6.

In the Matter of the Intestate Estates of the Deceased

Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Delgado, Heirs of Luis DELGADO, petitioners
vs.
Heirs of Marciana RUSTIA, respondents.
G.R. No. 155733. January 27, 2006
FACTS:
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado died without a will. The claimants of their estates may be divided
into two groups: (1) the alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado, consisting of her half- and full-blood siblings,
nephews and nieces, and grandnephews and grandnieces, and (2) the alleged heirs of Guillermo Rustia,
particularly, his sisters, his nephews and nieces, his illegitimate child, and the de facto adopted child
(ampun-ampunan) of the decedents.
The Alleged Heirs of Josefa Delgado
The deceased Josefa Delgado was the daughter of Felisa Delgado by one Lucio Campo. Aside from
Josefa, five other children were born to the couple, namely, Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, and Gorgonio,
all surnamed Delgado. Felisa Delgado was never married to Lucio Campo, hence, Josefa and her full-blood
siblings were all natural children of Felisa Delgado. However, Lucio Campo was not the first and only man
in Felisa Delgados life. Before him was Ramon Osorio with whom Felisa had a son, Luis Delgado.
The Marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado
Guillermo Rustia proposed marriage to Josefa Delgado but whether a marriage in fact took place is
disputed. Several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage existed between
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. Their cohabitation of more than 50 years cannot be doubted.
The Alleged Heirs of Guillermo Rustia
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado never had any children but they took into their home the
youngsters Guillermina Rustia Rustia and Nanie Rustia. These children, never legally adopted by the
couple, were what was known in the local dialect as ampun-ampunan. During his life with Josefa, however,
Guillermo Rustia did manage to father an illegitimate child, the intervenor-respondent Guillerma Rustia,
with one Amparo Sagarbarria.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the grandnephews and grandnieces of Josefa Delgado can inherit by right of
representation?
RULING:
1. The Lawful Heirs of Josefa Delgado
It was found out that Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio were never married. Hence, all the children
born to Felisa Delgado out of her relations with Ramon Osorio and Lucio Campo, namely, Luis and his halfblood siblings Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, Gorgonio and the decedent Josefa, all surnamed Delgado,
were her natural children.
The above-named siblings of Josefa Delgado were related to her by full-blood, except Luis Delgado, her
half-brother. Nonetheless, since they were all illegitimate, they may inherit from each other. Accordingly,
all of them are entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado.
However, the petitioners in this case are already the nephews, nieces, grandnephews and grandnieces
of Josefa Delgado. Under Article 972 of the new Civil Code, the right of representation in the collateral line
takes place only in favor of the children of brothers and sisters (nephews and nieces). Consequently, it
cannot be exercised by grandnephews and grandnieces. Therefore, the only collateral relatives of Josefa
Delgado who are entitled to partake of her intestate estate are her brothers and sisters, or their children
who were still alive at the time of her death on September 8, 1972. They have a vested right to participate
in the inheritance. The records not being clear on this matter, it is now for the trial court to determine who
were the surviving brothers and sisters (or their children) of Josefa Delgado at the time of her death.
Together with Guillermo Rustia, they are entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado in accordance with Article
1001 of the new Civil Code:
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 one-half.
2. The Lawful Heirs of Guillermo Rustia

