Wills Succession Atty. Sebastian Lecture Notes

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty.
Sebastian
 Art 774. Succession is a mode of Acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligation to
the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another
or others either by will or by operation of law.
 What are the modes of acquisition? (OLD TIPS)
O – Occupation
L – Law
D – Donation
T – Tradition
I – Intellectual property
P – Prescription
S – Succession
 Inheritance of a person consists of property, transmissible rights and obligations that survive the
person’s death.
 In the old code such was a virtual subrogation, there was no limit as to Property, Transmissible Right
and Obligations (PRO); but under the NCC the obligations will be to the extent of the hereditary
share.
 Art 391. (Presumption of death for purposes of succession)
1. A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage or on aeroplane which is missing, who has
not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;
2. A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years;
and
3. A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not
been known for four years;
4. BUT (Under ART 390) IF SUCH IS AN ABSENTEE it is 10 years to open up succession, unless he
disappeared after 75 years of age, 5 years will be sufficient.
 Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety;

Article 774 provides that by succession, the properties, rights and obligations of a deceased person
are transmitted through his death to his heirs either by his will or by operation of law. Hemady holds
that the contingent liabilities of the decedent are part of the obligations transmitted by his death to
his heirs. Accordingly, contingent claims against the estate of a deceased person arising from the
decedent's contractual undertakings under various indemnity agreements executed in favour of
various persons and entities are money claims which may be proved against his estate and/or heirs.
These contingent claims may be proved during settlement proceedings by an indemnified surety
even if in the meantime, no actual liability on the part of an indemnified surety has arisen by reason
of actual payment made under the suretyship agreement. Accordingly, Hemady holds that the
contingent obligations of a deceased person arising from his personal guaranty are not extinguished
by his death.
Thus, GR: Contracts are binding on the heirs as well due to NCC Art. 1311, which refers to the
“Principle of Relativity of Contracts”;
1
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian
Exception: When the obligation becomes intransmissible by the following

1) The nature of the obligation;
2) Stipulation of Law; or
3) Stipulation of the parties
 Pacio v. Billon;
Properties not validly conveyed by a person during his lifetime will form part of his estate upon his
demise. Pacio holds that a parcel of land which was not validly donated (propter nuptias) by the
husband to the wife did not leave his patrimony, and therefore formed part of his inheritance upon
his demise.
(It must be remembered in this case the mistake here was the application of the codes)
 Uson v. Del Rosario;

Article 777 provides that the right to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death
of the decedent. Accordingly, Uson holds that the inheritance pertains to the heirs from the
moment of the death of the ancestor as completely as if the ancestor had executed and delivered to
the heirs a deed for the same before his death. This transmission takes place by operation of law;
NCC was to be applied retroactively but could not impair vested rights. Since Faustino died before
the NCC took effect, the illegitimate children could not inherit because the recognized family had a
vested right in the properties. (Art 2253.)
 Bonilla v. Barcena;
The transmission of the hereditary estate from the decedent to the heirs takes place from the
moment of the death of the decedent. A prior judicial declaration of heirship is not necessary to
perfect the transmission. Bonilla holds that claims to or rights over property which were initiated by
the decedent during his lifetime by appropriate court proceedings are not extinguished by his death.
These claims or rights over property are transmitted to his heirs upon his death, thus may substitute
the decedent in the said case.
 Butte v. Manuel Uy & Sons Inc. (Yung small portion that ended up getting the whole- mayaman
toh)
The right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code is property. Thus, where a
decedent dies without having exercised a right of redemption (and provided it has not expired), the
said right shall be transmitted to his heirs upon his death. In this event, the right of redemption is
part of the inheritance. However, where the right of redemption was acquired after the death of
the decedent, the same pertains to the heirs directly in their individual capacities, and not
derivatively from the decedent. Butte makes a clear distinction as to when the right of redemption is
part of the hereditary estate, and when it is not. Accordingly, Butte clarifies the issue as to who may
exercise the right of redemption.
 De Borja v. De Borja;
The right to the inheritance is transferred to the heirs precisely at the moment of the death of the
decedent. From such time, the heirs are deemed to be the owners of the same. De Borja confirms
that from the moment of death of the decedent, the heirs begin to enjoy all the attributes of owner-
ship, including the right to dispose (jus disponendi). De Borja holds that the pendency of the
probate proceeding is no bar to the exercise of such proprietary rights, since ownership over the
hereditary estate has vested in the heirs from the time of the death of the testator.
2
De Borja must be distinguished from the prohibition against disposicion captatoria in Article 875 of
the Civil Code. Likewise, it must be reconciled with the provision of Article 784 which states that the
making of a will is a strictly personal act of the testator.
 NHA v. Almedia; (skipped)
 Go Ong v. CA (model case of how things should be)

She took out a loan based on certain land from the ACP after her husband died, now she claims that
the loan is void since there was no judicial notice.
 As per the SC: the mortgage is valid up to the conjugal share and hereditary rights of the
surviving spouse. (nothing more than your supposed to get)
 Important principle: we can dispose from the moment of death.
*Theoretically you can mortgage part of your undivided share, but in reality no one would do
that.
 Reganon v. Imperial (new law patterned to this case)

You can garnish or attach share of an heir BUT you cannot garnish or attach a specific property,
since the hereditary share has not been liquidated and you don’t know if he will get that specific
property.
 But we must also distinguish between heir and legatee, who can be subject to garnishment or
attachment.
 Salvador v. Sta. Maria (a case borne out of stupidity and laziness)

Sale is contended to be void, due to simulation and no payment actually made. There are two cases
here in the same court house but different branches; the seller/owner dies.
Seller/Owner ----------------------- Buyer
Branch II Branch I
1) Handled probate of the will 1) Action for reconveyance

(23 people involved in the will) (21 people as substitutes)
3) Decision of the court is to give them 2) went to the CA, who had the property reconveyed
The land to the 21 substitute, since supposedly the contract is void
6) 21 did not want to give land, since the decision of the

court is final and executor and they have valid title
 The problem here 9 people in the will where not substituted and the decision was final &
executor.
 SC said “21, your rights are derived from the owner or better yet his estate; subs lang kayo, thus
no ownership
* As per sir: Tanga ang CA, they should have it ordered it back to the estate and not to the 21
substitutes
3
 Ramirez v. Baltazar ( Rights of the heirs)

The creditors initiated settlement proceedings against the estate; Diawan, the deputy clerk of court
was made administrator of the estate since Ramirez failed to qualify. Diawan initiated a trial by
commissioners which was allowed by the court without providing notice to the heirs, heirs in turn
was not present since they had no idea of such proceeding. Diawan was receiving uncontested
evidence from the creditors as commissioner.
 The duty of the administrator is to defend the estate, what Diawan was doing was receiving
evidence against estate that he is suppose to defend.
 SC: IF the administrator does not want to do the job as he should, the heirs have a right to assert
and protect their interest despite their being an administrator assigned.
 Requisites for extra judicial settlement

1. No will
2. No debts
3. Heirs are of legal age
 In any case, if such gets questioned, you still bring it to court.
 ART 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.
 Puno v. Puno Enterprises (Art. 777 not applied)

The illegitimate child succeeding from his father’s death, has rights over the property of his father
upon the moment of death of said father. The father had shares of stock within Puno Enterprises.
Now the child wishes to inspect the company’s books.
 The SC held: Despite Art. 777, which is inherent from the point of death, one still cannot obtain
the right to the property right away in certain instances.
 The illegitimate child got his right over the property BUT his right as a shareholder is something
else, thus he cannot check the books of the company and until properly registered as a
shareholder as per the Corporation Code.
 Lesson: though he may have under Art. 777 acquired rights to the stock, he may not inspect the
books for the corporation code provides those who could inspect are stockholders of record,
meaning those names listed in the “Stock & Transfer Book”; thus until your name is listed there,
there is no rights to such
 Reyes v RTC (Art 777 not applied even if shareholder)

Almost the same facts as Puno, but here the son who has a stockholder himself in the company
wanted to look into the records of the mother. Naturally the company denied the son’s request for
inspection, since the share he requested to inspect was his mothers.
 The SC decision was: Your (PRO) that you inherit are inchoate.
 As per SC, the estate has to go through liquidation first to pay the debts.
 As per Atty. Sebastian: The use of Inchoate is WRONG!!! Remember the case of Butte? You do
not need to pay the obligations with the property and rights that you inherited, that’s why
4
Angela was able to get the whole property!!! Thus the property and rights are not inchoate until
you pay the obligations since you can choose to pay out such in order to maintain the property
as a whole. This is also wrong for tax and debt reasons. (For Bar purposes unless you can
properly defend don’t use).
 Santos v. Lumbao (difference of ideal share from specific prop )

They bought an ideal share or proindiviso share of the property from Rita and then spouses Lumbao
built a house on a portion of the property they bought.
 The SC held: what they bought was an ideal share and not a specific portion of the property,
they should have not done that but in any case they cannot be denied to a portion of the
property. An approved project of partition is required.
 Blas v. Santos (Future Inheritance) read the case before exams (pg.55 ng scra?)
When the 1st wife died, the property was not divided thus when he remarried the PR of wife 1 was
infused with the PR of wife 2. To make sure there would be no quarrel in the family of the testator
between his kids from his 1st marriage and wife 2, a compromise agreement was made. The wife
gets half and then her half will go back to the kids upon her death. Wife 2 agreed to such. The
relatives of wife 2 questioned such as an agreement to future inheritance which by law is void.
 SC Held: that what wife 2 compromised where her own shares that she rightfully received.
 Example of future inheritance
Henry C --------------- Big Boy such becomes a future inheritance and is VOID
Worth $6 Billion can inherit $1 Billion
Takes out a loan based on the $1
Billion he can inherit for 10M a year ₊ 5% Interest
 Art. 781 (relate to Art 440 “accrue”)

 Under Art. 440, the accession follows the principal.
 Succession is a mode of acquisition, once you acquire the property you own such, and with it its’
fruits as an owner.
 Which is why you file the fruits not as an amended estate tax but rather as part of
your income tax return.
 Art 781 has a purpose nonetheless
 For 1) Taxes & 2) for the creditors
Objects Meaning they cannot claim the fruits unless the creditors are paid
 As per Atty. Sebastian: “is it a stupid provision? NO stupid lang ang pagsulat”
 Art. 793 (Property acquired after making the will)
5
 As per Atty. Sebastian: Para no problem: “if any other property not listed to be divided this
way”
 The Difference between Art 781 and Art 793.
781 793
As to application No other application except to ensure Is to still give the testator the
payment of debt opportunity to decide
When it takes place After the opening of Succession Refers to properties gain after making
the will during the testator’s lifetime
Testatrix Dead Alive
 In relation to Art 793, application

 How can you still distribute the totality of your estate?
 Institution of heirs ---- fractional parts
 Requests (Legacy or Devise) – Specific personal prop or specific real prop respectively
 Characteristics of a valid will (usual bar question)

1. Purely Personal – What can be and cannot be delegated; (the what, the who, and the
determination of the portions to give are dispositions which cannot be delegated;
2. Mortis Causa;
3. Dispositive of Properties – must dispose of P&R, if not it is not a valid will;
4. Ambulatory – it is an act of liberality, thus it can be revocable any time;
5. Free Act – done without duress;
 Under Obligations and Contracts what are the essential requisites for a valid contract
(a) Consent - characteristics of a valid consent
1. FREE
a. There is no undue influence (Art. 1337)
b. There is no violence (Art. 1335)
c. There is no intimidation (Art. 1335)
2. INTELIGENCE; and All required for consent
a. There is no mistake (Art. 1331) to be proper
3. SPONTANEOUS
a. There is no Fraud (Art. 1338)
(b) Subject; and
(c) Cause
6. Unilateral Act – there is only one person talking and what he wants is what should happen;
as compared to a contract which requires 2 or more for a meeting of the minds;
7. Formal – follows the formalities provided by the code in Art. 804-808 and Art 810;
8. Statutory Right – you can make a will only since the law allows you to do so.
 As per Atty. Sebastian: no need human rights and& crap daw to explain it.
6
 Art 785 (what can be and cannot be delegated)

 What can be delegated to a 3rd person is the (1) the distribution of specific property or sums of
money that he may leave in general to specified classes or causes and also (2) the designation of
the persons, institutions or establishments to which such property or sums are to be given or
applied.
 If a 3rd person is disqualified, since he is not a reputable person, the “trinity of corruption” will
take his place.
 Municipal Mayor, Municipal Judge of the same Municipality & the Municipal Treasurer.
 Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon (Testamentary Preference)

 The testatrix purposely divided her property so that there can be no co-ownership, thus no
project partition was done. The heirs fought since the distribution was not even. The estate was
assessed at 1.8M and what was given to Marina was 1,148,000.00, thus the legitimes of the
other 7 were affected. Marina wanted to pay-off missing amounts to complete the legitimes of
her siblings, other heirs wanted more, SC agreed with Marina.
 SC said, Control of disposition, the testator wanted to favour one of the heirs over the others,
who are we to question such, the testamentary preference of the testatrix must be preserved,
furthermore, Art. 906 to add to what is missing in the legitime.
 Art. 789 (Ambiguities)

 Patent Ambiguity (Apparent) – by reading the will, you see the problem;
 Latent Ambiguity (Non-Apparent) – it is in the execution of the will that you will then see the
problem.
 How do you cure the ambiguity
 Rule 130 sec. 9 of the Rules of Court; “Parole Evidence Rule”
 What is written in the agreement of the parties cannot be over-tuned by oral
proclamation.
 There are exemptions
 Extrinsic Evidences to such
 Thus we must first look into the will in its totality, then when there is no chance to resolve
such, we go to extrinsic evidence (intention first)
 What is extrinsic evidence
 All kinds of evidence except oral declarations or testimonies of the testator.
 Why no oral testimonies are allowed
 Testatrix cannot refute such, being dead – (Dead man’s statute rule in Evidence)
 Testate Estate of Adruna Maloto v. CA (Extrinsic Evidence)

 Made a will but later got angry with the heirs, had the will burned by the maid, in doing so the
requisites for revoking a will by burning was not met, thus no actual revocation; thus a working
7
draft of the said will submitted by the Atty. for probate was accepted as extrinsic evidence of
the said will.
 Villafor v. Juico
 Don Nicholas left his properties to Fausta with a condition that if she would ever remarry after
his death, the said properties would go to Leonor. Fausta on her part never remarried and when
she died left everything to Juico (the supposed lover).
 Leonor laid claim to the properties to which Juico contended that when the properties were
transferred to Fausta she became absolute owner and had the right to do whatever she pleased
with the said properties
 SC: what she got was a usufruct being what she got was the right to use and possess and not
naked title, if Nicholas wanted to give it to Fausta, he could have done so without conditions,
thus the interpretation that is to be followed is what gives effect.
 What you look for in a will in terms of validity.
Extrinsic (as to FORM) – form, capacity, due execution

WILL
Intrinsic (as to SUBSTANCE) – substantive provision
Probate only looks at the extrinsic

Form
1) Time – Law in place (what the law is) at the time of the execution of the will.
2) Place – Philippine law or Law of where your located
Substance
1) Time – What the law is at the time of death
2) Place – National Law.
 Bellis v Bellis (Law in play – making of the will vs. when the testatrix died)
 The formal validity of a will depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time of
execution of the will. On the other hand the substantive validity of the dispositions therein are
governed by the laws in force at the time of death of the testator.
 Who can write a will?

