her 'rst cousins.

Thus" while the properties are reser#a le in character" thegrandchildren cannot ene't from reser#a troncal" ecause ulia isnot the other ascendant within the pur#iew of Art. / and ecause

they >the grandchildren? are not =regoriaHs relati#es within the 8rddegree.

What should e applied are Art. /998 and Art. /99 .

The &) also noted that the *T) erred in ordering the recon#eyanceof the properties to the grandchildren. Assuming arguendo that thereser#a troncal is applica le in the case at ar" the *T) should ha#ehad the reser#a le nature of the property registered on uliaHs titles.

O:III. Arts. 94- /4

?&a. De ,u"as v. 9,C

pifanio Tupas died" lea#ing his widow PartenKa as his onlycompulsory heir. In his will" among the assets listed therein werese#eral lots" admittedly his pri#ate capital. ;owe#er" at the time of his death" these lots were no longer owned y him" he ha#ingdonated them the year efore to the Tupas (oundation" Inc.)laiming that the donation left her destitute of any inheritance"PartenKa rought suit against Tupas (oundation" Inc. to ha#e thedonation declared inoEcious insofar as it pre,udiced her legitime"therefore reduci le.

The &) ruled that forced heirs are entitled to ha#e donations setaside insofar as they are inoEcious" i.e." in e$cess of the portion of free disposal. The fact that the donated property no longer actuallyformed part of the estate of the donor at the time of his deathcannot e asserted to pre#ent its eing rought to collation.

Indeed" it is an o #ious proposition that collation contemplates andparticularly applies to gifts inter #i#os. &ince it is clear that thequestioned donation is collationa le and that" ha#ing een made toa stranger >to the donor? it is" y law" chargea le to the freelydisposa le portion of the donorHs estate" to e reduced insofar asinoEcious.

If the #alue of the donation at the time it was made does note$ceed that diCerence" then it must e allowed to stand. %ut if itdoes" the donation is inoEcious as to the e$cess and must ereduced y the amount of said e$cess. In this case" if any e$cess eshown" it shall e returned or re#erted to PartenKa as the sole

compulsory heir of pifanio.

De elen v&a. De Ca*alu v. ,a*u

(austina 0aslum e$ecuted a will" instituting as heirs her nephewsand nieces" one of whom was %en,amin Ga$amana. (austina died in/ 4/D %en,amin died in / 69" lea#ing his wife and son 2omingo asco-heirs. In / 7 " while his mother was still ali#e" %en,amin sold theproperty. 2omingoHs mother only died

The &) ruled that the sale cannot e deemed #alid ecause at thetime it was made >/ 7 ?" 2omingo was not yet the owner of the

property. ;e could not #alidly dispose of the whole or e#en aportion thereof for the reason that he was not the sole heir of %en,amin" as his mother only died in / 9.

(urther" under Art. /847 ))" FBo contract may e entered into uponfuture inheritance e$cept in cases e$pressly authoriKed y law.F Acontract entered into upon future inheritance is #oid. The lawapplies when the following requisites concur3 >/? the succession hasnot yet een openedD > ? the o ,ect of the contract forms part of the inheritanceD and >8? the promissor has" with respect to theo ,ect" an e$pectancy of a right which is purely hereditary innature.

/


20/30


In this case" at the time the 2eed of &ale was e$ecuted" (austina@swill was not yet pro atedD the o ,ect of the contract" the "999square meter property" still formed part of the inheritance of hisfather %en,amin D and 2omingo had a mere inchoate hereditary

right therein. Thus" the sale is null and #oid.

OIO. Arts. / - 8

5ecson v. Me&iavillo

When *osario 0edia#illo was /4 years old" she recei#ed a letterfrom a young man. ;er grandfather (lorencio Pecson >decedent?tal!ed to her a out the relations" *osario allegedly showeddiso edience and disrespect to her grandfather. &oon after thee#ent" *osario lost the use of her mental powers and she has ne#erregained them" e$cept for #ery rief periods. ;owe#er" due to that

e#ent" (lorencio disinherited *osario.

The &) ruled that courts may inquire whether the disinheritancehas een made properly and for the causes pro#ided y law.

=i#en *osarioHs tender years" and the fact that she #ery soonthereafter lost the use of her mental faculties" the &) agreed withthe trial court that *osario was pro a ly not responsi le for thedisrespect and diso edience shown to her grandfather. Thus" theclause pertaining to *osarioHs disinheritance is contrary to law andset aside.