Guillerma Rustia is an illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia. As such, she may be entitled to
successional rights only upon proof of an admission or recognition of paternity. She failed to present
authentic proof of recognition. Together with Guillermina Rustia Rustia, they were held legal strangers to
the deceased spouses and therefore not entitled to inherit from them ab intestato.
Under Article 1002 of the new Civil Code, if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children,
or surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. Therefore,
the lawful heirs of Guillermo Rustia are the remaining claimants, consisting of his sisters, nieces and
nephews.
Therefore, the intestate estate of Guillermo Rustia shall inherit half of the intestate estate of Josefa
Delgado. The remaining half shall pertain to (a) the full and half-siblings of Josefa Delgado who survived
her and (b) the children of any of Josefa Delgados full- or half-siblings who may have predeceased her,
also surviving at the time of her death. Josefa Delgados grandnephews and grandnieces are excluded
from her estate. The trial court is hereby ordered to determine the identities of the relatives of Josefa
Delgado who are entitled to share in her estate.
Guillermo Rustias estate (including its one-half share of Josefa Delgados estate) shall be inherited by
Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia Cruz (whose respective shares shall be per capita)
and the children of the late Roman Rustia, Sr. (who survived Guillermo Rustia and whose respective shares
shall be per stirpes). Considering that Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia Cruz are now
deceased, their respective shares shall pertain to their estates.
11. Guy v. CA (Court of Appeals) Digest
Guy v. CA
502 SCRA 151
G.R. No. 163707 September 15, 2006
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.:
Facts:
1. The special proceeding case concerns the settlement of the estate of Sima Wei (a.k.a. Rufina Guy
Susim). Private-respondents Karen and Kamille alleged that they are the acknowledged illegitimate
children of Sima Wei who died intestate. The minors were represented by their mother Remedios Oanes
who filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration before the RTC of Makati City.
2. Petitioner who is one of the children of the deceased with his surviving spouse, filed for the dismissal of
the petition alleging that his father left no debts hence, his estate may be settled without the issuance of
letters administration. The other heirs filed a joint motion to dismiss alleging that the certification of nonforum shopping should have been signed by Remedios and not by counsel.
3. Petitioners further alleged that the claim has been paid and waived by reason of a Release of Claim or
waiver stating that in exchange for financial and educational assistance from the petitioner, Remedios and
her minor children discharged the estate of the decedent from any and all liabilities.
4. The lower court denied the joint motion to dismiss as well as the supplemental motion ruling that the
mother is not the duly constituted guardian of the minors hence, she could not have validly signed the
waiver. It also rejected the petitioner's objections to the certificate of non-forum shopping. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the orders of the lower court. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not a guardian can validly repudiate the inheritance the wards
RULING: No, repudiation amounts to alienation of property and parents and guardians must necessarily
obtain judicial approval. repudiation of inheritance must pass the court's scrutiny in order to protect the
best interest of the ward. Not having been authorized by the court, the release or waiver is therefore void.
Moreover, the private-respondents could not have waived their supposed right as they have yet to prove
their status as illegitimate children of the decedent. It would be inconsistent to rule that they have waived
a right which, according to the petitioner, the latter do not have.
As to the jurisdiction of the court to determine the heirs
The court is not precluded to receive evidence to determine the filiation of the claimants even if the
original petition is for the issuance of letters administration. Its jurisdiction extends to matters collateral
and incidental to the settlement of the estate, with the determination of heirship included. As held in
previous decision, two causes of action may be brought together in one complaint, one a claim for
recognition, and the other to claim inheritance
15. NELSON CABALES and RITO CABALES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JESUS FELIANO and
ANUNCIANO FELIANO
G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007
Puno, C.J.

FACTS:
Sometime in 1964, Rurfino Cabales died leaving behind a parcel of land in Southern Leyte to his
wife, Saturnina and six children, namely, Bonifacio, Francisco, Alberto, Albino, Lenora, and Rito. On 1971,
the brothers and co-owners Bonifacio, Alberto and Albino sold the property to Dr. Corrompido with a right
to repurchase within eight (8) years. On 1972, prior to the redemption of the property, Alberto died leaving
behind his wife and son, Nelson, herein petitioner.
Sometime later and within the redemption period, the said brothers and their mother, in lieu of
Alberto, tendered their payment to Dr. Corrompido. Subsequently, Saturnina, and her four children,
Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco and Leonora sold the said land to Spouses Feliano. It was provided in the deed
of sale that the shares of Nelson and Rito, being minor at the time of the sale, will be held in trust by the
vendee and will paid upon them reaching the age of 21.
In 1986, Rito received the sum of 1,143 pesos from the Spouses Feliano representing his share from
the proceeds of the sale of the property. It was only in 1988, that Nelson learned of the sale from his uncle,
Rito. He signified his intention to redeem the property in 1993 but it was only in 1995 that he filed a
complaint for redemption against the Spouses Feliano. The respondent Spouses averred that the
petitioners are estopped from denying the sale since: (1) Rito already received his share; and (2) Nelson,
failed to tender the total amount of the redemption price.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favour of Spouses Feliano on the ground that Nelson was no longer
entitled to the property since, his right was subrogated by Saturnina upon the death of his father, Alberto.
It also alleged that Rito had no more right to redeem since Saturnina, being his legal guardian at the time
of the sale was properly vested with the right to alienate the same.
The Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court stating that the sale made by Saturnina
in behalf of Rito and Nelson were unenforceable.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale made by a legal guardian (Saturnina) in behalf of the minors were binding upon
them.
HELD:
With regard to the share of Rito, the contract of sale was valid. Under Section 1, Rule 96 A
guardian shall have the care and custody of the person of his ward, and the management of his estate, or
the management of the estate only. x x x Indeed, the legal guardian only has the plenary power of
administration of the minors property. It does not include the power of alienation which needs judicial
authority. Thus, when Saturnina, as legal guardian of petitioner Rito, sold the latters pro indiviso share in
subject land, she did not have the legal authority to do so. Accordingly, the contract as to the share of Rito
was unenforceable. However, when he received the proceeds of the sale, he effectively ratified it. This act
of ratification rendered the sale valid and binding as to him.
With respect to petitioner Nelson, the contract of sale was void. He was a minor at the time of the
sale. Saturnina or any and all the other co-owners were not his legal guardians; rather it was his mother
who if duly authorized by the courts, could validly sell his share in the property. Consequently, petitioner
Nelson retained ownership over their undivided share in the said property. However, Nelson can no longer
redeem the property since the thirty day redemption period has expired and thus he remains as co-owner
of the property with the Spouses Feliano.
20. Encarnacion Vda. De Panlilio is the owner of the disputed landholdings over a vast tract of
land, located in Masamat, Mexico, Pampanga.
Facts: On April 19, 1961, Panlilio entered into a contract of lease over the said landholdings with Paulina
Mercado, wife of Panlilios nephew. The contract of lease was subsequently renewed on October 13, 1964 14
and September 18, 1974,15 covering agricultural years from 1961 to 1979.
Sometime in 1973, pursuant to the OLT under PD 27, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued
thirty eight (38) Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) to Panlilios tenants. The tenant-awardees were made
defendants in the instant consolidated complaints filed by petitioner Lizares.
On November 26, 1973, lessee Paulina Mercado filed a letter-complaint with the DAR questioning the
issuance of CLTs to Panlilios tenants, alleging, among others, that the DAR should not have issued the CLTs
since the land involved was principally being planted with sugar and was outside the coverage of PD 27.