 Natural person, 18 years of age and of sound mind
 Requisites for sound mind:
1) He knows the nature of his estate; though because of Art
2) Proper objects of his bounty (knows who is going to get such); and 799 not necessary req
3) The character of the testamentary act anymore (need not
In perfect mental health)
8
 De Guzman v. Intestate of Franciso Benitez

 The important factor here is that the medical records of the testator influenced the factual
findings of the probate court.
 Lee v. Tambago ( 3 fold objective of the formalities of a will)
 Lee accused Tambago of notarizing the will without the formalities of law being followed. Lee
claims that there is no actual will, since no residence certificate was obtained, no copy of the
will can be found in the archive and the signatures of the witnesses may be forged.
 Residence Certificate use to be a valid form of identification, under new law gov’t id
with picture is needed. (pero TIN is allowed, WTF?)
 The Atty. Herein denied such but by blanket denial (Thus under RoC becomes admission)
 SC agreed with Lee and gave the 3 FOLD DOCTRINE OF THE FORMALITIES OF A WILL as provided,
which are as follows:
1) To close the door on fraud;
2) To prevent substitution of pages; and
3) To guaranty the will’s authenticity.
 Why do we have so many stringent rules for succession that are not applied in other form of
documents such as contracts?
 Lesson: “A will is actually a dead man speaking to us”, since the testatrix is dead he
cannot challenge authenticity duh!
 As per Atty. Sebastian there are 2 things wrong with the decision
1) The only actual issue in the case was if the will was actually notarized, Justice Corona did not
answer the said question instead he gave out a definition of a will and the requirements of
such. What is the relation to the issue? I don’t know but thanks for the 3 fold objective that
came from interpreting such.
2) Tanga! How can anyone say that as a rule, if there is no residence certificate and was
written in the acknowledgement was the testatrix old residence certificate, the will is not
valid? The purpose of a residence certificate is for identification of those who are witnesses
in front of the notary only? Magisip-isip naman sila.
Atty. herein should have been disbarred, bobo kasi!
 Definition of “acknowledgement” before a notary public

 Jurat – sworn statement/ affidavits This is what the notary should
 Acknowledgement – Deed/ Contracts attach or affix.
 Thus must be remembered a will is not a statement but rather a deed (disposition of prop)
 Suroza v Honrado (language must be understood)

 The opening paragraph of the will it was stated in English that the testator understood English
but in the concluding paragraph it stated the will was read and translated to Filipino for the
testatrix. This coupled with the fact that she did not sign such will but rather thumb marked it,
infers that she was actually illiterate.
9
 Atty. Sebastian: The reason for the language or the dialect must be known to the testator is
because of the 3 fold rule held in Tambago. Because of the bad faith or fraud, how can you now
be sure of its authenticity? The judge here made a stupid decision, the heir lost out, thus only
correct to go after him, dapat ma disbar din toh, isa pa tong tanga!
 Reyes v. De Vidal ( Disputable presumption)

 Testatrix died and a will, there was no descendants or ascendants only sibling involved, where
one got and the other did not. Lower court ruled against the probate citing language not known
to the testator, since there was no admission that the testatrix knew the language in the will.
 SC: you do not need to state if the language is known to the testatrix since there is a disputable
presumption that they do in deed know.
 In the case at hand, first of all it should have been presumed that testator knew Spanish and the
other siblings who contest such, must now bare the burden of proof to show otherwise. But
what really killed this case was the fact the atty. was “bobo” submitting a letter that showed the
testator had written such in Spanish, who submits contrary evidences to your own claim?
 Balonan v. Abellana (for 3rd persons, where to put testators name)

 The will here in was written at the bottom
Juan Abello and not Anacelto Abellana
who happens to be the testator.
 The will is then denied probate since it was
void for not following Art 805; which requires
that the testator himself shall affix his
signature or by the writing of the testators
name for a 3rd person.
 Atty. Sebastian: the reason for such is technical;
It is to clarify whose will it is or better said who
is the actual testator of the will (substantial compliance cannot apply herein); it does not matter
who signed such, what matters is the name of the testator, it can always be clarified as to who
signed such anyway in the attestation clause.
 Garcia v Lacuesta ( Don’t lie, admit mistakes)

 What was written in the will is simply his name. The problem came about in relation with the
attestation clause which said it was signed by the testator himself as accompanied to what was
stated in the will under the testator’s name, which said at the request of the testator. This
created doubt if the testator did actual sign such.
 Because of the doubt and “+” mark beside the name of the testator that is claimed to be his
signature, there can be no assumption of compliance.
 Atty. Sebastian: To better understand this case you have to look into historical aspects of such,
which first in the 40’s and 50’s people were more trustworthy thus it was accepted the “+” mark
was a mark of an illiterate and was accepted as their signature. Secondly the testator was not an
10
illiterate, the lawyer only claimed such to say there was no doubt, which is wrong; SC took it out
on the testator will being that the lawyer lied, so don’t lie, if you made a mistake admit it and
they might show favour upon you.
 Nera v. Rimando (Test of Presence)

 There was 2 rooms, a big room and a small room that could not
Accommodate everyone. Thus all but one of the witnesses were
In the small room with the testator. Thus a question if the third
Witness actually witness the execution of such will.
 SC: The test of presence does not ask whether they actually saw each
The others sign, but whether they might have seen each other sign; in the case at bar, though
the 3rd witness was in a separate room such in itself would not be necessarily the factor for the
failure of the test, it is that, coupled with the fact that there was a curtain that blocked his view
that caused the failure of the test of vision and proximity.
 It must be remembered a witness has 2 capacities: 1) to attest and 2) to subscribe; both of
which must be done in the presence of the testator, witnesses and of one another.
 Taboada v. Rosal (Attestation v. Subscription)

 There is a will which consist of 2 pages. The 1st page contained the entire testamentary
disposition which was signed at the bottom by the testatrix alone and by the 3 witnesses on the
left margin. The 2nd page contained the attestation clause and the acknowledgement.
 The Issue herein is the fact it must be subscribed at the bottom of the will.
 SC: The denial of probate was wrong and emphasized the difference of attestation and
subscription and their purpose as well.
 Attestation – consist in the witnessing of the execution of the will and to take note
mentally that the requisites of the will were followed.
 Subscription – is the signing of the paper for the purpose of identification.
 Icasiano v. Icasiano (good idea to keep a copy)

 One of the pages of the will was not signed by one of the witnesses, thus the will’s authenticity
was questioned.
 SC: There is a duplicate original which has all the signatures on all pages of the will, the said
duplicate cures the defect, furthermore this case was a mere oversight, witness could be correct
in saying that she might have lifted it and flipped 2 pages by accident.
 Carbon copy – used carbon completely
 Duplicate copy - the documents are copied but the signatures are all original
 Note: no computers pa back then!
 Atty. Sebastian: emphasized that “fraud and undue influence are mutual repugnant and exclude
Each other, their joining as grounds for opposing probate (as like in this case), shows an absence
of definite evidence against the validity of the will.”
 Art. 1338 – provides for what is fraud – voluntary act
11
 Art. 1337 – for undue influence – non-voluntary act

 In other words BOBO ang lawyer, can’t be the same.
 Cargo v. Cargo (Attestation Clause must be signed below)

 This case must be correlated with the Taboada case wherein
The placing of the signature was at question.
 The difference in this case is what is concerned was the
Attestation page, which serves a different purpose as
Explained in the Taboada case
 Since the signature was on the left margin and not at the
Bottom of the page, the will is void for the formalities of the
Law must be followed.
 Atty. Sebastian: An attestation is a statement of a witness that
If it is not signed, then it is as if there is no attestation for in turn there is no actual statement
made because of the lack of the signature.
 The purpose of an attestation clause is for the witness to admit that the formalities of law was
without a doubt followed.
 Lopez v Liboro ( 2 page sequence)

 The will consists of 2 pages. The first page for the
Dispositions, the other for the attestation
 Art. 805 requires that the pages be numbered, in order
To prevent pagination/substitution of the pages.
 It must be noted: this case was covered under the old
Code, which does not require a notary public but the
Reasoning is still sound nonetheless. (If there is a notary there will be other ways to redeem the
said defects.
 As per the SC: the 1st page clearly follows the 2nd, thus there is no pagination and possible fraud
was avoided.
 Samaniego-Celada v. Abena (Attestation Clause is part of the will)

 It is being argued that the will consist of 2 pages but the attestation clause state 3 pages.
 Error in the attestation clause as to the number of pages is not necessarily fatal.
 Atty. Sebastian: Bobo! Don’t even know how this got to the SC or even why it is assumed the
attestation clause is not part of the will.
 There are really 3 pages, and without the 3 page which is the attestation clause, the will
is void, so duh kasama yan!
12
 Abada v. Abaja ( no. of witnesses need not be stated on the attestation clause)
 The facts are too long, the main point as to succession is even if the attestation clause does not
state the number of witnesses, if it can be seen in the will that there was 3, then there is
substantial compliance (seen in the sense 3 signed duh!)
 Lesson: Art 809 provides for the liberalization of interpretation in the Attestation Clause, thus it
must be remembered substantial compliance only happens in regards to the attestation clause.
 Reason for such: Is the fact that the Attestation Clause is not an act of the testator but of the
witnesses combined, thus should not fault the testator as much as possible.
 Azuela v. CA (Stupidity/bayaran)
 There are 3 defects in the case at bar that the court overlooked.
 1st the AC did not state the no. of pages – As per SC, cannot apply Taboada since in Taboada the
number of pages is stated elsewhere in the will, in this case it is not.
 2nd AC, witness did not sign at the bottom – Completely forgot or ignored the principle laid down
in Cargo.
 3rd The notary attached a mere jurat instead of an acknowledgment – Atty. Sebastian, “ first of
all “nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayon 10 ng Hunyo” is not even enough to be a jurat, being in
a jurat there is a statement the such is to “certify that such is the truth” as you know it.
 Furthermore, in the will everything was left to Felix the nephew who supposedly took care of
the decendent, despite the fact the decendent had a daughter in the states and the
grandchildren, meaning the will should have been set aside since the decendants were petirited.
(thus obvious bayaran).
 De Ramos v. CA (credibility)
 Main issue is if the testimony of the 2 witnesses who opposes to what they have attested to, will
be good enough to deny probate of the will.
 Decision of the SC; Since the attestation clause is placed there to ensure that all formalities be
complied with and beyond such the lawyer was involved in every stage before passing it to
another lawyer who notarized such, both lawyers gain nothing, nor is there any showing of
mischief on their part. – Relate to function of notary.
 As per Atty. Sebastian, there was 2 problems:
 (1st) is the credibility of the 2 witnesses; and
 (2nd) Parole Evidence Rule – when the terms of an agreement (includes wills) have been
reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all terms agreed upon and there can
be, between the parties and their successor in interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of a written agreement. (Rule 130 sec. 19 of the rules of court – there
are exemption also).
 Garcia v. Gatchalan (Article 806 is a must)

 Art 806 must be followed, the will must be notarized before a notary public by the testator and
instrumental witnesses.
13
 This is to make sure the will is authentic but void for non-compliance.
 Cruz v. Villasor (Notary as a witness also – stupid if notarizes such)

 Issue here stems from the fact that one of the instrumental witnesses is also the notary who
notarized the will, thus there is a question now as to the fact of whether there was a lack of
witnesses to the execution of the will.
 Lesson: A notary cannot be a witness to what he is supposed to notarize himself.
 Atty. Sebastian: “Bobo, claro ng 806 notarized before the notary public; to notarize is an act of
swearing that such is the truth, how do swear under oath to yourself? Bobo talaga!” More so
the function of a notary public is to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements, in the
said case such purpose was defeated.
 Guerero v. Bihis (It is the responsibility of the testator to check the authority of the notary)
 The will was notarized in QC but the notary was commissioned only for Caloocan City.
 SC: the will is void despite the fact it could be authentic, for lack of authority of the notary to
notarize such, the testator should have checked the credentials.
 Atty. Sebastian: Mga tanga what part of “before a notary” don’t people understand, wag
magtamadtamad at puntahan na lang yung notario sa office niya to notarize.
 Gabucan v. Manta (Doc Stamps)

 Atty. Sebastian: Court should have just ordered the doc stamp requirement to be complied with
instead of denying probate
 Lesson: get doc stamps for what documents need doc stamps, mura lang naman yun!
-------------------------------------------- End Art 804 – 806 -----------------------------------------------------
 Art 807. (Deaf or Deaf-Mute Testator)

 If the testator be deaf, or deaf-mute, he must personally read the will, if able to do so;
otherwise, he shall designate two persons to read it and communicate to him, some practicable
manner, and the contents thereof.
 Art 808. (Blind Testator)

 If the testator is blind, the will shall be read to him twice; once, by one of the subscribing
witnesses, and again, by the notary public before whom the will is acknowledged.
 Garcia v. Vasquez (what is blind in the legal sense)

 The issue herein is to determine is whether or not the testator is blind for purposes of Art. 808.
 The witness said she saw the testator read the will silently but the doctor on the other hand
testified that because of her glaucoma she would not have been capable to read the will,
despite being able to relatively see things.
 … (lost portion)
14
 Alvarado v. Gaviola (Substantial Compliance – blind)

 Like the previous case, testator had glaucoma, SC ruled though that there was substantial
compliance despite the fact the provision of law as provided in Art 808 were not complied with,
specifically the two readings, 1 by a subscribing witness and by the notary; SC used Art 809. As
basis for the substantial compliance.
 Atty. Sebastian: Substantial compliance should only be in regards to the Attestation Clause, as
provided by Article 809.
 Article 1234 of the NCC (law on substantial compliance)
 As per Tolentino, The following are the requirements of substantial Compliance:
1. Attempt in good faith to apply such;
2. No wilful deviation;
3. Deviation must be slight; and
4. Deviation must be technical or unimportant.
 Atty. Sebastian comment: the ruling was most likely made because of the illegitimate son, to
ensure that he would not inherit just like the testator wanted; but the manner of how the SC did
it was still wrong.
 Gil v. Murciano
 Art. 809 enunciates the doctrine of liberal interpretation; Absence of bad faith, forgery, fraud or
undue influence or other defects, such will not render the attestation clause invalid and if the
will is in fact proven to be executed and attested, substantial compliance will do.
 In the case at bar, it was not stated in the attestation clause if the testator signed in the
presence of the witness but was stated that such happened in the body of which, thus the SC
allowed such under substantial compliance.
 Caneda v. CA
 Affirmed the ruling in Gil v. Murciano but denied probate; the circumstances of the case play a
vital part.
 The involves a reconstituted will that was obtained from the records of appeal (from the CA),
since the original was lost due to the war. SC did not allow such due to the lack of the original
copy of the will.
 Roxas v. De Jesus (Holographic will and the date requirement)

 The holographic will is being questioned in the case since what was written in the said will was
“FEB/61’” as the date instead of the required format which is “MM/DD/YR”, as stated by the old
code. The said will was also in a form of a letter to her children.
 Atty. Sebastian: The decision is correct pero tang-ina substantial compliance ulit!
 Why is the date important?
1. To check if there is testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will;
2. Testamentary Capacity referring to the fact testator is at least 18 years of age and is
with sound mind.
15
3. Thus depending on the situation of the testator the year alone will do.
 Labrador v CA (Position of the date)

 The case at bar involves a holographic will that is not dated specifically but is nonetheless the
date can be found in the body of the will in the 2nd page.
 Atty. Sebastian: Article 810 does not in any case prescribe where the date should be, thus it is
for all extensive purpose allowed.
 The Secrecy of the holographic will is allowed
 Atty. Sebastian: the purpose of the holographic will or any will is to create preferences,
such preferences makes it understandable to want to keep the will secret. “para yung
mga ibang membro ng pamilya ninyo hindi kayo gagaguhin kasi maskonti yung bibigay
ninyo sa nila”.
 Gan v. Yap (Need the will itself)

 The holographic will was lost; it was claimed that 5 people had read it and the testator wrote it
in secrecy since she was afraid of her husband.
 SC: The will itself must be submitted in order that Article 810 be considered complied with, it is
needed to check the genuiness of the hand writing, without such, its genuiness cannot be
established.
 Atty. Sebastian: Mga Gago talaga, rehearsed pa yung testimony ng 5, parang they tried to
memorize everything. Lesson ditto always submit the will for probate.
 Side comment: Decision cited photostatic copy, such are not valid anymore, still need the
original now.
 Rodelas v. Aranza (Photocopy not allowed and why)

 In this case the holographic will was also lost.
 SC cited in footnote 8 of the Azola case which said a machine copy should be allowed, thus the
SC sent the case back to the trial court.
 Atty. Sebastian: Still need the will itself to prove authenticity. How do you prove authenticity?
 With the handwriting in the original copy
 What do you look for in the original?
1. The strokes;
2. The pressure applied to the document; and
3. Speed applied in writing such.
- Such can only be seen in the original, not in the photocopy!
 Action – there is a plaintiff and a defendant, where the results will declare one or the either the
winner of the case.
 Special Proceeding – There is no plaintiff and defendant here instead what you try to establish
here is the existence of a right, fact or status; thus there is no winner necessarily;
16
 Atty. Sebastian: The Rodelas decision is WRONG!!! They did not have to disturb the principle laid
down in Gan v. Yap; furthermore such was a special proceeding, they didn’t have to decide the
way they did to make a winner, mga bobo!
 Azola v. Singson (contested Art. 811 of the 3 witness rule making such DIRECTORY only)
 Art. 811 is clear, if the holographic will is contested 3 witnesses must be presented but if
uncontested only one is required. The issue in the case is whether the 3 witness rule directory or
mandatory in nature.
 Atty. Sebastian: The great JBL Reyes took pains to properly explain why the rule is DIRECTORY,
pointing out that is not as to the quantity of witnesses but rather the quality of the witness that
is important. What makes or breaks such is the credibility of the witness. Thus if all but one of
the witnesses died, it would still be enough provided that the remaining witness is credible.
 Codoy v. Calugay (contested Art. 811 of the 3 witness rule making such MANDATORY only)
 In this case there 6 witnesses that were presented, all of which were not credible at all, thus the
SC correctly ruled that it should be denied.
 Atty. Sebastian: The Justice who decided the case, Justice Pardo whose background in law
comes from the fact he served in COMMELEC (kaya mahina sa civil law), made an error in the
manner of how the case was decided. Pardo basically made the 3 witness rule mandatory based
on the word “shall”. His reasoning as compared to JBL Reyes in the Azola is out classed (mahina
talaga yan).
 Further comment: The rule or doctrine of law on how the SC is to overturn a previous decision,
is that it must be En Banc, which in the case at bar did not happen, division lang siya, bobo
talaga ba!
 Rivera v. IAC ( Joke time lang case)

 This was an attempt to look into the 3 witness rule once again but was aborted when it was
found out the said illegitimate child was actually an imposter.
 Probate is for Testamentary Succession

 There are 2 parts that take place in a testamentary succession.
 Part 1 – Probate Proper (this and only this happens in a probate court proceeding)
 Must satisfy the following
I. Capacity – which checks if the testator was 1st of proper Age and 2nd of sound mind.
II. Formalities As to Notarial Wills – Art 804-806
As to Holographic Wills Art. 810
III. Credibility – as to witnesses and documents
IV. Free Will
 If all is satisfied, then the court shall issue a probate order which in turn conclusively
proves (items I-IV).
17
 Note: all Items must be present in the will.

