78. BICMONG v. ALMANZA
The TRIAL COURT ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
FACTS:
1. 1st marriage: Simeon Bagsic was married to a
certain Sisenanda Barcenas with three children:
Perpetua, Igmedia, and Ignacio. All surnamed
Bagsic. The wife died ahead of Simeon Bagsic.
2. 2nd marriage: Remarried with Silvestra Glorioso
with two children: Felipa and Maura Bagsic.
Simeon Bagsic then died followed by the death of
Silvestra.
3. First marriage:
a. Ignacio died – heir – plaintiff Francisca
Bagsic.
b. Igmedia died – heirs – plaintiffs Dionisio,
Maria, and Petra Tolentino.
c. Perpetua died – heirs – plaintiffs Gaudencio,
Felicidad, Salome, and Gervacio Bicomong.
4. Second marriage:
a. Maura died – no heirs
b. Felipa died - survived by husband Geronimo
Almanza and daughter Cristeta Almanza.
5. Cristete Almanza then died – heirs – husband
defendants Engracio Manese and her father
Geronimo Almanza.
6. The subject matter of this complaint involves a
one-half undivided share of Maura Bagsic in
the five (5) parcels of land which she inherited
from her deceased mother, Silvestra Glorioso.
7. The plaintiffs filed an action against the
defendants for the recovery of their lawful
shares in the properties left by Maura Bagsic.
8. After the death of Maura Bagsic, the said
properties were then transferred to Cristela
Almanza who took charge of the administration
of the same.
9. Plaintiffs then approached her requesting for the
partition of their aunt’s properties. However, this
was refused by Cristela because there are still
illness and burial expenses to be paid.
10. Later on, Cristela accepted the request of the
plaintiffs, after the debts have been paid.
Unfortunately, she died without the division of
the properties having been effected, thereby
leaving the possession and administration of
the same to the defendants.
11.
by declaring that they are entitled to ten twenty-
fourth (10/24) share on the said lands in dispute.
12. Defendant Cartena (substituted the deceased
defendant Geronimo Almanza) then appealed to
the CA. However, the other defendant, Engracio
Manese, did not appeal and execution was issued
with respect to the parcels of land in his
possession. The subject matter was then limited
to the one-half undivided portion of only the
three out of the five parcels of land which was
described in the complaint which defendant
Cartena admitted to be only in his possession.
13. On appeal, the defendant contends that:
a. The provisions of Art. 975, 1006, and 1008
of the NCC, applied by the trial court, were
not applicable provisions.
b. Plaintiffs requested defendants to admit that
Felipe Bagsic, the sole sister of full blood of
Maura Bagsic, died on May 9, 1955. Since
Maura Bagsic died on April 14, 1952, Felipa
succeeded to Maura’s estate.
c. In support of the above contention, he cited
Art. 1004 which states that “should the only
survivors be brothers and sisters of the full
blood, they shall inherit in equal shares” and
concludes with the rule that the relative
nearest in degree excludes the more distant
ones.
14. On the other hand, plaintiffs claim that the death
of Felipa Bagsic was not raised as an issue in the
trial court. It was even the subject of stipulation
of the parties as clearly shown in the transcript of
the stenographic notes.
15. The Court of Appeals ruled that the facts of the
case has already been established and that the
only issue left for determination is a purely legal
question involving the correct application of law
and jurisprudence on the matter.
ISSUE:
WON Art. 975, 1006, and 1008 are applicable to
the admitted facts of the case.
RULING:
The SC held that the abovementioned provisions
are applicable to the facts of the case.
 In the absence of descendants, ascendants,
illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, Article
1003 of the New Civil Code provides that collateral
relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
deceased. It appearing that Maura Bagsic died
without an issue, and her husband and all her
ascendants had died ahead of her, she is succeeded
by the surviving collateral relatives, namely the
daughter of her sister of full blood and the ten (10)
children of her brother and two (2) sisters of half
blood in accordance with Art. 975.

Under the same provision, Art. 975, which

makes no qualification as to whether the nephews or
nieces are on the maternal or paternal line and
without preference as to whether their relationship
to the deceased is by whole or half-blood, the sole
niece of the whole blood does not exclude the ten
(10) nephews and nieces of half blood.

