School of Law

Compilation of
Questions and Suggested Answers

Book 3
(Succession)

Submitted by:
CIVIL LAW (Weekday & Weekend) CLASS
(A.Y. 2015-2016)

Submitted to:
ATTY. JENNOH TEQUILLO
Civil Law Review Professor

December 17, 2015

Table of Content
SUCCESSION....................................................................................................................1
Succession................................................................................................................1
Gepulle-Garbo vs. Spouse Garabato..........................................................1
Ang vs. Pacunio...........................................................................................3
Aranas vs. Mercado.....................................................................................4
Vales vs. Galinato........................................................................................6
Heirs of Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. vs. Gonzales..............................................8
Bartolome vs. Social Security System..........................................................9
Republic vs. Marcos-Manotoc...................................................................11
Suntay III vs. Cojuanco-Suntay.................................................................12
Vda. de Cabalu vs. Spouses Tabu..............................................................14
Romero vs. Court of Appeals.....................................................................15
In the Matter of the Petition for the Probate for the Last Will and
Testament of Enrique S. Lopez Richard Lopez vs. Lopez..........................16
Neri vs. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy and Julpha Ibrahim Uy........................17
Beumer vs. Amores....................................................................................18
Spouses Fernande vs. Fernan...................................................................20
Heirs of Policronio Ureta vs. Heirs of Liberato Ureta..............................21
Pasco vs. Heirs of Filomena De Guzman..................................................23
Balus vs. Balus..........................................................................................25
Del Rosario vs. Ferrer...............................................................................26
Arellano vs. Pascual..................................................................................28
Echavez vs. Dozen Construction and Development Corporation.............29
Pilapil vs. Heirs of Maximino Briones......................................................31
Aznar Brothers Realty Co. vs. Aying.........................................................34
Testate of the Late Alipio Abada vs. Abaja................................................35
Vda. De Manalo vs. Court of Appeals.......................................................37
Viado vs. Court of Appeals........................................................................39
Dela Merced vs. Dela Merced...................................................................41
Action that Survives..............................................................................................42
Cruz vs. Cruz.............................................................................................42
Attestation Clause..................................................................................................43
Azuela vs. Court of Appeals......................................................................43
Capacity.................................................................................................................44
Baltazar vs.Laxa........................................................................................44
Valmonte vs. Valmonte...............................................................................46
Compulsory Heirs..................................................................................................48
Spouses Tumbokon vs. Legaspi.................................................................48
Determination of Heirship.....................................................................................50
Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte.....................................................50
Devise....................................................................................................................52
Villanueva vs. Spouses Branoco................................................................52

Disinheritance........................................................................................................54
Ching and Po Wing vs. Rodriguez.............................................................54
Disqualifications of Surviving Spouse..................................................................55
Spouses Capitle vs. Elbambuena...............................................................55
Donation Mortis Causa..........................................................................................56
Maglasang vs. The Heirs of Corazon Cabatingan....................................56
Future inheritance..................................................................................................57
Ferrer vs. Spouses Diaz.............................................................................57
Hereditary Succession of Foreigners.....................................................................59
Matthews vs. Taylor...................................................................................59
Holographic Wills; Preterition...............................................................................61
Seangio vs. Reyes......................................................................................61
Intestate Proceedings.............................................................................................64
Heirs of the Late Spouses Flaviano Maglasang vs. Manila Banking
Corporation...............................................................................................64
Intestate Succession...............................................................................................66
Spouses Peralta vs. Heirs of BernardinaAbalon.......................................66
Partition..................................................................................................................67
Spouses Marcos vs. Heirs of Isidro Bangi.................................................67
Casilang, Sr. vs. Casilang-Dizon...............................................................68
Zaragoza vs. Court of Appeals..................................................................70
Probate of a Will Executed by a Foreigner Abroad...............................................71
In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Ruperta Palagnas....71
Probate of Will.......................................................................................................73
Alejandra Arado Heirs vs. Alcoran...........................................................73
Baltazar vs. Laxa.......................................................................................75
Santiago vs. Santiago................................................................................76
Proof of Heirship...................................................................................................78
Heirs of Valentin Basbas vs.Basbas..........................................................78
Repudiation of Inheritance....................................................................................80
Guy vs. Court of Appeals...........................................................................80
Reserva Troncal.....................................................................................................81
Mendoza vs. Delos Santos.........................................................................81
Sale by Heirs..........................................................................................................83
Extraordinary Development Corporation vs. Samson-Bico......................83
Sale of Intestate Estate by an Administrator..........................................................84
Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.........................................................................84
Successional Right.................................................................................................86
Bunyi vs. Factor........................................................................................86
Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals....................................................................87
Transmission of Successional rights......................................................................88
Calalang-Parulan vs. Calalang-Garcia....................................................88
Ining vs. Vega............................................................................................90
Trusteeship on the Estate.......................................................................................91
Hilarion, Jr. vs. Trusteeship of the Estate of Doa Margarita Rodriguez.91

Venue for Settlement of Estate..............................................................................92

Jao vs. Court of Appeals............................................................................92
Venue of Action.....................................................................................................94
San Luis vs. San Luis.................................................................................94
Umengan vs. Heirs of RosendoLasam.......................................................96
Wills Admitted for Probate but Archived..............................................................97
Hacbang vs. Alo........................................................................................97
Wills Admitted for Probate but Intrinsically Void.................................................99
Dorotheo vs. Court of Appeals..................................................................99

SUCCESSION
Succession

I.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Gepulle-Garbo vs. Spouse Garabato

G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015

Contributor

: Jurolan, Marymar
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Nathan was married to Chloe in 1967. They were blessed with a son named George who
in turn had an illegitimate daughter named Leila. On June 17, 1991, a Deed of Sale was
executed between Chloe and George whereby the former sold to the latter a parcel of
land. The deed of sale was signed by Nathan. Chloe died in 1992. Nathan then married
his long time friend, Patricia in 1993. In 2000, George registered the property in his name
and was issued TCT No. 4171863. Nathan died in 2002. Patricia then filed a petition for
cancellation of TCT No. 4171863 against Leila, the legal heir of George. She impugns
the validity of the June 17, 1991 Deed of Sale on the ground that the signatures of Nathan
and Chloe were forged by George. Patricia claimed that Nathan had previously sought the
examination of his alleged signature on the June 17, 1991 Deed of Sale by the NBI. The
NBI examiner allegedly found that the questioned signature and the standard signatures
of Nathan were not written by one and the same person. During the trial, Patricia asserted
that Nathan left real properties including the property covered by TCT No. 4171863. She
claimed that by virtue of a holographic will executed by Nathan, the subject property was
bequeathed to her. In the same will, he disinherited his son, George. Patricia admitted that
the said holographic will was never probated. The Court ruled in favor of Leila on the
ground that signatures of Nathan and Chloe appearing on the instruments are not forged.
Is the ruling correct? Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the ruling of the court is correct.

The opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the
experts function being to place before the court data upon which the court can form its
own opinion. This principle holds true especially when the question involved is mere
handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison
of specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones.
In the problem given, the NBIs opinion as to the truth or falsity of the signature of
Nathan is not binding and conclusive upon the court since the request for examination of
the deed of sale was not upon the order of the court but at the instance of the Patricia.
Such examination brings suspicion as to the bias or prejudice of the examining party.
Moreover, while it was concluded that there was variance in the compared signatures,
such mere variance cannot be considered conclusive proof that the signature was forged.

II.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Ang vs. Pacunio

G.R. No. 208928, July 8, 2015

Contributor

: Udtohan, Liljoy
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
L, M, N and O sought to declare the sale of land between A and U null and void. They
contend that U who owned the land was their grandmother and left it to them as their
inheritance. They further asserted that the one who sold the land is an impostor since their
grandmother was already dead for more than 20 years when the sale occurred.
a.
b.

When does the right of representation occur?

Do L, M, N and O have the right to declare the sale null and void?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a.
died

The right of representation is available when the original heir had:

(a) predeceased; (b) is incapacitated to inherit; or (c) was disinherited, if decedent
testate.

b.

NO. L, M, N and O have no right to declare the sale null and void.

Under the law, however, L, M, N and O will only be deemed to have a material interest
over the subject land- and the rest of U's estate for that matter if the right of
representation provided under Article 970, in relation to Article 982, of the Civil Code is
available to them. In this situation, representatives will be called to the succession by the
law and not by the person represented; and the representative does not succeed the person
represented but the one whom the person represented would have succeeded. In the
instant case, they claim to be the successors-in-interest of the subject land just because
they are Us grandchildren.

III.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Aranas vs. Mercado

G.R. No. 156407, January 15, 2014

Contributor

: Manuales, Eisone Brix

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Emigdio S. Mercado died intestate, survived by his second wife, Teresita V. Mercado and
their five children, namely: Allan, Felimon, Carmencita, Richard , and Maria Teresita ;
and his two children by his first marriage, Franklin and Thelma. During the lifetime of
Emigdio, he inherited and acquired real properties from her deceased mother. He owned
corporate shares of stock of Mervir Realty Corporation which were in the name Teresita
which were paid through conjugal funds. He assigned his real properties in exchange for
corporate stocks of Mervir Realty, and sold his real property in Badian, Cebu (Lot 3353
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3252) to Mervir Realty .The assignment of
several parcels of land by the late Emigdio S. Mercado to Mervir Realty Corporation by
virtue of the Deed of Assignment signed by him on the said day made two days before he
died on January 12, 1991. Thelma then petitioned for the appointment of Teresita as
administrator of Emigdios estate. Subsequently it was granted. Thereafter, following an
order from the court, Teresita filed an inventory of the properties left by the deceased but
excluded therefrom the properties mentioned to have been already assigned to Mervir
Realty. Thelma moved that the list of inventory be amended to include all the properties
of the deceased even if already assigned. The trial court then issued an order mandating
Teresita to re-do the inventory made. Is the exclusion of the above-mentioned properties
valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Article 1061 of the Civil Code requires every compulsory heir and the surviving
spouse, to bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he or she may
have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or
any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of the
legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.

Furthermore, the usage of the word all in Section 1, Rule 83 of the Rules of Court,
demands the inclusion of all the real and personal properties of the decedent in the
inventory. However, the word all is qualified by the phrase which has come into his
possession or knowledge, which signifies that the properties must be known to the
administrator to belong to the decedent or are in her possession as the administrator.
Section 1 allows no exception, for the phrase true inventory implies that no properties
appearing to belong to the decedent can be excluded from the inventory, regardless of
their being in the possession of another person or entity.

IV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Vales vs. Galinato

G.R. No. 180134, March 5, 2014

Contributor

: Villamor, Cletus
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Spouses Perfecto and Marietta Vales (Sps. Vales) executed a Deed of Sale6 conveying
five (5) parcels of registered agricultural land, with an aggregate area of 20.3168 hectares
(has.), to their three (3) children, herein petitioners (subject sale) but failed to register and
at the time of the sale, the subject lands were tenanted.
On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was passed decreeing the
emancipation of tenants.
Petitioner filed a petition before the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform-Region VI,
praying that they be certified as owners of the subject lands which they have declared in
their names for tax purposes as early as November 29, 1972. The petition, however,
remained unresolved for nearly two (2) decades. On August 16, 1999, the DAR Regional
Director declared that ownership over the subject lands remained with Sps. Vales due to
petitioners failure to effect the registration or even the annotation of the subject sale
before October 21, 1972. Hence, the sale did not bind the tenants concerned, and no
retention rights were transferred to petitioners. Are petitioners entitled to avail of any
retention right under existing agrarian laws? Decide with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.
PD 27, which implemented the OLT Program of the government, covers tenanted rice or
corn lands. The requisites for coverage under the OLT Program are the following: (a) the
land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; and (b) there must be a system of share-crop
or lease-tenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, a landowner may apply for
exemption since the land would not be considered as covered under the OLT Program.

Accordingly, a landowner need not apply for retention where his ownership over the
entire landholding is intact and undisturbed.
If the land is covered by the OLT Program, which, hence, renders the right of retention
operable, the landowner who cultivates or intends to cultivate an area of his tenanted rice
or corn land has the right to retain an area of not more than seven (7) has. thereof, on the
condition that his aggregate landholdings do not exceed 24 has. as of October 21, 1972.
Otherwise, his entire landholdings are covered by the OLT Program without him being
entitled to any retention right. Similarly, by virtue of LOI 474, if the landowner, as of
October 21 1976, owned less than 24 has. of tenanted rice or corn lands, but additionally
owned (a) other agricultural lands of more than 7 has., whether tenanted or not, whether
cultivated or not, and regardless of the income derived therefrom, or (b) lands used for
residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes, from which he derives
adequate income to support himself and his family, his entire landholdings shall be
similarly placed under OLT Program coverage, without any right of retention.

V.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Heirs of Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. vs. Gonzales

G.R. No. 185922, January 15, 2014

Contributor

: Siega, Mar Teresa

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Dr. Fave , an 80- year widower, married Juana in the year 1990. Twelve years into the
marriage, they begot a child named Mario. Beginning 1995 until his death in 2002,
DrFavewas beset with various illnesses including Parkinsons disease. He died of
cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to multi-organ/ system failure. On October 16, 2001 he
allegedly executed a Deed of Donation transferring and conveying properties in favor of
his grandchildren with Juana.
Claiming that their legitimewas prejudiced by such donation, Dr. Faves children with his
first wife filed an action for annulment of the Deed of Donation because DrFave could
not have willfully made the Deed due to his advanced age. Respondents contend that the
donation was valid because DrFave was still in full control of his mind during the
execution of the Deed of Donation. Is the contention of the respondents tenable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NO. The Deed of Donation was invalid.
To determine the intrinsic validity of the deed of donation subject of the action for
annulment, the mental state / condition of the donor Dr. Fave at the time of its execution
must be taken into account. Factors such as his age, health and environment among others
should be considered. Although the age of senility varies from one person to another, to
reach the age of 92 with all the medications and treatments one have received for those
illnesses, yet claim that his mind remains unimpaired, would be unusual.

