ALEJANDRA IRLANDA vs CATALINA PITARGUE

G.R. NO. L-6920, March 28, 1912

FACTS:
Anselmo Irlanda died leaving only two sons Felix and Vicente and four tracts of coconut
land at Nagcarlang, Laguna. Upon the death of Anselmo, Vicente took possession of said
tracts because Felix was in Camarines engaged in business. Felix died leaving her
daughter and on that same year, Vicente died leaving Catalina Pitargue, and daughters
Augustina, Isabel, Sergia and Flaviana Irlanda, who took possession of the four tracts of
land in spite of the demands made at various times by the plaintiff. The court ordered
that the property be divided into two equal parts, one for Alejandra and the other for the
children of Vicente. Catalina Pitargue was sentenced to restore the heirs a sum at the
rate of P72 a year, as the value of the products of said lands up to the time when the
same were delivered, counting from July 1, 1902, to be divided into two parts in the same
way as the lands. The defendants were sentenced to pay the costs in equal proportions.
Counsel for the defendants excepted to this judgment and asked for a new trial, which
motion was overruled. Counsel for the plaintiff also excepted to the portion relating to
the amount of damages granted her, and further prayed that such portion of the decision
be annulled and a new trial ordered, which motion was overruled on December 22, with
exception on the part of the plaintiff. The corresponding bills of exception were
presented and by agreement of both parties merged into one, which after approval was
forwarded to this court. Hence, this appeal through bills of exception.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner has a right to claim on the property.

HELD:
Under article 807 of the Civil Code, the legitimate children and descendants, with regard
to their legitimate parents and ascendants, are heirs by force of law. The plaintiff as the
daughter of Felix Irlanda is the granddaughter and legitimate descendant in direct line of
Anselmo Irlanda, owner of the said property.

According to article 925, the right of representation shall always take place in the direct
descending line, but never in the ascending; and shall only be recognized in the collateral
line in the favor of the children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of whole or half
blood.

The grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of representation. (Art.
933, Civil Code.)

A half of the property left by her grandfather at his death cannot be withheld from the
plaintiff, because her father did not receive it in his lifetime, and as said property is still
undivided she has an unquestionable right to demand the partition thereof as heiress in
an intestate estate by right of representation of her said grandfather.

MAGIN RIOSA vs PABLO ROCHA et.al.

 G.R. No. L-23770, February 18, 1926

FACTS:
Maria Corral and Mariano Riosa had three children Santiago, Jose and Severina. The
latter died during infancy and the other two survived their father. Mariano left a will
dividing his property between his two children giving Jose the eleven parcels of land
described in the complaint. Santiago upon his death was survived by his spouse Francisca
Villanueva and two children Magin and Consolacion. Jose and Marcelina had a child who
died before Jose. Upon the death of Jose he left a will which he named his wife as his
only heir. The will of Jose was filed for probate. Notwithstanding the fact that Marcelina
Casas was the only heir named in the will, on account of the preterition of Maria Corral
who, being the mother of Jose Riosa, was his legitimate heir, Marcelina and Maria
entered into a contract which they divided between themselves the property left by Jose.
Maria sold parcels Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 to Marcelina. Marcelina then sold these
eight parcels of land to Pablo Rocha, however he returned parcels nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 to
Maria stating in the deed executed for the purpose that these parcels of land had been
erroneously included in the sale made by Maria to Marcelina. CFI denies the probate of
the will. On appeal, the Court reversed the decision of the lower court and allowed the
will to probate. By virtue of article 811 of the Civil Code these eleven parcels of land are
reservable property. It results, furthermore, that parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 still
belong in fee simple to Maria Corral, and that parcels 10 and 11 were successively sold by
Maria Corral to Marcelina Casas and by the latter to Pablo Rocha. Lastly, it appears that
Magin and Consolacion Riosa are the nearest relatives within the third degree of the line
from which this property came. Magin brought an action praying tha the property be
declared as reservable property and that Jose and Consolacion be declared reserves.

ISSUE:
Whether Magin Riosa should have been reserved by Marcelina in her favor.

HELD:
Yes. In the reserva troncal the property goes to the reservor as reservable property and
it remains so until the reservation takes place or is extinguished. In a reservation by the
widowed spouse there are two distinct stages, one when the property goes to the
widower without being reservable, and the other when the widower contracts a second
marriage, whereupon the property, which theretofore has been in his possession free of
any encumbrance, becomes reservable. If the property is sold during the first stage,
before becoming reservable, it is absolutely free and is transferred to the purchaser
unencumbered. But if the sale is made during the second stage, that is, when the duty to
reserve has arisen, the property goes to the purchaser subject to the reservation, without
prejudice to the provisions of the Mortgage Law. This is the reason why the law provides
that should the property be sold before it becomes reservable, or before the widower
contracts another marriage, he will be compelled to secure the value of the property by a
mortgage upon contracting a new marriage, so that the reservation may not lose its
efficacy and that the rights of those for whom the reservation is made may be assured.

It has been held by jurisprudence that the provisions of the law referred to in article 868
tending to assure the efficacy of the reservation by the surviving spouse are applicable to
the reservation known as "reserva troncal," referred to in article 811, which is the
reservation now under consideration. In accordance with article 977, Maria Corral,
reservor, is obliged to have the reservation noted in the registry of deeds in accordance
with the provisions of the Mortgage Law which fixes the period of ninety days for
accomplishing it (article 199, in relation with article 191, of the Mortgage Law.

Pablo Rocha is ordered to record in the registry of deeds the reservable character of
parcels 10 and 11.