'rancisco v. l onso

=regorio (rancisco and his wife )irila had one child" a daughterAida. =regorio howe#er had a common-law wife ulia" with whom hehad 7 children. =regorio sold parcels of residential land to of hisillegitimate children >*egina and Renaida?" which sale Aida thensought to annul.

The &) held that the sale was simulated" as there was noconsideration therefor. *egina and Renaida" the uyers" did notha#e any source of income in / 8 when they ought the property.(urther" assuming arguendo the sale was not simulated" it would

still e in #iolation of the )i#il )ode insofar as the transactionaCected AidaHs legitime. The sale" ha#ing een e$ecuted in / 8"when the applica le law was the )i#il )ode" and not he (amily)ode" was o #iously to transfer the property to his illegitimatedaughters at the e$pense of his legitimate daughter. %efore his

death" =regorio had a change of heart and informed Aida a out thetitles to the property eing in possession of *egina and Renaida.Aida as =regorioHs compulsory heir cannot e depri#ed of her sharein the estate sa#e y disinheritance as prescri ed y law. Thus" thesale is declared #oid.

OO. Arts. 69 77

Macro$on v. Saave&ra

The ,oint will of 0acario 0acrohon and :ictoriana &aa#edra>deceased? was pro ated and pursuant thereto" 0acario su mitted

a scheme of partition. :ictorianaHs rothers" nephews" and nieces'led an opposition to the partition.

There was a conditional disposition of /6 parcels of land in fa#or of certain legatees >1ng 5a )hiew and 1ng 5a ian?" the condition

eing that 0acario died efore :ictoriana died. This condition notha#ing een complied with" the trial court found that the parcels of land should e partitioned among the persons called on to succeedher under the law.

a#a!on v. 5ie&a&

WVB 1felia %agunu >daughter of /st cousin of decedent?" acollateral relati#e of the th ci#il degree" inherit alongside PastoraPiedad >maternal aunt of the decedent?" a collateral relati#e of the8rd ci#il degree - otherwise stated" does the rule of pro$imity inintestate succession 'nd application among collateral relati#es+

The rule on pro$imity is a concept that fa#ors the relati#es nearestin degree to the decedent and e$cludes the more distant ones"e$cept when and to the e$tent that the right of representation canapply.

9


21/30


The right of representation does not apply to Fcollateral relati#eswithin the th ci#il degreeF >to which group oth 1felia and Pastora

elong?. Among collateral relati#es" e$cept only in the case of nephews and nieces of the decedent concurring with their uncles oraunts" the rule of pro$imity >Art 6 ? is an a solute rule. In

determining the degree of relationship of the collateral relati#es of the decedent" Art 66 gi#es direction >FIn the collateral line" ascentis made to the common ancestor and then descent is madeancestor and then descent is made to the person with whom thecomputation is to e made. Thus" a person is two degrees remo#edfrom his rother" three from his uncle" who is the rother of hisfather" four from his 'rst cousin and so forth.F?

Thus" Pastora" eing a relati#e within the 8rd ci#il degree" e$cludes1felia" a relati#e of the th degree" from succeeding ab intestato tothe estate of the decedent.

OOI. Arts. 7 7

Neri v. Heirs o Ha&children from /st marriage? wereadmittedly e$cluded and minor child 2ouglas not properlyrepresented > ecause his father nrique was merely clothed withpowers of administration and ereft of any authority to dispose of their shares?" the settlement was not #alid and inding upon themand consequently" a total nullity. >&ee A*T. 7 . Gegitimate childrenand their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants"

without distinction as to se$ or age" and e#en if they should comefrom diCerent marriages.?

;owe#er" while the settlement is null and #oid" the su sequent saleis #alid ut only with respect to the proportionate shares of nrique

>sur#i#ing spouse? and Bapoleon" Alicia" and :isminda >legitimatechildren? and *osa >minor child not properly represented ut whosu sequently rati'ed the defect?. These heirs ha#e acquired theirrespecti#e shares in the properties of Anunciacion from themoment of her death and as owners thereof" they can #ery well selltheir undi#ided share in the estate.

OOII. Arts. 4

Centeno v. CentenoN ,@: 2efendants X ac!nowledged natural children of Antonio

Isaac )enteno died and was sur#i#ed y his spouse 0elchora andtheir three >8? sons - :alentin" (austino" Antonio. Isaac e$ecuted awill naming his sons as his heirs to /V of the estate to e di#idedequally among the three. Antonio died lea#ing a widow =a rielaand ha#ing e$ecuted a will" wherein he left his share in the estateof Isaac and his future share in the estate of 0elchora to his threenatural children. This will was pro ated. 0elchora died" lea#ing inher will a portion of the estate to e di#ided equally among hersons >Antonio and (austino" oth deceased" and :alentin?.