 Note: a probate order is a FINAL order, thus the remedy for such will never be certiorari
but instead appeal.
 Part 2 – Partition
 Refers to the Substantive Portion of the will.
 Kalaw v. Relova ( must sign changes to a holographic will)

 Art 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or alteration in a holographic will, the
testator must authenticate the same by his full signature. (Note: only for holographic wills).
 In the case at bar, testator wrote a will where Rosa was an heir but later due to rumour
mongering which did not put the testator the testator at ease, the testator decided to cross her
name off and write above it Gregorio instead.
Problem herein was that there was no signature as to
The correction as provided for in Art 814.
 There is no question that the hand writing is authentic,
The issue here is whether or not Rosa will get the
Inheritance since the alteration to the will was
Not signed by the testator.
 SC ruled: Rosa cannot inherit based on the rules on
Revocation (Article 830) and Gregorio cannot inherit
Based on Article 814.
 Ajero v. CA
 Ajero upholds the proposition that article 813 & 814 do not form part of the requisites for
formal or extrinsic validity of the holographic will, thus failure on the part of the testator to
observe the requirements of Art. 813 & 814 will not justify the disallowance of the will, but
relevant provisions may be disallowed
 Proof is not appropriate in Part 1 (Probate proper), where only the 4 are looked into.
 VDA. De Perez v. Tolete

 What was probated abroad under foreign law, does not automatically become accepted here.
Proof stated in Art. 816 is required.
 Joint Will
 A joint will is where 2 or more people make a will in a single instrument.
 Such will is VOID, since the characteristic of the will being purely personal is violated.
 Why? You run the risk where one spouse over powers the other spouse with undue
influence if allowed.
18
 Art. 819. Wills, prohibited by the proceeding article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall
not be valid in the Philippines even though authorized by the laws of the country where they may
have been executed.
 Art. 16 of the New Civil Code. … however, intestate and testamentary succession… and to the
amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity… shall be regulated by National law
 Property – Lex Situs – law of the place where the thing is found.
 Exception for testamentary and/or intestate succession
 Order of succession
 Amount of Successional Rights National laws of the decendent; in
 Intrinsic Validity of testamentary provisions re to this lex celebrasionis shall yield.
 De La Cerna v. Rebaca (Joint will that got through)

 A joint will of the spouse was accepted and probated, no one challenged such, thus partition
was and it became final and executory.
 When it was submitted again the 2nd time around when the wife died for the estate of said wife
the court ruled that such will is null and void for being a joint will.
 SC, the final judgement in the 1939 (the first case) an error in judgement as it is, has obtained
finality thus cannot be disturbed, but said error does not bind the court on account of the other
spouse (the wife).
 Atty. Sebastian: This will had to be resubmitted since the wife died under the New Civil Code,
but if it was somehow allowed to go through now (despite its illegality but like the situation of
the husband), you can have both probated at the same time, since the new code allows probate
ante mortem, which the old code did not.
 Qualifications of a witness to a notarial will

1. Of sound mind; For capacity and the age also for showing
2. At least 18 years of age; one’s maturity
3. Must not be blind, deaf or dumb;
4. Must be able to read and write; To help the proceeding move faster and
5. Must be domiciled in the Philippines; for better witnesses
6. Must not have been convicted of falsification
of a document, perjury or false testimony; Credibility
7. A witness who is NOT a notary at the same time Cruz v. Villasor
 Relate such to the 3 credible witness (Art. 805) and Competent Witness (Art. 820 and 821)
 Gonzales v. CA (Credibility is determined by the court)

 The witnesses were objected despite their meeting the criteria of Art. 820 & 821, the argument
is that they might be competent but they are not credible.
19
 SC ruled, credibility does not need to be proved by the witnesses; in fact that is the task of the
trial court to determine such, what may be proved is the competence (can be inferred also)
 Sir: ang desperado naman yung atty. masaya siya! Another example of a case that should have
never gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
 Article 823. What happens when the witness is a beneficiary in the will as well?
 When the witness is also a beneficiary, he will remain a valid witness but the provision on the
beneficiary is void.
 Void as to the witness himself, his spouse, ascendants and descendants, and anyone
claiming under such person and ss, asc &dsc.
 Why? The law considers it as an attempt to bribe the witness, the witness may be tempted to do
whatever to get the will to pass probate.
 Exception: when there are 3 other witnesses not including him in the 3. (4 or more duh!)
 Article 1027 ¶4 (Those who are incapable of succeeding)

 … Any attesting witness … spouse, parents or children or anyone claiming under such witness,
spouse, parent or children.
 It does not provide for an Exemption (conflicting laws)
 Art. 1027 ¶ 4 is an attack on one’s capacity
 Art. 823 is an attack on the legacy or devise it self
 Atty. Sebastian: I am of the opinion the incapacity is absolute but there is still no decision on
such, so masaya kayo ulet!
 Article 824.
 When the creditor is a beneficiary also, it is allowed for him to be a witness to the will
 Atty. Sebastian: The reason for such is that the interest is not due, the fact the debt is secured
through the debtor’s estate, thus no interest. (He will get what is his no matter what, yun lang);
 BUT it must be under a written stipulation, if it is not stipulated, tantamount to a donation.,
then it cannot proceed anymore
 (Have no Idea what is being discussed here, sorry had too much to drink)
 Doctrine of Incorporation by Reference

 The requisites as provided by Art. 827 are as follows:
1) The document or paper referred to in the will must be in existence at the time of the
execution of the will;
2) The will must clearly describe and identify the same, stating among others the number
of pages thereof;
3) It must be identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the document or paper referred
therein; and
4) It must be signed by the testator and the witnesses on each and every page, except in
cases of voluminous books of accounts or inventories.
20
5) Atty. Sebastian’s example: Yung mga bumbay, the 5/6

 Everything he lent is/are account receivables (AR), if there are 1,300 customers with
their own AR’s, merely use the article to include the listahan into the will.
------------------------------------------ MIDTERMS COVERAGE END-----------------------------------------
 Revocation
 Testamentary capacity is required and it must be ambulatory

 Why must it be ambulatory? Making a will is an act of liberality and cannot be given effect until
death, thus he should get to choose to keep or remove some from the will.
 How to Revoke a Will
 FIRST, By Implication of Law – needs a statutory provision (THERE ARE ONLY 7)

1) Art 936. Revoked if testator brings action for payment of debts (READ!); must connect
with Art 935 where:
 Inherit a “legacy of credit” – Accounts receivable
 “legacy of remission” – Condonation of debt
2) Art 957. Provides 3 effects which make legacies and devises ineffective:
I. Change of form of the subject (ex: Flour was left as a legacy but it was later
made into bread;
II. Change of title (ex: A legacy of a car was stated but later sold) – exception
though as to such is through the right of repurchase
III. Specific property is totally lost (ex: there was a legacy of a car than ondoy
happened)
3) Art 1032. Incapable of succession by reason of unworthiness (¶ 4 does not apply since
there is no law)
4) Art 43 ¶5. Spouse who contracted a subsequent marriage in bad faith, cannot inherit
from the innocent spouse – relate to Art 42- reappearance of absent spouse.
5) Art 44. Where both spouse of subsequent marriages acted in bad faith – Marriage is
void, thus donations and testamentary dispositions made in favour of the other are
revoked by operation of law.
6) Art 50. (Must be connected with ¶ 2,3,4 & 5 of Article 43 and Article 44) Splitting of
properties, legitimes and alike.
7) Art 63 ¶ 4. Legal separation, offending spouse cannot inherit from the innocent spouse.
 SECOND, By subsequent will or codicil (can be done in 2 ways)

1) Implied Revocation
 Example:
2001------ Will 1 made ------- Institutes A as universal heir
2011------ Will 2 made ------- Institutes B as universal heir
21
- Being there is no reconciliation based on the facts, thus the latter

expression of intent is given effect and the former is revoked
2) Express Revocation
 Example:
2001 --- Will 1 made ------ Institutes A as universal heir
2011 --- Will 2 made ------ States “I revoke 2001 will; all to B”
- The 2nd will must be intrinsically valid (as to form); If the 2nd will is denied
probate the 1st will can be submitted for probate (Theory of dependent
relative revocation)
- Requirements: A) it must be express and B) revocatory will must be valid.
o The difference of the 2, in regards to a 3rd subsequent will
- Implied
2012 – Will 3 made --- States “I revoke will 2”
 such will make will 1 operative again (it is revived)
- Express
2012 --- Will 3 made --- States “I revoke will 2”
 Despite what is stated will 1 is not revived, since will 2 in its
revocating clause expressly revokes will 1 (thus cannot be revived).
 Third, Overt Acts
o Requisites for Overt acts ( as provided in the Adriana Maloto Case)
I. Intent to revoke;
II. Testamentary Capacity;
III. Preformed the overt act which is authorized by law; and
IV. Substantive completion.
o What are the overt acts mentioned by the codal? (only 4) 1) Burning, 2) tearing, 3)
cancelling, or 4) obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it.
o Atty. Sebastian: Is “scissoring” allowed? In a 1950’s case the tribunal supremo or the
Spanish supreme court said yes but no case yet in the RP
o Is “pouring acid” the same as burning, since the subjective phase is complied with? NO,
it should only be the four stated acts, but lucky for you there is no authority on it yet.
o Subjective phase – depends on the state of mind of the testator.
 Doctrine of Republication (To make the will valid) (2 ways to republish)

 1st, void as to form (Art. 804-806, 807 & 808 and 810)
 Remedy: Redo it again correctly the next time around or for holographic wills rewrite
the said will; ONLY IF IT IS VOID
 2 , Lost its validity – revoked
nd
 Remedy: Execute a codicil;

“I revive the (no. of pages) will which was revoked on (date)” – By mere reference.
22
 Art 832.
2001 --- A is the universal heir
2011--- “I revoke will 1, all to B”
But B repudiates.
 What Article 832 says, A cannot get such on the count of B’s repudiation or incapacity, will stays
in effect.
 Exception: If A is also an intestate heir, get from there.
 Revocation based on False Cause

 There is a revoking will - what you do is deny such, show that the testator falsely known such,
to which if he knew the truth he would not have done such
 This is hard to do because of the parole evidence rule
- Thus it is important that the 2nd will state the reason for revocation.
 But in overt acts, no parole evidence rule unlike another will or codicil, parole evidence
is a must.
 Cannot rely on oral testimony – Dean Man’s Statute
 Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (The need to probate a will)

 There was a will, and following such will there was an inheritance and partition wherein the heir
took possession of what they were given under the will but there was no probate the happened.
 The issue is if a will not submitted to probate would support a claim of ownership and get the
title for the property.
 Article 838 requires probate.
 Atty. Sebastian: Palpak yung pagkusulat ng decision. J. Ynares – Santiago attacked the issue
incorrectly going after the right to dispose in the case forgetting the fact the testator here was
still alive. Bobo.
 Heirs of Rosendo Lasam v Umengan

 It emphasizes the necessity of probate, without which, a purported will cannot be the source of
any right and could not be relied upon to establish the right of possession.
Turingan H Lasaw
(4 Children) (2 Children)
Niece, Vicenta; claims 4/6 Claim that father willed them all
Since she bought out the other 3 heirs
 Vicenta won; no probate of the will (since it was lacking formalities) plus she had a deed of
donation and 3 deeds of sale with her.
23
 Gallanosa v. Arcangel
 In the case at bar there was a probate order which was final.
 In a probate proceeding – probate is limited to testamentary capacity and due execution
of the will; thus final on 3 things 1. Testamentary capacity, 2. Formalities of the will; and
3. Identity; making these 3 now uncontestable.
 Wanted to annul the will and reopen probate.
 Law does not allow to reopen probate proceedings and there is no such thing as annulment of
the will.
 Maninang v. CA (exception to the exception – Nuguid)

 Testator Clemensia made a holographic will, in which she left everything to Solidad Maninang &
husband Pamping and she did not recognize Bernardo as her adopted child.
 Bernardo claims he was peterited thus the will is null & void and the will cannot go to probate
while the contention of Maninang is that probate looks only into the extrinsic validity thus there
is no basis for Bernardo’s claim to stop probate and moreover he was also disinherited.
 Bernardo correctly cited the case of Nuguid v. Nuguid and Balanay v. Martinez which allowed
the court to delve into intrinsic matters before determining the extrinsic matters when the
situation calls for such.
 SC in this case said the will should not be denied on dubious grounds as a matter of public
interest, if not what would be the point of having a probate proceeding to begin with.
 Atty. Sebastian: the GR is probate is only extrinsic; exception to the rule – Nuguid v. Nuguid;
exception to the exception Maninang v. CA.
 Before the family code – PD 603 adoption, legitimacy was based on blood, thus cannot confer
such to an adopted child.
 SIDE NOTE, SC DIFFERENTIATED PETERITION FROM DISINHERITANCE.
 Petrition – consists of the omission by the testator in the will of one of the forced heirs,
whose effect shall anull the institution of heirs in Toto with exception to devices and
legacies.
 Disinheritance - is a testamentary disposition depriving a compulsory heir of his share,
the effect of such; In the case of INEFFECTIVE DISINHERITANCE shall anull the institution
of heirs but only as far as it prejudices the disinherited heir
 Pastor Jr. v. CA (Title of ownership in probate proceedings)

 Atty. Sebastian: This a case where corruption in the judiciary is obvious.
 Spanish father, Alvaro Pastor, left to his illegitimate child, Quemada, 30% of a mining claim.
Originally the mining claim was held by Pastor and two others.
 What happened here was that the process was not followed. The holographic will was probated,
wherein the judge gave 30% to Quemada but did not resolve anything else after such and even
worse the court made Quemada was made administrator. (gago yung judge)
24
 The importance of the case is the jurisdiction of a probate court to determine the issue of
ownership.
 G.R.: The court should not rule on ownership but rather only extrinsic validity only of the
will itself.
 Exception: For the purpose of determining whether a certain property should or should
not be included in the inventory of the estate properties, the probate court may pass
upon the title thereto, but such determination is provisional and not conclusive and is
subject to the final decision in a separate action to resolve title.
 Quasha & Nolasco Law Office v. LCN Construction Corp. (Advance distribution and bond)
 Sec. 2 of Rule 109 of the Rules of Court – Advance distribution of the property is allowed when
the court deems it proper and just, permit that such part of the estate as may not be affected by
the controversy or upon appeal be distributed among the heirs, upon compliance of Rule 90 of
the Rules of Court.
 Section 1 of Rule 90 of the Rules of Court – Distribution is allowed, provided they give a bond to
be set by the court, conditioned for payment of said obligation when the court directs such.
 Jimenez v. IAC
 The probate court as a rule cannot pass with finality on issues affecting ownership of the
property; the case at bar provides though that the said limitation applies to proceedings in
intestacy also.
 The intestate court can award such provisionally and the parties are not bound be res judicata
to institute a separate and subsequent independent action on the matter.
 Ozaeta v. Cuartero (undue influence must be substantiated)

 The case is in regard to the estate of Palanca. Manuel Roxas was the administrator of the estate
but was later replaced by Ozaeta, who is rumoured to have resigned early from the CA to
become the administrator of such.
 The validity of the will was challenged, there was a claim that undue influence on the part of
one of the heirs (Rosa) took place. The presence of undue influence being a vice of consent
should make the will void.
 SC – The allegation of undue influence must be substantiated by competent evidence of such.
Mere inferences resulting from the circumstance will not suffice, especially when the will was
attended by respectable members of the bar (Roxas and Ozaeta).
 Moreover, after living with Rosa, he left and resided elsewhere for 5 years, giving the decedent
time to rethink the will without the said influence. Thus “even if there was undue pressure and
influence to be proved, the contents of the will would have been deemed ratified, if having be
given ample opportunity to revoke the same”.
 Undue pressure and influence is a frame of mind, if such stops, he can now act on his
own and do as he pleases.
25
 Coso v. Fernandez (mere influence is NOT enough)

 Mere influence is not sufficient to invalidate a will. The influence must overpower and subjugate
the mind of the testator so as to destroy his free agency and make him express the will of
another, rather than his own.
 Atty. Sebastian: SC made a mistake in giving the mistress a portion.
 Pascual v. De la Cruz (repugnant of one another) – skipped case

 Twin grounds were alleged FIRST was undue influence and the SECOND was fraud, the court
here only considered the undue influence which fell short of the standard thus the will was
allowed probate.
 Pick one, cannot have both grounds since one ground is repugnant of the other ground herein.
 Ortega v. Valmonte – skipped case

 Roberts v. Leonidas – skipped case
 Nepomuceno v. CA (Intrinsic validity, exemption)

 While the general rule is that the probate court’s area of inquiry is limited to the extrinsic
validity of the will, practical considerations may compel the probate court to pass upon matters
of intrinsic validity, where a testamentary provision is void on its face, probate court may pass
upon such provision for the purpose of proving the nullity of such.
 Dorotheo v. CA
 The case distinguishes between the extrinsic and intrinsic validity of the will. It holds that the
admission of a will to probate does not necessarily mean the provisions of the will can be given
effect. Even as the probate order is issued, it is not a guaranty that the testamentary
dispositions is valid. Extrinsic is one thing, intrinsic is another.
 Article 839, 3 grounds for disallowing the will.

