1 gigiheartsryuuk

Legal of Intestate Succession General Provisions, Relationship

and Right of Representation

BAGUNU v PIEDAD

The right of representation does not apply to "other collateral

relatives within the fifth civil degree" (to which group both petitioner and
respondent belong) who are sixth in the order of preference
following, firstly, the legitimate children and descendants, secondly, the
legitimate parents and ascendants, thirdly, the illegitimate children and
descendants, fourthly, the surviving spouse, and fifthly, the brothers and
sisters/nephews and nieces, of the decedent. Among collateral relatives,
except only in the case of nephews and nieces of the decedent concurring
with their uncles or aunts, the rule of proximity, expressed in Article 962,
aforequoted, of the Code, is an absolute rule. In determining the degree of
relationship of the collateral relatives to the decedent, Article 966 of the
Civil Code gives direction.

Respondent, being a relative within the third civil degree, of the late
Augusto H. Piedad excludes petitioner, a relative of the fifth degree, from
succeeding ab intestato to the estate of the decedent.

DELGADO VDA. DE DELA ROSA v HEIRS OF MARCIANA RUSTIA

(Yung facts ng case is where the estates of the spouses who died at
different dates were petitioned to be settled at the same time. May issue
din to about the prescription nung right ng child to be acknowledged by a
parent. Basahin niyo na lg if na-curious kayo. XD)

It bears mentioning that the records likewise disclose testimonies

pointing out the existence of marriage between the decedents. Needless
to state, it s presumed in our jurisdiction that a man and a woman
deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage. This is the common order of society, and can only be
rebutted by sufficient contrary evidence.

In another vein, the propriety of the appointment of Carlota Vda de

Damian as sole administrator of the estates of the decedents is put to
question, especially in light of the trial courts finding that Josefa Delgado
and Dr. Guillermo Rustia were not married to each other. It has been
observed that the estates of deceased spouses may be settled in a single
proceeding,[11] but in all other instances, even if the deceased persons are
related as ascendants and decendants, their separate estates must be
settled in different proceedings.[12] The reason for this is the avoidance of
2 gigiheartsryuuk

opportunity of encroachment into the estate left by one decedent by the

heirs of another, especially in instances, such as this petition, were
different heirs are determined for different decedents.

Descending Direct Line; Ascending Direct Line; Illegitimate

Children

PASCUAL v PASCUAL-BAUTISTA

(Otherwise stated they say the term "illegitimate" children as provided in

Article 992 must be strictly construed to refer only to spurious children
(Rollo, p. 419).

The main issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether or not Article
992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude
recognized natural children from the inheritance of the deceased.)

Clearly the term "illegitimate" refers to both natural and spurious.

Finally under Article 176 of the Family Code, all illegitimate children are
generally placed under one category, which undoubtedly settles the issue
as to whether or not acknowledged natural children should be treated
differently, in the negative.

It may be said that the law may be harsh but that is the law (DURA LEX
SED LEX).

MANUEL v FERRER

The rule in Article 992 has consistently been applied by the Court in
several other cases. Thus, it has ruled that where the illegitimate child
had
half-brothers who were legitimate, the latter had no right to the former's
inheritance; 6 that the legitimate collateral relatives of the mother cannot
succeed from her illegitimate child; 7 that a natural child cannot represent
his natural father in the succession to the estate of the legitimate
grandparent; 8 that the natural daughter cannot succeed to the estate of
her deceased uncle who is a legitimate brother of her natural father; 9 and
that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the
legitimate children and relatives of his father. 10 Indeed, the law on
succession is animated by a uniform general intent, and thus no part
should be rendered inoperative 11 by, but must always be construed in
relation to, any other part as to produce a harmonious whole. 12
3 gigiheartsryuuk

TISON v CA

(In this case, the Court demonstrated how to properly apply Arts.
975, 995 and 1001)

The following provisions of the Civil Code provide for the manner by
which the estate of the decedent shall be divided in this case, to wit:

Art. 975. When children of one or more brothers or sisters of the deceased
survive, they shall inherit from the latter by representation, if they survive
with their uncles or aunts. But if they alone survive, they shall inherit in
equal portions.

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.

Upon the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, one-half of the subject

property was automatically reserved to the surviving spouse, Martin
Guerrero, as his share in the conjugal partnership. Applying the
aforequoted statutory provisions, the remaining half shall be equally
divided between the widower and herein petitioners who are entitled to
jointly inherit in their own right. Hence, Martin Guerrero could only validly
alienate his total undivided three-fourths (3/4) share in the entire property
to herein private respondent.Resultantly, petitioners and private
respondent are deemed co-owners of the property covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 374012 in the proportion of an undivided one-fourth
(1/4) and three-fourths (3/4) share thereof, respectively.