Paulina Mercado likewise filed a similar complaint with the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) at San
Fernando, Pampanga.
On December 4, 1976, the tenants of the portion of the land planted with sugar cane petitioned the DAR to
cause the reversion of their sugarland to riceland so that it may be covered by the Agrarian Reform Law.
The petition was with the conformity of Panlilio.
Thus, on January 12, 1977, Panlilio executed an Affidavit stating that it is his desire that his entire
subject property which is referred to as Hacienda Masamat be placed under the coverage of
P.D. 27 without exception and that thereafter the same be sold to tenant-petitioners.
On January 20, 1977, by virtue of the said Affidavit, the DAR Secretary, ordered the Regional Director of
Region III, San Fernando, Pampanga, to distribute all land transfer certificates, in view of the desire of
Encarnacion Vda. de Panlilio to place her property under the Land Transfer Program of the government.
Thereafter, sometime in 1993, the DAR issued Emancipation Patents (EPs) to the tenants of Panlilio.
During the course of the case, some of the tenants transferred the subject properties to third persons.
Lizares, the Petitioner, alleged that the transfer by the tenants of properties is invalid
CA ruled in favor of the respondents.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring the transfer
made by the private respondents to third persons valid
Held: The prohibition in PD 27, the Tenants Emancipation Decree, which took effect on October 21, 1972,
states that [t]itle to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the Government
shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with
the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reforms and other existing laws and regulations
(emphasis supplied). Hereditary succession means succession by intestate succession or by will to the
compulsory heirs under the Civil Code, but does not pertain to testamentary succession to other persons.
In the case at bar, the alleged transfers made by some if not all of respondents Gonzalo Dizon, et al. (G.R.
No. 148777) of lands covered by PD 27 to non-qualified persons are illegal and null and void.

24. Rama vs Joaquin

Facts:
During Lucia Rama Limchius lifetime, she executed a will designating petitioner Napoleon G. Rama as
executor. When she died, a large portion of her estate went to her nephew, Jose Limchiu, Jr. .including the
real property subject of this controversy (Guadalupe Heights property). It was eventually sold by Jose to
respondent spouses Eduardo and Conchita Joaquin.
The dispute arose when Joses wife and judicial guardian, Gladys I. Limchiu (Gladys), filed a complaint in
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 20 to nullify the deed of absolute sale executed by Jose to
respondents. She averred that the assailed deed was forged as Jose did not appear before the notary
public to subscribe to the same and that the residence certificate in the notarial acknowledgment was
fake.
Petitioner filed a complaint in intervention in his capacity as executor of Lucias will. He joined Gladys in
praying for the nullification of the contentious document on the grounds cited by Gladys and on the
additional ground that the sale was in violation of a provision in Lucias will prohibiting her devisees from
disposing of the properties given to them before they reached the age of 30. Jose sold the subject property
to respondents when he was only 28 years old.
Respondents filed their answer to the complaint in intervention, alleging, among others, that the said
prohibition did not apply to the Guadalupe Heights property.

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the sale void. The court a quo
anchored its decision mainly on petitioners and Gladys contention that the contested property came
within the purview of the aforementioned prohibition stated in the testatrixs will.
On appeal, however, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court
Petitioner contends that the CA erred in its decision as the sale was in violation of Lucias will, which,
according to him, expressly prohibited Jose from disposing of his inherited properties before he reached the
age of 30.
Issue: WON the sale of Jose is invalid on the ground that such sale was in violation of the provision Lucias
will.
Held: It is well-settled that in construing the provisions of a will, the intent of the testator is controlling. In
this case, had it been Lucias intention to prohibit the disposition of all her properties (listed and residual
alike), she could have easily said so, specially since, as pointed out by petitioner himself, the will itself was
replete with limiting provisions allegedly pointing to the inescapable conclusion that she wanted the
properties to remain in her heirs hands until they reached 30.
The fourth disposition on the will wherein the Guadalupe property listed did not contain the same
prohibition as that so clearly provided for in the third. Thus, it can reasonably be concluded that no
prohibition on selling existed with regard to Lucias residual properties. As the Guadalupe Heights property
clearly formed part of her residual estate, there was no prohibition for its alienation by Jose.
Petition denied.