&)3 While it is true that Antonio named in his will the defendants ashis heirs not only with respect to the hereditary portion gi#en him

in the will of his father Isaac >who was deceased y then? ut alsowith respect to the hereditary portion of the property left y hismother 0elchora >who was still ali#e?" ne#ertheless saidtestamentary disposition with regard to 0elchoraHs property is #oidand of no eCect" since his mother still li#ed" he >Antonio? had notacquired any right to her inheritance and therefore could notdispose of the property. Although 0elchora named Antonio as oneof her heirs" since he died efore her" the defendants ha#e no rightto represent their deceased father.

A natural child whose deceased father was legitimate has no rightto inherit from his grandfather" e#en if the latter should die without

/


22/30


any sur#i#ing legitimate descendant is a necessary consequence of the pertinent )i#il )ode pro#ision" ecause" as children inherit intheir own right and grandchildren y representation" it is clear thatsuch representation of the grandchildren only refers to and includesthose who are in the same legal status as the person represented"

and ne#er those who are in a diCerent legal status.

>eonar&o v. C2ecedent (rancisca *eyes died intestate and was sur#i#ed y two> ? daughters 0aria and &il#estra and a grandson &otero >son of daughter Pascuala who predeceased?. )rescenciano Geonardo"claiming to e the son of &otero" 'led a )omplaint for 1wnership of Properties. 0aria asserted e$clusi#e ownership o#er the properties"alleging that )rescenciano is an illegitimate child who cannotsucceed y right of representation.

&)3 #en if it is true that )resenciano is the child of &otero >which

'liation was not pro#en?" still he cannot y right of representationclaim a share of the estate left y the decedent (rancisca"considering he was orn outside wedloc!. At most" )rescencianowould e an illegitimate child who has no right to inherit abintestato from the legitimate children and relati#es of his father"li!e the decedent (rancisca >Art ))?.

?&a &e Crisolo#o v. C

ulia )apiao maintained e$tramarital relations with :ictoriano Taccad and egot him one child named Gutgarda" who died withoutany will. The plaintiCs" as relati#es within the th ci#il degree" were

consequently instituted as GutgardaHs legal heirs and were legallyentitled to inherit all the properties which were hers y #irtue of thee$tra,udicial partition.

&)3 The legitimate relati#es of ulia )apiao >plaintiCs? cannot inheritfrom Gutgarda" an illegitimate child of ulia" ecause it is the clearand unmista!a le pro#ision of Art )). Beither can Gutgardainherit from the legitimate relati#es of ulia >plaintiCs?. %etweennatural children and legitimate relati#es of the fatherVmother whoac!nowledge the natural child" the )) denies any right of succession. They cannot e called relati#es and they ha#e no rightto inherit. This is ased on the presumpti#e will of the interest

parties - the natural child is disgracefully loo!ed down upon y thelegitimate family" which is in turn hated y the natural child" whoconsiders the pri#ileged condition of the family and the resources of which it is there y depri#ed. The family sees in the natural childnothing ut the product of sin" a palpa le e#idence of a lemish

upon the family. #ery relation is ordinarily ro!en in lifeD the lawdoes no more than recogniKe this truth" y a#oiding further groundsof resentment.

Sunta+ 888 v. Co


23/30


ligio is a legitimate child ut 1li#ia and ;ermes are illegitimatechildren. Thus they cannot represent their father in the intestateestate of 2on Andres. The interpretation of the law desired y 1li#iaand ;ermes may e more humane ut it is also an elementary rulein statutory construction that when the words and phrases of the

statute are clear and unequi#ocal" their meaning must edetermined from the language employed and the statute must eta!en to mean e$actly what it says. )learly" the term illegitimateUrefers to oth natural and spurious. Also under the (amily )ode" allillegitimate children are generally placed under one category.

>an&a+an v. acani

The Gandayan group alleges that the decedent Teodoro only hadone legitimate daughter" =uillerma" who in turn had legitimatechildren >petitioners? and an illegitimate son >&e#erino? who is anac!nowledged natural child of =uillerma. The &) held that if this

allegation is true" then &e#erino has no right of legal successionfrom Teodoro" in #iew of Art . The right of representation isdenied y law to an illegitimate child who is disquali'ed to inheritab intestato from the legitimate children and relati#es of his father.In such a case" the su ,ect 2eed of $tra,udicial Partition insofar asit includes &e#erino" who is not an heir" is #oid as to him.