The only difference in their right of

succession is provided in Art. 1008 of NCC in relation
to Art. 1006 of the NCC, which provides that it
entitles the sole niece of full blood to a share double
that of the nephews and nieces of half blood.

The contention of the appellant that Maura

Bagsic should be succeeded by Felipa Bagsic, her
sister of full blood, to the exclusion of the nephews
and nieces of half blood citing Art. 1004, NCC, is
unmeritorious and erroneous for it is based on an
erroneous factual assumption, that is, that Felipa
Bagsic died in 1955, which as indicated here before,
is not true as she died on May 9, 1945, thus she
predeceased her sister Maura Bagsic.
86. CACHO v. UDAN
FACTS:
1. This case involves one Silvina G. Udan, single, and
a resident of San Marcelino, Zambales, died
leaving a purported will naming her son
Francisco G. Udan and one Wencesla Cacho, as
her sole heirs.
2. Wencesla Cacho then filed to probate said will.
However, an opposition was filed by John G.
Udan and Rustico G. Udan, both legitimate
brothers of the testatrix on the ground that:
a) That testatrix was incapacitated to execute it.
b) That it was procured by fraud or undue
influence.
3. However, the opposition was denied by the CFI of
Zambales for lack of interest in the estate and
directing the Fiscal to study the advisability of
escheat proceedings. Due to its denial, oppositors
appealed.
ISSUE:
WON the oppositors brothers, John and Rustico
Udan, may claim to be heirs intestate of their
legitimate sister, the late Silvina Udan.
RULING:
The court held that the lower court correctly held
that they were not, for at the time of her death
Silvina’s illegitmate son, Francisco Udan, was her
heir intestate, to the exclusion of her brothers.
This is clear from Art. 988 and 1003 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines in force at the time of death of
the testatrix.
“Art. 988. In the absence of legitimate
descendants or ascendants, the illegitimate
children shall succeed to the entire estate of the
deceased.”
“Art. 1003. If there are no descendants,
ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving
spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to
the entire estate of the deceased in accordance
with the following articles.”
These legal provisions decree that collateral relatives
of one who died intestate inherit only in the absence
of descendants, ascendants, and illegimate
children.
That the fact that Francisco Udan was the illegitimate
son of the late Silvina is not denied by by the
oppositors; and he is so acknowledged to be in the
testament, where said Francisco is termed “son” by
the testatrix.
The trial court, therefore, committed no error in
holding that John and Rustico Udan had no standing
to oppose the probate of the will. For if the will is
ultimately probated John and Rustico are excluded
by its terms from participating in the estate; and if
probate be denied, both oppositors-appellants will
be excluded by the illegitimate son, Francisco Udan,
as sole intestate heir, by operation of law.
The death of Francisco two years after his mother’s
demise does not improve the situation of
appellants. The rights acquired by the former are
only transmitted by his death to his own heirs at law,
not to the appellants, who are legitimate brothers of
his mother, for the reason that, as correctly decided
by the court below, the legitimate relatives of the
mother can not succeed her illegitimate child.
This is clear from Article 992 of the Civil Code.
“Art. 992. An illegitimate child has no right to
inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother;
nor shall such children or relatives inherit
in the same manner from the illegitimate
child.”
NON-ACCEPTANCE BY THE HEIR
For the oppositors-appellants it is argued that while
Francisco Udan did survive his mother, and acquired
the rights to the succession from the moment of her
death still he did not acquire the inheritance until he
accepted it.
This argument fails to take into account that the Code
presumes acceptance of an inheritance if the latter is
not repudiated in due time and that repudiation, to
be valid must appear in a public or authentic
instrument, or petition to the court. There is no
document or pleading in the records showing
repudiation of the inheritance by Francisco Udan.
PROBATE OF WILL
Finally, it is urged that as probate is only concerned
with the due execution of a testament, any ruling on
the successional rights of oppositors-appellants is at
present premature. Inquiry into the hereditary rights
of the appellants is not premature, if the purpose is
to determine whether their opposition should be
excluded in order to simplify and accelerate the
proceedings. If, as already shown, appellants can not
gain any hereditary interest in the estate, whether
the will is probated or not, their intervention would
merely result in unnecessary complication.