 First. Lack of capacity;
 Second. Lack of formalities;
 Third. Vice of consent (force, duress, fear or threats and fraud)
 Barreto case (not assigned) – not wrong to influence, what is wrong is undue influence;
pressure alone or influence alone is not enough to invalidate the will.
 Institution of heirs, 2 ways to distribute

 Institution – The beneficiary is the heir – to receive an aliquot part and not specific property.
 Bequest – Beneficiary is Devisee who is to receive a specific real property
Legatee who is to receive a specific personal property.
 Requisites of the institution of heirs

a) It is extrinsically valid (3);
26
b) Dispositions are intrinsically valid;

c) No vice of consent in making the institution;
d) The institution of heir is made personally; and
e) The institution of heir is specifically named of identifiable
 Art 886 (Preserves the legitime for the compulsory heirs)

 Atty. Sebastian: This is primitive, most countries do not this.
 How do you institute an heir?
 State the name or make him/her identifiable
 Objective is to specify a person
 Must be born or conceived when testator dies
 Since succession opens from the moment of death, the entitlement only begins then.
 Can you institute an unknown person?
 Yes, provided it is unknown but certain later.
 How is the sharing?
 Institutes a, b & c to the entire estate worth 150K
 Heirs Shares Total
A 1/3 50K
B 1/3 50K As willed by the testator
C 1/3 50K
Total: 150k
 What is A is a legitimate heir?
 Heirs Shares Total
A +25 75K Atty.: this is a suggestion, in order to
B -12.5 35.5K allow as much as possible the will
C -12.5 35.5K of the testator to apply.
Since the 50K each is what the testator wants, it should be first done,
since this is his wish and it should be respected. THEN we get a total of
25K from B & C equally to complete the legitime.
This applies only if it is not stated that the legitime is to be paid separately, thus if asked
in the bar it depends on the question.
 If the testator institutes brothers and sisters where some are full and others are half-blood?
 Article 848, they are inherently equal unless provided otherwise.
 Article 1006 for intestacy, full blood gets double the share of the half-blood (2:1)
 Article 849. (When the testator calls to the succession a person and his children, they are deemed
to have been instituted simultaneously)
 Ex: “Toto and his children” and there are 6 children, they acquire it together.
27
 Thus, if the estate is 240K it will be 7 ÷ 240 = 34.2 each

 This article was made if not only Toto would acquire such – which would be generally void
unless under Art. 863.
 False Cause
 GR: gratuitous transmission of property based on a false cause does not make such transmission
void, thus just simple ignore such.
 Exception: if it shown that the testator would not have done such transmission if he had known
that such was false.
 2 things to remember
a) The cause must be stated; and
b) You are limited to the parole evidence rule and the dead man statute rule.
 Austria v. Reyes (False Causes)

 Establishes the rule on false causes, which are as follows:
1. Disregard such, unless can be proven testator would not give such if he knew the truth.
2. Check if the cause is stated
a. If not disregard.
b. If it is, is there substantial evidence of such; if there is none disregard it will be classified
as inference and conjectures only.
 Preference on testamentary over intestate succession.

 The migration to intestate creates vacancies.
 Remember DRIP
 D – Disinheritance (controlled by the testator)
 R - Repudiation
 I – Incapacity not controlled by the testator
 P – Predecease
 Remedies
 (1) Substitution - an act controlled by the testator – limitation: no legitime
 (2) Repudiation – limitation: The heir of the heir who repudiates has no right of representation.
 (3) Accreation – Inherent and taken from the free portion (only when these 3 cannot take place
do we go intestate.
 Other Theories
 Paras – ISRAI
 I – Institution, S – Substitution (if not appropriate), R – Representation (if not appropriate), A –
Accreation, and still cannot be I – Intestate.
 Puno – The theory of Paras is good but in complete since there are time you do not need to go
to SRA in ISRAI which is in cases of P – Peterition, and R – Reserva Troncal.
28
 Thus PRISRAI
 Atty. Sebastian – it is still in complete. PRISRAIRA (not sure of my notes is r is for representation
again and A for accreation again, must research)
 Article 851 & 852

 Are examples of vacancies caused not by DRIP but rather failure in math
 Para sa mga tanga sa math.
 Article 851 (example)

 Given:
a. Total estate – 150K
b. Will states no Compulsory heirs
c. Institutes X – ½, Y – 1/3 and Z – 30K
 Numbers Equivalent:
X – 1/2 of 150 = 75K Does not match the estate of 150K
Y – 1/3 of 150 = 50K and cannot subtract 5 to make 150K
Z – 30K = 30K Thus share must be adjusted.
Total = 155K
 Formula to adjust the share

(Total inheritance x share of heir) ÷ Total distribution
X - = 72.5
Y - = 48.3 Total = 149.82
Z - = 29.02
 Another Example – same given but now X – ¼ and Y – ¼

X – ¼ = 37,500 45K missing, cannot just add the said amount.
Y – ¼ = 37,500 must apply the same formula to
Z– 30K increase the shares.
Total = 105,000
X – (150,000 x 37,500) ÷ 105,000 = 53, 571.42
Y – (150,000 x 37,500) ÷ 105,000 = 53, 571.42
Z – (150,000 x 30,000) ÷ 105,000 = 42, 857.14
Total = 149,999.94
 Peterition
 The Philippines is the only country that does legitime (California does also but not a country).
 This is made effective through Article 906, 854 and 1061 of the Civil Code, all of which aims to
protect the legitime.
29
 Article 906 – add is missing

 Article 854 – peterition
 Article 1061- collation
 Requisites of Peterition
(1) There is total omission (2) of a Compulsory Heir (3) in the direct line and (4) he/she must be
alive or conceived at the time of death.
 Reyes v. Barreto – Datu (What is meant by total omission for peterition)

 In the case, he received something thus, 906 is the correct article to apply.
 Total omission requires
1. Heir who was excluded got nothing by will;
2. Gets nothing by intestacy (free portion fits);
3. Nothing by way of advances – like donations (as per NCC every donation is considered
an advance)
4. Support but must distinguish from FC and NCC, thus must distinguish between support
and gift, since gift can stop peterition.
 Article 856 (there are only 3 compulsory heirs)

1. Descendants Legitimate
Illegitimate
Adopted
2. Ascendants Grandparent
Parent
3. Spouses
 Balanay v. Martines & Nuguid v. Nuguid

 Heir must be alive to be peterited, since there is no chance to inherit if you are dead, thus when
succession opens he must be present.
 Conceived child is deemed born (300 days? And Art.41, access required)
 Nuguid v Nuguid (exception to the extrinsic validity)

 While Article 854 annuls merely the institution of heirs, the court is justified in declaring the
entire will void if the only testamentary disposition in the questioned will is the institution of the
universal heir. In such a case, the effect of nullification of the testamentary disposition would be
the same as the nullification of the will itself.
 Balanay v. Martinez (extrinsic first then substantive)
 Unless the nullity is patent on its face, the probate court should first pass upon the extrinsic
validity of the will itself before passing upon its substantive validity.
 In peterition you annul the institution of heirs completely.

 Thus heirs gone but legacies and devises remain, so long they do not prejudice the legitime.
30
 Aznar v. Duncan ( peterition and legacy and devise)

 Article 854 can no longer be claimed if the testator gave by way of will, a legacy or devise, thus
not deemed peterited.
 Additionally foreign law not proven so RP law applied (Art. 906 should be applied).
 Cayetano v. Leonidas (no peterition for a foreign testator)

 There is no peterition in case of a foreign testator who omits his/her compulsory heirs in the
direct line.
 Seangio v. Reyes (disinheritance is a property disposition)
 Where the sole disposition of a purported will is the disinheritance of a compulsory heir, the
disinheritance is considered a property disposition.
 The failure of the testator to institute an heir or to even mention by name any of the
compulsory heir, per se, does not constitute peterition. Especially here in this case were the only
compulsory heirs mentioned as a witness.
 Acain v IAC
 Surviving spouse should not be peterited and adopted child also, as they were herein
 Atty. Sebastian:
 Intentionally omitted – the institution is void
 Invalid disinheritance – institution is not void, it only affects the legitime
 Peterition may also be accidental
 Seatwork
 Set of facts:
Net estate – 210
Heirs – A, B & C
who are legit kids
X – gets 80 by will
Y - gets 40 by will
Impairment of the legitime
 There are only 2 types of substitution, Simple and Fideicommisary Substitution.
 Simple Substitution
I. Brief – only has 1 substitute
II. Compendious – There are at least 2 substitutes
III. Reciprocal – (69 hehehe)
31
 Implementation
 Brief – is the usually case and it is one is to one, “property to A with B as a substitute” to cover
RIP (R – Repudiation, I – Incapacity, and P – Predecease) of A.
 Compendious –
A B C
Or Note: A will only get B’s share in case of RIP
B C A
 Reciprocal – Legacy or Devise
Note: RIP of B does not give the entire amount
to X and Y
75 = 37.5 each
- A & B Subs for and X & Y; X & Y subs for A & B

Note: Legitime computed separately.
 Seatwork
 The facts:
1) A is the sub for B & C and
B & C are the subs for A;
A repudiates;
A, B & C are voluntary heirs; and
Estate is 210.
Divide the estate.
2) Same set of facts but now

Instead of voluntary heirs they
are all legitimate children and
have different shares as provided.
32
 Fideicommisary Substitution (FCS)

 The goal is to prevent perpetuities in succession. Transfer of property in succession from
One generation to another
Example: UK succession line of the crown
 Perpetuities was allowed in the old code but is no longer allowed in the Civil Code because of
the concept of juridical capacity. Juridical capacity begins at birth and ends through death and
since your dead you cannot own anything, one of the exemptions is Fideicommisary substitution
 What happens in FCS?
 Upon death of the testator, 2 heirs simultaneously inherit.
 1st heir has the right to the beneficial use of what was inherited.
 2nd heir, when the time designated has elapsed or if the 1st heir dies, he/she will receive
the thing inherited.
 Requisites for FCS
1. Institution of 2 heirs only, to inherit simultaneously;
2. The relationship of the 2 heirs is one generation apart (father-son and son-father);
3. At the time of death of the testator the heirs must be alive or conceived;
4. Made in an express manner; and
 Can be done in 2 ways
 Such is directly stated; or
 He states “1st heir is to use and preserve for the 2nd heir
5. The substitution cannot burden the legitime (Art 886)
 Ramirez v. Ramirez – SC ruled that one generation apart means parent (1st) heir then child (2nd
heir) OR Child (1st heir) the parent (2nd heir).
 Article 869. A provision whereby the testator leaves to a person in whole or part of the inheritance,
and to another the usufruct, shall be valid. If he gives to various persons not simultaneously but
successively, the provisions of Article 863 shall apply.
 As per Atty.: an example of which is where title is not given – usufruct.
 Are the heirs in FCS co-owners?

 No because of how it is titled in the papers.
 If the 1st heir dies, the 2nd heir receives it under a simple substitution but if the 2nd heir dies, the
1st heir gets it completely. (double check)
 Since the 1st heir does get ownership over the property, can he have it titled?
 Yes he can, but he still has the obligation to preserve and transmit to the 2nd heir.
 There is no decision issued by the Supreme Court yet, to clarify if the 1st heir is a trustee.
 As per Atty. Sebastian: the 1st heir is not a trustee but rather an owner.
 The institution is not a mere usufruct, it is rather an obligation subject to a resolutory
term (due to the certainty of death at the least).
33
 Succession is a mode of Acquisition, thus the attributes of ownership exists, but such is
limited by the testator in terms of “to preserve and transmit”.
 Can you alienate the FCS?

 There is no case law on the matter yet.
 At first glance the answer should be No.
 Atty. Sebastian (opinion only): If the 1st heir sells such to someone in good faith and for value
under the law of sales it should prosper (but not under the law on negotiable instruments it
won’t prosper). Thus it should also be ok to sell such property but subject to a resolutory term,
so the 2nd heir can still get it after.
 Rights of the 2nd heir

 To inherit simultaneously with the 1st heir;
 The right to use is suspended (thus as per Atty.: the 1st heir has a better right than the 2nd heir)
 Article 867 provides for what is void and prohibited. FCS is will not take effect if:
(1) Fideicommisary substitutions which are not made in an express

manner, either by giving them this name, or imposing upon the fiduciary
the absolute obligation to deliver the property to a second heir;
(2) Provisions which contain a perpetual prohibition to alienate, and
even a temporary one, beyond the limit fixed in article 863;
(3) Those which impose upon the heir the charge of paying to various
persons successively, beyond the limit prescribed in article 863, a
certain income or pension; and
(4) Those which leave to a person the whole or part of the hereditary
property in order that he may apply or invest the same according to
secret instructions communicated to him by the testator.
 If the substitution is void but the institution is valid then the will is not affected but not vice-versa.
 If the FCS is to be put in the title, it should read as “X (1st heir), subject to FCS, to Y (2nd heir)”.
 If the 2nd heir predeceases the 1st heir
 (DOUBLE CHECK REQUIRED) It shall go the heirs of the 2nd heir but not through right of
representation but inherit it in his own right, from the 2nd heir and not from the first heir.
 What is a condition – a future and uncertain event (or unknown past event).
 What is a term – a future but certain event.
 Institution refers to an aliquot part not a legacy or devise.
 Example of a term
 Suspensive – 10 years after T’s death.
34
 Resolutory – up to 2019; return everything but the fruits.
 Example of a condition
 Suspensive – A passes 2106 Bar Exams.
 Resolutory – While you remain single.
 Impossible condition
 4 impossible conditions
1. Physical impossibility
2. Legal impossibility
3. By public order, policy, good customs and morals
4. Contrary to the laws of nature
 2 types of impossible conditions
 Absolute – only the obligation becomes void, set aside only the impossible one.
- Shows the perversity of the Testators’ mind, never intended to give
- The law penalizes the testator for making a mockery of such.
 Relative – it is allowable
 Rodriguez v. CA (impossible condition)

 As per Justice Fernando – follow what the dead wants, yield obedience, thus in the case at bar
the testamentary disposition prohibiting the alienation of the property was not held to be void
BUT the same provision in the excess of 20 years was held void.
 Impossible Conditions as to time.

 The best example here is the Dangerous Drugs Act.
 Shabu was not illegal at that time
 Thus if valid, then after becomes not valid = “loss of the thing due”
 At the time said condition was made, it was impossible = such is void even if repealed.
 As to the time for succession

 As per Sanchez Roman – seen in the execution of the will, from that point the perversity was
obvious thus it is void.
 As per Ricardo Puno – In or during the fulfilment of the condition, we only make a judgement as
to its impossibility when the moment arrives, example “when man goes to the moon”.
 Note: Puno sounds good but does not refute Sanchez Roman furthermore there is no decision
to what is correct.
 Suspensive Condition
 You inherit right away but your right to claim is inchoate (administrator while you wait).
 If such condition can no longer be fulfilled – then substitution, accreation and the last option to
be applied intestacy.
35
 Disposcision Captatoria
 They make a condition that each other will, will the other. Making the will contractual in
character, thus is void.
 Alienatory Contract – fulfilment depends on chance.
 Only the survivor gets, thus it becomes like gambling.
 The important factor here is that – there is someone that is required to make a will.
 It is only wrong if such agreement is stated in the will, in order to show each other that they did
put such provision.
 Potestative Condition – Absolutely dependent on the will of the heir.