HEIRS OF URIARTE v CA

According to Article 962 of the Civil Code, In every inheritance, the

relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones, saving the right
of representation when it properly takes place.

Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares, subject to the
provisions of Article 1006 with respect to relatives of the full and half
4 gigiheartsryuuk

blood, and of Article 987, paragraph 2, concerning division between

paternal and maternal lines.

The manners of determining the proximity of relationship are provided by

Articles 963 - 966 of the Civil Code. They provide:

ART. 963. Proximity of relationship is determined by the number of

generations. Each generation forms a degree.

ART. 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be either direct or
collateral.

A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among

ascendants and descendants.

A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among

persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but who come from a
common ancestor.

ART. 965. The direct line is either descending or ascending.

The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from
him.

The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends.

ART. 966. In the line, as many degrees are counted as there are
generations or persons, excluding the progenitor.

In the direct line, ascent is made to the common ancestor. Thus the child
is one degree removed from the parent, two from the grandfather, and
three from the great-grandparent.

In the collateral line, ascent is made to the common ancestor and then
descent is made to the person with whom the computation is to be
made. Thus, a person is two degrees removed from his brother, three from
his uncle, who is the brother of his father, four from his first cousin, and so
forth.

GONZALES v CA

(Case involves a dispute between the brother of the deceased and the
illegitimate children of the deceased. Sabi ni brother di dapat daw mag-
inherit yung respondents kasi illegitimate sila D: )
5 gigiheartsryuuk

With the finding that private respondents are the illegitimate children of
Ricardo Abad, petitioners are precluded from inheriting the estate of their
brother. The applicable provisions are:

Art. 988. In the absence of legitimate descendants or

ascendants, the illegitimate children shall succeed to the
entire estate of the deceased.

Art. 1003. If there are no . . . illegitimate children, or a

surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the
entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following
articles. (Emphasis supplied).

(You can read the case if you want to see how the court settled that the
respondents were indeed the illegitimate children of the deceased)

Surviving Spouse; Collateral Relatives; The State

ADLAWAN v ADLAWAN

In the instant case, it is not disputed that petitioner brought the suit
for unlawful detainer in his name alone and for his own benefit to the
exclusion of the heirs of Graciana as he even executed an affidavit of self-
adjudication over the disputed property. It is clear therefore that petitioner
cannot validly maintain the instant action considering that he does not
recognize the co-ownership that necessarily flows from his theory of
succession to the property of his father, Dominador.

In the same vein, there is no merit in petitioners claim that he has

the legal personality to file the present unlawful detainer suit because the
ejectment of respondents would benefit not only him but also his alleged
co-owners. However, petitioner forgets that he filed the instant case to
acquire possession of the property and to recover damages. If granted, he
alone will gain possession of the lot and benefit from the proceeds of the
award of damages to the exclusion of the heirs of Graciana. Hence,
petitioner cannot successfully capitalize on the alleged benefit to his co-
owners. Incidentally, it should be pointed out that in default of the said
heirs of Graciana, whom petitioner labeled as fictitious heirs, the State will
inherit her share[31] and will thus be petitioners co-owner entitled to
possession and enjoyment of the property.

Capacity to succeed by will or by intestacy; Acceptance and

Repudiation

GUY v CA
6 gigiheartsryuuk

As regards Remedios' Release and Waiver of Claim, the same does not bar
private respondents from claiming successional rights. To be valid and
effective, a waiver must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which
leave no doubt as to the intention of a party to give up a right or benefit
which legally pertains to him. A waiver may not be attributed to a person
when its terms do not explicitly and clearly evince an intent to abandon a
right.14

In this case, we find that there was no waiver of hereditary rights. The
Release and Waiver of Claim does not state with clarity the purpose of its
execution. It merely states that Remedios received P300,000.00 and an
educational plan for her minor daughters "by way of financial assistance
and in full settlement of any and all claims of whatsoever nature and kind
x x x against the estate of the late Rufino Guy Susim." 15 Considering that
the document did not specifically mention private respondents' hereditary
share in the estate of Sima Wei, it cannot be construed as a waiver of
successional rights.

Executors and Admnistrators; Collation

NAZARENO v CA

It cannot be denied that Maximino, Sr. intended to give the six Quezon
City lots to Natividad. As Romeo testified, their parents executed the Deed
of Sale in favor of Natividad because the latter was the only female and
the only unmarried member of the family. [34] She was thus entrusted with
the real properties in behalf of her siblings. As she herself admitted, she
intended to convey Lots 10 and 11 to Jose in the event the latter returned
from abroad. There was thus an implied trust constituted in her favor. Art.
1449 of the Civil Code states:

There is also an implied trust when a donation is made to a person but it

appears that although the legal estate is transmitted to the donee, he
nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or only a part thereof.