VI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Bartolome vs. Social Security System

G.R. No. 192531, November 12, 2014

Contributor

: Corbo, Rhobie
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
After obtaining degree in Nautical Science, Zaldy was lucky enough to join P&O
Nedlloyd Company as Third Engineer for a contract of two years. While onboard a vessel
in Brazil on June 2, 2008, he met a fatal accident at work which resulted to his death.
Zaldy died as a young bachelor leaving no family of his own but only his late adoptive
parent Zacharias and his biological mother Zane. His biological mother, Zane filed a
claim for death benefits under the ECP and with the Social Security System as the
beneficiary. The latter, however, denied her claim for death benefits, averring that she is
no longer considered as the parent of Zaldy as he was legally adopted by Zacharias. Zane
filed an appeal with the Employees Compensation Commission, which also denied the
appeal. In denying the appeal, the SSS and the ECC reasoned out that Zane s denial was
by reason of her not being the primary beneficiary. Thus, the late Zacharias being the
adopted parent should only be the beneficiary.
By virtue of adoption proceeding, is the tie between the biological parent and the adoptee
totally severed thus Zane, his biological mother should denied to claim as Zaldys
beneficiary?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NO. In the absence or, as in this case, death of the adopter, no one else could reasonably
be expected to perform the role of a parent other than the adoptees biological one. Even
though parental authority is severed by virtue of adoption, the ties between the adoptee
and the biological parents are not entirely eliminated. To demonstrate, the biological
parents, in some instances, are able to inherit from the adopted, as can be gleaned from
Art. 190 of the Family Code that when the parents, legitimate or illegitimate, or the
legitimate ascendants of the adopted concur with the adopter, they shall divide the entire
estate, one-half to be inherited by the parents or ascendants and the other half, by the
adopters.

From the foregoing, it is apparent that the biological parents retain their rights of
succession to the estate of their child who was the subject of adoption. While the benefits
arising from the death of an SSS covered employee do not form part of the estate of the
adopted child, the pertinent provision on legal or intestate succession at least reveals the
policy on the rights of the biological parents and those by adoption vis-a-vis the right to
receive benefits from the adopted.

VII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Republic vs. Marcos-Manotoc

G.R. No. 171701, February 8, 2012

Contributor

: Nalia, Ellen
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Vernie and Clifford are the children of Ernesto Sy. Ernesto died without a will leaving all
his properties to his children. However, the said properties were allegedly part of Sys
accumulated ill-gotten wealth. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a complaint for
reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against Ernesto Sy who
was later substituted by his estate upon his death. Vernie and Clifford were sued to render
an accounting and to return the alleged ill-gotten wealth. They argued that they did not
conspire or participate in accumulating ill-gotten wealth and should not be maintained as
respondents. Is maintaining them as respondents proper in the case? Decide the case
using the rules of succession.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes they should be maintained as respondents since they are compulsory heirs of Ernesto.
They may be in possession, ownership or control of such ill-gotten properties or the
proceeds thereof as heirs of the Marcos couple.
Under the rules of succession, the heirs instantaneously became co-owners of the
decedents properties upon his death. The property rights and obligations to the extent of
the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted to another through the decedents
death. In this concept, nothing prevents the heirs from exercising their right to transfer or
dispose of the properties that constitute their legitimes, even absent their declaration or
absent the partition or the distribution of the estate.
In the given circumstance, while it was not proven that Vernie and Clifford conspired in
accumulating ill-gotten wealth, they may be in possession, ownership or control of such
ill-gotten properties or the proceeds thereof as heirs of Ernesto. Thus, their lack of
participation in any illegal act does not remove the character of the property as ill-gotten
and, therefore, as rightfully belonging to the State.

VIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Suntay III vs. Cojuanco-Suntay

G.R. No. 183053, October 10, 2002

Contributor

: Avenido, Anna Mae

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Juanito is the illegitimate grandchild of Julio and Julia. He was raised by his grandparents
like their own child. Andres, Juanitos father, was married to Adora and had children
with her. But their relationship got sour and decided to have it annulled. After several
years, Andres died of cancer. Two years after the death of Andres, Julia died intestate.
Julio then adopted Juanito to be his legal son and heir.
Upon the death of Julia, Adora filed for a petition for the issuance of letters
administration in her favour. But this was opposed by Julio and instead appointed Juanito
to be the administrator of Julias estate on his behalf. On the course of the proceedings,
Julio died.
Adora contends that Juanito should not become the administrator of the estate citing
Article 992 which states: An Illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestate from the
legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or
relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.
Was the contention of Adora tenable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The contention of Adora is not tenable.
Article 992 states: An Illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestate from the
legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or
relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child
The successional bar between the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of a decedent, does
not apply in this instance where facts indubitably demonstrate the contrary. Juanito, an

illegitimate grandchild of the decedent, was actually treated by the decedent and her
husband as their own son and eventually legally adopted by decedents husband.
The law [of intestacy] is founded on the presumed will of the deceased Love, it is said,
first descends, then ascends, and, finally, spreads sideways. Thus, the law first calls the
descendants, then the ascendants, and finally the collaterals, always preferring those
closer in degree to those of remoter degrees, on the assumption that the deceased would
have done so had he manifested his last will.
The peculiar circumstances of this case, overthrow the legal presumption in Article 992
of the Civil Code that there exist animosity and antagonism between legitimate and
illegitimate descendants of a deceased.

IX.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Vda. de Cabalu vs. Spouses Tabu

G.R. No. 188417, September 24, 2012

Contributor

: Sayson, Gerlyn Mae

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
DA sold a 9000 square meter of property to M. The subject property was owned by the
aunt of his father, BA, which the latter inherited from the former through a holographic
will. The holographic will was not subjected to probate at the time of BAs death and
even at the time of the sale of the property. Will the property be a proper subject of sale?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the property cannot be a proper subject of sale. When DA sold the disputed property
to M, he is not yet the owner. The property was inherited by his father BA from his aunt.
When BA died and DA sold the property to M, the latter has no authority to dispose the
property since the holographic will which DAs father BA based his right on the property
was not yet probated. He could not have disposed the entire 9000 square meters of land to
M.
Article 1347 of the Civil Code provides that no contract may be entered into upon future
inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law. A contract entered into upon
future inheritance is void. The law applies when the following requisites concur: (1) the
succession has not yet been opened; (2) the object of the contract forms part of the
inheritance and; (3) the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right
which is purely hereditary in nature.
In the present case, at the time Domingo sold the property, the holographic will executed
by the aunt of BA was not yet probated. The property subject to the contract of sale still
formed part of the estate of BAs aunt. DA had only a mere inchoate hereditary right
therein.

X.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Romero vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012

Contributor

: Gula, Maria Monica

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Can the probate court decide a question of title or ownership?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As a general rule, a probate court may not decide a question of title or ownership. But if
the interested parties are all heirs, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or
the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of
third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is competent to decide the question
of ownership.

XI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: In the Matter of the Petition for the Probate for the Last Will and
Testament of Enrique S. Lopez Richard Lopez vs. Lopez
G.R. No. 189984, November 12, 2012

Contributor

: Parawan, Eula
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
X died leaving a will. Y, as his executor and administrator, filed a petition for probate of
Xs will. W opposed the petition contending that the purported last will and testament
was not executed and attested as required by law for failure to comply with Article 805 of
the Civil Code which requires a statement in the attestation clause of the number of pages
used upon which the will is written. The court found that while the acknowledgment
portion stated that the will consists of 7 pages including the page on which the ratification
and acknowledgment are written, it has 8 pages including the acknowledgment portion.
Should the court disallow the probate of the will?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The law is clear that the attestation must state the number of pages used upon which
the will is written. The purpose of the law is to safeguard against possible interpolation or
omission of one or some of its pages and prevent any increase or decrease in the pages.
While Article 809 allows substantial compliance for defects in the form of the attestation
clause, the statement in the Acknowledgment portion of the subject last will and
testament cannot be deemed substantial compliance. The will actually consists of 8 pages
including its acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be explained by mere
examination of the will itself but through the presentation of evidence.

XII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Neri vs. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy and Julpha Ibrahim Uy

G.R. No. 194366, October 10, 2012

Contributor

: Tejano, Misaellee
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Annie has 5 daughters: Agatha and Athena from her first marriage to Anthony; Amanda,
Arabella, and Ana from her second marriage to Arnold. Annie and Arnold owns the
following properties: Lots 1, 2, 3 located in Quezon City; Lots 4, 5 6 in Bulacan and a
house in Makati City.
Annie died intestate leaving her husband Arnold and 5 daughters one of which, Ana, is
still a minor. Arnold together with Agatha, Amanda and Arabella executed and ExtraJudicial Settlement adjudicating among themselves various properties. The settlement are
as follows: Agatha was given Lot 1. Lot 2 went to Athena, Lot 3 to Amanda, Lot 4 to
Arabella. Lot 5 to Ana and the Makati property was given to Arnold. Lot 6 was sold to
Spouses Aaron and Amor.
Is the extra judicial settlement valid? Is the sale to Spouses Aaron and Amor valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. When Annie died, her children and Arnold acquired their respective inheritances
entitling them to their pro indiviso shares in her whole estate. In the execution of the
Extra Judicial Settlement, all the heirs should have participated. In this case, Athena was
excluded. Further, minor Ana was not property represented. Thus, the settlement was null
and void.
As to the sale of Lot 6 to Spouses Aaron and Amor, it is valid but only with respect to the
shares of Arnold, Agatha, Amanda and Arabella. With respect to Ana, since she is a
minor, Arnold represented her in the sale but she was only clothed with powers to
administration and not power to dispose of the property.

XIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Beumer vs. Amores

G.R. No. 195670, December 3, 2012

Contributor

: Quiron, Maria Cristina

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
William Conroy, an American National, married Maria Santos, a Filipina. During their
marriage they bought several houses and lot and were registered in Marias name. They
acquired the properties out of Williams money which he received from the United States
government as his disability benefits since Maria did not have sufficient income to pay
for their acquisition. Unfortunately the marriage turned sour and Maria filed an
annulment on the basis of Williamss psychological incapacity.
William then filed a Petition for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership praying for the
distribution of properties which he bought during their marriage.
Will the properties purchased using the personal funds of William Conroy be considered
part of the conjugal property.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the parcels of land purchased using the personal funds of William Conroy will be
considered as paraphernal properties of Maria due to the fact that while these real
properties were acquired by onerous title during their marital union, William Conroy,
being a foreigner, is not allowed by law to acquire any private land in the Philippines,
except through inheritance.
Regardless of the source of funds for the acquisition, William cannot acquire any right
whatsoever over the properties because of the prohibition against foreign ownership of
Philippine land enshrined under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
which reads:

Section 7:
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
However, the constitutional ban against foreigners applies only to ownership of
Philippine land and not to the improvements built thereon, therefore William is only
entitled to the share on the houses standing on the parcels of land.

XIV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Spouses Fernande vs. Fernan

G.R. No. 191889, January 31, 2011

Contributor

: Ygana, Angeline
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
A,B, and C are co owners of a lot. B, single died April 28, 1988 leaving no will. A and C
presented a Deed of Partition with Sale dated and notarized October 27, 1994 with the
Registry of Deeds thereby terminating the co-ownership. Transfer of Certificate of Titles
were issued. X the full blood brother of A, B and C filed a complaint alleging that Bs
signature on the Deed of Partition with Sale was a forgery since B died April 28, 1988
before the deed was executed 1994. At the witness stand Y the wife of A declared that
she was present during the execution of the deed in 1986 on the agreement that it will be
held on safekeeping until it was notarized 1994. Will the action of X prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, under In Heirs of Rosa Dumaliang v. Serban provides that if it is established that
petitioners consent was not given to the Deed of Partition with Sale which became the
basis for the issuance of the new title, the absence of such consent makes the Deed null
and void ab initio and subject to attack anytime. It is recognized in our jurisprudence that
a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title. Article 1410 of the Civil Code clearly
provides that an action to declare the inexistent of a void contract does not prescribe.

XV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Heirs of Policronio Ureta vs. Heirs of Liberato Ureta

G.R. Nos. 165748 & 165930, September 14, 2011

Contributor

: Rivera, Clieford
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
A executed 4 Deeds of Sale covering several parcels of land in favor of B,C,D,E, and As
common-law wife F. The sales were only made for taxation purposes and no monetary
consideration was given, A continued to own, possess and enjoy the said properties. A's
heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, which included all the lands that were
covered by the said deeds of sale X, B's eldest son, representing the Heirs of B, signed
the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in behalf of his co-heirs.
After their father's death, the Heirs of B found tax declarations in his name covering the
six parcels of land. They obtained a copy of the Deed of Sale executed by A in favor of
B.Believing that the six parcels of land belonged to their late father, and as such,
excluded from the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition, the Heirs of B sought to amicably
settle the matter with the Heirs of A. Earnest efforts proving futile, the Heirs of B filed a
Complaint for Declaration of Ownership, Recovery of Possession, Annulment of
Documents, Partition, and Damages against the Heirs of Abefore the RTC. The Heirs of B
argued, among others, that the heirs of A cannot question validity of the sale without first
proving that their successional rights were unduly prejudiced, considering that under
Article 842 of the Civil Code, one who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate
provided that he does not contravene the provisions of the Civil Code with regard to the
legitime of said heirs. Is this argument correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Article 842 of the Civil Code provides: One who has no compulsory heirs may
dispose by will of all his estate or any part of it in favor of any person having capacity to
succeed.One who has compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate provided he does not
contravene the provisions of this Code with regard to the legitime of said heirs.

This article refers to the principle of freedom of disposition by will. What is involved in
the case at bench is not a disposition by will but by Deed of Sale. Hence, the Heirs of
Alfonso need not first prove that the disposition substantially diminished their
successional rights or unduly prejudiced their legitimes.

XVI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Pasco vs. Heirs of Filomena De Guzman

G.R. No. 165554, July 26, 2010

Contributor

: Perias, Christine Joymarie

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Bong2x obtained a loan in the amount of P300,000 from Noy2x (now deceased), to
secure the loan Bong2x excuted a chattel mortgage on his Mitsubishi Strada pick up in
favor of Noy2x. Upon his death his heirs sought to collect from Bong2x but despite
numerous demand it was no avail. The heirs authorized Kris, as their attorney-in-fact
through a Special Power of Attorney, the SPA authorized Kris to do the following in
behalf of the co-heirs:
1) To represent us on all matters concerning the intestate estate of our deceased
brother, Noy2x Alonzo;
2) To file cases for collection of all accounts due said Noy2x Alonzo or his estate,
including the power to file petition for foreclosure of mortgaged properties;
Bong2x claim that Kris cannot collect the payment because she is not a party to the
mortgage thus he only is liable to Noy2x. His defense in non-payment is he will only pay
the loan directly to Noy2xs estate, not to Kris.
Is Bong2xs contention correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, he is not correct. It is undisputed that Kriss co-heirs executed a Special Power of
Attorney, designating Kris as their attorney-in-fact and empowering her to file cases for
collection of all the accounts due to Noy2x or his estate. Consequently, Kris filing of
cases in order to collect the overdue loan obtained by Bong2x from Noy2x was merely
performing her duty as attorney-in-fact of her co-heirs pursuant to the Special Power of
Attorney given to her.