&e#erino" howe#er" alleges that he us not an illegitimate child of =uillerma" ut rather an ac!nowledged natural child of Teodoro. Inthis case" his right to inherit form Teodoro is recogniKed y law >Art

?.

Manuel v. 'errer

Antonio 0anuel had legitimate children >%enigno" Gi erato" et al.?and an illegitimate child > uan?. uan died intestate and his ward>ampon without ene't of ,udicial decree of adoption? e$ecuted anAEda#it of &elf-Ad,udication claiming for herself 8 parcels of landleft in the estate. %enigno and his si lings >legitimate children?initiated the suit" see!ing the nullity of the instruments y which0odesta con#eyed the properties of uan. The *T) dismissed thecomplaint for eing 'led y %enigno and his si lings" as not eingheirs ab intestato " they are not the real parties-in-interest toinstitute the suit.

The &) held that %enigno et al are not the legal heirs of uan. %y#irtue of Art " the legitimate rothers and sisters cannot inheritfrom the illegitimate child. Thus" they had no standing to 'le thesuit" which the &) held as properly dismissed.

9osales v. 9osales

Petra died intestate. &he was sur#i#ed y her hus and (ortunatoand two children 0agna and Antonio" as well as y 0ac!iquero$"the son of her predeceased son )arterio. )arterio@s widow Ireneinsisted in getting a share of the estate in her capacity as sur#i#ingspouse of )arterio.

The &) held that Irene is not a compulsory heir of Petra. Thesur#i#ing spouse is considered a 8 rd person with respect to theestate of a parent-in-law. ;er don" 0ac!iquero$" howe#er" succeeds

in his own right. ;e succeeds not his predeceased father )arteriout his paternal grandmother Petra. Irene@s contention that )arterioat the time of his death had an inchoate right to the properties of Petra must fail. &aid right of )arterio was e$tinguished y his death"which is why 0ac!iquero$ succeeded from Petra y right of representation.

erciles v. GS8S

udge Pascual %erciles died intestate. Two sets of claimants forsur#i#ors@ ene'ts under the =&I& Iluminada and her 4 children"(lor (uente ella and her 4 children. The =&I& in a resolution

concluded that Iluminada was a le to suEciently pro#e hermarriage to Pascual" whereas (lor was not. Thus" the =&I& declaredthat Pascual :oltaire was an ac!nowledged natural child of Pascual"and that 0aria Guisa" 0er#y" and *hoda ere illegitimate children of Pascual.

The &) pertinently held that an illegitimate >spurious? child" to eentitled to support and successional rights from his parents"must pro#e his 'liation and that this may e done y means of #oluntary or compulsory recognition of the relationship. (or thispurpose" the pro#isions concerning natural children are heldapplica le" thus" recognition is #oluntary when made in the record

8


24/30


of irth" a will" a statement efore a court of record" or in anyauthentic writing >Article 7 ?Y and compulsory when made ymeans of a court action in the cases enumerated in Articles 8and 4. Illegitimate children are entitled to support andsuccessional rights ut for Art 6 to e applica le" there must e

admission or recognition of the paternity of the illegitimate child. The &) held that the aptismal and irth certi'cates presented" aswell as the sworn statement y the sister-in-law of Pascual as to thefact the their two families li#ed closely together" and the familypictures do not constitute proof of 'liation. Thus" the &) held thatthe =&I& gra#ely a used its discretion in appro#ing the assailed*esolution" which adopted the erroneous recommendation of the)ommittee on )laims &ettlement" a recommendation which has nolegal or factual asis to stand on.

OOI:. Arts. /998 /9/4

Cit+ o Manila v. rc$*is$o" o Manila

Ana &armiento e$ecuted a will" in which she pro#ided for theesta lishment of a +apellania de 0isas . The will containedpro#isions that the 'rst chaplain of the capellania should e hernephew Pedro" and that administration thereof shall continueperpetually. After Ana died" for more than 99 years" the inter#enerthe *oman )atholic Arch ishop of 0anila through #arious agenciesadministered the property. The Arch ishop commenced the presentsuit to ha#e declared escheated to the city of 0anila the propertyconstituting the capellania > parcels of land?" on the theory that

the owner Ana &armiento died without lea#ing her or personentitled to the same.

Act Bo / 9" &ec. 7 9 pro#ides when property may e declaredescheated3 when a person dies intestate" seiKed of real orpersonal property Z lea#ing no heir or person y law entitled to thesame.U The &) held that Ana did not die intestateD in fact" she left awill which pro#ides for the administration of her property y hernephew as well as for the su sequent administration of the same.&he did not die without an heir nor without persons entitled toadminister her estate. Insofar as the record shows" the property isstill eing administered in accordance with the terms of Ana@s will

for the ene't of the real ene'ciary" as was intended y theoriginal owner Ana. Thus" the property cannot e declaredescheated.

