V2's Succession 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 persons 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.
1
Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Thus, GR: Contracts are binding on the heirs as well due to NCC Art. 1311, which
refers to the Principle of Relativity of Contracts;
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.
2
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 ownership, 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.
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
dont 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
1) Handled probate of the will
(23 people involved in the will)
3) Decision of the court is to give them
property reconveyed
Branch I
1) Action for reconveyance
(21 people as substitutes)
2) went to the CA, who had the

The land
contract is void
to the 21 substitute, since supposedly the
6) 21 did not want to give land, since the

court is final and executor
decision of the
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
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 fathers 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
companys 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
4

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 sons 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, thats why 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 dont 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

5
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)

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
No other application except to

ensure payment of debt
Is to still give the testator the

opportunity to decide
When it takes
place
After
the
Succession
Refers to properties gain after

making the will during the
testators lifetime
Testatrix
Dead
As
application
to
opening
of
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;
6

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.
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 coownership, 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 mans 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 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
8
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)
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 govt 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 wills authenticity.
Why do we have so many stringent rules for succession that are not applied
in other form of documents such as contracts?
9

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 dont 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.
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
10

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 ( Dont 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 testators
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 40s and 50s 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 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 dont 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 3 rd 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.
11

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 1 st 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 2 nd 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
wills 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
Art. 1337 for undue influence non-voluntary act
In other words BOBO ang lawyer, cant 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
12

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! Dont 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!
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.
13

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.
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
14

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 dont 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)
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
15

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.
3. Thus depending on the situation of the testator the year alone
will do.
16
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 2 nd 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;
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 didnt have to decide the way they did to make a winner,
mga bobo!
17
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 1 st 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).
Note: all Items must be present in the will.
18

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.
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.
19
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;
ones 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.
20

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 ones 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 debtors 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
21
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.
5) Atty. Sebastians example: Yung mga bumbay, the 5/6
Everything he lent is/are account receivables (AR), if there are 1,300
customers with their own ARs, 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 42reappearance 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)
22

1) Implied Revocation
Example:
2001------ Will 1 made ------- Institutes A as universal heir
2011------ Will 2 made ------- Institutes B as universal heir
- 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 2 nd
will is denied probate the 1 st 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 3 rd 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.
Atty. Sebastian: Is scissoring allowed? In a 1950s case the tribunal
supremo or the Spanish supreme court said yes but no case yet in the
RP
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.
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
23

2nd, Lost its validity revoked
Remedy: Execute a codicil;
I revive the (no. of pages) will which was revoked on (date) By mere
reference.
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 Bs 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 Mans 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)
Niece, Vicenta; claims 4/6
(2 Children)
Claim that father willed them all
Since she bought out the other 3 heirs
24
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.
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 Bernardos 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.
25

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)
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).
26

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.
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 courts 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.
27
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);
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.
28

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.
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
29

(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.
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 , 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
= 72.5
= 48.3
= 29.02
Total = 149.82
Another Example same given but now X and Y

X = 37,500
45K missing, cannot just add the said
amount.
Y = 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
30
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.
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.
31
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.
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
32

III.
Reciprocal (69 hehehe)
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
of RIP
B
C
A
Reciprocal Legacy or Devise
Note: A will only get Bs share in case
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.
Fideicommisary Substitution (FCS)

33

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 1 st 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 (1 st)
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 2 nd
heir.
There is no decision issued by the Supreme Court yet, to clarify if the 1 st
heir is a trustee.
As per Atty. Sebastian: the 1st heir is not a trustee but rather an
owner.
34

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).
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 wont prosper). Thus it should also be ok to
sell such property but subject to a resolutory term, so the 2 nd 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 1 st 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 (1 st heir), subject to FCS, to
Y (2nd heir).
If the 2nd heir predeceases the 1st heir
35

(DOUBLE CHECK REQUIRED) It shall go the heirs of the 2 nd heir but not
through right of representation but inherit it in his own right, from the 2 nd 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 Ts death.
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.
36

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.
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.
37

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.
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.
38
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.)
Article
992.
mistress
Illegitimate and legitimate
family law presumes animosity
between the two families.
Segregation
of
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.
39
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.
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.
40

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 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 dont understand it, so good
luck)
Illegitimate share 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.
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

for the paternal line & 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.
41

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 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
A, B and C are LC
There is a SS
A, B and C have children
SS, A,
D
E F
G
B, and C
I
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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):

42

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
The other side
(Ex: father or mother)

1) given gratuitously to the
Descendant
Relatives of the ascendant

legitime to the
2) Wealth is transferred
by
Operation of law and/or
through 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.
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.
43
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 3 rd degree relatives.
Question: is the whole property given to the father part of the Reserva?
No only :
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.
Another Example:
44