 Casual –
 Mixed – part will and part chance
 Suspensive Term
The property will be under the care of the intestate heirs
 Cannot appoint an interim heir for it will be violative of Article 863
 The transfer contemplated in Art. 863 is in reference to the one degree apart rule thus only
2 transfers.
 Resolutory Condition
 Return everything including the fruits
 Resolutory Term
Intestate heirs that must be alive at the time of death of
Testator.
Term that is to be enjoyed by he who is named in

the will.
 Rabiddilla v. CA (Modal Institution – Lease, Sell and etc. but do what is obligated)
 Rabidilla received a devise of a sugar land, with the obligation to give Coscoluela 75 export
grade and 25 local grade picols of sugar, totalling to 100 picols or 6,000 kilos.
 Rabidilla died and his heir did not continue to give the picols.
 SC said, the language of the will is one of a lifetime obligation, thus the obligation of Rabidilla is
now an obligation of the heir until Coscoluela dies. (PRO)
 This is a Modal Institution, meaning the institution imposes an obligation upon the heir or
legatee/devisee but it does not affect the efficacy of his right of succession. As compared to a
Condition, which must take place or be fulfilled in order for the heir to be entitled to succeed.
36
 Condition suspends but does not obligate, mode obligates but does not suspend.
 If there is a conflict the presumption is that it is a modal institution not a condition.
LEGITIMES
 Francisco v. Francisco-Alfonso (legitime – it is not a product out of generosity but rather one
because of statutory law).
 Simulated contracts of sale to the illegitimate children,
where no consideration was given based on the fact
they had no capacity to pay, in order to hide such property
from the legitimate daughter.
 SC, Legitime is a portion of the estate reserved by law for
For the compulsory heirs; the attempt to deprive someone of their rightful legitime is not
tolerated by law.
 Castro v. CA (as to the illegitimate child, liberal application)

 There is no question that the said child is an illegitimate child, therefore she is a compulsory heir
thus deserves to inherit under law.
 SC, applied the more liberal provisions of the family code as the basis for such, stating Article
256 of the Family Code provides “retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights”.
 Tayag v. CA (as to illegitimate child, strict application)

 Same facts, same law but SC here ruled differently
 Which way to go, hell if I know.
 Legitime – Go ahead and distribute for the legitime does not affect your right to give but ensures
that there is amount reserved to be claimed by the compulsory heir.
 SEATWORK
 A, B and C are heirs
 C is a universal heir but not a Compulsory heir.
 Thus, the distribution of what is willed ok and is valid.

 Correct distribution is A gets 1/3, B gets 1/3 and C gets 1/3
 What is willed does not clash with the legitime.
 Article 887 has a mistake (corrected it in the codal, check it out)

 Connect with Art 992, Segregation of legitimate and illegitimate family
 (Art 887 lc/ld inherit from lp/la etc.)
37
 Article 992. Segregation of mistress

Illegitimate and legitimate
family – law presumes animosity
between the two families.
Legitimate is supposed to believe

that such are a blemish on their name;
oppression against the illegitimate THE IRON WALL, Thus, X cannot inherit from the 3
 Illegitimate child in the Civil Code was changed by the Family Code, there were 3 classes then
 Natural child by legal fiction - attempt to marry but void (1/2 of LC)
 Acknowledged Natural Child – needs fathers recognition or judicial order (1/2 of LC)
 Acknowledged Spurious Child – parents who have impediments to marry (2/5 of LC)
NOTE: NO LONGER EXISTS WITH THE FC
 Baritua v. CA (Legitimate parent excluded by legitimate child and spouse)

 Decedent died in a motor vehicle accident. The family of the victim settled the case to which the
parents of the decedent were not pleased about.
 SC, while legitimate parents are considered Compulsory Heirs of the legitimate child, they are
Secondary Compulsory Heirs and only inherit in default of the legitimate children and
descendants, thus they have no right to request/demand for indemnification for the death of
their deceased child.
 Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. (Effect as to divorce)

 A foreign divorce validly obtained by a foreign national in a foreign court against a Filipino
spouse produces the same effect in the Philippines.
 The Obiter Dictum here is what is important - it suggests that the divorce decree should likewise
terminate the status of the foreign spouse as a compulsory heir of the Filipino Spouse.
 3 types of Compulsory Heirs

1. Primary – Legitimate Children and Descendants (including adopted child);
2. Secondary – Parents and Ascendants; and
3. Concurring – Those who do not exclude each other (like spouse and illegitimate children).
NOTE: Connect and memorize with table of legitimes.
 Liquidating – If on 8/31/88 and after Family Code, thus if no prenup ACP, BUT if before Family Code
it is CPG.
 Compulsory Heirs: 1) Legitimate/Adopted & illegitimate child IF NONE 2) parents, if their dead other
ascendants IF NONE 3) Surviving Spouse.
 Article 36 of the Family Code: “Declaration of Nullity” not annulment

 Children are still legitimate (still Primary CH)
 Atty.: this is weird nullity nga tapos legitimate pa rin?
 Surviving Spouse is not a CH.
38
 Legal Separation
 The innocent spouse can inherit from the guilty spouse but the guilty spouse is incapacitated to
inherit from the innocent spouse.
 How to Divide
Step 1) if there are Primary Compulsory Heirs – Divide in half

2) Divide between portions provided specifically per
Class heir – LC and adopted child by default and if
None LP or legitimate ascendant.
If any remains, under the control of the testator.
Given: Estate is 120K; “A” is an illegitimate child; “B” and “C” are
Legitimate children with a “Surviving Spouse”.
Step 1) 120 ÷ 2 = 60 (which is now the strict legitime)

Step 2) 60 (strict legitime) ÷ 2 (for B and C) = 30
Step 3) SS gets same as B & C = 30
Step 4) 30 (share of LC) ÷ 2 = 15 share of illegitimate
Thus, the movement for computation is from strict legitime to
free portion as seen in the diagram.
 Seatwork
 Same facts only there are more illegitimate children “D”, “E”, and “F”
The illegitimate by law should get ½ of the LC which in this case would
be 15; BUT 15 x 4 = 60 which is more than what the estate can provide
for in the said situation. – The legitime of the illegitimate children
cannot be met.
The legitime of the LC is protected, the legitime for the SS is protected
but the legitime for the ILC are not protected.
 No such thing is legitimes since it is all part of the estate.
 The Para Frag Test (copied the damn thing but I don’t understand it, so good luck)
Illegitimate share ½ of the LC = ratio is 2:1 (make such as points)
If there are more LC, share of SS gets smaller and the share of the
Free Portion gets bigger.
39
 If the succession goes on a downward motion its “per capita”

 Then just divide then and there.
 If succession is going up then its “per stilpes”

 ½ for the paternal line & ½ maternal line.
 Exclusionary Rule
 When there are LC or ADC; parents and others are excluded.
 Article 900 share of a surviving spouse

 Surviving Spouse share in Articulo Mortis is 1/3 if spouse died within 3 months of marriage.
 UNLESS, they cohabitated for 5 years prior without any impediment to marry.
 Atty. Sebastian: ang gulo ng article na to; since despite the article if the only survivor is the
widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to ½ of the hereditary estate of the deceased
spouse and the testator may freely dispose of the other half. It should also be applied in
intestate succession being it is the LEGITIME that is involved.
 Seatwork
 Facts: estate is 360 SS, A, B, and C
 A, B and C are LC
 There is a SS D E F I J K
 A, B and C have children G H
Divide the estate.
 If one of the children dies (A,B & C) their heir will represent
Them and they divide the share among each other.
 But if A, B and C disinherited their children inherit in their
Own right thus 180/8 is what happens
 What about the share of the spouse? There is no law as to
Such but as to PARAS the SS still gets 60, it (disinheritance
Or repudiation should not affect 3rd party share.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40
 Legitime
 Article 886, refers only to a minimum share for the Compulsory Heir.
 Thus, even if you say in the will, “I will give you ½ of the estate” and that such is the same as
the legitime, the objective is met.
 If the testator said give A, B, C, D, E, and F equally and only B and C are legitimate children,
this is the steps to be followed:
1. Do what the testator asks;
2. Check if the legitime of B and C are affected; and
3. If affected reduce others share to make room for the legitime, IF NOT AFFECTED
then apply what the testator had said in its entirety.
(DO THIS DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT TO ALTERATIONS)
 As a rule the Legitime cannot be burdened. EXCEPT (4):

1. Article 1083. – Testator can set a period wherein the property cannot be partitioned,
provided said period does not exceed 20 years. Example: a building - testator wanting to
preserve its commercial value applies Article 1083.
2. Article 1080. – A person, in the interest of his/her family desires to keep any agricultural,
industrial or manufacturing enterprise intact, can do so by ordering that the legitime of the
other children to whom the property is not assigned to be paid in cash.
3. Article 159 of the Family Code – Family Home shall continue for a period of 10 years or for
so long as there is a minor beneficiary and heirs cannot partition it unless the court finds a
compelling reason to do so.
4. Reserva Troncal.
 Legitime is created as a general rule at the moment of death, thus if the legitime cannot be satisfied
because of other dispositions Apply Article 906 complete the legitime and reduce the rest.
 Nuguid v. Nuguid (the exception)

 If the legitime cannot be met in itself, then throw away the provisions for the legacies and
devises. NOTE: only a Compulsory Heir can ask for the completion of the legitime.
 Reserva Troncal (general concept)
3) From the ascendant

To the relatives on (Ex: father or mother)
The other side 1) given gratuitously to the
Descendant
2) Wealth is transferred by
Operation of law and/or
Relatives of the ascendant through the legitime to the
Ascendant on the other side
Intestacy is required to go to step 2

Examples of gratuitous title in general:
Donation – via inter vivos or wedding gifts
Succession – via testamentary, intestacy or mixed.
41
Other examples:
Gambling debts paid by the father, no intention to get back
Son fought in school, killed someone, parent paid but has no intention to recover
ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE CONCEPT OF SUPPORT – Donation.
 Reserva creates a lien to the property.

 Thus the reservist has the right to have the reserva annotated in the title.
 Such right can prescribe though.
 Collationable donation (Atty. Not collationable property no such thing), there is no lien created on
the property unlike reserva. – its up to the prepositus to make or break the reserva.
 Parties in Reserva Troncal

 The origin - the ascendant who gratuitously transfers (meaning by donation or succession) a
property to a direct descendant.
 The praepositus –is he who receives property from the origin gratuitously and subsequently
dies.
 The reservista /reservor – he who receives the property from the prepositus.
 The reservatarios /reservees – he who receives the property from the reservoir.
 Accident of law
Mother (ORIGIN) Father (RESERVISTA) this is what is considered as the

Mother dies accident of law - father gets
leaves property property from the mothers side
for the child Child (PRAEPOSITUS)
the child dies, prop
goes to…
 Thus, the father will now hold the properties for the 3rd degree relatives.
 Question: is the whole property given to the father part of the Reserva?
 No only ½:
1. 50% is the legitime, thus by operation of law;
2. 50% if free disposal, not by operation of law.
 Note: Must find out in what capacity does the reservor gets it.
 There is no Reserva with regard to illegitimate and adopted children.

 What this means is that all the parties involved is related to the legitimately, the point of
reference here is the praepositus.
 Double Resolutory Condition

 Reservor dies; and
 Reservatarios survives (with capacity).
 Reservist must be of the 3 degree, the following are the said degrees.
 1° Parents only – no going down – no children.
 2° Grandparents or Brothers and Sisters.
 3° Great grandparents or Uncles and Aunts or Nephews and Nieces.
42
 Another Example:
W1 --------------- H ----------------- W2 1) Gratuitous title to B from W1

2) B donates to C
A B C D 3) C dies W2 gets part of the property
 Reserva applies in the said situation
 According to Paras the relationship of B and C MUST BE half-blood.
 SC did not agree as to the half - blood.
 The 2 theories of division of the reserva, Reserva Minima and the Reserva Maxima
 Given facts:
Land – 100k
Estate – 200k 150 – Legitime thus reservable (by operation/accident of law).
Total – 300k 150 – Free portion not reservable.
 Reserva Maxima – Reserve as much as you can
 Land (100K) + Estate (50k) = 150k legitime.
 Reserva Minima – Reduce as much as you can but do not extinguish.
Compulsory Heir – Legitime - Land (50k) + Estate (100k) = 150k legitime
Voluntary Heir – Free Portion – Land (50k) + Estate (100k) = 150k Free Portion
 Residue only, cannot make it 0
 THERE IS NO DECIDED CASE AS TO WHICH TO USE, but as per Atty. Sebastian he believes it
should be Minima.
 But if Testator gives the land as a devise than there can be no Reserva, since it will no longer be
an accident of law, which it must be (Legarda v. Gonzales).
 There is no maxima if the only property is the land (the value of land is 100k).
CH (legitime) ½ of the land
Maxima VH (free portion) ½ of the land
 Thus ½ right away in such a situation.
 Another example of Maxima and Minima
 Land worth 300K and Estate worth 100K for a total of 400K
CH (Legitime) 200 = 200 Land (2/3 Reserva of land) = 200
Maxima VH (Free Portion) 200 = 100 Land + 100 Estate = 200 ----- which would total to 400
Legitime 200 = 150 land + 50 estate = 200
Minima Free Portion 200 = 150 land + 50 estate = 200 ------ which would total to 400
 Reserva Troncal (how to apply).

Origin (Donates gratuitously to Praepositus)
Father subsequently dies
Wife 1 -------------------------- Father (Reservor) Wife 2 30k
Dies 30K each Brother 1 – 30k
30 X 105 Praepositus A B C Brother 2 - 30k
135K Brother 3 – 30k
 For the free portion “father” instituted his 3 brothers Thus, computation for such is
 Fathers estate is 345k total. 345K- estate
 The reservable amount is 105K 105K - reservable
240K – to be distributed among all
 Answer: Everybody gets 30K; even X gets 30k but plus 105K since 105 is reservable.
43
 Reserva Troncal (full blood and half-blood share).

 The full blood gets twice the amount of the half-blood.
 Padura v. Baldovino (how to divide between full and half-blood heir)

 Augustin Padura made a will, where he left all his properties to all his surviving relatives,
including Fortunato, a conceived child not yet born at the time. (He got 4 parcels of land).
 Augustin died in April of 1908, before the Civil Code.
 When Fortunato died in May 1908, property went up to the mom (Belita), who then became the
RESERVISTA for the 4 parcels of land, thus when she died in 1952 (Civil Code in effect) the
property had to be brought to the Reservatarios who were alive at the time.
Gervacia Landig W1----------------------Augustin Padura Belita Garing W2
Manuel Padura Fortunato Candelaria
One died thus only 7 8 Children 4 children Full blood relation with
Could inherit Half-blood relationship with regard to Fortunato regard to fortunate but 3 died
 SC stated, everyone gets a share, brothers and sisters on Manuel’s side and brothers and sisters
on Candelaria’s side. Reserva Troncal merely determines the group of relatives to whom the
property should be returned to; but within the group, the individual right to the property should
be declared by applicable rules of intestate succession.
 Article 1006 – shares of full blood is double that of a half blood.
 7 Padura’s they get 1 share each
 1 Baldovino gets 2 shares
 Thus (estate ÷ 9) is how to compute for such, to give way to Baldovino’s full blood share.
 Depapa v. Camacho (Rules of intestacy)

Father Wife
Brother and Sisters Son Sister
Niece
 The Uncles and Aunts (who are the brother and sisters of the father) are of the same degree as
the Niece, which is the 3rd degree.
 Question here is how it should be divided among them.
 Answer: It does not get divided among them, it goes all to the Niece, following the rules on
intestacy. (Nieces and Nephews exclude uncles and aunts).
 Rosales v. Rosales (In-law relationship).

 A daughter-in-law is not a compulsory heir of the mother-in-law, due to the absence of blood
relationship between the two.
 Solvino v. CA (check the family line)

 The reservor can never be a descendant of the supposed praepositus. Thus when it goes down
from the origin, it should go up to the other side of the family, or no reserve; he will inherit in
his own right instead.
44
 Endroso v. Sablan
 A reservor’s right to reservable property is not that of a usufruct nor one of a trust relationship.
 Atty. Sebastian: Succession is a mode of acquisition, thus he acquires such as owner and can
have the property titled to him.
 NOTE: The reservees, during the registration proceeding should intervene solely for the purpose
of ensuring that the reservable nature of the title is property inscribe on such. Otherwise, a
clean title issued pursuant to a decree of registration, may in a proper case extinguish the
reserva.
 Sienes v. Esparia (Right to sell and the Double Resolutory Condition)
Father Mother Sold to Esparia, did not go to the

Reservatarios as it was supposed to
2 Brothers and 2 Sisters Child (Praepositus)
The 2nd sister hid the title from the mom thus even if the movement was to go up to the mom, it
went down. Sold to Sienes who took possession of the land.
 First question: was there a double sale? Answer NO.