&la)an v. &la)an

Arnelito Adlawan" claiming he is a ac!nowledged illegitimate childof 2ominador Adlawan" e$ecuted an AEda#it of &elf-Ad,udicationre3 a parcel of land and the house uilt thereon. 1ut of respect andgenerosity to meterio and Barcisa Adlawan >si lings of 2ominador?" Arnelito granted their plea to occupy the propertypro#ided they would #acate the same upon demand. They refusedto do so when the time arose" prompting Arnelito to 'le ane,ectment suit. The 0T) dismissed the complaint" holding that theesta lishment of Arnelito@s 'liation and the settlement of the estateof 2ominador are conditions precedent to the accrual of Arnelito@saction for e,ectment. Also" since 2ominador was sur#i#ed y his

spouse =raciana" who died /9 years after" her legal heirs are alsoentitled to their share in the property.

The &) held that Arnelito is not the sole owner of the property"ecause 2ominador was sur#i#ed not only y Arnelito y also y his

legal wife =raciana. %y intestate succession" =raciana and Arnelitoecame co-owners of the lot. The death of =raciana did not ma!e

Arnelito the a solute owner of the lot ecause the share of =raciana passed to her relati#es y consanguinity" and not toArnelito" with whom she had no lood relations. Pertinently" the &)loo!ed to Art 4 7 ))3 Any one of the co-owners may ring anaction in e,ectment.U Tolentino elucidates that a co-owner may

ring such an action" without necessity of ,oining all other co-owners as co-plaintiCs" ecause the suit is deemed to e institutedfor the ene't of all. If the action is for the ene't of the plaintiC alone" such that he claims possession for himself and not for theco-ownership" the action will not prosper. In the case at ar"Arnelito rought the suit for unlawful detainer in his name aloneand for his own ene't to the e$clusion of the heirs of =raciana"since he e#en e$ecuted an AEda#it of &elf-Ad,udication o#er theproperty. IT is clear that Arnelito cannot #alidly maintain the instantaction" considering that he does not recogniKe the co-ownershipthat necessarily Mows from his theory of succession to the property

4


25/30


of his father 2ominador. 2ismissal of the complaint is thereforeproper.

OO:. Arts. /9/ /9 8

,orres v. >o"eA Tomas *odrigueK had een ,udicially declared incapa le of ta!ingcare of himself and had een placed under the care of his cousin:icente GopeK as guardian. Tomas e$ecuted a will" in which hedeclared" I institute as the only and uni#ersal heirs to all myproperty m cousin :icente GopeK and his daughter GuK GopeK de%ueno.U (our days after the will was made" :icente died" and laterthe testator Tomas died. At the time of the e$ecution of the will":icente had not presented his 'nal accounts as guardian.

The &) referred to Art 7 8 )) which declares that no testamentary

pro#ision shall e #alid when made y a ward in fa#or of hisguardian efore the 'nal accounts of the latter ha#e eenappro#ed. Art 7 8 applies in the case at ar and the pro#isionmade in the will in fa#or of :icente was not any general incapacityon his part" ut a special incapacity due to the accidental relation of guardian and ward e$isting etween the parties.

The ne$t question is whether the disa ility of :icente GopeK wassuch as to ring the case under Art / rather than Art . If under Art / " legal succession ta!es place if the heir dies eforethe testator and also when the heir instituted is disquali'ed tosucceed. Snder this theory" 0argarita GopeK >a cousin and nearest

relati#e of the decedent? is entitled to inherit the share of thedisquali'ed heir :icente. 1n the other hand" if under Art "accretion ta!es place in testamentary succession" 'rst when two ormore persons are called to the same inheritance or the same portiothereof without special designation of shares" and secondly" whenone of the persons so called dies efore the testator or renouncesthe inheritance or is quali'ed to recei#e it. Snder this theory" GuKGopeK de %ueno >who was called to the same inheritance withoutdesignation of shares alongside :icente? would recei#e theproperty. As etween Art / and Art " the former is the moregeneral of the two" dealing as it does with the general topic of intestate succession while the latter is more speci'c" de'ning the

particular conditions under which accretion ta!es place. In case of conMict" therefore" the pro#isions of Art / must e consideredlimited y Art . Indeed" Art / >8?" the pro#ision with respect tointestate succession is e$pressly su ordinated to Art 8 y thee$pression and >if? there is no right of accretion.U Thus" GuK GopeK

de %ueno succeeds to the entire estate.