ROSALIO BONILLA et.al. vs Barcena et.al.

G.R. No. L-41715, June 18, 1976
FACTS:
Fortunata Barcena, instituted a civil action before CFI Abra to quiet title over certain
parcels of land. Fortunata died during the pendency of the case and her counsel asked
for substitution by her minor children and husband but the court immediately dismissed
the case on the ground that a dead person cannot be a real party in interest and has no
legal personality to sue. The motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition
for review.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Fortunata can be subsituted by her children and husband.

HELD:
While it is true that a person who is dead cannot sue in court, yet he can be substituted
by his heirs in pursuing the case up to its completion. The duty of the counsel to inform
the court whereby a party who died has been complied with. The respondent Court,
however, instead of allowing the substitution, dismissed the complaint on the ground
that a dead person has no legal personality to sue. This is a grave error. Article 777 of the
Civil Code provides "that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment
of the death of the decedent." From the moment of the death of the decedent, the heirs
become the absolute owners of his property, subject to the rights and obligations of the
decedent, and they cannot be deprived of their rights thereto except by the methods
provided for by law.

MARIA USON vs MARIA DEL ROSARIO et.al.

G.R. No. L-4963, January 29, 1953
(**yung kabit mo na kaparehong pangalan ng asawa mo) hahahha :D

FACTS:
This is an action for recovery of the ownership and possession. Faustino Nebreda died in
1945 before the effectivity of the new Civil Code, he left no other heir except Maria
Uson. However, his common-law wife Maria del Rosario took possession illegally of said
lands. Faustino had four illegitimate children with Maria del Rosario.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the illegitimate children of Faustino are entitled to the inheritance.

HELD:

The property belongs to the heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor as
completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to them a deed for the same
before his death" (Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa, 17 Phil., 321). From that moment,
therefore, the rights of inheritance of Maria Uson over the lands in question became
vested. Under the old Civil Code, illegitimate children are not entitled to any successional
rights. The new right recognized by the new Civil Code in favor of the illegitimate
children of the deceased cannot, therefore, be asserted to the impairment of the vested
right of Maria Uson over the lands in dispute.

MARGARITA SALVADOR vs. HON. JUDGE ANDRES STA. MARIA, et.al.

G.R. No. L-25952, June 30, 1967
FACTS:
Celestino executed a deed of sale in favor of spouses Alfonso Salvador and Anatolia Halili
covering seven parcels of titled land and two parcels of untitled land situated in Bulacan.
Alleging that the sale was void for lack of consideration, he filed a suit for reconveyance
of said parcels of land before CFI, Bulacan Br. I (reconveyance court). Celesitino Salvador
died testate. Twenty-one persons were substituted as plaintiffs in the action for
reconveyance. Special proceedings for probate of will was instituted before CFI Bulacan
Br. II (probate court). Dominador Cardenas was appointed as special administrator.
There were instituted heirs in the will and there were also alleged relatives substituted in
the reconveyance. In the suit for reconveyance, the court ordered Alfonso and Anatolia
to reconvey the parcels of land to the instituted heirs. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
reconveyance with the correction that it be in favor of 21 substituted heirs. The CFI
Bulacan Br. II, in testacy proceedings, one of the parcels of land was sold to PNB so that
with its proceeds debtors who filed claims may be paid.

Br. I ordered PNB to release proceeds to 21 plaintiffs in the reconveryance however no

release was made since PNB was waiting for Br. IIs order. Br. II ordered the return of
the passbook to administrator.

The substituted heirs filed a present special civil action for certiorari with preliminary
injunction.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the parcels of land and the proceeds of the sale of one of them
form part of the properties of the estate?
2. Does final judgment in the reconveyance bar the disposition of the reconveyed
properties by the settlement court?

HELD:
It is a settled point of law that the right of heirs to specific, distributive shares of
inheritance does not become finally determinable until all the debts of the estate are
paid. Until then, in the face of said claims, their rights cannot be enforced, are inchoate,
and subject to the existence of a residue after payment of the debts.

At any rate, the proceeds of Lot 6 alone appears more than sufficient to pay the debt and
there will remain the other parcels of land not sold. As to the question of who will receive
how much as heirs, the same is properly determinable by the settlement
court, after payment of the debts.

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is denied, without costs. So ordered.

DE GUZMAN vs BENITEZ
G.R. No. 61167-68 January 20, 1989
FACTS:
Francisco Benitez was the only surviving child of Pascual Benitez and Camila Valenzuela.
Upon the death of Francisco, he has no descendants, nor ascendants nor brother and
sister. Dionisia whose father was the brother of Camila filed a petition for administration
of the intestate estate of Francisco and for the issuance of letters of administration.
Emeterio de Guzman opposed the petition on the ground that Francisco left a will
bequeathing the entire estate to him. Upon the death of Emeterio, he was substituted
by his heirs Fidel de Guzman. Petitioners for administration presented the testimony of
Dr. Jose Fernandez for the guardianship of Francisco on account of insanity. The court
rendered judgment disallowing the will and appointing Dionisia as administratix. On
appeal, the CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision of CA on account of incompetence of Francisco is correct.

HELD:
Plainly, the petition raises a purely factual issue, which we are not at liberty to review
because in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth, may be raised. The cardinal rule is that the trial courts, assessment of
the credibility of witnesses while testifying is generally binding on the appeallate court
because of its superior advantage in observing their conduct and demeanor and its
findings, when supported by convincingly credible evidence, shall not be disturbed on
appeal.