 In a double sale there is 1 seller and 2 or more buyers but in this case at bar we have 2
buyers and 2 sellers.
 SC said; Sale to Esparia is allowed, provided the reservation is not destroyed, meaning when she
dies it still goes to the reservees; On the other hand what the 2nd sister sold is future property
which is also allowed. THUS, when the 2nd sister obtains the property after the death of the
mother and then Sienes sale would go through after.
 Provides for the double resolutory condition for reserva to take place
 Reservor dies; and
 Reservatarios survives.
 Distributed under the theory of delayed intestacy
 If the mother outlasted the reservees, she may dispose in her own right.
 Lacerna v. VDA De Corcino

 Reserva only applies where the property sought to be reserved was acquired by operation of
law by an ascendant from a descendant, who in turn acquired it by gratuitous title from another
ascendant from the other line. Thus where the disputed property was acquired by a descendant
from an ascendant through sale, there is no reserva.
 Chua v. CFI of Negros Occidental (What is gratuitous acquisition)

 The interpretation of gratuitous acquisition here was that EVEN if the praepositus had to pay a
certain amount to a 3rd party for the purpose of acquiring the reservable property, if such
payment was not imposed by the origin, the acquisition is still gratuitous in nature.
 The essential thing here is that the person who transmits does so gratuitously, from pure
generosity without requiring from the transferee any prestation.
 Nieva and Alcala v. Alcala and De Ocampo

 Reserva runs only in the legitimate family.
45
 Florentino v. Florentino (Right of representation in Reserva)

 First Issue: is the right of representation allowed in Reserva? YES for as long as the one he seeks
to represent is a relative within the 3rd degree of the praepositus.
 Second issue: is as to Usufruct….. (explained na)
 Sumaya v. IAC (Reserva lost through innocent purchaser)

 The reservatory right of the reservees may be lost to an innocent purchaser of the reservable
property.
 Thus, for the protection of the reservees, it is important that the reservable character of the
property be annotated at the back of the title. HOWEVER even if such annotation is absent, if it
can be shown that the 3rd party purchaser had actual or constructive notice/knowledge of the
reservable character of the property, then the rights of the reservees should be upheld.
 Carillio v. De Paz (Extinctive Prescription)

 Carillio establishes that rights of the reservatarios to the reservable property may be lost by
extinctive prescription, thus an action to recover must be within 10 years (or 30 years as the
case may be) from the time the right to recover accrues.
 Law on property 10 years if in good faith and with a colourable title to the same property.
 The estate is equal to PRO, and such is used for its valuation.
 P+R-O = estate; (P-property, R-rights, and 0-obligations)
 Value of assets
1. As to land - BIR zonal value NOTE: if there is no CH, then
2. As to improvements - Tax declarations collation will no longer be
3. Shares Traded - closing price required, the purpose of
Listed - book value collation is for the computation
4. Others - market value of the legitime.
Equals - total assets
Subtracted by personal debts
Equals – the net estate the value of which is base
Subtracted by the 30% estate tax at the time it was given
Equals – the hereditary estate
Plus the value of the collationable donations
Equals to the Theoretical estate.
 Example: there are 4 heirs

Assets - 200
Debts - 20 If net estate only 120 = 60/4 =15 each
Equals 180 if theoretical estate 610 = 310/4 = 77.5 each
Taxes - 60 (30%)
Equals 120 Net estate
Collationable D. + 500
Equals 620 Theoretical estate
46
 Mateo v. Lagua (family Code connection, liquidation)

 This case outlines the procedure for liquidation of the estate of a deceased person.
 Article 102 and 103 of the family code if the property regime is under ACP.
 Article 129 and 130 of the family code if the property regime is under CPG.
 Article 102 of the family code procedure
a. Inventory of the property (which is part of the ACP and what is exclusive);
b. ACP debts;
c. Exclusive property given to the spouses
d. Net remainder will be divided equally
e. Delivery of presumptive legitimes
f. Conjugal dwelling.
 Natcher v. CA (how to check if the legitime is prejudice)

 Before any conclusion about the legal share of a compulsory heir may be drawn, the net estate
of the decedent must be ascertained.
 Such is done by deducting all payable obligations and charges from the value of the property
owned by the deceased at the time of his death, THEN all donations subject to collation be
added, only then we can compute for the legitime and ascertain if a donation has prejudice a
legitime, which it should not do.
 Tupas v. RTC of Negros Occidental

 The case outlines the step by step procedure for the determination of the hereditary estate of a
deceased person to find out what is the legitime of a compulsory heir.
 The rules are better specified in Article 908, 909 and 910 of the Civil Code.
1. Determination of the value of the property which remains at the time of death of the
testator;
2. Determination of the obligation, debts and charges which have to be paid out or deducted
from the value of the properties left;
3. The determination of the difference between assets and liabilities giving rise to the
hereditary estate;
4. The addition to the net value found, of the value, at the time they were made, of
donations subject to collation; and
5. The determination of the amount of legitimes by getting from the total thus found the
portion that the law provides as legitime of each respective Compulsory Heir.
 Bankrupt Estate
Ex: side note: how to screw creditors
Assets – 50 a - 50
Debts – 45 d - 55
5 -5 = screwed creditors out of this portion
Taxes - 10 t- 0
-5 – bankrupt thus 0 - bankrupt
Collationable - 50
Donation thus estate remains at 50
47
 (3) of Article 1381 – Rescissible Contracts in fraud of creditors

 The burden is on the creditors to prove such.
 Article 1389 – Prescription, they have to bring it up, while alive or just died after donating.
 How are donations to be treated?

 If the donee is a compulsory heir – the donation is an advance to towards the legitime.
 If not a compulsory heir - the donation is to be charged from the free disposal.
 Seatwork: compute the legitime
Given facts:
SS LC-A SS Computation for such
1 ILC estate - 240
4 LC (a-d) LC-B ILC CD - 250
X – Donation of 50 490/2 = 245 for the strict legitime
250 – Collationable (CD) LC-C FREE = 245 for the free portion
240 – Estate PORTION 245 of strict legitime ÷ 4 = 61.25
ILC – got 100 advance LC-D such would be the shares of the LC
1 LC (d) – got 100 advance
Strict Legitime (245) Free Portion (245)
THUS
The legitime as computed will be:
A – 61.25
B – 61.25
C – 61.25
D – 61.25 deemed paid (38.75 to be taken from FP)
SS – 61.25
ILC – 30.63 deemed paid (69.37 to be taken from FP)
 If there are compulsory heirs, then you must collate to determine the proper legitime.
 In order to make the donation Rescissible, bad faith must be shown and must follow the rules on
contracts, Article 1380.
 How do you treat the collation if the testator declared the donation was made NON-collationable?
 Charge it towards the free portion half.
Article 911 Article 950

1. So many collationable donations made here, 1. The estate is not sufficient to cover all legacies
destroys the estate; and devises;
2. There is a compulsory heir 2. No compulsory heir required
3. Order of preference: 3. Order of Preference
a. Legitime a. Remuneratory legacies
b. Donations (w/n the free disposal) b. Legacies or devises declared by the testator to
c. Honor legacies/devises ( Preferred) be preferential
d. All other legacies and devises (pro-rated) c. Legacies for support
d. Legacies for education
e. Legacies or devises of a specific, determinate
thing which forms a part of the estate
f. All others pro rata
48
 Disinheritance, a testamentary act to deprive a compulsory heir of the legitime.

 Requirements for disinheritance
1. Execute a valid will;
2. Should be done against a compulsory heir; and
3. Must conform to the reasons for disinheritance as provided for in Article 919 (for
descendants), Article 920 (for ascendants) and in Article 921 (for the surviving spouse);
4. Person to be disinherited is identified; and
5. The disinheritance must be total and can never be partial.
NOTE: Art. 920 not applied if there are descendants and the enumeration of each are exclusive.
Atty. Sebastian: the cause of the disinheritance should be stated, to afford due process, (in order to
check if such cause given would fall under the 3 stated Articles.
 Stated the ground provided in the 3 articles and such ground existed when the will was
executed or written.
 Must be true and certain, cannot be conditional.
 Needs substantial evidence to overturn a charge of disinheritance
 Article 918, refers to the 3 types of defective disinheritance:

1. No Cause – a disinheritance made without specification of a cause to disinherit the heir;
2. Cause but not under the law – does not fall under grounds provided in Art. 919, 920 or 921; and
3. Cause truth of which is contradicted.
 It is sufficient for the testator to mention merely the act constituting the ground.
 Burden of proof will be on the other heirs if contradicted by the disinherited heir.
 Effect of defective/invalid disinheritance
 Unlike peterition (Art.854) it does not totally annul the institution of heirs. It only annuls
the institution of heirs in so far as it is prejudicial to the legitime of the disinherited heir.
 As to the legacies/devises, Article 918 will conform to Article 911 – Reduction.
EX:
Estate – 90; A – disinherited 15
Three heirs A, B & C. B – 45 - 7.5 = 37.5 actual
Invalidly disinherited A –thus apply 918. C – 45 - 7.5 = 37.5 distribution
Compute for legitime: 90/2 = 45/3 = 15 each.
The 2 theories on how to
 Seatwork- Estate – 255 divide the remaining 42,500
Heirs and institution Share Legitime Cagiua Tolentino
“A” - Disinherited w/o cause ------ 42,500 X 14,166
“B” – 1/6 42,500 42,500 21,250 14,166
“C” – 1/6 42,500 42,500 21,250 14,166
Total = 212,500
Difference of 42,500 with estate
 The Cagiua interpretation refers to the intent of the testator, while Tolentino’s refers to the
technicality of the law.
 No ruling yet by the SC on which one to follow.
 Grounds for disinheritance in table form - look at annex

 Article 919, 920 and 921 (also 1032).
49
 Article 919. (8 Grounds)

 Grounds/Causes to disinherit children and descendants whether legitimate or illegitimate.
 Grounds are exclusive.
1. When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an attempt against the life of the testator,
his or her spouse, descendants or ascendants.
 Does not need to be a legitimate child not does it have to be his mother it can be the 2nd
wife of the father.
 BUT it still requires final judgement of the court and that the attempt before the writing
of the will by the testator.
 CRIMINAL LAW aspect – Principal, accomplice and accessory = (equally liable but
different penalties to be applied).
 Must be an intentional act for our purposes
 No justifying circumstances – since such would mean no crime
 No exempting circumstances – since such would mean there is a crime present
but no criminal.
2. When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes
imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation is groundless;
 If in a civil case any of the following must be present:
 Need to file a complaint OR
 Take the stand as a witness against the testator OR
 (where there is no decision yet ) Withhold evidence to prove innocence OR
 (where there is an admission) the accused needs to be acquitted.
 That’s right you need to know your criminal law well.
3. When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of
the testator;
 Final conviction not necessary; such can follow.
4. When a child or descendant by fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence causes the
testator to make a will or to change one already made;
 Testator must have succumb to such actions in the 1st will, then disinherits the same
person in the 2nd will he makes.
5. A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent or ascendant who disinherits such child
or descendant;
 Needs of the supportee and the resources of the supporter must be taken in account.
6. Maltreatment of the testator by words or deed by the child or descendant;
 As per Sengaio, the maltreatment spoken here must be hurtful, “feel na feel” the hurt.
 No need for conviction by a court, mere proof of such will do
7. When a child or descendant leads a dishonourable or disgraceful life; and
 Keyword “lead” thus cannot be based on a single act.
8. Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction.
 Crim again!
 Civil interdiction is the accessory penalty attached to the penalty of reclusion temporal
or higher.
50
 Article 920. ( 8 Grounds)

 Grounds/Causes to disinherit parents or ascendants whether legitimate or illegitimate.
 Grounds are exclusive.
 Grounds no. 2,3,4,5 and 7 are common grounds thus will not discuss again.
1. When the parents have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or
immoral life or attempted against their virtue;
 The abandonment here does not have to be criminal abandonment but rather the
complete neglect of parental obligation.
 Inducing alone is enough; does not need to actual happen.
2. When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator,
his or her spouse, descendants or ascendants.
3. When the parent or ascendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes
imprisonment for 6 years or more, if accusation has been found to be false.
4. When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse
of the testator;
5. When the parent or ascendant by fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence causes the
testator to make a will or change one already made.
6. The loss of parental authority for causes provided in this code
 Must follow the family code in the matter.
 Article 228. Parental authority terminates permanently:
1. Upon death of the parents;
2. Upon death of the child; or
3. Upon emancipation of the child.
 Article 229. Unless subsequently revived by a final judgement, parental authority also terminates:
1. Upon adoption of the child;
2. Upon appointment of a general guardian;
3. Upon judicial declaration of abandonment of the child in a case filed for that purpose ;
4. Upon final judgment of a competent court divesting the party concerned of parental authority; or
5. Upon judicial declaration of absence or incapacity of the person exercising parental authority.
 Thus it is important to differentiate between term, suspension and deprivation.
 TERM – not to apply under Article 920 (thus not a ground)
 SUSPENSION With automatic reinstatement
Without automatic reinstatement
 DEPRIVATION Permanent deprivation
 2 different theories on the loss of parental authority that is subsequently regained.
 Manaresa – was regained, there is no more ground to speak of, and for him there
must be a continuing fact of loss.
 Sanchez- Roman – Mere fact of loss is enough to disinherit
 Note: in Article 921 (4) & (5) – “giving cause/ground” but in article 920 it is only loss.
 Atty. Sebastian: comparatively Sanchez-Roman is correct.
 Family Code Article 230. (Civil interdiction)
 Suspended – civil interdiction; reclusion perpetua = 20 years penalty
 What is the point you can regain parental authority by law
o 13 and 1/3 years at the minimum, meaning the age of the child will 39
o Clearly not thought out by the framers of the FC and how it affects
succession;
o Should not be a ground since you didn’t do anything to the child.
NOTE: (3) of Art. 239 FC – wait until at least 18 years of age since no Testamentary capacity but still a ground.
51
 Article 231 FC – Deprivation

o The loss here is as if “you never had it” but with the possibility that you can
regain it.
 Article 232 FC – Permanent Deprivation, cannot regain it.
7. The refusal to support the children or descendants without justifiable cause;
8. An attempt by one parent against the life of the other, unless there has been reconciliation
between them.
 Article 921 (6 Grounds)

 The following are the sufficient causes to disinherit a spouse.
 Codification of laws – a single theory of law wherein everything is inter-related in one way or
another. – This was destroyed with the inclusion of the family code wherein the causes do not
completely fit in. There are now 10 grounds given by the FC (for legal separation) and there
mere giving of cause is enough by it.
 Common grounds again are 1, 2, 3 and 6, will not be discussed.
1. When the spouse has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
descendants or ascendants;
2. When the spouse has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment
for 6 years or more, and the accusation has been found to be false;
3. When the Spouse by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence cause the testator to
make a will or change one already made;
4. When the spouse has given cause for legal separation;
5. When the spouse has given grounds for the loss of parental authority; and
 Under the FC na yan!
6. Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or the other spouse.
 Disinheritance – remedy under Article 922 is reconciliation

 The mere forgiving is not enough
 Incapacity (Article 1032) – remedy is a written Condonation, thus the situation herein contemplates
one that you may not be disinherited but your nonetheless incapacitated to inherit since there is no
written Condonation.
 Seatwork (right of representation due to disinheritance)

 Given facts:
Estate – 90 F M (25) IF there was no X and Y, clearly no right
A was disinherited representation and B, C and M would
A, B and C heirs A (25)B C (25) get a total of 30 each.
X and Y – A children BUT since there is a X and Y must compute
X Y for the legitime.
Compute for the
Legitime: 90/2=45 strict portion÷3 Compulsory Heirs = 15 which would be the legitime of A, B and C.
Thus X and Y gets 15 ÷ 2 = which is 7.5 each.
The remaining 30 will be divided among B, C and M equally = 25 each.
What if there was a legacy given to X = 10?

Answer: give the legitime first, then what is to be divided by the 3 is 20 instead.
52
 Seatwork
Estate – 234 234/2 = 117(strict legitime)/3= 39 Legitime
Shares and Legacy for X Equivalent = 177(free portion) – 60 (legacy) = 57
A – 1/6 39
B – 1/3 78 1 Ratio step 1
C – 1/2 117 2 2:1 step 2
X – 60 -
 Thus answer is:
A – 39 39
B – 78-20 78 step 3 60 60 1 x 20 = 20
C – 117-40 77 (ratio) 1+2 = 3 = 20 2 x 20 = 40
X 60
234
 Article 931
 The testator orders that a thing belonging to another is to be acquired in order to give to a
legatee or devisee - do as the will demands.
 If it cannot be done - then you are obliged to give the just value of what was to be
acquired for the legatee.
 Void – gave by mistake, since the testator did not know that it did not belong to him;
This is the general rule as to wrong belief of ownership
 As per Paras - it is VALID since what Article 931 requires that you first acquire such;
 As per JBL Reyes - NOT VALID, the law uses the word “order” – there must be an express
instruction or mandate. Furthermore the old code the said word “order” was not
present, thus showing a manifest intention to change the current law.
 Article 932
 No claim if the legatee/ devisee owns it already; cannot ask for the just value.
 Article 934
 Testator bequeath or devise something pledged or mortgaged to secure a recoverable debt
before the execution of the will.
 The estate is obliged to pay for such unless the contrary intention is seen in the will.
 Article 935
 Legacy of credit not applicable to the debt; paying debts that is not his also void.
 Intestacy (died without a valid and effective will).

 This becomes the “presumed will” of the testator.
 The reason a lot of rich people die without wills, is to hide their wealth. Thus, intestacy usually
happens for them despite their knowledge of the law on will.
 Ex: hide precious stones or metals and convert such to an off-shore account
 Note: estate tax is 30%.
 Article 960. When legal or intestate succession takes place.

1.
a. Dies without a will;
b. Void will - Article 838 (probate of the will) – (check for non-compliance with the form and
if there are vices of consent present); or
c. Dies with a will which subsequently lost its validity – meaning it was revoked or there was
a change as to the substantive part of the law.
53
2. Does not institute an heir or does not dispose all of the property, thus as to the remaining
property of the testator intestacy is to apply.
3. Suspensive condition attached to the institution of the heir does not happen or is not fulfilled or
heir dies before the testator (predecease) or if he repudiates.
4. Incapacity – except in cases of substitution and representation.
NOTE: as per Atty. Sebastian you should not rely on Article 960 but rather understand the concept of
law in succession for jurisprudence shows Article 960 can tend to be malabo.
 Rodriguez v. Borja (Testacy preferred over intestacy).