OO:I. Arts. /9 /949

Ne"o!uceno v. C

0artin ugo named and appointed &o'a Bepomuceno as his soleand only e$ecutor. It was clearly stated in the Will that the testatorwas legally married to *u'na =omeK y whom he had two > ?legitimate children" ut since / " he had een estranged from hiswife and had een li#ing with &o'a as hus and and wife. *u'na

'led an 1pposition to the Petition for Pro ate of the Will 'led y&o'a" contending among others that &o'a ha#ing admitted li#ing inconcu inage with 0artin" she is wanting in integrity and thus letterstestamentary should not e issued to her. The trial court deniedpro ate of the will on the ground that as the testator 0artinadmitted in his Will to coha iting with &o'a" the Will@s admission topro ate will e an idle e$ercise ecause on the face of the Will" thein#alidity of its intrinsic pro#isions is e#ident.

As to WVB the trial court acted in e$cess of its ,urisdiction whenafter declaring the Will #alidly drawn" it went on the pass upon theintrinsic #alidity of the testamentary pro#ision in fa#or of &o'a" the

&) held in the negati#e. The general rule is that in pro ateproceedings" the court@s area of inquiry is limited to an e$aminationand resolution of the e$trinsic #alidity of the will. ;owe#er" gi#ene$ceptional circumstances" the pro ate court is not powerless to dowhat the situation constraints it to do and pass upon certainpro#isions in the will. The pro ate of a will might ecome an idleceremony if on its face it appears to e intrinsically #oid. Wherepractical considerations demand that the intrinsic #alidity of the will

e passed upon" e#en efore it is pro ated" the court should meetthe issue.


26/30


Art /9 pro#ides that the prohi itions in Art 78 concerningdonations inter $i$os shall apply to testamentary pro#isions. SnderArt 78 " donations etween persons who were guilty of adultery orconcu inage at the time of the donation shall e #oid. Thus" thepro#isions in fa#or of &o'a are null and #oid" gi#en that at the time

of the e$ecution of the will" the testator admitted to li#ing inconcu inage with the person to whom the disposition was made.

?illavicencio v. Iuinio

ugenia del *osario e$ecuted a will" which was pro ated o#er theopposition of some relati#es. The will pro#ided that the fruits of theland and the incomes of the hosue and warehouse will e in#estedin the *oman )atholic Apostolic )hurch of %atangas" y way of daily 0asses held for the decedent for 8 years" as well as for therepose of the souls of her parents" rothers" and sisters" and alms"etc. &antiagio Nuinio and relati#es of the testatri$ within the th

ci#il degree 'led a 0otion to e charged with the duty to complywith the pro#isions of the will" alleging that they reached anagreement with the %ishop of Gipa" wherein they would deposit withthe %ishop the necessary amount to defray the 0asses for 8 years.

Nuinio et al contend that e#en after full compliance with the will of the testatri$" a su stantial alance would still remain afterdeducting the necessary e$penses for 0asses and alms. As to that

alance" Nuinio et al contend that ugenia died partly intestate andthat they are entitled to succeed her with respect thereto.

The &) held that such contention is inconsistent with what ugenia

ordered in her Will. Nuinio et al proceed on the false assumptionthat for e#ery 0ass cele rated" something or a determinate amountfrom the fruits of ugenia@s properties had to e gi#en. Proceedingon this assumption" it is possi le that the fruits would lea#e ane$cess which ugenia had not disposed of. ;owe#er" such anassumption is untena le ecause ugenia ordered that the fruitsof the lands and the income of the house and warehouse" e spentfor 0assesZU ;ence" ugenia has pro#ided that all fruits of thelands and all income e spent for the 0asses. (or the purpose of the 0asses" etc." ugenie also pro#ided that if necessary" herproperties e sold with lea#e of court. In #iew of these pro#isions inthe will" ugenia@s collateral relati#es" not eing forced heirs" are

not entitled to succeed her as to the remainder of her properties"which does not e$ist" or as to the na!ed ownership thereof.

Ca+etano v. >eoni&as

Adoracion )ampos died" lea#ing her father ;ermogenes and hersisters as sur#i#ing heirs. Adoracion was at the time of her death anAmerican citiKen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia"Pennsyl#ania" S&A. Snder Art /6> ?" intestate and testamentarysuccessions" oth with respect to the order of succession and to theamount of successional rights and to the intrinsic #alidity of testamentary pro#isions" shall e regulated y the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration" whate#er may

e the nature of the property and regardless of the country whereinsaid property may e found. Art /98 )) capacity to succeed isgo#erned y the law of the nation of the decedent. Thus" the lawwhich go#erns Adoracion@s will is the law of Pennsyl#ania" S&A"

which does not pro#ide for legitimes and that all the estate may egi#en away y the testatri$ to a complete stranger. Whate#erpu lic policy or good customs may e in#ol#ed in our system of legitimes" )ongress has not intended to e$tend the same tosuccession of foreign nationals.