It is true that Noy2xs estate has a different juridical personality than that of the heirs.
Nonetheless, her heirs certainly have an interest in the preservation of the estate and the
recovery of its properties, for at the moment of Noy2xs death, the heirs start to own the
property, subject to the decedent's liabilities. In this connection, Article 777 of the Civil
Code states that [t]he rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the
death of the decedent.

XVII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Balus vs. Balus

G.R. No. 168970, January 15, 2010

Contributor

: Bacalso, Vernie Rose

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
F, owner of Lot 1-A, had 3 children A,B,C. F mortgaged said property to the bank as a
security for a loan. Due to Fs failure to pay the loan, subject property was foreclosed and
subsequently, a new title was issued in favor of the bank. After Fs death, his children
continued possession of said property. They executed an extra-judicial partition of the
property apportioning 1/3 thereof for each of them, and agreed to redeem the property
from the bank. However, the period for redemption had elapsed. Hence B and C bought
the property from the bank. Acting as new owners, B and C wanted to divide the property
between the two of them only. A opposed on the basis of his right as heir of F and on the
basis of the previous extra-judicial agreement. Does A have a right over the said
property?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the moment of his death
(Art. 777). In addition, the inheritance of a person consists of the property and
transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death, as well as those
which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession (Art. 781). In the present
case, since F lost ownership of the subject property during his lifetime, it only follows
that at the time of his death, the disputed parcel of land no longer formed part of his
estate to which his heirs may lay claim. Stated differently, A,B,C never inherited the
subject lot from their father. Instead, B and C acquired ownership over the property
pursuant to the sale. Therefore, A does not have any right over the property.

XVIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Del Rosario vs. Ferrer

G.R. No. 187056, September 20, 2010

Contributor

: Araas, Nia Grace

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Spouses Gonzales executed a document captioned DONATION MORTIS CAUSA,
covering a 126 sq. Meter lot and house in favor of their two children, Asuncion and
Emiliano, and their granddaughter, Jarabini, who was the daughter of their predeceased
son, Zoilo. The deed of donation showed express irrevocability of the said donation
which shall be respected by the surviving spouse and that the latter reserves the right,
ownership, possession and administration of the donated property. The deed shows that
the donation shall take effect upon the death of the donors. The donees acceptance was
clearly shown on the document. Guadalupe, the donor wife, died in and thereafter,
Leopoldo, the donor husband, assigned his rights and interests in of the subject property
to their daughter Asuncion. Leopoldo later died. Subsequently, Jarabini filed a petition for
the probate of the said deed of donation mortis causa, but Asuncion challenged the
petition, invoking the deed of assignment made in her favour previously by her father and
further claims that the donation was in fact a donation inter vivos and not a donation
mortis causa.
Was the donation a donation inter vivos or mortis causa? Explain your answer.
Distinguish donation inter vivos from donation mortis causa. Give the essential
characteristics of a donation mortis causa.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The donation was in reality a donation inter vivos. Although it was captioned as
Donation Mortis Causa, the caption is not controlling. In Austria-Magat v. CA, the
Court ruled that, irrevocability is a characteristic absolutely incompatible with the
concept of conveyances mortis causa, where revocability is precisely the essence of the
act.
ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A TRUE DONATION INTER VIVOS:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The necessary form

Consent or acceptance by donee during donors lifetime
Irrevocability
Intent to benefit the donee
Resultant decrease in the assets or patrimony of donor

ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A TRUE DONATION MORTIS CAUSA:

1.
that it conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the
transferor; or there is retention of the owner of his/her full or naked ownership
while alive;
2.
That before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at
will, ad nutum; but revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a
reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed; and
3.
That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee
The revocability of the donation is the ultimate test that identifies the document as a
donation inter vivos. In the case at bar, the irrevocable character of the donation was clear
in the statement of the document that the will shall be irrevocable and that the surviving
donor shall respect the irrevocability of the donation. Consequently, the donation was in
reality a donation inter vivos. The donors act of reserving their ownership rights to the
property donated in the context of an irrevocable donation means that the donors parted
with their naked title, keeping only beneficial ownership while they lived. Moreover, the
express acceptance of the donees in the document is a requirement only for donation inter
vivos. Donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, does not require the
acceptance of the donee during the donors lifetime. In case of doubt, the conveyance
should be deemed a donation inter vivos rather than mortis causa, in order to avoid
uncertainty as to the ownership of the property subject of the deed. Since the donation in
this case was one made inter vivos, it was immediately operative and final by the donees
acceptance of the donation. Leopoldos subsequent assignment of his rights and interests
in the property to Asuncion was void because he had no more rights to assign.

XIX.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Arellano vs. Pascual

G.R. No. 189776, December 15, 2010

Contributor

: Solon, Roger Benjamin

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
A died intestate leaving only her siblings B and F as her heirs. F filed a petition for
"Judicial Settlement of Intestate Estate and Issuance of Letters of Administration"
alleging that a property was transferred by the decedent to B by Deed of Donation. The
validity of the donation was assailed by F, contending that it "may be considered as an
advance legitime" of B. The probate court found the deed of donation valid and that said
property was subject to collation. The probate court thereafter partitioned the properties
of the intestate estate. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the lower courts ruling
that the property is subject to collation.
When is collation proper? Is the donation valid in this case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Collation takes place when there are compulsory heirs, one of its purposes being to
determine the legitime and the free portion. If there is no compulsory heir, there is no
legitime to be safeguarded.
In this case, the donation is valid. There is no indication that A left any compulsory heirs.
He was only survived by his siblings, who are his collateral relatives and, therefore, are
not entitled to any legitime that part of the testators property which he cannot dispose
of because the law has reserved it for compulsory heirs. The decedent not having left any
compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime, he was at liberty to donate all his
properties, even if nothing was left for his siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. Thus, the
donation is valid.

XX.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Echavez vs. Dozen Construction and Development Corporation

G.R. No. 192916, December 11, 2010

Contributor

: Guma, Israel
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Alma Morena donated several lots to Karen Divala through a Deed of Donation Mortis
Causa. Karen accepted the donation. The Deed of Donation did not contain an Attestation
Clause but it has an acknowledgment portion, which reads:
BEFORE ME, Notary Public, this 7th day of September 1985 at
Talisay, Cebu, personally appeared Alma S. Morena with Res. Cert.
No. 16866094 issued on April 10, 1985 at [sic] Talisay, Cebu known
to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument of
Deed of Donartion Mortis Causa before the Notary Public and in the
presence of the foregoing three (3) witnesses who signed this
instrument before and in the presence of each other and of the Notary
Public and all of them acknowledge to me that the same is their
voluntary act and deed.
Is the donation mortis causa valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The donation is not valid. The donation in favor of Karen Divala was a donation mortis
causa, hence, the compliance with the formalities for the validity of wills should have
been observed. The purported attestation clause embodied in the Acknowledgment potion
does not contain the number of pages on which the deed was written. The exception to
this rule in Singson v. Florentino and Taboada v. Hon. Rosal, cannot be applied to the
present case, as the facts of this case are not similar with those of Singson and Taboada.
In those cases, the Court found that although the attestation clause failed to state the
number of pages upon which the will was written, the number of pages was stated in one
portion of the will. This is not the factual situation in the present case.

Moreover, the Court also points out that even granting that the Acknowledgment
embodies what the attestation clause requires, we are not prepared to hold that an
attestation clause and an acknowledgment can be merged in one statement.

XXI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Pilapil vs. Heirs of Maximino Briones

G.R. No. 150175, March 10, 2006

Contributor

: Labella, Margaret
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Maximino, whose marriage to Donata did not produce any children, died without a will
on 1 May 1952. Donata, as administratrix of the estate of Maximino, settled her
husbands estate with the Court of First Instance (CFI), to whichshe submitted an
Inventory of Maximinosproperties, that included, among others, five (5) parcels of land,
which were prime properties.
The RTC subsequently issued an Order, awarding ownership of the aforementioned real
properties to Donata, who was adjudicated as Maximinos sole heir. When Donata died
on 1 November 1977, Erlinda, one of Donatas nieces, instituted with the RTC a petition
for the administration of the intestate estate of Donata, which was given due course.
On 21 January 1985, LinoBriones, a nephew of Maximino, filed a Petition with the RTC
for Letters of Administration for the intestate estate of Maximino, which was initially
granted by the RTC, allowing Lino to collect rentals from Maximinos properties.
ErlindaPilapilfiled with and was later granted by the RTC the Motion to Set Aside the
said Order, since said properties were already under her administration as part of the
intestate estate of Donata.Letters of Administration issued to Linowere subsequently set
aside by the RTC.
In 1989, Lino and the other heirs of Maximino filed a Complaint with the RTC against
the heirs of Donata for the partition, annulment, and recovery of possession of real
property. The heirs of Maximino presented the documents relating to the Special
Proceedings naming Donata as sole heir and Administrator of the properties of
Maximino, including the Inventory submitted by Donata to the CFI. They alleged that
Donata, as administratrix of the estate of Maximino, without the knowledge of the other
heirs, succeeded in registering in her name the real properties belonging to the intestate
estate of Maximino.

Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals rendered Decision, in favor of the heirs of
Maximinoratiocinating thus: This supposed declaration of heirs declaring the late
Donata Briones as the sole, absolute and exclusive heir of the late Maximino S. Briones
entered in the Register of Deeds has been made thru misrepresentation to the Court by
Donataas Administratrix of the estate of her husband Maximino S. Briones by failing to
honestly disclose to the Court that the decedent was survived not only by his widow but
also by his brothers and sisters and/or their children by right of representation which fact
was known to her at the time of her husbands death.
If you were the judge, who, between Erlinda (Donatas heirs) and Lino (Maximinos
heirs) had the better right to inherit the properties subject of the case? Explain.
FIRST SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lino and Maximinos heirs had the better right to inherit the properties of the deceased
spouses. Theright of Maximinos heirs to inherit, together with Donata, from the estate of
Maximino, is anchored clearly on Articles 995 and 1001 of the New Civil Code, which
read
ART. 995. In the absence of legitimate descendants and ascendants, and illegitimate
children and their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, the surviving spouse
shall inherit the entire estate, without prejudice to the rights of brothers and sisters,
nephews and nieces, should there be any, under article 1001.
ART. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or
widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and
sisters or their children to the other half.
The supposed Order declaring the late Donata Briones as the sole, absolute and exclusive
heir of the late Maximino S. Briones appear to have indeed been made thru
misrepresentation to the Court by failing to honestly disclose to the Court that the
decedent was survived not only by his widow but also by his brothers and sisters and/or
their children by right of representation which fact was known to her at the time of her
husbands death. Thus, the RTC and CA were correct in declaring that the heirs of
Maximino were entitled to of the real properties from Maximinos Estate.
FIRST SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Erlinda (Donatas heirs) had the better right to inherit the properties of the deceased
spouses. Where the spouse (Donata Ortiz-Briones) was able to register the real properties
in her name, not through fraud or mistake, but pursuant to an Order, presumed to be fairly
and regularly issued, declaring her (Donata) as the sole, absolute, and exclusive heir of
Maximinoin Special Proceedings, there is no longer basis, as heavily relied on by
respondents, to apply Articles 995 and 1001 of the New Civil Code.

It is granted that the heirs of Maximino had rights to his intestate estate upon his death on
1 May 1952, by virtue of Articles 995 and 1005 of the New Civil Code. Nonetheless, the
RTChad declared Donata as the sole, absolute, and exclusive heir of Maximino in its
Order, dated 2 October 1952. This Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, can
only presume that Special Proceedings No. 928-R was fair and regular, which would
consequently mean that the CFI complied with the procedural requirements for intestate
proceedings such as publication and notice to interested parties.
There is no showing that the said Order had been appealed and had, therefore, long
attained finality, which even this Court would be bound to respect. Without doubt, if the
action for partition, annulment, and recovery of possession instituted by the heirs of
Maximino succeeds, then, it would be a circumvention of the finality of the said RTC
(then CFI) Order, dated 2 October 1952.
It is also worthy to note that the heirs of Maximino presented the documents relating to
the Special Proceedings naming Donata as sole heir and Administrator of the properties
of Maximino, including (2) the Inventory submitted by Donata to the CFI. It goes to
show that the heirs of Maximino did have access to the records of the Special
Proceedings and if the contents of such Order were truly adverse to them, then it would
have been more compelling for the heirs of Maximino to present it before the RTC where
Lino filed the Petition for Letters of Administration for the intestate estate of Maximino.
The heirs of Maximino knew he died on 1 May 1952. They even attended his wake. They
did not offer any explanation as to why they had waited more than 30 years from
Maximinos death before one of them, Lino, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration
for the intestate estate of Maximino on 21 January 1985. After learning that the intestate
estate of Maximino was already settled in a Special Proceedings, they waited another four
years, before institutingthe Complaint for partition, annulment and recovery of the real
property belonging to the estate of Maximino. The heirs of Maximino put off acting on
their rights to the estate of Maximino for so long that when they finally did, attributing
fraud to Maximinos wife, Donata, the latter had already passed away, in 1977, and was
no longer around to explain and defend herself. The delay of the heirs of Maximino is not
without consequence. , In summary, the heirs of Maximino failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that Donata managed, through fraud, to have the real properties,
belonging to the intestate estate of Maximino, registered in her name. In the absence of
fraud, no implied trust was established between Donata and the heirs of Maximino under
Article 1456 of the New Civil Code. Donata was able to register the real properties in her
name, not through fraud or mistake, but pursuant to an Orderpresumed to be fairly and
regularly issued, hence, making Donata the singular owner of the entire estate of
Maximino, including the real properties, and not merely a co-owner with the other heirs
of her deceased husband. (G.R. No. 150175, ErlindaPilapil vs. Heirs of Maximino
Briones, March 10, 2006).

