USON v.

DEL ROSARIO
GR No.L-4963, January 29, 1953
92 PHIL 530
FACTS: Faustino Nebreda died in 1945 leaving as an only heir his estranged wife Maria
Uson, the petitioner. The latter sued to recover the ownership and possession of five
parcels of land occupied by defendant Maria del Rosario, decedent's common-lawspouse and her children. As a defense, defendant presented a deed of separation
agreed upon and signed Faustino and Uson containing among others an statement
giving a parcel of land to Uson as an alimony and the latter renouncing her rights to any
inheritance
from
Faustino.
The defendant also contends that while it is true that the four minor defendants are
illegitimate children of the decedent and under the old Civil Code are not entitled to any
successional rights, however, under the new Civil Code they are given the status and
rights of natural children and are entitled to the successional rights which the law
accords to the latter (article 2264 and article 287, new Civil Code), and because these
successional rights were declared for the first time in the new code, they shall be given
retroactive effect even though the event which gave rise to them may have occurred
under the prior legislation (Article 2253, new Civil Code).
ISSUE: Are the contentions of the defendants correct?
HELD: No. It is evident that when the decedent died in 1945 the five parcels of land he
was seized of at the time passed from the moment of his death to his only heir, his
widow Maria Uson (Article 657, old Civil Code). As this Court aptly said, "The property
belongs to the heirs at the moment of the death of the ancestor as completely as if the
ancestor had executed and delivered to them a deed for the same before his death"
(Ilustre vs. Alaras Frondosa, 17 Phil., 321). From that moment, therefore, the rights of
inheritance of Maria Uson over the lands in question became vested.
The claim of the defendants that Uson had relinquished her right over the lands in
question in view of her expressed renunciation to inherit any future property that her
husband may acquire and leave upon his death in the deed of separation they had
entered into cannot be entertained for the simple reason that future inheritance cannot
be
the
subject
of
a
contract
nor
can
it
be
renounced.
Nor does the contention that the provisions of the New Civil Code shall apply and be
given retroactive effect. Article 2253 above referred to provides indeed that rights which
are declared for the first time shall have retroactive effect even though the event which
gave rise to them may have occurred under the former legislation, but this is so only
when the new rights do not prejudice any vested or acquired right of the same origin...
As already stated in the early part of this decision, the right of ownership of Maria Uson
over the lands in question became vested in 1945 upon the death of her late husband
and this is so because of the imperative provision of the law which commands that the
rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of death (Article 657, old Civil
Code). The new right recognized by the new Civil Code in favor of the illegitimate
children of the deceased cannot, therefore, be asserted to the impairment of the vested
right of Maria Uson over the lands in dispute.

MICIANO v. BRIMO
GR No.L-22595, November 1, 1927
50 PHIL 867
FACTS: Joseph Brimo, a Turkish national, died leaving a will which one of the clauses
states that the law of the Philippines shall govern the partition and not the law of his
nationality, and that legatees have to respect the will, otherwise the dispositions
accruing to them shall be annulled. By virtue of such condition, his brother, Andre

Brimo, an instituted heir was thus excluded because, by his action of having opposed
the partition scheme, he did not respect the will. Andre sued contending that the
conditions are void being contrary to law which provides that the will shall be probated
according to the laws of the nationality of the decedent.
ISSUE: Is the condition as set by the testator valid?
HELD: No. A foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in
accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his
national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Article 10 of the Civil
Code states said national law should govern. Said condition then, in the light of the legal
provisions above cited, is considered unwritten, and the institution of legatees in said
will is unconditional and consequently valid and effective even as to the herein
oppositor.