OO:II. Arts. /94 /9 7

velino v. C

Antonio A#elino" &r. died and was sur#i#ed y his spouse Angelina"

daughter 0a. &ocorro >petitioner?" and other compulsory heirs>respondents?. 0a. &ocorro 'led a Petition for the Issuance of Getters of Administration" as!ing to e appointed the administratorof the estate. Angelina and the others 'led an 1pposition y 'ling a0otion to )on#ert the udicial Proceedings to an Action for udicialPartition. The lower court granted this and ordered the parties tosu mit a complete in#entory of all the real and personal propertiesleft y the decedent.

In this case" the decedent left no de ts and the heirs and legateesare all of age. Thus" *ule 74" &ec / of *o) should apply the partiesmay" without securing letters of administration" di#ide the estate

6


27/30


among themsel#es as they see 't y means of a pu lic instrument'led in the oEce of the register of deeds" and should they disagree"they may do so in an ordinary action of partition. Thus" the *T) didnot err in con#erting 0a. &ocorro@s Petition for Issuance of Getters of Administration into an action for ,udicial partition.

OO:III. Arts /9 /977

Zara#oAa v. C

(la#io RaragoKa )ano >decedent? was sur#i#ed y his four >4?children. ;is daughter Al ert 'led a complaint for deli#ery of herinheritance share" according to a partition made y (la#io whichdistri uted his properties among three >8? out of the four >4?children e$cepting Al erta through 2eeds of &ale. ;er rother(lorentino" along with his wife" was impleaded. (lorentino 'led a0otion to 2ismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to

implead indispensa le parties >i.e." =loria and RacariaK" their othersi lings?.

&)3 )ollation cannot e done in this case" where the con,ugalpetition for deli#ery of inheritance share only impleaded one of theother compulsory heirs. The petition must e dismissed withoutpre,udice to the institution of a new proceeding where all theindispensa le parties are present for the rightful determination of their respecti#e legitime and if the legitimes were pre,udiced y thepartitioning inter $i$os .

&an v. Casili

(eli$ Adan recei#ed from his mother >2ecedent? during her lifetime#arious sums aggregating Php 8"999 for his e$penses whilestudying sur#eying in 0anila" [ of which >Php /" 99? should e

rought into collation.

The career of sur#eyor is a professional one. &ince the e$pensesincurred y (eli$@s mother in gi#ing him that career encroachedupon the legitime" it is proper to collate [ of the amount spent yher for him during the years he studied sur#eying" the other [

eing considered as the amount which (eli$ would ha#e spent if hehad li#ed in the house and company of his mother.

DiAon 9ivera v. DiAon

)ase at ar3 distri ution and partition of the entire estate y thetestatri$ in her will" without her ha#ing made any pre#ious

donations during her lifetime which would require collation todetermine the legitime of each heir nor ha#ing left merely someproperties y will which would call for the application of Arts /96/-/968 )) on collation.

OOIO. Arts. /97 /9 9

le6? children >0arcelino"=regorio" )iriaco" 0auricia" Gaurencia" A undio? a / -sq. m. lot"with each child supposedly recei#ing 86. sq. m. ;owe#er" the

estate of the &ps. Ale,andrino was not settled in accordance withthe procedure outlined in the *ules of )ourt. 0auricia" one of thechildren" allegedly purchased some of =regorio@s and A undio@sshare as well as the whole of )iriaco@s share. ;owe#er" a 8 rd partyGicerio Bique allegedly purchased shares from the children throughGaurencia.

The ultimate issue to e decided is whether or not as a heir of the&ps. Ale,andrino" Gaurencia may #alidly sell speci'c portions thereof to a 8 rd party. Art. /97 )) pro#ides that where there are two ormore heirs" the whole estate of the decedent is" before partition "owned in common y such heirs" su ,ect to the payment of the

de ts of the deceased. Art /9 )) pro#ides should any of theheirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before partition " any orall of the co-heirs may e su rogated to the rights of the purchaser

y reim ursing him for the price of the sale" pro$ided they do sowithin the period of one >/? month from the time they were noti'edin writing of the sale y the #endor. In the instant case" Gaurencewas within her hereditary rights in selling her pro indi$iso share inthe propertyD howe#er" ecause the property had not yet eenpartitioned" no particular portion thereof could e identi'ed as yetand delineated as the o ,ect of the sale. Thus" the &) held that aco-owner has the right to alienate his proBindi$iso share in the co-owned property e#en without the consent of the other ownersD

7


28/30


nevert$eless " as a mere part owner" he cannot alienate theshares of the other co-owners. Bo one can gi#e what he does notha#e > nemo dat 'uod non habet ?.