XXII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Aznar Brothers Realty Co. vs. Aying

G.R. No. 144773, May 16, 2005

Contributor

: Yray, Rhea
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
CrisantaMaloloy-on petitioned for the issuance of a cadastral decree in her favor over a
parcel of land. After her death in 1930, the Cadastral Court issued a Decision directing
the issuance of a decree in the name of CrisantaMaloloy-ons eight children, namely:
Juan, Celedonio, Emiliano, Francisco, Simeon, Bernabe, Roberta and Fausta, all
surnamed Aying. The certificate of title was, however, lost during the war.
The siblings extra-judicially sold the lot however, three siblings, namely, Roberta,
Emiliano and Simeon Aying did not participate in the extra-judicial partition. After the
partition the lot was sold. 29 years after, the Roberta, Emiliano and Simeon filed a case
for the ejectment of the present occupants.
Did the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute bind the heirs of
Emiliano, Simeon and Roberta Aying, who undisputedly did not participate therein?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale is valid and
binding only as to the heirs who participated in the execution thereof, hence, the heirs of
Emiliano, Simeon and Roberta Aying, who undisputedly did not participate therein,
cannot be bound by said document.
Article 1104 of the Civil Code, which states that a partition made with preterition of any
of the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded, suffice it to say that the Extra-Judicial
Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale is not being rescinded. In fact, its
validity had been upheld but only as to the parties who participated in the execution of
the same. What was conveyed to petitioner was ownership over the shares of the heirs
who executed the subject document.

XXIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Testate of the Late Alipio Abada vs. Abaja

G.R. No. 147145, January 31, 2005

Contributor

: Macatangay, Maria Theresa

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Enrique died on June 21, 1999, leaving behind his wife, Wendy, and four legitimate
children, Richard, Diane Jeanne, Marybeth and Victoria. Before his death, he executed a
Last Will and Testament naming Richard as the executor and administrator. Thus, on
September 27, 1999, Richard filed a petition for the probate of his last will and testament
before the RTC of Manila. Marybeth filed an opposition, joined by Victoria, alleging that
the will was procured by undue and improper pressure on Enrique by Richard. After
compliance with the jurisdictional requisites, Richard presented the attesting witnesses,
Reynaldo, Romulo, and Ana Marie as well as the notary public who notarised the will,
Atty. Perfecto Nolasco. They attested to the fact that Enrique signed the will on each and
every page and they read the same in the latters presence and of one another. Perfecto
testified that Enrique had been his client for 20 years, and consulted him in the
preparation of the will. He prepared it in accordance with the latters wishes. It was Ana
Maria who prepared the drafts and revisions of the will before the final copy was made.In
a Decision rendered on August 26, 2005, the RTC disallowed the probate of the will for
failure to comply with Article 805 of the Civil Code, requiring a statement in the
attestation clause of the number of pages upon which the will is written.It noted that
while the attestation clause stated that the will consists of 7 pages including the page on
which the ratification and acknowledgment are written, hence eight (8) pages, the actual
number of pages was only seven (7).The will thus failed to comply with the formalities of
law.Richard, relying inArticle 809 of the Civil Code,which requires mere substantial
compliance of the form laid down in Art 805,appealed the RTC decision to the CA.
Which argument, between the RTC and Richard, was correct? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The RTC was correct.

1While Article 809 of the Civil Code requires mere substantial compliance of the form
laid down in Art. 805, the rule applies only if the number of pages is reflected somewhere
else in the document without resorting to evidence aliunde or extrinsic evidence
required.The statement in the Acknowledgment portion of the subject LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT that it consists of 7 pages including the page on which the ratification
and acknowledgment are written cannot be deemed substantial compliance. The will
actually consists of 8 pages including its acknowledgment which discrepancy cannot be
explained by mere examination of the will itself but through the presentation of evidence
aliunde.The law is clear that the attestation must state the number of pages used upon
which the will is written. The purpose of the law is to safeguard against possible
interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and prevent any increase or
decrease in the pages.
2While Article 809 of the Civil Code requires mere substantial compliance of the form
laid down in Art. 805, the rule applies only if the number of pages is reflected somewhere
else in the document without resorting to evidence aliunde or extrinsic evidence required.
In the words of Justice J.B.L. Reyes, regarding the application of Article 809, he said:
x xx The rule must be limited to disregarding those defects that can be
supplied by an examination of the will itself: whether all the pages are
consecutively numbered; whether the signatures appear in each and every
page; whether the subscribing witnesses are three or the will was
notarized. All these are facts that the will itself can reveal, and defects or
even omissions concerning them in the attestation clause can be safely
disregarded. But the total number of pages, and whether all persons
required to sign did so in the presence of each other must substantially
appear in the attestation clause, being the only check against perjury in
the probate proceedings. (Emphasis supplied)

XXIV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Vda. De Manalo vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 129242, January 16, 2001

Contributor

: Dacudao, Ron Juko

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Troadio Manalo died intestate on February 14, 1992. He was survived by his wife and his
eleven (11) children. At the time of his death, Troadio Manalo left several real properties.
Subsequently, eight (8) of the surviving children filed a petition with the Regional Trial
Court of Manila of the judicial settlement of the estate of their late father and for the
appointment of their brother, Romeo Manalo, as administrator thereof. In their effort to
preserve the properties, the wife and three of the surviving children moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground that a condition precedent for filling the claim has not been
complied with. The oppositors claim that the petition is actually an ordinary civil action
involving members of the same family, hence, must comply with Art.222 of the Civil
Code, to wit:
Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the
same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the
limitations in Article 2035
Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The argument is misplaced. The above-quoted provision of the law is applicable only to
ordinary civil actions. This is clear from the term 'suit' that it refers to an action by one
person or persons against another or other in a court of justice in which the plaintiff
pursues the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the
enforcement of a right, whether at law or in equity. A civil action is thus an action filed
in a court of justice, whereby a party sues another for the enforcement of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong.

It must be emphasized that the oppositors are not being sued for any cause of action as in
fact no defendant was imploded therein. The Petition for issuance of letters of
Administration, Settlement and Distribution of Estate is a special proceeding and, as
such, it is a remedy whereby the petitioners therein seek to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. The petitioners therein merely seek to establish the fact of death of their
father and subsequently to be duly recognized as among the heirs of the said deceased so
that they can validly exercise their right to participate in the settlement and liquidation of
the estate of the decedent consistent with the limited and special jurisdiction of the
probate court.

XXV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Viado vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 137287, February 15, 2000

Contributor

: Imperial, Christine
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Deceased spouses Julian and Virginia Viado owned several properties, among them a
house and a lot located at Isarog St., La Loma, Quezon City; they had four children: Leah
Viado-Jacobs, NiloViado, Rebecca Viado-Non and Delia Viado. Leah Viado Jacobs and
NiloViado both died in 1987, with Nilo leaving behind his wife, Alicia and two children,
herein respondents. The other two siblings, Rebecca Viado-Non and Delia Viado are the
petitioners in this case. Alicia claimed absolute ownership as evidenced by a deed of
donation in which the late Julian Viado donated his conjugal share of the property to
Alicias deceased husband. There was also a deed of extrajudicial settlement where
Rebecca Viado-Non and the late Leah Viado (without Delia Viados participation) waived
their rights and interests over their share of the property inherited from their mother
Virginia. Thus, the property was titled in the name of the heirs of NiloViado.
a)
b)

Was the exclusion of Delia Viado in the extrajudicial settlement partakes of a

preterition?
What is the concept ofpreterition?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a)
YES. The exclusion of Delia Viado has the effect of preterition.This kind of
preterition, however, in the absence of fraud and bad faith, does not justify a collateral
attack on the new life.Art 1104 provides the remedy: where the preterition is not attended
by bad faith and fraud, the partition shall not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall be
paid the value of the share pertaining to her.
b)
The concept of preterition is under Article 854 of the NCC is characterized by the
following:

1. There must be an omission of one, some or all of the heir/s in the will
2. The omission must be that of a COMPULSORY HEIR
3. Compulsory heir omitted must be of the DIRECT LINE
4. The omitted compulsory heir must be LIVING at the time of testators death or
must at least have been CONCEIVED before the testators death

XXVI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession

Source

: Dela Merced vs. Dela Merced

G.R. No. 126707, February 25, 1999

Contributor

: Repaso, Jurdelyn
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Gina died intestate without issue, leaving Eight Million Pesos. She was survived by her
sister, Karen, and her nephew, Alex, the only son of her only other sibling and brother
who predeceased Gina. A year later, Karen died, survived by his husband, Alden, and one
(1) illegitimate child, Alberto. Alden and Alex executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of the
Estate of Gina. Alberto contested the validity of the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate
on the ground of his exclusion. He claimed a right to a portion of the estate of Gina on the
ground of his illegitimate filiation to Karen. Alden moved to dismiss the complaint of
Alberto asserting as basis, Article 992 of the New Civil Code, which bars illegitimate
children from claiming ab intestato inheritance rights to the estate of the legitimate
relatives of their parents. Is Alden correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Alden is incorrect. Article 992 of the New Civil Code is not applicable in the instant
case. The case at bar is one where an illegitimate child inherits from his father the latters
share in or portion of what the latter already inherited from her deceased sister Gina.
Article 777 of the New Civil Code governs. It provides that the rights to succession are
transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. An illegitimate child, as an heir of
his late mother, has a right to the undivided share of his mother from the estate of his
mothers sister who had predeceased her. Since Gina died ahead of Karen, the latter
inherited a portion of the formers estate as one of her heirs. Subsequently, when Karen
died, her heirs namely: her husband; legitimate children; and Alberto, an illegitimate son,
inherited Karens share in Ginas estate. Alberto does not claim to be Ginas heir by right
of representation but participates in his own right, as an heir of Karen, in the latters share
in Ginas estate. Hence, Alden is incorrect.

Action that Survives

XXVII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Action that Survives

Source

: Cruz vs. Cruz

G.R. No. 173292, September 1, 2010

Contributor

: Logroo, Joseph Alfie

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Memoracion owned a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila. Later, she discovered that the title
to the said property was transferred to Oswaldo through fraud, forgery, misrepresentation
and simulation. She filed for the reconveyance of the property but during the pendency
of the case she died. Oswaldo filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that reconveyance
action is a personal action which does not survive a partys death. Will the Motion to
Dismiss prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the
action and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong
complained [of] affects primarily and principally property and property rights, the
injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which do not
survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights of property
affected being incidental.Accordingly, the instant case for annulment of sale of real
property merits survival despite the death of petitioner Memoracion.

Attestation Clause

XXVIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Attestation Clause

Source

: Azuela vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006

Contributor

: Armenion, Ramy
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Grace executed a notarial will and named Rudy as testamentary heir. Rudy filed with the
Regional Trial Court a petition for probate of the notarial will of Grace. The will
consisted of two (2) pages. The first page contained the entire text of the testamentary
dispositions and the second page contained the last portion of the attestation clause and
acknowledgement. The attestation clause or any part of the will failed to state the number
of pages used in the will. The petition was opposed by Miriam, who represented herself
as the attorney-in-fact of "the 12 legitimate heirs" of Grace. Should the petition for
probate of the notarial will be allowed?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The petition for probate of the notarial should be denied. Article 805 of the Civil
Code provides that the attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the
will is written. The failure of the attestation clause to state the number of pages on which
the will was written remains a fatal flaw. The purpose of the law in requiring the clause to
state the number of pages on which the will is written is to safeguard against possible
interpolation or omission of one or some of its pages and to prevent any increase or
decrease in the pages. There is substantial compliance with this requirement if the will
states elsewhere in it how many pages it is comprised of. However, in this case, there
could have been no substantial compliance with the requirements under Article 805 since
there is no statement in the attestation clause or anywhere in the will itself as to the
number of pages which comprise the will.

Capacity

XXIX.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Capacity

Source

: Baltazar vs.Laxa
G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012

Contributor

: Ygnacio, Marie Angelee

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Alden Richards is the nephew of Dona Rita Richards. Dona Rita was an old spinster
when she made her last will and testament. The will bequeaths all her properties to
respondent Richards and his wife Yaya Dub and their children. A week after executing the
same, she went to the States and there she lived with her nephew Alden and his family
until her death. Four years after her death, Alden filed for the Probate of the Will and for
the Issuance of Letters of Administration in his favor. Petitioner Frankie Arenolli opposed
by arguing that the properties subject of Dona Ritas Will belong to Francisco Arenolli,
his predecessor-in-interest. Frankie presented his niece Francesca who for some time
lived with Dona Rita. Francesca testified that Dona Rita was forgetful. Alden, on the
other hand, presented DoktoraIza Dora Santibanez, one of the instrumental witnesses of
the Will and also the daughter of the Judge ZoroSantibanez who stood as the notary
public. The trial court gave considerable weight to the testimony of Francesca and
concluded that at the time Dona Rita signed the Will, she was no longer possessed of
sufficient reason or strength of mind to have testamentary capacity. Is the trial court
correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the trial court is not correct. Article 799 of the New Civil Code states:
Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in
full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly
unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause.

It shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will
to know the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of
his bounty, and the character of the testamentary act.
In this case, apart from the testimony of Francesca pertaining to Dona Ritas
forgetfulness, there is no substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, that would show that
Dona Rita was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the Will. On the other
hand, Dra. Santibanez testimony is more credible as to the soundness of mind of Dona
Rita when the latter went to Judge Santibanez house and voluntarily executed the Will.

XXX.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Capacity

Source

: Valmonte vs. Valmonte

G.R. No. 157451, December 16, 2005

Contributor

: Apatan, Rosane
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Mr. Old, Fil-American pensionado is 80 years old. He married Ms. Young who was only
23 years old. A little after two years of wedded bliss, Mr. Old died. Before he died, he
executed a notarial last will and testament where he bequeathed all his properties to his
wife and named her executrix. All the other formal requirements of a valid will had been
complied with. Ms. Sista, the deceased sister assails the validity will by imputing fraud in
its execution and challenging the testators state of mind at the time made the will.
According to her there was fraud as it was highly dubious for a woman at the prime of
her young life to almost immediately plunge into marriage with a man who was thrice her
age who happened to be a pensioner. Moreover the time of the execution of the notarial
will the testator was already 83 years old therefore he was no longer of sound mind.
Is the fact that the testator is already 83 years make him of unsound hence not capable of
making a valid will? What are the requisites in order for a testator to be considered of
sound mind?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The fact that the testator is already 83 years does not necessarily make him of unsound
mind. According to Article 799 of the Civil Code, the three things that the testator must
have the ability to know to be considered of sound mind are as follows: (1) the nature of
the estate to be disposed of, (2) the proper objects of the testators bounty, and (3) the
character of the testamentary act.
Applying this test to the present case,it must be noted that despite Mr Olds advanced
age, he was still able to identify accurately the kinds of property he owned. As regards the
proper objects of his bounty, it was sufficient that he identified his wife as sole
beneficiary. He knew the character of his act being gratuitous in nature, that his properties
will be transferred to his wife at the moment of death. Moreover, the omission of some

relatives from the will did not affect its formal validity. There being no showing of fraud
in its execution, intent in its disposition becomes irrelevant.