 Intestate succession is subsidiary or subordinate to testamentary succession. This is because
intestacy only arises in the absence of a valid will (as a general rule).
 It is inappropriate for an heir to institute proceedings of intestacy if he knows the existence of a
valid will and neither should a intestate court acquire jurisdiction over the estate of the
deceased person, while proceedings of a testate (or even intestate) is on-going in another court.
 Madarcos v. De la Merced
 The meaning of legal heirs
 Restrictive – heirs called to inherit by intestacy
 Liberal – anyone called upon to succeed either by virtue of a will or by intestacy;
 Court in this case, sought to have a more liberal application rather than restrictive.
 Rules of Intestacy.
 GENERAL RULE: Ascendants
1. Proximity - the nearer exclude the further.
2. Equal division – the same degree, gets the same share. Descendants Collateral
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE: The Different Lines
1. A compulsory heir;
2. The state (can never be excluded and it is always the default); and
3. Exclusionary rule by a person not in the same degree (right of representation)
 If all in the collateral line dies, the next collateral line in a lower degree inherits BUT
now in their own right instead of the right of representation.
 De Los Santos v. De La Cruz (Proximity)

 Emphasizes the rule on proximity, the nearer the relatives exclude the more remote ones,
except if the right of representation can be enforced.
 Bagunu v. Piedad (Proximity vs. the Preferential Line)

 Under the rule on proximity, a maternal aunt (relative within the 3rd ° degree) excludes the
daughter of the first cousin of the decedent (a relative within the 5 th degree) even if under the
order of intestate succession, both of them fall under the 6th level of preference.
 Moreover, the daughter of the first cousin is not entitled to the right of representation in order
to elevate her status to a relative of nearer degree because the right of representation in the
collateral line is limited to the children of the brothers and sisters of the decedent.
 Heirs of Pascasio Uriate v. CA (half-blood vs. Proximity)
54
 A half-blood nephew is a collateral relative within the 3rd degree, he excludes the children of the
first cousin, even if the relationship of the decedent to the children of the first cousin is of the
full blood relationship.
 The relative nearer in degree excludes those who are more remote, regardless of the full or half-
blood relationship.
 Proximity and Equal Division presumes “love goes down” (GR)

 Exceptions:
1. Where inheritance goes up (per stilpes)

 No right of representation for ascendants.
 Ex: get ½ gets ¼ each
H W H W
*Share is not equal because it is per stilpes
F M
1/2 1/2
D
2. Collateral lines (pro rata)

 Ex:
W1 H W2 *Whether full blood or half-blood it does not
Matter there supposed to get equal shares
D E F G H unless it is as seen here.
Estate ÷ 5 (E gets twice the share because of D)
3. Right of representation.
 Ex:
Estate = 90 *What if “C” disinherited “F” can F still
D Incapacitated represent C?
30 1st step: ask what is the ground for such
A B C 2nd step: if not a valid ground; he can
3rd step: if it is ARTICLE 1032, cannot.
D E F G
30 15 15
 Relationships
 Consanguinity and affinity
 Affinity is not included in intestacy. You’re not really part of the family, “saling kat ka lang”.
Remember the case of Rosales v. Rosales.
 Article 968 and 969 – stray provisions.
 De La Puerta v. CA (No right of representation for adopted children).

 The right of representation does not extend to the adopted children of the person to be
represented.
55
 The fictional tie that binds the adopter and the adopted does not extend to the relatives of the
adopter.
 Grounds for the right of representation.
TYPE GROUNDS SCOPE BENEFICIARIES

1. Testamentary For Compulsory Heirs: 1) Legitime only Descendants only.
disinheritance, 2) incapacity or Collateral lines has no legitime and
3) predecease (DIP) not a CH.
2. Intestacy Incapacity or Predecease (IP) Full intestate Descendants
share Collateral lines can inherit, if there
are no descendants or ascendants.
 Right of Representation A
 It is a statutory right in the nature of the “right of subrogation”.
 You inherit from the decedent and not from the generation above you. B
 Article 992 (relate such).
 The illegitimate child cannot inherit from the legitimate family. C
 In the case of adopted children

No right of representation
Ex1: Ex2: Ex3:
A A A
B Adopted B B Adopted
C C Adopted C Adopted
 No such thing as an adopted grandchild

 Atty. Sebastian: No one can assign a relative to you, you don’t pick your actual family.
 Abellana–Bacayo v. Ferraris–Borromeo (the example to follow for the right of representation).

 As an exemption to the general rule the right of representation is available in the descending
line, Article 975 of the Civil Code permits representation in the collateral line insofar as nephews
and nieces of the descendant are concerned. (For intestate only)
 The prerequisites for the exercise of the right of representation is that the nephews and nieces
must concur with at least one uncle or aunt, otherwise they inherit it in their own right, as 3 rd
degree relative of the decedent.
NOTE: it is still required, that the representative was alive or conceived at the time of the death of the
decedent for the right of representation to be given effect.
 Malang v. Moson (law in force)

 The capacity of an heir to succeed is determined by the law in force at the time of the
conception of the heir or his birth (?)
 The rights of a Muslim who died during the effectivity of the Muslim Code shall be governed by
the said law.
56
 Sayson v. CA (reiteration of malang)

 The right of representation accorded to the legitimate grandchild is reiterated in this case and
the unavailability of the right of representation to the child who was adopted was confirmed by
the SC.
 Del Prado v. Santos (illegitimate vs. collateral)

 An illegitimate child succeeds his or her illegitimate parent to the exclusion of the legitimate
brothers and sisters of the latter. The legitimacy of the collateral relatives within the second
degree does not create a preference over the illegitimate status of the decedent.
 Connect with the family code, recognition for filiation.
 Cacho v Udan
 The court reaffirms the exclusion of legitimate brothers and sisters of the decedent by the
latter’s illegitimate child in this case.
 Seatwork
 Given facts: D
Estate = 96
All are universal heirs, but institutes A B C
A–½
B–¼ E D F G H I
C–¼
All children are legitimate Heirs and their shares Equivalent Legitime Free Portion
B predecease and leaves E,D,F & G A–½ 48 16 32
C incapacitated, leaves H and I B–¼ 24 16 8
C- ¼ 24 16 8
 What if the attestation clause
is defective? E, D, F & G (4 each)
Answer: H and I (8 each)
A = 32
B = 32/4 = 8
C = 32/2 = 16
 Order of Intestate Succession

 Priority as to the heir – ( check out annex b for graph or the next page)
 2 orders the legitimate and the illegitimate. (adoption is not a status)
 Article 190 of the Family Code is NOT an order of succession.
 Does not establish a right
 Special rules created since the Civil Code does not provide for the adopting parent
 Atty. Sebastian: Actually Article 190 should not be constitutional, since it partakes of a
rider on another law.
 Purpose of such is the successional rights of the adopter.
 Article 190 breakdown Corresponding shares
Strict Legitime Free Portion
Parent (L) or (IL) or Ascendant (L) AND adopter 1/2 1/2
SS or IL AND adopter 1/2 1/2
ILLC and SS AND adopter 1/3 1/3
Adopter ALL
57
 Atty. Sebastian: Kalokohan ng FC Commission, it gave the adopter the free portion.
 No order of succession in an adopted child.
 Order of Succession
Legitimate Line Illegitimate Line
1. Legitimate Children and Legitimate 1. Legitimate Children and Legitimate Descendants
Descendants
2. Legitimate Parents and Legitimate Ascendants 2. Illegitimate Children and Illegitimate
Descendants
3. Illegitimate Child and Illegitimate Descendants 3. Illegitimate Parent (old school thinking; blemish
on the name, thus penalized)
4. Surviving Spouse 4. Surviving Spouse
5.Brothers and Sisters/Nephews and Nieces 5. Brothers and Sisters/Nephews and Nieces
6. Collateral Relatives of the 5th Degree 6. State
7. State
 Cuartico v. Cuartico (Article 992, the Barrier) - find the case

 Corpus v. Corpus (legitimate excluded)
 There is no reciprocal succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. Thus such is the
instance where in a legitimate child is excluded from the inheritance of an illegitimate relative.
 Leonardo v. CA (looking at your background first)
 The filiation of a person may be looked into for the purpose of determining his qualification to
inherit from a deceased person.
 It was found out petitioner was illegitimate hence barred by Article 992 from inheriting.
 Diaz v. IAC (Animosity Presumed)

 The presumption is that there is animosity between the legitimate family and the illegitimate
family, thus Article 992 cuts off the illegitimate child from inheriting ab intestate from the
legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother and vice-versa.
Simona Pamuti de Santero
Pablo Santero
Felisa Pamuti (niece)
6 illegitimate children The barrier created by the legal fiction of

presumed animosity between the families.
 What was sad here is the fact Simona really loved and cared for the 6 kids, since she took care of
them herself but since she did not leave a will her grandchildren could not inherit and it all went
to the niece.
 Manuel v. Ferrer (same only reverse)

 Just as Article 992 cuts off the illegitimate child from inheriting ab intestate from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother so does the same barrier not allow the legitimate
children inheriting from the illegitimate family.
58
 Suntay III v. Cojuangco –Suntay (Atty. Sebastian: agree with the result but not the decision)
Fedrico (grandfather) Cristine (Grandmother and relative of Emilio Aguinaldo)
Federico adopted
Mistress----------------- Emilio Isabel (youngest sister of Danding Cojuangco)
2 illegitimate children Legitimate Children
 The marriage of Emilio and Isabell failed, presumably because of certain extramarital affairs as
evidenced by the 2 illegitimate children; the legitimate children cut off ties with the fathers side
of the family and did not want to even see them. The said children were ungrateful and
shunning the grandparents.
 When the grandmother died the legitimate children claimed her estate to the exclusion of the 2
illegitimate children.
 Federico did not want the ungrateful legitimate children to get to the detriment of the 2
illegitimate children who had been loving and caring towards the grandparents. Thus he
adopted the 2 children and slowly sold every property he had.
 J. NATCHURA: based on the facts of the case, the presumption of animosity has been
overthrown and cannot be relied on further.
 Atty. Sebastian: Article 992 no matter how you read it, is a conclusive presumption! Thus unless
you right a will and institute the same, the presumption survives.
 Verdad v. CA (Article 995, where the SS inherits it all)

 When a surviving spouse inherits, she acquires all the rights and privileges of ownership
pertaining to the property that was acquired.
 Hence where surviving spouse becomes a co-owner of the property through the succession of
her deceased spouse, the former is entitled to the right of redemption in the circumstance
described in Article 1620 of the Civil Code.
 Verdad confirms the fact when a widow was granted the right to redeem a property in which
she is a co-owner, that her brothers and sisters-in-law sold to a third party without giving her
prior written notice of such.
 Accession; law on property

 “Accessory follows the principal”.
 Basis: economic reasons
 Ex: form of such alluvium (only for navigable rivers)
Since it would be crazy to register an increase by 2 centimetres as an
example of such.
 Accretion; law on succession (Article 1015)
 If there is RIP, there will be a vacancy, thus find someone else.
 First thing to do is give the testator a chance to die testate
 Thus substitution
 If none, then representation
 If not applicable then accretion.
59
 Requisites for Accretion

1. Unity of object (specified property or aliquot share);
2. Plurality of object;
3. Vacancy due to RIP;
4. Acceptance of one (ex: H&W, either one should accept);
5. No ear marking (refers to co-owners); (ownership pro indiviso, no partition (no specific amount
or prop); and
6. Article 1021, among the Compulsory Heirs the right to accretion shall take place only when the
free portion is left to 2 or more of them, or anyone of them and a stranger.
 Free portion
Compulsory Heir as to legitime no accretion
Voluntary Heir as to Free Portion there is accretion
 Seatwork #1
 Given facts:
Estate – 210 HEIR INSTITUTION EQUIVALENT RATIO ACCREATION TOTAL
A, B, C and D heirs A 1/2 105 4 15,000 120
Repudiate – D B 1/4 52.5 2 7,500 60
All are universal heir C 1/8 26.25 1 3,500 30
All are voluntary heir D 1/8 26.25 _____ _________ ____
26,250 7 210
4:2:1= 7 = 3,750
Repudiation
 Seatwork #2
 Same facts but now all heirs are legitimate children.
HEIR LEGITIME INTENDED EQUIVALENT BALANCE ACCREATION

INSTITUTION FROM FP
A 35 1/2 105 70 14,000
B 35 1/4 52.5 17.5 3,500
C 35 1/4 26.25 0
D Repudiated 1/4 0
105 + 87.5 + 17,500 = 210
*Double checking
105 + 87.5 = 192.5 -210 = 17.5
26.5 (D’s Share) – 17.5 = 8,750
8,750 + institution = 26.25
= 35 (legitime)
 Capacity to succeed
 Fitness to receive the inheritance.
 Such fitness is determined in accordance to the law applicable at the time of death of the
decedent, not before or after death.
 What is used as a basis for fitness – Article 16 of the NCC (law where you come from);
60
 Types of incapacity
1. Absolute incapacity – No capacity at all to inherit from the decedent.

a. He died before the decedent died;
b. Those who cannot be identified properly;
c. Corporations that are not allowed by law; and
NOTE: Unborn children, for as long as conceived at the time of the death of the decedent; relate
such to Article 41 of the Family Code.
 Parish Priest of the Roman Catholic Church of Victoria v. Rigor

To be capacitated an heir, legatee or devisee must be living at the time succession
opens, except when representation is appropriate. The decedent herein left all his
property to the nearest male relative who will be a priest, unfortunately no one alive or
conceived at the time of death became a priest nor did it seem that there will be.
THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH DISPOSITION IS LIMITED TO 20 YEARS in order to prevent
perpetuities. (kapal yung pari ditto nag habol pa ng administrators fees pa)
 Cid v. Burnaman (This case is only applicable is principle now, nothing more)
Before the implementation of the Family Code, the Spanish code provided no
successional rights whatsoever to the illegitimate children unless there was recognition.
Thus the illegitimate child needed the recognition of the father.
 Capacity as to Judicial Entities
Disposition in favour of a juridical entities are allowed
What about the “KMU” which is a federation not registered with SEC, yes it is
unfortunately possible so long as they are properly described in the will.
2. Relative Incapacity.
Article 1027, refers to several types of dispositions that have some form of incapacity as to the
recipient which can be or cannot be rectified.
A. The priest who heard the confession of the testator during his last illness or the minister of
gospel who extended spiritual aid to him during the same period. (Atty. Sebastian – the
reason of this is the influence one can bring down on the testator, ex: Friar lands);
B. The relatives of said priest or minister of the gospel within the 4th degree, the church order,
chapter, community, organization or institution to which the said priest or minister may
belong to;
C. A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a ward in his favour before
the final accounts of the guardianship have been approved, even if the testator should die
after the approval thereof; nevertheless, any provision made by a ward in favour of a
guardian when the latter is his/hers ascendant, descendant, brother , sister or spouse shall
be valid;
D. Any attesting witness to the execution of a will, the spouse, parent or children or anyone
claiming under such witness, spouse, parent or children – Article 823, the 3 other no
sufficient);
E. Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health officer or druggist who took care of the testator
during his last illness; and
F. Individuals, associations or corporations not permitted by law to inherit.
NOTE: All of such are conclusive presumptions therefore irrebuttable.
61
 Article 1028
 Refers to rules on donations in Article 739 that shall apply to testamentary provisions;
 Article 739 the following donations are void.
a. Those made between persons who are guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time
of the donation;
b. The same but found criminally liable for such;
c. Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants and ascendants by reason of
his office.
 Article 1029
 (In general terms without specifying its application) Testator disposes in whole or part of his
property for prayer and pious works for the benefit of his soul.
 The executor shall with the approval of the court shall deliver 1/2 of the proceeds to the church
or denomination he belongs to, to be used for prayer and pious works and the other half will go
to the state.
 The tripartite of corruption shall decide.
 Article 1032 (look at the annex, graph made in relation to disinheritance)

 (Paragraph 4), any heir of full age who having knowledge of the testators violent death fails to
report it within 30 days.
 There is a problem with this, the full text requires a law but there is no law requiring to report
such unlike in the US.
 Condonation can be done in 2 ways.