The &) also held that the *T) may not order partition of an estate

in an Action for Nuieting of Title. Partition may only e eCected y• ;eirs themsel#es e$tra,udicially• )ourt in an ordinary action for partitionVin the course of

administration proceedings• Testator himself • 8 rd person designated y testator

Gastly" Art /9 )) pro#ides that e#ery act which is intended to putan end to indi#ision among co-heirs Z is deemed to e a partition"although it should purport to e a sale" an e$change" acompromise" or any other transaction. IB the case at ar" Gaurenciae$pressed her intention to terminate the coownership y selling hershare to Bique. (urther" the e$ecution of the 2eed of $tra,udicial&ettlement of the state reMected the intention of oth 0auriciaand Gaurence to physically di#ide the property. %oth of them hadacquired the shares of their rothers and therefore it was only thetwo > ? of them that needed to settle the estate. Thus" the *T) didnot a use its discretion in issuing the 1rder for the &egregation of the Property ecause in so doing" it merely reiterated the partition

y 0auricia and Gaurencia em odied in the 2eed of $tra,udicial&ettlement.

Cua v. ?ar#as

Paulina :argas >decedent? eft ehind a parcel of residential land. AnotariKed $tra,udicial &ettlementnA0ong ;eirs was e$ecuted yand among her heirs" partitioning and ad,udicating unto themsel#esthe su ,ect lot" each getting a share of // sq. m." ut only '#e > ?out of the nine > ? heirs signed the same. Another $tra,udicial&ettlement was again e$ecuted y and among the same heirs o#erthe same property with the same sharings" ut again only the same'#e > ? heirs signed. %y #irtue of said documents" oseph )ua wasa le to acquire the shares of the signatory heirs totaling sq. m.

According to =loria :argas" one of the co-heirs" she only came to!now of the $tra,udicial &ettlement when the original house uilt

on the lot was demolished sometime in 0ay / . &he tried toredeem the property with a letter from her counsel to oseph )ua"which was refused y the latter. This prompted =loria to 'le for theAnnulment of the $tra,udicial &ettlement which was dismissed ythe 0T)" which held that although there was a failure to strictly

comply with the requirements under Art /9 )) for a writtennotice of sale to e ser#ed upon respondents y the #endors priorto the e$ercise of the former@s right of redemption" this de'ciencywas cured y respondent@s actual !nowledge of the sale" which wasmore than 89 days efore the 'ling of the complaint. Thus" theaction came too late.

&)3 The co-heirs can #alidly sell their hereditary rights to 8 rd

persons e#en efore partition of the estate. Be#ertheless" =loria"etc. are gi#en the right to redeem these shares pursuant to Art/9 )). The right to redeem was ne#er lost ecause =loria" et alwere never noti'ed in writing of the actual sale y their co-heirs.

%ased on the pro#ision" there is a need for a written notice to startthe period of redemption. (ritten notice is in&is"ensa*le an&!an&ator+/ actual ;no)lee o t$e sale ac=uire& in so!eot$er !anner *+ t$e re&e!"tioner not)it$stan&in#. Thoughthe )) does not prescri e any particular form of written notice norany distincti#e method for written noti'cation of redemption" themethod of noti'cation remains e$clusi#e" there eing no alternati#epro#ided y law. This proceeds from the #ery purpose of Art /9which is to !eep strangers to the family out of a ,oint ownership" if"as is often the case" the presence of outsiders e undesira le andthe other heirVs e willing and in a position to repurchase theshareVs sold. The o ligation to ser#e written notice de#ol#es on the

#endor co-heirs ecause it is they who are in the est position to!now the other co-owners who must e noti'ed of the sale.)onsidering that =loria@s co-heirs failed to comply with thisrequirement" there is no legal impediment to allowing her toredeem the shares sold to oseph )ua.

J>, #ro 8nc v. alansa#

2on ulian Te#es had two > ? marriages" 'rst with Antonia >withwhom he had two > ? children? and

Succession Syllabus Digests

Documents

Transcript of Succession Syllabus Digests