Compulsory Heirs

XXXI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Compulsory Heirs

Source

: Spouses Tumbokon vs. Legaspi

G.R. No. 153736, August 4, 2010

Contributor

: Sumampong-Espejo, Marietes
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Nicanor sued Apolonia for recovery of possession and ownership over a parcel of land
which the former acquired by purchased from Crecenscia. Nicanor presented a Deed of
Absolute Sale executed by Victor in favour of Crecenscia (wife of Victors son)
transferring ownership over the land. Victor is the son-in-law of Sespee, who inherited
the land when his wife pre-deceased Sespee.
However, Apolonia in her defense states that the sale was void as Crecenscia holds no
valid title over the said property. Being the daughter of decedent Sespee in her second
marriage, contends that Victor cannot validly transfer the said land as he is not an heir to
her mother and she was in actual possession of the said lot as true owner. Nevertheless,
Nicanor further contends that he relied on the fact that Victor is the only heir that
survived the decedent and no other brother or sister, therefor Victor, automatically is an
heir of Sespee and his title over the property is legal, that he can validly dispose the
property without infirmity.
If you are the Judge how will you rule the issue?
sWho are the compulsory heirs of a decedent?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate
parents and ascendants;

(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with

respect to their legitimate children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not excluded by those
in Nos. 1 and 2; neither do they exclude one another.
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.
The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes
mentioned, shall inherit from them in the manner and to the extent
established by this Code.
Under art. 887, Victor is not among those who can inherit from the estate of Sespee as he
is only a son-in-law of the latter. Suffice it to say, he has no authority to dispose the said
property by executing a Deed of Absolute Sale in favour of Crecenscia. Hence, the
contention of Nicanor is bereft of merit. He was not able to establish the right or title of
Victor over the land except that he only relied on the fact that upon the death of his wife,
daughter of Sespee, Victor became and automatically an heir of the deceased.
If I were the judge to rule on the issue the case should be dismissedwith Victor lacking
any just and legal right in the land, the transfer of the land from him to Crecenscia was
ineffectual. As a consequence, Crecencia did not legally acquire the land, and, in turn, did
not validly transfer it to Nicanor.

Determination of Heirship

XXXII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Determination of Heirship

Source

: Heirs of Magdaleno Ypon vs. Ricaforte

G.R. No. 198680, July 9, 2013

Contributor

: Trias, Parker
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
On July 29, 2010, petitioners, together with some of their cousins, filed a complaint for
Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance with Damages against respondent Gaudioso
Ponteras Ricaforte a.k.a. "Gaudioso E. Ypon" (Gaudioso). In their complaint, they
alleged that Magdaleno Ypon (Magdaleno) died intestate and childless on June 28, 1968,
leaving behind Lot Nos. 2-AA, 2-C, 2-F, and 2-J which were then covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-44 and T-77-A. Claiming to be the sole heir of
Magdaleno, Gaudioso executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and caused the
cancellation of the aforementioned certificates of title, leading to their subsequent transfer
in his name to the prejudice of petitioners who are Magdaleno's collateral relatives and
successors-in-interest.
On July 27, 2011, the RTC issued the assailed July 27, 2011 Order, finding that the
subject complaint failed to state a cause of action against Gaudioso. It observed that
while the plaintiffs therein had established their relationship with Magdaleno in a
previous special proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration, this did not mean
that they could already be considered as the decedent's compulsory heirs. Quite the
contrary, Gaudioso satisfactorily established the fact that he is Magdaleno's son and
hence, his compulsory heir through the documentary evidence he submitted.
Is the RTCs dismissal of the case on the ground that the subject complaint failed to state
a cause of action proper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The rule that the determination of a decedent's lawful heirs should be made in the
corresponding special proceeding precludes the RTC, in an ordinary action for
cancellation of title and reconveyance, from granting the same. In the case of Heirs of
Teofilo Gabatan v. CA, the Court, citing several other precedents, held that the
determination of who are the decedent's lawful heirs must be made in the proper special
proceeding for such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and/or
possession, as in this case.
Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased
must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for
recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must take precedence over the
action for recovery of possession and ownership. It is then decisively clear that the
declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the
petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right.
By way of exception, the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the
determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when the
parties in the civil case had voluntarily submitted the issue to the trial court and already
presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had consequently
rendered judgment thereon, or when a special proceeding had been instituted but had
been finally closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened.
In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions, or those of similar nature, appear to exist.
Hence, there lies the need to institute the proper special proceeding in order to determine
the heirship of the parties involved, ultimately resulting to the dismissal of the civil case.

Devise

XXXIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Devise

Source

: Villanueva vs. Spouses Branoco

G.R. No. 172804, January 24, 2011

Contributor

: Jordan, Rebecca
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
On 1965 Rodriguez received a land from Rodrigo through a deed of donation inter vivos.
However on 1971 Villanueva bought a parcel of land from Reve who in turn bought it
from Rodrigo. Villanueva claims ownership of the land on the ground that the deed made
by Rodrigo for Rodriguez was a devise and not a donation thus the subsequent sale of the
subject property to him is an implied revocation of the devise. In contrary Rodriguez
contends that it was a valid donation inter vivos and not a devise.
The two-page deed of donation (Deed), signed at the bottom by the parties and two
witnesses, reads in full:
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That I, ALVEGIA RODRIGO, Filipino, of legal age, widow of the late
Juan Arcillas, a resident of Barrio Bool, municipality of Culaba,
subprovince of Biliran, Leyte del Norte, Philippines, hereby depose and
say:
xxxxx.because of that one EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ, one of
my nieces who also suffered with our poverty, obedient as she was to all
the works in our house, and because of the love and affection which I feel
[for] her, I have one parcel of land located at Sitio Amambajag, Culaba,
Leyte bearing Tax Decl. No. 1878 declared in the name of Alvegia
Rodrigo, I give (devise) said land in favor of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ,
her heirs, successors, and assigns together with all the improvements

existing thereon, which parcel of land is more or less described and

bounded as follows:
xxxx..It is now in the possession of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ
since May 21, 1962 in the concept of an owner, but the Deed of
Donation or that ownership be vested on her upon my demise.
That I FURTHER DECLARE, and I reiterate that the land above
described, I already devise in favor of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ
since May 21, 1962, her heirs, assigns, and that if the herein
Donee predeceases me, the same land will not be reverted to the
Donor, but will be inherited by the heirs of EUFRACIA
RODRIGUEZ;
That I EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ, hereby accept the land above
described from Inay Alvegia Rodrigo and I am much grateful to
her and praying further for a longer life; however, I will give one
half (1/2) of the produce of the land to Apoy Alve during her
lifetime.
Whether the contract between the parties predecessors-in-interest, Rodrigo and
Rodriguez, was a donation or a devise?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is immediately apparent that Rodrigo passed naked title to Rodriguez under a perfected
donation inter vivos. Rodrigo stipulated that "if the herein Donee predeceases me, the
[Property] will not be reverted to the Donor, but will be inherited by the heirs of x x x
Rodriguez," signaling the irrevocability of the passage of title to Rodriguezs estate,
waiving Rodrigos right to reclaim title. This transfer of title was perfected the moment
Rodrigo learned of Rodriguezs acceptance of the disposition12 which, being reflected in
the Deed, took place on the day of its execution on 3 May 1965. Rodrigos acceptance of
the transfer underscores its essence as a gift in presenti, not in futuro, as only donations
inter vivos need acceptance by the recipient. Indeed, had Rodrigo wished to retain full
title over the Property, she could have easily stipulated, as the testator did in another case,
that "the donor, may transfer, sell, or encumber to any person or entity the properties here
donated x x x"14 or used words to that effect. Instead, Rodrigo expressly waived title
over the Property in case Rodriguez predeceases her.
The existence of consideration other than the donors death, such as the donors love and
affection to the donee and the services the latter rendered, while also true of devises,
nevertheless "corroborates the express irrevocability of x x x [inter vivos] transfers."

Disinheritance

XXXIV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Disinheritance

Source

: Ching and Po Wing vs. Rodriguez

G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011

Contributor

: Bautista, Mel-Lisanina
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
The youngest sibling was accused of murdering his father. The older siblings filed a
petition against him to be disinherited. The older siblings did not present any Last Will
and Testament executed by their father. Can the youngest sibling be declared
disinherited?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the youngest sibling cannot be declared disinherited. Under Article 916 of the NCC,
disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall
be specified. While the older siblings sought the disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any
instrument supposedly effecting the disposition of Antonio's estate was ever mentioned.

Disqualifications of Surviving Spouse

XXXV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Disqualifications of Surviving Spouse

Source

: Spouses Capitle vs. Elbambuena

G.R. No. 169193, November 30, 2006

Contributor

: Canasa, John Paul

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
AA died leaving BB (surviving spouse) and CC (daughter in law). AA and DD were
friends since childhood. The latter was allowed to occupy in a parcel of land which is
now inherited by BB and CC. BB wanted to use the land but DD refuse to vacate the
same since AA executed a waiver of right in favor of DD. He argued that BB is
disqualified to inherit as heir because the decedent and the latter were separated during
the lifetime of her husband. Is the separation during the lifetime of AA by BB a ground to
disqualify her as heir.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The separation between AA and BB during the formers lifetime is not a ground to
disqualify the latter as heir. It has been held that mere estrangement is not a legal ground
for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the decedent. The separation
during the lifetime of the deceased and BB does not tantamount to disqualification as
contemplated in the Civil Code.

Donation Mortis Causa

XXXVI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Donation Mortis Causa

Source

: Maglasang vs. The Heirs of Corazon Cabatingan

G.R. No. 131953, June 5, 2002

Contributor

: Maylon, Ron Stephane

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
AA died leaving BB (surviving spouse) and CC (daughter in law). AA and DD were
friends since childhood. The latter was allowed to occupy in a parcel of land which is
now inherited by BB and CC. BB wanted to use the land but DD refuse to vacate the
same since AA executed a waiver of right in favor of DD. He argued that BB is
disqualified to inherit as heir because the decedent and the latter were separated during
the lifetime of her husband. Is the separation during the lifetime of AA by BB a ground to
disqualify her as heir.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The separation between AA and BB during the formers lifetime is not a ground to
disqualify the latter as heir. It has been held that mere estrangement is not a legal ground
for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the decedent. The separation
during the lifetime of the deceased and BB does not tantamount to disqualification as
contemplated in the Civil Code.

Future inheritance

XXXVII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Future inheritance

Source

: Ferrer vs. Spouses Diaz

G.R. No. 165300, April 23, 2010

Contributor

: Mamao, Arief
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
KatnissvEverdeen sought financial accommodations from Atty. Peeta Mellark which
totaled P500,000.00. As she could not practically comply with her obligation, Atty. Peeta
Mellark presented to Ms. Everdeen a document denominated as Waiver of Hereditary
Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) pertaining to a waiver of her
hereditary share over her parents' property.
Katniss' parents asserted that Atty. Mellark has no cause of action against them. They
claimed that they do not even know him and that they did not execute any SPA in favor of
Katniss authorizing her to mortgage for the subject property. Is the waiver of hereditary
rights in favor of another executed by a future heir while the parents are still living valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided)
executed is null and void for being violative of Article 1347 of the Civil Code.
A contract may be classified as a contract upon future inheritance, prohibited under the
second paragraph of Article 1347, where the following requisites concur:
(1) That the succession has not yet been opened.
(2) That the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and,
(3) That the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which is
purely hereditary in nature.

Hence, adverse claim which was based upon such waiver is likewise void and cannot
confer upon the latter any right or interest over the property.

Hereditary Succession of Foreigners

XXXVIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Hereditary Succession of Foreigners

Source

: Matthews vs. Taylor

G.R. No. 164584, June 22, 2009

Contributor

: Esmea, Kimberly Marie

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Benjamin A. Taylor, a British subject, married Joselyn C. Taylor, a Filipina. While their
marriage was subsisting, Joselyn bought from Diosa M. Martin a 1,294 square-meter lot
situated at Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan. The sale was allegedly financed by Benjamin.
Joselyn and Benjamin, also using the latters funds, constructed improvements thereon
and eventually converted the property to a vacation and tourist resort known as the
Admiral Ben Bow Inn. However, Benjamin and Joselyn had a falling out, and Joselyn ran
away with Kim Philippsen. In 1992, Joselyn as lessor and Philip Matthews as lessee,
entered into an Agreement of Lease involving the Boracay property for a period of 25
years. Claiming that the Agreement was null and void since it was entered into by Joselyn
without his consent, Benjamin instituted an action for Declaration of Nullity of
Agreement of Lease with Damages against Joselyn.Can the court validly annul the
Agreement of Lease on the ground that it was entered into by Joselynwithout the consent
of her husband?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The court cannot annul the Agreement of Lease. Section 7, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution states that save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Aliens, whether individuals or corporations,
have been disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain. Hence, by virtue of the
aforecited constitutional provision, they are also disqualified from acquiring private
lands. Thus, Benjamin has no right to nullify the Agreement of Lease. Considering that
Joselyn appeared to be the designated vendee in the Deed of Sale of said property, she

acquired sole ownership thereto. This is true even if we sustain Benjamins claim that he
provided the funds for such acquisition. By entering into such contract knowing that it
was illegal, no implied trust was created in his favor; no reimbursement for his expenses
can be allowed; and no declaration can be made that the subject property was part of the
conjugal/community property of the spouses. In any event, he had and has no capacity or
personality to question the subsequent lease of the Boracay property by his wife on the
theory that in so doing, he was merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect
of conjugal property. To sustain such a theory would countenance indirect controversion
of the constitutional prohibition. If the property were to be declared conjugal, this would
accord the alien husband a substantial interest and right over the land. This is a right that
the Constitution does not permit him to have.