 First. Where the testator knew of said incapacity and despite such knowledge subsequently
writes a will to institute such heir; or
 Did not know then…….
 Repudiation (read more)

 As to creditors – repudiation can be disallowed, if such is done in fraud of creditors.
 Double tax?
 Partition?
 Purpose of Collation.
 The 1st priority is to protect the legitime of the compulsory heirs;
 To make sure that everybody gets more or less equal share unless otherwise stipulated in a will.
 Arellano v. Pascual (638 scra 826) – no compulsory heir no collation.
 Enforcement of the legitime is ensured through the following:

 One. Article 886 wherein the law provides for a legitime;
 Two. Article 906 – Completion;
 Three. Article 854 – Peterition; and
 Four. Article 1061 – Collation.
62
 Collation is an accounting process

 To account for the value of the donations made by the decedent to ensure the legitime of the
compulsory heirs are not impaired.
 When the legitime is impaired, only then the donee must return the value of what was donated
that is not in excess of the legitime.
 Example:
Estate is 10M Heir share
Gave “A” donation of 10K 1 Legitimate Child 1/2
There are compulsory heirs of Surviving Spouse 1/4
LC, SS and 2IC’s 2 illegitimate Children 1/8 each
Thus, there is no free portion and A must now return the 10K donation
 As per Atty. Sebastian: give back only the value, thus if “A” got 10k worth of land back in the
50’s in what is today a prime lot, thus you don’t return the land which could be worth millions
today but rather its value then only which is 10k.
 It is the money value of when you received the property not when it is being collated after the
death of the decedent.
 That’s why when accepting donation the type of property matters.
If it is a car – you return the value of the car, usually because of depreciation of said car, it would
mean you get the raw end of the deal.
If it is a Land – you return the price of when it was given to you but the actual value of the land
would appreciate, thus good job.
 Reserva refers to the property and collation refers to the value not the property itself.
NOTE: As stated if the donation impairs the legitime, must return the value of the property, BUT if the
donation revoked by law, return the property itself and not the value of such.
 Basic of collation
1. Estate (E) = Property (P) – Debts (D) + Collationable Donation (CD)
2. CD (CH) Compulsory Heir Advance to the Legitime where to impute
(VH) Voluntary Heir Advance against the Free Portion
3. Determine if the legitime is affected by what was given from the Free Portion.
 EX#1
 Given Facts: T 190 +50 =240 (theoretical estate)
Estate = 190 equally = 240/3 =80 each
Kids = A, B & C who are legit A B C (50)
C = 50 donation 40 40
Will = to receive equally 80 80 30 from legitime from (FP)
40 – Legitime – 50 CD = 10 donation
 As a General Rule all donations are collationable 40 FP – 10 donation = 30
 Article 1062 – creates an exemption.
 But in order to apply, must first see what is the intention
 Is the intention an advance or
 Is the intention a preference (para lamang yung isang heir)
 The stipulation in a deed of sale makes it an advance towards the free disposal.
63
 EX#2
 Same facts but the donation T
Is now not a collationable donation.
A B C50 (non CD)
1. Honor the donation
- In order to do such check if such inofficious. 63,333.33 Each
190 + 50 =240/2 = 120 50 can fit
50 thus not inofficious
2. 190/3 = 63,333.33
 What if there are plenty of donations?

 “Priority in time equals priority in right”.
 Seatwork #1
E = 210 1. 210 + 30 = 240/ 2 = 120 FITS! Thus step 2
A, B & C are legit kids 30 T
Donation to C = 30 is non CD 2. 210/3 =70 each
A B C
 Seatwork #2
Same facts but now 1. 210 + 100 = 310/2 = 155 Fits! 70 70 70
Non CD is 100 100
2. 210/3 = 70 each still!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seatwork #3
E = 20 1. 20 + 100 = 120/2 = 60 DOES NOT FIT!
Non CD to C = 100 100
Since it cannot fit additional step implemented
1. b. 60/3 = 20, is what A, B and C should get as legitime.
2. T (E= 20)
A B C (non CD 100)
20 20 -20 Transfer from C to D to complete legitime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seatwork #4
E = 120 1. 120 + 240 = 360/2 = 180 Cannot fit!
Donation to C = 240 240
Thus 1.b. 180/3 = 60 each as legitime
Amount fits in the estate thus, C still gets 240
2. T (E=120)
A B C
60 60 240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64
 Seatwork #5
Same facts but this time 1. 120 + 240 = 360/2 = 180 Cannot fit!
C repudiated thinking it was not fair 240
He got more. 1.b. But C repudiated THUS
180/2 = 90 for A and B as legitime.
2. T (E=120)
A B C 180 (total legitime) 240 (CD)

- 120 (Estate) - 60
90 90 0 60 (Balance) 180 = what C actually got
 C thought he was doing the right thing by his siblings and ended up losing out, thus the lesson is
to calculate first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 EX#3 * thus first thing after

 Given facts: 1. 200 + 10 = 210/2 = 105 can fit step 1 is to provide
E = 200 10 for the legacy.
2 legit kids A & B 2. 200/2 = (legitime) 100/2 = 50 each
Legacy to B 10K = (free portion) 90/2 = 45 each
95 each
3. T (E=200)
A B
(95+10 =105)
95 105
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Seatwork #6
 Given facts: 1. Check legacy: 135 + 15 = 150/2 = 75 Legacy can fit
E = 135 15
2 legit kids A & B thus pay the legacy 135-15=120
Donation 15 to A 2. 120 (current E) – 15 (donation to A) = 135/2= 67.5
Legacy 15 to B (donation)15 can fit!
A = 67.5 – 15 (donation) = 52,500
B = 67.5 = 67,500
120,000 (current estate)
Legacy to B + 15,000
135,000 (actual estate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Donations do not create preferences BUT legacies do!
 Article 1063 of the Civil Code

 Atty. Sebastian: Error in translation
 Legacies and devises are charged to the free portion.
 As compare when a gift is given by donation it is a collationable donation.
 If the recipient is a CH charged towards the legitime
 If the recipient is a stranger charged towards the Free Portion.
65
 Article 1064 (Grandchildren)

 Vizconde case
 Presumption of survivorship
 The grandparents should have been excluded in the case but they were not, in
the partition proceedings.
 Vanishing deductions
 Simultaneous death; thus allowing one tax to cover all transfers
 (Reiterated) donation – you don’t return the property but rather the value, it is in
reserva that the opposite happens.
 If the grandchildren are to inherit in their own right, no collation is to happen BUT if
the right is under the right of representation, then collate.
T
Collationable
A (DIP) B C
D E Right of representation
Donor
8M F M 1/2
4M
H W Donor donated to 8M F & M donated to
the ACP Son Wife Son and Wife ACP
4M 1/4 1/4
Son Advance Towards the
on legitime Free Portion
ONLY HALF IS COLLATIONABLE
 If the legitime is affected, meaning there is no free portion to the estate

 Article 908 must be applied to preserve the legitime.
 Article 908. To determine the legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the testator
shall be considered, deducting all debts and charges, which shall not include those imposed in
the will.
 Not all donations are collationable

 Specific stipulation that such donation is not collationable, will exclude said property that was
donated from being collated.
66
 More Examples
Given facts: Value of assets 100
2 legitimate Kids (A & B) Debts/Taxes - 10
A received a donation of 50 Net Estate 90
Estate = 100 Collationable Donation +50
Debts and taxes = 10 Theoretical Estate 140
 If collationable
2 legitimate children
BUT SINCE COLLATIONABLE
A B A B
70 + 70 = 140 20 + 70 = 90
 If NOT collationable
 Net Estate 90/2 = 45 each
 A B
45 45 Thus legitime is not impaired
90
 Article 1070 (Wedding Gifts)

 Partial collation only as to wedding gifts.
 What is not collationable?
 What is not collationable is only up to 1/10th of the estate of the donor, thus so long it does
not exceed 10th there is no problem.
 Why 1/10th?
 It is never rare to see large families’ sizes in the Philippines, thus 10 children – 1 share daw.
 What can it consist of?
 Jewellery, clothing and outfits.
 What about cash gifts, should they be included?
 As per Paras: yes, it should be.
 As per Puno and J.B.L. Reyes: NO, the law is specific, thus it should not be.
 Side Note: The reason Puno and J.B.L. Reyes never really differ in opinion is
because they co-authored a book together that which has now long be gone out
of print.
 As per Atty. Sebastian: There is still NO court decision as to such but follow Paras, if not you
lose collationable assets.
 Who are the donors concerned here?
 Parents and ascendants.
 WHY is that?
Atty. Sebastian: The situation which the law here takes note off, is that a wedding is
supposed to be a once in a lifetime event that would hold great importance in a person’s
life, thus it is to be expected that gifts be given in honor of this special occasion; Moreover
the law understands:
1. The fact that the parents feel obliged to give but
2. On the other hand, the law should try to stop over generosity (how about the other kids
daw eh!).
67
Alternative Formula for solving ratios

Legacy to receive Note: Always remember Rodriguez v.
80 105= (the ratio) Rodriguez; always give priority to
120 Total free portion the testamentary provision first
Total Legacy
 HOW DO YOU COLLATE WEDDING GIFTS?

 EX#1. *graphed out
Decedent gave the following D (E=150)
A = 40, B= 50 and C = 60
Took into account inflation when A B C
It was given, since the marriages 40 50 60 Wedding Gifts
Were 5 years apart. -15 -15 -15 Non-Collationable Donation
E = 150 25 35 45 what is collationable (legitime)
STEP 1.
E = 150 STEP 2.
A = 40 (Free Portion) 150 x 1/10 = 15,000 (non-collationable)
B = 50 (Legitime) 150/3 = 50 (legitime for each)
C = 60
300/2 = 150
STEP 4. (Return all then compute)
STEP 3.
150 Total of non-collationable Heirs A B C
-45 donations (blue line) 45 Non-CD 15 15 15
105 Legitime +70 +70 +70
+105 Total of the collationable 105 By way of Advances -25 -35 -45
210 donations (yellow line) Net-estate share 40 35 25
210/3 = 70 each = 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 EX#2 STEP 1. Find allowable wedding gift
D (E=160) E = 160
WG = 30
A B OD = 30
20 10 As wedding gift (WG) 220/2 = 110 (Legitime)
20 10 Legacy, advance on FP = 110 (Free Portion)
20 10 Ordinary donation (OD) = 110 (Free Portion) ÷ 1/10 = 11,000
an advance on legitime
STEP 2. STEP 3. Paid Sheet

E = 160 A B A B
L = -30 84,500 84,500 20,000 10,000 (Legacy)
130 20-11=9 for A and -9,000 0 +55,500 +74,500
WG = +9 0 for B since less than 11 75,500 84,500 75,500 + 84,500 = 160,000
OD = +30 -20,000 -10,000 which is also (E)
169/2 = 84,500 for A & B 55,500 74,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68
EX#3:
(E = 750,000) STEP 1. Compute for the legitime
D SS Part 1.
Estate 750,000
A B C predecease Total WG +160,000
x Total OD +200,000
1,110,000
10 50 100 (WG) 1,110,000/2 = 555,000
70 80 50 (OD) = 555,000/2 = 277,500 SS
60 100 100 (Legacy) = 277,500/2 = 138,750
STEP 1. Continued STEP 2 Wedding Gift

Part 2.
555,000 138,750 Free Portion
277,500 SS × 1/10th of such
138,750 13, 875 Non collationable
971,250 Total Legitime to be given wedding gift (NCWG)
(E) 1,110,000 – 971,250 = 138,750 Free Disposal
STEP 4. Return all and Redo the Legitime STEP 3. Subtract from gifts (WG)
Part 1.
Estate 750,000 A B C
Collationable (WG) 122,250 Wedding gift received 10,000 50,000 100,000
Ordinary Donation 200,000 Subtract (NCWG) 0 -13,875 -13,875
1,072,250 36,125 + 86,125
= 122,250
STEP 4. Continued
Part 2.
1,072,250/2 = 536,125 (New Total Estate) - (New Total Legitime)
536,125/2 = 268,062.50 SS
268,062.50/2 = 134,031.25 1,072,250 – 938,218.75
938,218.75 New Total Legitime = 134,031.25 (new Free Disposal)
STEP 5. Pay the legitime!

New Total
Heirs A B C SS Legitime with
Supposed Legitime 134,031.25 268,062.50 268,062.50 268,062.50 The WG & OD
Collationable (WG) -0 -36,125 -86,125 computed
(OD) -70,000 -80,000 -50,000
Totals 64,031.25 +151,937.50 +131,937.50 +268,062.50 = 615,968.75
750,000.00 Actual Estate

615,968.75 New Total Legitime with WG & OD accounted for
134,031.25 Free Disposal
Continued Next Page

69
STEP 6. Give the Legacy

Note: C cannot receive any since he predeceased Decedent
A = 60,000
B = 100,000
160,000 Total Legacy to be given
134,031.25 Remaining amount in the Free Disposal
Thus, cannot fit!
STEP 7. FINAL TOTAL!
Heirs A B C SS
Legitime with WG and OD 64,031.25 151,937.50 131,937.50 268,062.50
Legacy 50,261.72 83,769.53 0 0
Total 114,392.96 +235,707.03 +131,937.50 +268,062.50
= 749,999.99
Practically the value of the Estate
 Atty. Sebastian: always do what the testator wants, just make sure the legitime is not affected.
 Ex#4:
 Given facts: T (E=300) 1. Check the legitime
- A, B and F as per will shall 300/2=150/2=75 each for A&B
inherit in equal shares A B F not affected, thus continue
- A & B are CH and F is a VH
- Estate = 300 X Y 100 legitime = 75
- B = DIP, with 2 children Free Portion = 25
who are X & Y
 To determine accretion check Heir Institution Representation Accretion

out what each got from the Free A 100,000 0 5,000
portion. F 100,000 0 20,000
F got 100 X 0 37,500 75 0
A got 25 since the legitime is 75 Y 0 37,500 0
Thus ratio is 4:1 = 25,000 = 5,000 Total 200,000 +75,000 +25,000
5,000
Missing 25K, thus accretion
70
 EX#5
 Same facts but this time
B Repudiates
Heir Institution Additional Legitime Accretion
 When B Repudiates there comes
A 100 75 5
a new computation
300/2 = 150 Actual legitime F 100 20
X -
 Based again from the FP Y -
F = 100
A = 25 Ration is 4:1 THUS, A= 180 and F = 120
4:1 = 25/5 = 5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s all folks!
71

Wills Succession Atty. Sebastian Lecture Notes

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Wills Succession Atty. Sebastian Lecture Notes

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty.

 What are the modes of acquisition? (OLD TIPS)

 Art 391. (Presumption of death for purposes of succession)

 Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety;

Exception: When the obligation becomes intransmissible by the following

 Uson v. Del Rosario;

 NHA v. Almedia; (skipped)

 Go Ong v. CA (model case of how things should be)

 Reganon v. Imperial (new law patterned to this case)

 Salvador v. Sta. Maria (a case borne out of stupidity and laziness)

Seller/Owner ----------------------- Buyer

1) Handled probate of the will 1) Action for reconveyance

6) 21 did not want to give land, since the decision of the

 Ramirez v. Baltazar ( Rights of the heirs)

 Requisites for extra judicial settlement

 Puno v. Puno Enterprises (Art. 777 not applied)

 Reyes v RTC (Art 777 not applied even if shareholder)

 Santos v. Lumbao (difference of ideal share from specific prop )

 Example of future inheritance

 Art. 781 (relate to Art 440 “accrue”)

 Art. 793 (Property acquired after making the will)

Testatrix Dead Alive

 In relation to Art 793, application

 Characteristics of a valid will (usual bar question)

 Art 785 (what can be and cannot be delegated)

 Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon (Testamentary Preference)

 Art. 789 (Ambiguities)

 Testate Estate of Adruna Maloto v. CA (Extrinsic Evidence)

 What you look for in a will in terms of validity.

Extrinsic (as to FORM) – form, capacity, due execution

Probate only looks at the extrinsic

 Who can write a will?

 De Guzman v. Intestate of Franciso Benitez

 Definition of “acknowledgement” before a notary public

 Suroza v Honrado (language must be understood)

 Reyes v. De Vidal ( Disputable presumption)

 Balonan v. Abellana (for 3rd persons, where to put testators name)

 Garcia v Lacuesta ( Don’t lie, admit mistakes)

 Nera v. Rimando (Test of Presence)

 Taboada v. Rosal (Attestation v. Subscription)

 Icasiano v. Icasiano (good idea to keep a copy)

 Art. 1337 – for undue influence – non-voluntary act

 Cargo v. Cargo (Attestation Clause must be signed below)

 Lopez v Liboro ( 2 page sequence)

 Samaniego-Celada v. Abena (Attestation Clause is part of the will)

 Garcia v. Gatchalan (Article 806 is a must)

 Cruz v. Villasor (Notary as a witness also – stupid if notarizes such)

 Gabucan v. Manta (Doc Stamps)

-------------------------------------------- End Art 804 – 806 -----------------------------------------------------

 Art 807. (Deaf or Deaf-Mute Testator)

 Art 808. (Blind Testator)

 Garcia v. Vasquez (what is blind in the legal sense)

 Alvarado v. Gaviola (Substantial Compliance – blind)

 Roxas v. De Jesus (Holographic will and the date requirement)

 Labrador v CA (Position of the date)

 Gan v. Yap (Need the will itself)

 Rodelas v. Aranza (Photocopy not allowed and why)

 Rivera v. IAC ( Joke time lang case)

 Probate is for Testamentary Succession

 Note: all Items must be present in the will.

 Kalaw v. Relova ( must sign changes to a holographic will)

 VDA. De Perez v. Tolete

 De La Cerna v. Rebaca (Joint will that got through)

 Qualifications of a witness to a notarial will