There being an implied trust, the lots in question are therefore subject
to collation in accordance with Art. 1061 which states:

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.

SANCHEZ v CA
7 gigiheartsryuuk

We observe that although denominated a compromise agreement, the

document in this case is essentially a deed of partition, pursuant to Article
1082 of the Civil Code which provides that [e]very act which is intended to
put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is
deemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an
exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction.

For a partition to be valid, Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court,

requires the concurrence of the following conditions: (1) the decedent left
no will; (2) the decedent left no debts, or if there were debts left, all had
been paid; (3) the heirs and liquidators are all of age, or if they are
minors, the latter are represented by their judicial guardian or legal
representatives; and (4) the partition was made by means of a public
instrument or affidavit duly filed with the Register of Deeds. We find that
all the foregoing requisites are present in this case. We therefore affirm
the validity of the parties compromise agreement/partition in this case.

Partition; Effects of Partition; Rescission and Nullity of Partition

HEIRS OF IGNATIO CONTI v CA

(Note that this case was already assigned to us pero yung issue
sa first time na inassign xa is definition ng succession and
filiation. Yung basics :D)

Conformably with the foregoing and taken in conjunction with Arts.

777 and 494[32] of the Civil Code, from the death of Lourdes Sampayo her
rights as a co-owner, incidental to which is the right to ask for partition at
any time or to terminate the co-ownership, were transmitted to her
rightful heirs. In so demanding partition private respondents merely
exercised the right originally pertaining to the decedent, their
predecessor-in-interest.

Petitioners' theory as to the requirement of publication would have

been correct had the action been for the partition of the estate of Lourdes
Sampayo, or if we were dealing with extrajudicial settlement by
agreement between heirs and the summary settlement of estates of small
value.[33] But what private respondents are pursuing is the mere
segregation of Lourdes' one-half share which they inherited from her
through intestate succession. This is a simple case of ordinary partition
between co-owners. The applicable law in point is Sec. 1 of Rule 69 of the
Rules of Court -
8 gigiheartsryuuk

Sec. 1. Complaint in an action for partition of real estate. - A person

having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as in this
rule prescribed, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his
title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is
demanded and joining as defendants all the other persons interested in
the property.

A cursory reading of the aforecited rule shows that publication is not

required as erroneously maintained by petitioners. There are two (2)
simultaneous issues in an action for partition. First,
whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be
partitioned, and second, if answered in the affirmative, the manner of the
division of the property, i.e., what portion should go to which co-owner.
[34]
Thus, in this case, we must determine whether private respondents, by
preponderance of evidence, have been able to establish that they are co-
owners by way of succession as collateral heirs of the late Lourdes
Sampayo as they claim to be, either a sister, a nephew or a niece. These,
private respondents were able to prove in the trial court as well as before
respondent Court of Appeals.

ALEJANDRINO v CA

The deed of extrajudicial settlement executed by Mauricia and Laurencia

evidence their intention to partition the property. It delineates what
portion of the property belongs to each other. That it was not notarized is
immaterial in view of Mauricia's admission that she did execute the deed
of extrajudicial settlement. Neither is the fact that the trial court only
mentioned the existence of such document in its decision in Civil Case No.
CEB-7028. That document was formally offered in evidence and the court
is deemed to have duly considered 16 it in deciding the case. the case. The
court has in its favor the presumption of regularity of the performance of
its task that has not been rebutted by petitioner Mauricia. Neither may the
fact that the other heirs of the Alejandrino spouses, named Marcelino,
Gregorio, Ciriaco and Abundio did not participate in the extrajudicial
settlement of estate affect its validity. In her amended complaint in Civil
Case No. CEB-11673, petitioner Mauricia herself admitted having acquired
by purchase the rights over the shares of her brothers.

LOPEZ v CA

Prescinding from the lack of co-ownership, petitioners' argument that they

are entitled to have the land partition must be rejected. Partition, in
general, is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in
common among those to whom it may belong. 45 The purpose of partition
is to put an end to co-ownership. 46 It seeks a severance of the individual
interests of each co-owner, vesting in each a sole estate in specific
9 gigiheartsryuuk

property and giving to each one a right to enjoy his estate without
supervision or interference from the other. 47 Not being co-owners of the
disputed lot, petitioners cannot demand its partition. They do not have
any interest or share in the property upon which they can base their
demand to have it divided.