Holographic Wills; Preterition

XXXIX.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Holographic Wills; Preterition

Source

: Seangio vs. Reyes

G.R. No. 140371-72, November 27, 2006

Contributor

: Andales, Ziazel
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
The marriage of Bruce and Selina bore three children Alfred, Bane and Blake. When
Bruce died, he left a document, to which his heirs, except Alfred purport to be a
holographic will. It is quoted, as follows:
Kasulatan sa pag-aalis ng mana
Tantunin ng sinuman
Ako si Bruce Payne, Filipino may asawa naninirahan sa 465-A Flores St.,
Ermita, Manila at nagtatalay ng maiwanag na pag-iisip at disposisyon ay
tahasan at hayagang inaalisan ko ng lahat at anumang mana ang paganay
kong anak na si Alfred Payne dahil siya ay naging lapastangan sa akin at
isan beses siya ng sasalita ng masama harapan ko at mga kapatid niya na si
Bane Payne labis kong kinasama ng loob ko at sasabe rin ni Alfred sa akin
na ako nasa ibabaw gayon gunit daratin ang araw na ako nasa ilalim siya
at siya nasa ibabaw.
Labis kong ikinasama ng loob ko ang gamit ni Alfred ng akin pagalan para
makapagutang na kuarta siya at kanya asawa na si Talia de Ghul sa China
Bangking Corporation na millon pesos at hindi ng babayad at hindi ng
babayad ito ay nagdulot sa aking ng malaking kahihiya sa mga may-ari at
stockholders ng China Banking.

At ikinagalit ko pa rin ang pagkuha ni Alfred at ng kanyang asawa na mga

customer ng Green Earth Travel Center of the Philippines na pinagasiwaan
ko at ng anak ko si Blake.
Dito ako nagalit din kaya gayon ayoko na bilanin si Alfred ng anak ko at
hayanan kong inaalisan ng lahat at anoman mana na si Alfred at si Alfred
Seangio ay hindi ko siya anak at hindi siya makoha mana.
Nila[g]daan ko ngayon ika 20 ng Setyembre 1995 sa longsod ng Manila sa
harap ng tatlong saksi.
(signed)
Bruce Payne
Nilagdaan sa harap namin
(signed)
Selina K. Payne
(signed)
Unang Saksi
ikalawang saksi
(signed)
ikatlong saksi
The heirs of Bruce, with the exception of Alfred filed before the RTC a petition for the
probate of the purported holographic will of Segundo.
Alfred moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings on the ground that the
document purporting to be the holographic will of Segundo does not contain any
disposition of the estate of the deceased and, thus, does not meet the definition of a will
under Article 783 of the Civil Code.
Moreover, according to Alfred, granting that the document is a valid holographic will, the
succession to Bruces properties would still result to intestacy because the will only
shows an alleged act of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son, Alfred, and
nothing else; that all other compulsory heirs were not named nor instituted as heir,
devisee or legatee, hence, there is preterition.
Is the document executed by Segundo a holographic will? If so, is there preterition?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it is a holographic will.
A holographic will, as provided under Article 810 of the Civil Code, must be entirely
written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other
form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

Bruces document, although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance

instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is
written, dated and signed by the hand of Bruce himself.
An intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the
instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latters property,
the disinheritance of Alfred, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. In other words,
the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator Bruce in favor
of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfred.
Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the testator, expressed
in the form and within the limits prescribed by law, must be recognized as the supreme
law in succession. All rules of construction are designed to ascertain and give effect to
that intention. It is only when the intention of the testator is contrary to law, morals, or
public policy that it cannot be given effect.
Holographic wills, therefore, being usually prepared by one who is not learned in the law,
as illustrated in the present case, should be construed more liberally than the ones drawn
by an expert, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the execution of the
instrument and the intention of the testator.
With regard to the issue on preterition, such is not obtaining in the case presented. The
compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will. It was, Bruces last
expression to bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs, with the sole exception of
Alfred.
Also, Bruce did not institute an heir to the exclusion of his other compulsory heirs. The
mere mention of the name of the other sons of the petitioners did not operate to institute
them as the universal heir.

Intestate Proceedings

XL.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Intestate Proceedings

Source

: Heirs of the Late Spouses Flaviano Maglasang vs. Manila Banking

Corporation
G.R. No. 171206, September 23, 2013

Contributor

: Tirol, Mark Jason

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
On June 16, 1975, spouses Flaviano and Salud Maglasang obtained a credit line from
Manila Banking Corporation in the amount of P350,000.00 which was secured by a real
estate mortgage executed over seven of their properties located in Ormoc City and the
Municipality of Kananga, Province of Leyte. They availed of their credit line by securing
loans in the amounts of P209,790.50 and P139,805.83 on October 24, 1975and March 15,
1976, respectively, both of which becoming due and demandable within a period of one
year. Further, the parties agreed that the said loans would earn interest at 12% per annum
(p.a.) and an additional 4% penalty would be charged upon default.
The creditor proceeded to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgage covering the Sps.
Maglasangs properties and emerged as the highest bidder at the public auction for the
amount of P350,000.00. There, however, remained a deficiency amounting to P 100,000.
Can the creditor recover the deficiency?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.
Jurisprudence breaks down the rule and explains that the secured creditor has three
remedies/options that he may alternatively adopt for the satisfaction of his indebtedness.
In particular, he may choose to: (a) waive the mortgage and claim the entire debt from the
estate of the mortgagor as an ordinary claim; (b) foreclose the mortgage judicially and

prove the deficiency as an ordinary claim; and (c) rely on the mortgage exclusively, or
other security and foreclose the same before it is barred by prescription, without the right
to file a claim for any deficiency. It must, however, be emphasized that these remedies are
distinct, independent and mutually exclusive from each other; thus, the election of one
effectively bars the exercise of the others.

Intestate Succession

XLI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Intestate Succession

Source

: Spouses Peralta vs. Heirs of BernardinaAbalon

G.R. No. 183448, June 30, 2014

Contributor

: Calvo, Mario Dennis

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
BernardinaAbalon owned a parcel of land in Legazpi City, registered under her name. Mr.
FaustoRellama, fraudulently transferred the title to his name and subsequently subdivided
and sold separately to Sps. M and to A, B and C. BernardinaAbalon, died without issue
and left her siblings Manuelito and Amelia Abalon as forced heirs. During her lifetime,
BernardinaAbalon had promised her siblings that she would give them the subject
property. A duplicate copy of OCT was delivered to them upon her death. In
representative capacity, Heirs of Bernardina filed a case claiming back and annulling the
deed of absolute sale of the parcel of land from Rellama and from subsequent buyers
before the RTC of Legazpi City. Heirs of Bernardina alleged that they have the
possession of such property through their tenant Mr. X and being forced heirs of
Bernardina, they have the right over the parcel of land and further alleged that the deed of
absolute sale purportedly executed between Bernardina and Rellama was forged and has
passes no title. Defendants averred that the plaintiffs are not forced heirs of
BernardinaAbalon; hence, they do not have the legal personality to file the action to
annul the subject Deed of Sale. Are the defendants correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the respondents are incorrect; her siblings are considered her forced heirs. Under
Article 975 of the Civil Code, siblings Mansueto and Amelia Abalon are the legal heirs of
Bernardina, the latter having had no issue during her marriage. As such, they succeeded
to her estate when she passed away.

The subject parcel of land is a titled property; thus, acquisitive prescription is not
applicable. Upon the death of Bernardina, being her legal heirs, they acquired the subject
property by virtue of succession, and not by ordinary acquisitive prescription.

Partition

XLII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Partition

Source

: Spouses Marcos vs. Heirs of Isidro Bangi

G.R. No. 185745, October 15, 2014

Contributor

: Solatorio, Carol
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
When is oral partition effective?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Oral partition is effective when the parties have consummated it by the taking of
possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership of the respective portions set off to
each.
An oral partition under which the parties went into possession, exercised acts of
ownership, or otherwise partly performed the partition agreement, that equity will
confirm such partition and in a proper case decree title in accordance with the possession
in severalty.A parol partition may also be sustained on the ground that the parties thereto
have acquiesced in and ratified the partition by taking possession in severalty, exercising
acts of ownership with respect thereto, or otherwise recognizing the existence of the
partition.

XLIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Partition

Source

: Casilang, Sr. vs. Casilang-Dizon

G.R. No. 180269, February 20, 2013

Contributor

: Regudo, Marion Thursday

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
The late spouses L and F had five (5) children, namely: S, SS,SSS, X, and B. L died
intestate on October 11, 1997 at the age of 83, followed not long after by his wife F on
December 25, 1997.
Their son X died on June 11, 2007, survived by his four (4) children, namely: Mario,
Angelo, Rosario, and Rodolfo, herein respondents.
The estate of L, which left no debts, consisted of three (3) parcels of land located in
Calasiao, Pangasinan, namely: (1) Lot No. 111; (2) Lot No. 222; and (3) Lot No. 333.
On June 2, 2013, the petitioners, counting 4 of the 5 children of Land F, filed with the
RTC of Dagupan City a Complaint for "Annulment of Documents, Ownership and
Peaceful Possession with Damages" against the respondents. Among the documents
sought to be annulled was the 2007 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition executed by Xs
children over Lot No. 333, as well as Tax Declaration (TD) No. 3, and by necessary
implication its derivatives, TD No. 313 (for the lot) and TD No. 31313 (for the house),
both of which were issued in 2013 in the name of Rosario.
The petitioners alleged in their complaint that all five (5) children of Liborio entered into
a verbal partition of his estate, pursuant to which B was allotted Lot No. 333 as his share;
that X never claimed ownership of Lot No. 333, nor took possession of it, because his
share was the southwestern 1/5 portion of Lot No. 111, of which he took exclusive
possession during his lifetime;that Jose has always resided in Lot No. 4618 since
childhood, where he built his familys semi-concrete house just a few steps away from his
parents old bamboo hut; that he took in and cared for his aged parents in his house until
their deaths in 1982; that one of his children has also built a house on the lot.
As RTC judge, decide who the rightful owner of Lot No. 333 is.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As RTC judge, I will rule in favor of B. The validity of an oral partition is well-settled in
our jurisdiction.
Bs ownership and possession of Lot No. 333 is affirmed by virtue of the oral partition of
the estate of Liborio by all the siblings. The claim of Rosario that Lot No. 333 was an
inheritanceof her father Bis baseless considering that a tax declaration is not conclusive
proof of ownership. The parties verbal partition is valid, and has been ratified by their
taking possession of their respective shares.
A possessor of real estate property is presumed to have title thereto unless the adverse
claimant establishes a better right. It is settled that tax declarations and tax receipts alone
are not conclusive evidence of ownership. We have seen that there is no proof that L, or
the children of L conveyed Lot No. 333 to X. There is also no proof that X himself
declared Lot No. 333 for tax purposes, and even if he or his heirs did, this is not enough
basis to claim ownership over the subject property.

XLIV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Partition

Source

: Zaragoza vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 106401, September 29, 2000

Contributor

: Patatag, Arnel
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Before his death, T, decedent made an inter-vivos partition his properties to his three heirs
A,B, and C through a sale without consideration. D, the other heir questioned the
partition contending that there was no legal basis since there is no will nor any document
that will support the transfer. He likewise demanded against A for the delivery of his
share in the inheritance as he was not given any share in the inter-vivos partition because
allegedly he was an American citizen at the time, upon whom no valid sale can be made
because of the Constitutional ban on sale of land to an alien. Was the partition done
during the lifetime of the testator valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. It is basic in the law of succession that a partition inter vivos may be done for as
long as legitimes are not prejudiced. Art. 1080 of the Civil Code is clear on this. The
legitime of compulsory heirs is determined after collation, as provided for in Article
1061:
Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must
bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have
received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of
donation, or any other gratuitous title in order that it may be computed in
the determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the
partition.
Unfortunately, collation cannot be done in this case where the original petition for
delivery of inheritance share only impleaded one of the other compulsory heirs. In the
case given, only A was impleaded. The petition must therefore be dismissed without
prejudice to the institution of a new proceeding where all the indispensable parties are

present for the rightful determination of their respective legitime and if the legitimes were
prejudiced by the partitioning inter vivos.

Probate of a Will Executed by a Foreigner Abroad

XLV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Probate of a Will Executed by a Foreigner Abroad

Source

: In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Ruperta Palagnas

G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011

Contributor

: Parilla, Dave Edaward Velasquez

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Grace O. Po, a Filipino who became a naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen, died
single and childless. In the last will and testament she executed in California in 2010, she
designated her sister, Karen O. Po, as the executor of her will for she had left properties
in the Philippines and in the U.S.
Gabriel O. Po, another brother of Grace, filed a petition for the probate of Graces will
and for his appointment as special administrator of her estate. However, Gina Po, niece
of Grace opposed the petition on the ground that Graces will should not be probated in
the Philippines but in the U.S. where she executed it. She further alleged that a will
executed by a foreigner abroad cannot be probated in the Philippines as it has not been
previously probated and allowed in the country where it was executed.
Is the contention of Gina meritorious?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of Gina is without merit. Philippine laws do not prohibit the probate of
wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and
allowed in the countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our
jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is abroad
produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities prescribed

by the law of the place where he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his
country.
What is required, is merely that the petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far
as known to the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional facts; (b) the names, ages, and residences
of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or decedent; (c) the probable value and
character of the property of the estate; (d) the name of the person for whom letters are
prayed; and (e) if the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person
having custody of it.

Probate of Will

XLVI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Probate of Will

Source

: Alejandra Arado Heirs vs. Alcoran

G.R. No. 163362, July 8, 2015

Contributor

: Jaen, Bea Marie

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Anacleto is the illegitimate son of Nicolas. Nicolas died leaving properties to his mother
and Anacleto. Because Anacleto was still too young when Nicolas died, the
administration of the properties passed to Anacleto's grandmother, Joaquina. Joaquina
executed a last will and testament in Anacleto's favor. Joaquina died leaving properties
inherited from Nicolas and her exclusive properties. Anacleto then took over the
possession of the said properties. Now, Joaquinas siblings are claiming ownership over
the properties left by Joaquina. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Anacleto is barred by law from inheriting from the estate of Joaquina. To start with,
Anacleto could not inherit from Joaquina by right of representation of Nicolas, the
legitimate son of Joaquina. Under Article 992 of the Civil Code, an illegitimate child has
no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or
mother; in the same manner, such children or relatives shall not inherit from the
illegitimate child.
When Joaquina died, her hereditary estate included the exclusive properties, as well as
her share in the estate of Nicolas. In as much as Joaquina died without any surviving
legitimate descendant, ascendant, illegitimate child or spouse, Article 1003 of the Civil
Code mandated that her collateral relatives should inherit her entire estate.
The right of representation is not available to illegitimate descendants of legitimate
children in the inheritance of a legitimate grandparent. And, secondly, Anacleto could not

inherit from the estate of Joaquina by virtue of the latter's last will and testamen. Article
838 of the Civil Code dictates that no will shall pass either real or personal property
unless the same is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. The
probate of the will is mandatory." Unless a project of partition is effected, each heir
cannot claim ownership over a definite portion of the inheritance. Without partition,
either by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceeding, a co-heir cannot
dispose of a specific portion of the estate. For where there are two or more heirs, the
whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs.
Upon the death of a person, each of his heirs becomes the undivided owner of the whole
estate left with respect to the part or portion which might be adjudicated to him, a
community of ownership being thus formed among the co-owners of the estate or coheirs while it remains undivided.

XLVII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Probate of Will

Source

: Baltazar vs. Laxa

G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012

Contributor

: Ocat, Mylene
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
A, a 78 year old spinster made her last will and testament bequeathing all her properties
to her nephew Lorenzo whom she considered as her own son. After A died, Lorenzo filed
a petition for probate of the Will of A. However, Antonio opposed alleging that at the
time A signed the Will, A no longer possessed of sufficient reason or strength of mind to
have testamentary capacity. To prove his allegation, Rosie the housemaid was presented
in court who testified that A was forgetful because she would sometimes leave her wallet
in the kitchen then start looking for it moments later. Will the argument of Antonio
prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The burden to prove that the testator was of unsound mind at the time of the
execution of the will lies on the shoulders of the one questioning it.
Article 799 of the New Civil Code states that:
Art. 799. To be of sound mind, it is not necessary that the testator be in
full possession of all his reasoning faculties, or that his mind be wholly
unbroken, unimpaired, or unshattered by disease, injury or other cause.
Hence, it shall be sufficient if the testator was able at the time of making the will to know
the nature of the estate to be disposed of, the proper objects of his bounty, and the
character of the testamentary act. In the facts given, aside from the testimony of Rosie
pertaining to As forgetfulness, there is no substantial evidence, medical or otherwise, that
would show that A was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the Will.

XLVIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Prohibition against alienation of property

Source

: Santiago vs. Santiago

G.R. No. 179859, August 9, 2010

Contributor

: Digaum, Lucks Mae

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Liam and Margaux married in Manila. During their marriage, they begot six children
namely, Ishmael, Kara, Sara, Laura, Lucille, and Antonio. The couple through out the
years acquired vast properties one of which is the house they lived in Manila. After living
a fruitful life, Liam suddenly got sick and was diagnosed with cancer and died testate in
the year 1973. Thereafter, his will was probated. One of the provisions of his will reads as
follows:
Ang lupat bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila na nagsasaysay sa itaas ay
ililipat at ilalagay sa pagalan nila Kara at Lucille hindi bilang pamana ko
sa kanila kundi upang pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang
ang sinoman sa aking mga anak sampu ng apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa
habang panahon ay may tutuluyan kung magnanais na mag-aral sa Manila
o kalapit na mga lunsod.
In 1994, Sara, one of Liams daughter filed a case with the RTC for partition of the
properties of their father and to sold the house and lot in Manila and divide the proceeds
between them on the ground that twenty (20) years have already lapsed. The prohibition
should already be lifted and let the partition of the said properties be commenced and be
granted. Is the contention of Sara correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it is correct.
Article 870 of the Civil Code provides that the dispositions of the testator declaring all or
part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are void.

In this case, it is clear from Liams will that he intended the house and lot in Manila to be
transferred in petitioners names for administration purposes only, and that the property
be owned by the heirs in common. But the condition set by the decedent on the propertys
indivisibility is subject to a statutory limitation. Although the Civil Code is silent as to the
effect of the indivision of a property for more than twenty years, it would be contrary to
public policy to sanction co-ownership beyond the period expressly mandated by the
Civil Code.

Proof of Heirship

XLIX.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Proof of Heirship

Source

: Heirs of Valentin Basbas vs.Basbas

G.R. No. 188773, September 10, 2014

Contributor

: Geli, Cheska Marie

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Peter Florick was married to Alicia Florick. They had a child named Zach. During Peters
lifetime, he acquired a parcel of land in Santa Rosa, Laguna otherwise known as Lot No.
39. Sometime in 1995, Zachs daughter Lisa discovered that John Florick and
JesseFlorick were able to secure for themselves Transfer Certificate of Title No. T294295 over Lot No. 39.Jesse and John claim to be legal heirs of Peter Florick. They
claimed that they derived their title and ownership over Lot No. 39 in representation of
Jason Florick, grandson of the late Peter Florick and that he gave Lot No. 39 to Glenn
Florick, their grandfather.
If you were the counsel for Lisa, how would you argue against Jesse and Johns claim
over the subject property?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would argue that they dont have a right over the subject property because they are not
the legal heirs of Peter. They claimed that they derived their title and ownership over Lot
No. 39 in representation of Jason, an alleged grandson of Peter and that Peter gave Lot
No. 39 to Glennhas no basis at all.
Assuming that Glenn, predecessor of Jesse and John, was the son of Peter, then Glenn
must have been his illegitimate child , in which case his filiation should be first
established before he can claim to be an heir. But this cannot be done anymore, simply
because an action for recognition should have been made or brought during the lifetime
of the presumed parents. It could not even be applied under the exception of said law as

no evidence was ever adduced to that effect. The only conclusion, therefore, is that Glenn
was neither a legitimate nor an illegitimate son of SeveroBasbas, so that Jesse and John
are not the legal heirs of Peter.

Repudiation of Inheritance

L.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Repudiation of Inheritance

Source

: Guy vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006

Contributor

: Tohay, Ada Bonita

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Mara and Clara, who were represented by their mother Susan, filed a petition for letters
of administration. They alleged that they are the duly acknowledged illegitimate children
of Gorio. Jose (son of Gorio) filed an opposition claiming that their claim had been paid.,
waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished by reason of Suans Release and Waiver of
Claim stating that in exchange for the financial and educational assistance received.,
Susan and her minor children (Mara and Calara) discharge the estate of Gorio from any
and all liabilities. Is there release and waiver claim made by Susan in behalf of her minor
children (Mara and Clara) valid waiver of inheritance?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.
Under Article 1044 of the Civil Code, any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated
persons may be accepted by their parents or guardians. Parents or guardians may
repudiate the inheritance left to their wards only by judicial authorization. Accordingly,
repudiation amounts to an alienation of property which must pass thje courts scrutiny in
order to protect the interest of the ward.
In the given case, release and waiver of claim made by Susan in behalf of her minor
children (Mara and Clara) not having been judicially authorized is void and will not bar
them from asserting their rights as heirs of Gorio.

Reserva Troncal

LI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Reserva Troncal

Source

: Mendoza vs. Delos Santos

G.R. No. 176422, March 20, 2013

Contributor

: Ramirez, Gemma
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Gregoria died intestate and without issue leaving three parcels of land she inherited from
her father Exequiel. Her maternal aunt Julia adjudicated to herself all the properties as
the sole surviving heir.
Her fathers nieces and nephews filed a Petition against Julia for recovery of possession
by reservatroncal alleging that the said properties were part of their grandparents
properties subject of an oral partition and subsequently adjudicated to Exequiel. Julia
denies the obligation to reserve the properties as it did not originate from the familial line
but were bought by Exequiel.
The trial court granted the Petition. However, the appellate court reversed and set aside
the lower courts decision holding that petitioners failed to establish their grandparents
ownership over the properties in dispute.
Were the petitioners entitled to a reservation of the properties?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the petitioners are not entitled to a reservation of the properties.
The principle of reservatroncal as provided in Art. 891 of the Civil Code of the Phil. as
amended provides that the ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property
which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant or brother
or sister is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law

for the benefit of relatives who are within the 3rd degree and belong to the line from
which the said properties came.
Petitioners cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios as they are not relatives within
the third degree of Gregoria from whom the property came. Petitioners are Gregoria's
fourth degree relatives, being her first cousins. First cousins of the prepositus are not
reserves or reservatarios.

Sale by Heirs

LII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Sale by Heirs

Source

: Extraordinary Development Corporation vs. Samson-Bico

G.R. No. 191090, October 13, 2014

Contributor

: Melicor, Joreyna Mae

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
A and M begot two children, namely, J and R. During his lifetime, A owned a parcel of
land. When A and M died, the property was inherited by J and R. When the latter died,
the heirs of J and R became co-heirs of the property.
The heirs of J, without the consent of the heirs of R, executed in favor of ED Corporation
a Deed of Absolute Sale and later cause the registration in ED Corporation's name. Was
the sale of one heir of the entire property to ED Corporation valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes but valid only to the extent of the heir's undivided one-half share.
The execution by the heirs of J of the Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property
which they do not exclusively own but is admittedly co-owned by them together with the
heirs of R, was valid only to the extent of the formers undivided one-half share thereof,
as they had no title or interest to transfer the other one-half portion which pertains to the
other heirs without the latters consent because when there are two or more heirs, the
whole estate before it's partition is owned in common by such heirs.

Sale of Intestate Estate by an Administrator

LIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Sale of Intestate Estate by an Administrator

Source

: Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

G.R. Nos. 208828-29, August 13, 2014

Contributor

: Baquero, Hope Cesely

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
The late Beatriz S. Silverio died without leaving a will, survived by her legal heirs,
namely: Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. (husband), Edmundo S. Silverio (son), Edgardo S.
Silverio (son), Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr. (son), Nelia S.Silverio-Dee (daughter), and Ligaya
S. Silverio (daughter). Subsequently, an intestate proceeding for the settlement of her
estate was filed by Silverio, Sr. The administrator first appointed by the Court was
EDGARDO SILVERIO ("EDGARDO"), but by virtue of a Joint Manifestation dated 3
November 1999 filed by the heirs of BEATRIZ D. SILVERIO, the motion to withdraw as
administrator filed by EDGARDO was approved by the intestate court and in his stead,
Silverio, Sr. was appointed as the new administrator. Thereafter, an active exchange of
pleadings to remove and appoint a new administrator ensued between Silverio, Sr. and
Silverio, Jr. The intestate court flip-flopped in appointing as administrator of the estate
petitioner and respondent Silverio, Jr.
Silverio, Sr. filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion to declare the Deed of Absolute Sale,
Transfer Certificate of Title and all derivative titles over the Cambridge and Intsia
Property null and void. The intestate court rendered the now assailed Orders granting the
preliminary injunction against Silverio, Jr., and declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale, TCT
and all derivative titles over the Cambridge and Intsia properties as null and void. The
Court of Appeals rendered decision declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer
Certificate of Title and all derivative titles over the Cambridge and Intsia Property valid.
CA explicitly stated in its fallo that it pertained only to the portions of the Omnibus Order
upholding the grant of letters of administration to and taking of an oath of administration
by respondent Silverio, Jr., but did not expressly set aside as well the directive in the
same Omnibus Order allowing the sale of the subject properties. Was the sale of the
Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio valid?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the sale of the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio was valid. An
administrator can validly sell the intestate estate under his administration ONLY by leave
of court. While it is true that Silverio Sr. was eventually reinstated as Administrator
pursuant to the 2008 decision, the permanent injunction issued by the CA, as explicitly
stated in its fallo, pertained only to the portions of the 2006 Omnibus Order upholding the
grant of letters of administration to and taking of an oath of administration by Silverio,
Jr., as otherwise the CA would have expressly set aside as well the directive in the same
Omnibus Order allowing the sale of the subject properties. The Respondents Ocampo,
Citrine and ZEE2 should not be prejudiced by the flip-flopping appointment of
Administrator by the intestate court, having relied in good faith that the sale was
authorized and with prior approval of the intestate court under its Omnibus Order in 2006
which remained valid and subsisting insofar as it allowed the aforesaid sale.

Successional Right

LIV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Successional Right

Source

: Bunyi vs. Factor

G.R. No. 172547, June 30, 2009

Contributor

: Bernaldez, Josephus
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
The 18 hectare land was co-owned by siblings Billy and Mancelita after their fathers
death. After the death of BillyFactoran, it was his eldest child, GeneFactoran-Nilabao
who took over the administration of the subject property.Gene was married to Robbin.
When Gene died, Robbin remarried and this time, the tenant of the property named
Jenny. Robbin died while Jenny holds the real property. Mancelita wanted to eject Jenny
from the real property. Jenny argued that Mancelita was never in possession of the subject
property since the latter never occupied the same. Does Mancelita have the right to eject
Jenny?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, according to the Civil Code, the right to the property was vested with Mancelita and
her siblings from the moment of the death of their father. After the death of Gene,
Mancelita, as one of the surviving co-owners, may be subrogated to the rights of the
deceased co-owner, which includes the right to the administration and management of the
property.

LV.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Successional Right

Source

: Rioferio vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 129008, January 13, 2004

Contributor

: Tabada, Ian Rene

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Spanky died intestate on May 31, 1995 leaving several personal and real properties in
Bohol, Siquijor and Romblon. He is survived by his wife Darla and their three children,
namely: Alfalfa, Buckwheat and Porkie. Apart from his family, the demise of the
decedent left in mourning his paramour, Amy and their children Butch and Woym. On
November 8, 1995, Porkie discovered that Amy and her children executed an
Extrajudicial Settlement of Deceased Person and Quitclaim involving the property of
Spanky in Bohol. In fact, a new Certificate of Title was issued in the name of Amy and
her children. This prompted Darla and her children to file a complaint for the Annulment
of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person and the Cancellation of the
Certificate of Title against Amy and her children. On their answer, they interposed a
defense that Darla and her children are not the real-party-in-interest but instead it is the
estate if Spanky in view of the pendency of the administration proceeding.
Are the heirs have legal standing to prosecute the rights belonging to the deceased
subsequent to the commencement of the administration proceedings?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the heirs have the legal standing to prosecute the belonging to the deceased. The law
provides that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of
the decedent. Furthermore, in several lines of cases the Supreme Court recognized the
legal standing of the heirs to represent the rights and properties of the decedent under
administration pending the appointment of an administrator. In this case, there is no
dispute that Darla and her three children are the legal heirs and that their rights to the
estate of Spanky has been transmitted at the time of his death. Evidently, the necessity of
the heirs to seek judicial relief to seek recovery of the property of the estate is as
compelling when there is no appointed administrator. Therefore, the defense of Amy and
her children is not tenable.