BRAVO-GUERRERO v BRAVO

Petitioners have consistently claimed that their father is one of the

vendees who bought the Properties. Vendees Elizabeth and Ofelia both
testified that the "Roland A. Bravo" in the Deed of Sale is their
father,49 although their brother, Roland Bravo, Jr., made some of the
mortgage payments. Petitioners counsel, Atty. Paggao, made the same
clarification before the trial court.50

As Roland Bravo, Sr. is also the father of respondent Edward Bravo,

Edward is thus a compulsory heir of Roland Bravo, and entitled to a share,
along with his brothers and sisters, in his fathers portion of the Properties.
In short, Edward and petitioners are co-owners of the Properties.

As such, Edward can rightfully ask for the partition of the Properties. Any
co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property
unless a co-owner has repudiated the co-ownership.51 This action for
partition does not prescribe and is not subject to laches.

FIGURACION-GERILLA v VDA. DE FIGURACION

There are two ways by which partition can take place under Rule 69: by
agreement under Section 211 and through commissioners when such
agreement cannot be reached, under Sections 3 to 6.12

Neither method specifies a procedure for determining expenses

chargeable to the decedents estate. While Section 8 of Rule 69 provides
that there shall be an accounting of the real propertys income (rentals
and profits) in the course of an action for partition, 13 there is no provision
for the accounting of expenses for which property belonging to the
decedents estate may be answerable, such as funeral expenses,
inheritance taxes and similar expenses enumerated under Section 1, Rule
90 of the Rules of Court.

In a situation where there remains an issue as to the expenses chargeable

to the estate, partition is inappropriate. While petitioner points out that
the estate is allegedly without any debt and she and respondents are
Leandro Figuracions only legal heirs, she does not dispute the finding of
the CA that "certain expenses" including those related to her fathers final
illness and burial have not been properly settled. 14 Thus, the heirs
(petitioner and respondents) have to submit their fathers estate to
10 gigiheartsryuuk

settlement because the determination of these expenses cannot be done

in an action for partition.

In estate settlement proceedings, there is a proper procedure for the

accounting of all expenses for which the estate must answer. If it is any
consolation at all to petitioner, the heirs or distributees of the properties
may take possession thereof even before the settlement of accounts, as
long as they first file a bond conditioned on the payment of the estates
obligations.

CUA v VARGAS

The procedure outlined in Section 1 of Rule 74 is an ex parte proceeding.

The rule plainly states, however, that persons who do not participate or
had no notice of an extrajudicial settlement will not be bound thereby. 18 It
contemplates a notice that has been sent out or issued before any deed of
settlement and/or partition is agreed upon (i.e., a notice calling all
interested parties to participate in the said deed of extrajudicial
settlement and partition), and not after such an agreement has already
been executed19 as what happened in the instant case with the publication
of the first deed of extrajudicial settlement among heirs.

The publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice

to the heirs who had no knowledge or did not take part in it because the
same was notice after the fact of execution. The requirement of
publication is geared for the protection of creditors and was never
intended to deprive heirs of their lawful participation in the decedent's
estate. In this connection, the records of the present case confirm that
respondents never signed either of the settlement documents, having
discovered their existence only shortly before the filing of the present
complaint. Following Rule 74, these extrajudicial settlements do not bind
respondents, and the partition made without their knowledge and consent
is invalid insofar as they are concerned.

This is not to say, though, that respondents' co-heirs cannot validly sell
their hereditary rights to third persons even before the partition of the
estate. The heirs who actually participated in the execution of the
extrajudicial settlements, which included the sale to petitioner of their pro
indiviso shares in the subject property, are bound by the same.
Nevertheless, respondents are given the right to redeem these shares
pursuant to Article 1088 of the Civil Code. The right to redeem was never
lost because respondents were never notified in writing of the actual sale
by their co-heirs.
11 gigiheartsryuuk

BAUTISTA v BAUTISTA

The partition in the present case was invalid because it excluded six of the
nine heirs who were entitled to equal shares in the partitioned
property. Under the rule, no extra-judicial settlement shall be binding upon
any person who has not participated therein or had no notice
thereof. As the partition was a total nullity and did not affect the excluded
heirs, it was not correct for the trial court to hold that their right to
challenge the partition had prescribed after two years.

DACLAG v DACLAG

(The Extra-judicial partition of the estate of Candido Macahilig involving

the seven parcels of land was made only between Maxima and the heirs
of her two deceased brothers Mario and Eusebio.)

Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. - If the

decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the
minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly
authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of
administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by
means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds,
and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action for
partition. x x x

The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be

published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in
the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be
binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no
notice thereof.

Records do not show that there has been any case filed by the other heirs
who had not participated in the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition and were
questioning the validity of such partition. Thus, the resolution of the
present case concerns only the issues between the parties before us and
will not in any way affect the rights of the other heirs who have not
participated in the partition.
12 gigiheartsryuuk