Transmission of Successional rights

LVI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Transmission of Successional rights

Source

: Calalang-Parulan vs. Calalang-Garcia

G.R. No. 184148, June 9, 2014

Contributor

: Lumantas, Jessa Faith

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
R Santos married K Todre and had 2 children named A and B. When K died, R Santos
entered into a second marriage with one L Misa with whom they had 3 children. During
the subsistence of this second marriage, Romeo Santos filed an application for free patent
over the parcel of land in which he has been occupying since his first marriage with K
Todre. Later on, after acquiring title over it, he sold such parcel of land to one of his
children on his second marriage. A and B Santos, asserted their ownership over such
parcel of land and assailed the validity of the sale on the ground that there was a failure to
obtain their consent, being co-owners of the same. Does A and B Santos co-own the said
parcel of land with their father being heirs of the spouses in the first marriage?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, R Santos is the sole and exclusive owner of the disputed property.
In the said problem, R Santos was issued a free patent over such land after he applied and
proved that he possessed the subject land in the manner and for the period required by
law for free patent. Although, he may have been issued with the free patent only after the
dissolution of the first marriage and before the second marriage, the subject property ipso
jure became his private property and formed part of his exclusive property. It was
therefore excluded from the conjugal partnership of gains of the second marriage.
It is hornbook doctrine that successional rights are vested only at the time of death.
Article 777 of the New Civil Code provides that "the rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. Thus, in this case, it is only

upon the death of R Santos that his heirs will acquire their respective inheritances,
entitling them to their pro indiviso shares to his whole estate.
As of the moment, being the sole and exclusive owner, R Santos had the right to convey
his property.

LVII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Transmission of Successional Rights

Source

: Ining vs. Vega

G.R. No. 174727, August 12, 2013

Contributor

: Maico, Ma. Noelle A.

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Adam Amping, married to Ava, is the owner of a 5,000-square meter parcel of land
(subject property) in Antique. The couple died without issue. Adam was survived by his
brothers, Adonis and Apollo, who are now both deceased. Adonis was survived by his
daughter, Aphrodite. Apollo, in turn, was survived by his children, Athena and Atlas.
Acting on the claim that one-half of the subject property belonged toher as Adonis
surviving heir, Aphrodite filed for partition, recovery of ownershipand possession, with
damages, against Apollos heirs. Is the claim of Aphrodite correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Aphrodites claim is correct.
Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to the successionare transmitted from the
moment of death.Since Adam died without issue, his heirs are his siblings, Adonis and
Apollo, who thus inherited the property in equal shares. In turn, Adonis and Apollos
heirs became entitled to the property upon the brothers passing. Thus, having succeeded
to the property as heirs of Adonis and Apollo, Aphrodite, Athena and Atlas became coowners thereof.

Trusteeship on the Estate

LVIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Trusteeship on the Estate

Source

: Hilarion, Jr. vs. Trusteeship of the Estate of Doa Margarita Rodriguez

G.R. No. 168660, June 30, 2009

Contributor

: Isidro, Dalisay
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Considering that under Article 870 of the Law on Succession, wherein the perpetual
prohibition to alienate or mortgage the properties of the decedent is declared void, is the
creation of a perpetual trust for the administration of the testatrixs properties and the
income accruing there from allowed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.
Under Article 1013, the allowance for a permanent trust, approved by a court of
law, covers property inherited by the State by virtue of intestate succession. The article
does not cure a void testamentary provision which did not institute an heir. Accordingly,
the article cannot be applied to dispose of herein decedents properties.
Article 870 of the New Civil Code, which regards as void any disposition of the testator
declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than 20 years, was designed "to
give more impetus to the socialization of the ownership of property and to prevent the
perpetuation of large holdings which give rise to agrarian troubles."
The herein testatrixs large landholdings cannot be subjected indefinitely to a trust
because the ownership thereof would then effectively remain with her even in the
afterlife.
Therefore, the trust on the testatrixs properties must be dissolved after the twenty-year
period and this case is remanded to the lower court to determine intestate heirs of the
decedent, with the nearest relative of the deceased entitled to inherit the remaining

properties, constituting the perpetual trust, which are still within reach and have not been
disposed of as yet.

Venue for Settlement of Estate

LIX.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Venue for Settlement of Estate

Source

: Jao vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 128314, May 29, 2002

Contributor

: Gutierrez II, Cedric

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Hoyben was born and raised in Surigao del Sur. When he was diagnosed with Diabetes,
he moved to his daughters (Evelyn) house in Cebu City where he had easy access to
medication and hospital. Evelyn was a pharmacist by profession and was knowledgeable
in all of Hoybens medication.
Hoyben eventually passed away due to complications to Diabetes. Evelyn subsequently
instituted a petition for issuance of letters of administration before the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City over the estate of Hoyben.
Edmund, Evelyns brother, moved for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of
improper venue. Edmund argued that the deceased did not reside in Cebu City during his
lifetime but in Surigao del Sur. He argued that Hoyben was a businessman in Surigao del
Sur and when Hoyben was diagnosed with Diabetes, he left for Cebu to seek medication
until his demise.
Where is the proper venue for the settlement proceeding?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It should be in Cebu City.

Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states that Where estate of deceased persons be
settled. If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death,
whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted,
and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at
the time of his death.
Jurisprudence further provides that the term "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual
residence" as distinguished from "legal residence or domicile." This term "resides", like
the terms "residing" and "residence", is elastic and should be interpreted in the light of
the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. In the application of
venue statutes and rules Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such
nature residence rather than domicile is the significant factor. Even where the statute
uses the word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the
technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the terms "residence" and
"domicile" but as generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and
convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant." In other words, "resides" should be
viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, and the personal, actual or physical
habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in
a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means merely residence,
that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires
bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence
in that place and also an intention to make it ones domicile. No particular length of time
of residence is required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary.
In this case, physical presence of the testator is in Cebu City at the time of death and not
in Surigao del Sur.

Venue of Action

LX.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Venue of Action

Source

: San Luis vs. San Luis

G.R. No. 133743, February 6, 2007

Contributor

: Cataquis, Jamine Rawen

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
The former governor of Laguna married thrice before he died. A, had 1st spouse, B, with
whom he has 6 children and who predeceased him. Then he married again, to C, an
American citizen who divorced him before the Hawaiian courts, with whom he had a son,
Tobias, and then he remarried again. He died married to his 3rd wife, D to whom he
resided with in Alabang. When A died, D filed for Dissolution Of Conjugal Partnership
Assets and Settlement Of A's Estate, filing for a letter of administration before RTC
Makati. However, his 2nd wife and the children in the 1st marriage contested the standing
of the 3rd wife, claiming that the said marriage was bigamous since the 2nd marriage was
still subsisting under RP law and that Venue improperly laid. It should have been filed in
Laguna, where the decedent is domiciled and where he is duly elected, and not in Makati.
The RTC ruled dismissed the petition for letters of administration. It held that, at the time
of his death, A was the duly elected governor and a resident of the Province of Laguna.
Hence, the petition should have been filed in Laguna and not in Makati City. It also ruled
that respondent was without legal capacity to file the petition for letters of administration
because her marriage with A was bigamous, thus, void ab initio. However, it was reversed
by the CA. Is the venue improperly laid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
YES. The cases relied upon by the petitioners were election cases. There is a distinction
between "residence" for purposes of election laws and "residence" for purposes of fixing
the venue of actions. In election cases, "residence" and "domicile" are treated as
synonymous terms, that is, the fixed permanent residence to which when absent, one has
the intention of returning. However, for purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of

Court, the "residence" of a person is his personal, actual or physical habitation, or actual
residence or place of abode, which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile
provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.

LXI.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Wills

Source

: Umengan vs. Heirs of RosendoLasam

CA-G.R. SP No. 80032, February 16, 2005

Contributor

: Legaspo, Marje
-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Isabel, the deceased, had two sons by her first husband, namely Dom and Rufo. She had
another child Triny by another man. Before Isabels death, she executed a last will and
testament giving her properties to Dom and Rufo. Dom and Rufo then submitted the will
for probate. Triny now questions the authenticity and genuineness of the alleged last will
and testament of Isabel as the testator, the witnesses and the notary public did not sign
the will. Can there be a valid partition by will of the said properties?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Article 1080 of the Civil Code clearly gives a person two options in making a
partition of his estate; either by an act inter vivos or by will. When a person makes a
partition by will, it is imperative that such partition must be executed in accordance with
the provisions of the law on wills; however, when a person makes the partition of his
estate by an act inter vivos, such partition may even be oral or written, and need not be in
the form of a will, provided that the partition does not prejudice the legitime of
compulsory heirs.
In the case given, the requisites provided in the law are absent. The testator and the
witnesses did not sign the will. Moreover, the alleged will was not acknowledged before
a notary public by the testator and by the witnesses. In other words, the will is void and
would have been disallowed if submitted to probate. Consequently, the succession to
Isabels estate should have been by legal or intestate succession.
Thus, there can be no valid partition by the disputed will.

Wills Admitted for Probate but Archived

LXII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Wills Admitted for Probate but Archived

Source

: Hacbang vs. Alo

G.R. No. 191031, October 5, 2015

Contributor

: Amores, Ernesto Miguel

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
On 3 April 1980, Stephen Thompson died leaving several properties behind.
Stephen Thompson was survived by his parents, Dell and Sonya Thompson, and his
siblings: Kobe Thompson, Lebron Thompson, Harrison Thompson, and Riley Thompson.
Petitioner Klay Curry is the grandchild of Kobe while petitioner Seth Thompson is a son
of Lebron.
Stephen Thompson left a will denominated as Ultima Voluntad y Testamento. He left
one-half of his properties to his parents and devised the other half to his sister Riley. The
decedent specifically identified the specific properties forming part of their inheritance.
On 21 May 1980, the RTC admitted Stephen Thompson's will to probate.
The RTC ordered the proceedings to be archived on 2 November 2000. Consequently,
there was no adjudication and distribution of the properties.
The petitioners filed a case arguing that: (1) Stephen Thompson's will did not validly
transfer the subject property to Riley Thompson; (2) the probate of the will is not
conclusive as to the validity of its intrinsic provisions; (3) that the distribution of the
estate should be governed by intestate succession because: (a) the properties were not
adjudicated; and (b) the settlement proceedings were archived and dismissed. Thus, all
the properties passed on to and became part of the estate of Stephen Thompson's parents.
The petitioners concluded that they had legal interest thereto as representatives of their
ascendants, the other children of Stephen Thompson's parents.

Was Stephen Thompsons will as well as his dispositions therein valid despite the lack of
court adjudication and distribution?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the will is valid.
Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of the death of the decedent. As a consequence of this principle, ownership over
the inheritance passes to the heirs at the precise moment of death not at the time the
heirs are declared, nor at the time of the partition, nor at the distribution of the properties.
In the case of HacbangvsBasilio, the Court declared that if the court archived the
settlement proceedings and did not declare any of the dispositions in the will invalid, the
same remains valid as it is. The admission of his will to probate is conclusive with respect
to its due execution and extrinsic validity.
Moreover, in a plethora of cases, our jurisdiction accords great respect to the testator's
freedom of disposition. Hence, testate succession has always been preferred over
intestacy. As much as possible, a testator's will is treated and interpreted in a way that
would render all of its provisions operative. Thus, there is no basis to apply the
provisions on intestacy when testate succession evidently applies.
In the case at bar, even though the RTC archived the settlement proceedings, there is no
indication that it declared any of the dispositions in the will invalid. Stephen Thompson
was free to dispose of his estate without prejudice to the legitimes of his compulsory
heirs. Stephen Thompson's only compulsory heirs were his parents. Their legitime was
one-half of Stephen Thompson's estate. Considering that Stephen Thompson gave his
parents half of his estate, then he was free to dispose of the free portion of his estate in
favor of his sister, Riley Thompson. Thus, his will was intrinsically valid.
The RTC's failure to adjudicate the specific properties is irrelevant because Stephen
Thompson did not just name his heirs; he also identified the specific properties forming
part of their inheritance. The dispositions in the will rendered court adjudication and
distribution unnecessary.

Wills Admitted for Probate but Intrinsically Void

LXIII.
Civil Law Topic

: Succession; Wills Admitted for Probate but Intrinsically Void

Source

: Dorotheo vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 108581, December 8, 1999

Contributor

: De los Santos, Naiza Mae

-xxxx-

PROBLEM:
Ellen died in 1969 without her estate being settled. Her husband Louie died thereafter.
Sometime in 1977, after Louies death, a certain Marinette who claims to have taken care
of Louie before he died, filed a special proceeding for the probate of the latters last will
and testament. In 1981, the court admitted Alejandros will to probate. No appeal was
made by the children of Louie. Later in 1983, Louies children filed a Motion to Declare
The Will Intrinsically Void. The trial court granted the motion and issued an order which
states that Marinette is not the wife of the late Louie, the provisions of the last will and
testament of Louie as intrinsically void, and declaring the oppositors Victoria, Josefina
and Nilo as the only heirs of the late spouses Louie and Ellen, whose respective estates
shall be liquidated and distributed according to the laws on intestacy upon payment of
estate and other taxes due to the government.
May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsically void in an
order that has become final and executor still be given effect?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it can still be given effect.
It has been ruled that a final judgment on probated will, albeit erroneous, is binding on
the whole world. It has been consistently held that if no appeal is taken in due time from
a judgment or order of the trial court, the same attains finality by mere lapse of time.
Thus, the order allowing the will became final and the question determined by the court
in such order can no longer be raised anew, either in the same proceedings or in a

different motion. Such final order makes the will conclusive against the whole world as to
its extrinsic validity and due execution. The intrinsic validity is another matter and
questions regarding the same may still be raised even after the will has been
authenticated. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and
testament is always intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the
testator provides for dispositions that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime
or rightful inheritance according to the laws on succession, the unlawful provisions/
dispositions thereof cannot be given effect.
In the case at bar, the court had ruled that the will of Louie was extrinsically valid but the
intrinsic provisions thereof were void. Thus, the rules of intestacy apply.