W1 --------------- H ----------------- W2
1) Gratuitous title to B
from W1
2) B donates to C
C
D
A
B
3) C dies
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.
W2
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) of the land
Maxima
VH (free portion) of the land
Thus 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
45
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.
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
Garing W2
Manuel Padura
Belita
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 Manuels side and
brothers and sisters on Candelarias 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 Paduras they get 1 share each
1 Baldovino gets 2 shares
Thus (estate 9) is how to compute for such, to give way to Baldovinos
full blood share.
Depapa v. Camacho (Rules of intestacy)

Father
Brother and Sisters
Wife
Son
Sister
46

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 3 rd 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.
Endroso v. Sablan
A reservors 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
Esparia, did not go to the
Mother
Sold to
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 2 nd
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
47

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 3 rd 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.
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 3 rd 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 3 rd 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
48

1. As to land
- BIR zonal value
then
2. As to improvements
- Tax declarations
longer be
3. Shares
Traded
- closing price
purpose of
Listed
- book value
computation
4. Others
- market value
legitime.
Equals - total assets
Subtracted by personal debts
Equals the net estate
NOTE: if there is no CH,

collation
will
no
required, the
collation is for the
of
the
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
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)

49

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
(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
50

Given facts:
SS
SS
Computation for such
LC1 ILC
estate - 240
4 LC (a-d)
ILC
CD 250
LC-B
X Donation of 50
490/2 = 245 for the strict
legitime
LC250 Collationable (CD)
FREE
= 245 for
the free portion
240 Estate
PORTION
245 of strict legitime 4 =
61.25
LCILC got 100 advance
such would be the shares
D
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
1. So many collationable donations
made here, destroys the estate;
2. There is a compulsory heir
3. Order of preference:
a. Legitime
b. Donations (w/n the free disposal)
c. Honor legacies/devises ( Preferred)
d. All other legacies and devises (prorated)
Article 950
1. The estate is not sufficient to cover all
legacies and devises;
2. No compulsory heir required
3. Order of Preference
a. Remuneratory legacies
b. Legacies or devises declared by the
testator to
be preferential
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
Disinheritance, a testamentary act to deprive a compulsory heir of the
legitime.
Requirements for disinheritance
51

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
52

C 1/6
21,250
42,500
42,500
14,166
Total = 212,500
Difference of 42,500 with estate
The Cagiua interpretation refers to the intent of the testator, while Tolentinos
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).
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.
Thats 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 1 st will, then
disinherits the same person in the 2nd will he makes.
53

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.
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
54

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 didnt 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.
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 interrelated 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;
55

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,
no right
A was disinherited
representation and B, C
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
must compute
X Y
for the legitime.
Compute for the
Legitime: 90/2=45 strict portion3 Compulsory Heirs = 15 which would
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.
clearly
and M
and Y
be the
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.
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
1
60
x 20 = 20
C 117-40
77
(ratio) 1+2 = 3 = 20
2
x 20 = 40
X
60
234
56
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.
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.
57
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 3 rd degree)
excludes the daughter of the first cousin of the decedent (a relative within
the 5th 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)

58

A half-blood nephew is a collateral relative within the 3 rd 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
gets each
H
W
H
W
*Share is not equal because it is
per stilpes
F
M
1/2
1/
2
2. Collateral lines (pro rata)

Ex:
W1
H
does not
W2
*Whether full blood or half-blood it
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
still
D
Incapacitated
30
ground for such
A
B
C
he can
*What if C disinherited F can F

represent C?
1st step: ask what is the
2nd step: if not a valid ground;
3rd step: if it is ARTICLE 1032,
cannot.
D
E
30
F
G
15
15
Relationships
Consanguinity and affinity
Affinity is not included in intestacy. Youre not really part of the family, saling
kat ka lang. Remember the case of Rosales v. Rosales.
59
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.
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
1.
Testamentary
2. Intestacy
GROUNDS
For Compulsory Heirs: 1)
disinheritance, 2)
incapacity or 3)
predecease (DIP)
Incapacity or
Predecease (IP)
SCOPE
Legitime
only
BENEFICIARIES
Descendants only.
Collateral lines has no
legitime and not a CH.
Full
intestate
share
Descendants
Collateral lines can inherit, if
there are no descendants or
ascendants.
Right of Representation
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:
A
Ex2:
Ex3:
A
B Adopted
B Adopted
C Adopted
C Adopted
No such thing as an adopted grandchild

Atty. Sebastian: No one can assign a relative to you, you dont pick your
actual family.
AbellanaBacayo v. FerrarisBorromeo (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)
60

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 3rd 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.
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 latters illegitimate child in this case.
Seatwork
Given facts:
D
Estate = 96
All are universal heirs, but institutes
A
B
C
A
B
E
D
F
G
H
I
C
All children are legitimate
Heirs and their Equival Legiti
Free
shares
ent
me
Portion
B predecease and leaves
A
48
16
32
E,D,F & G
B
24
16
8
C incapacitated, leaves H
C-
24
16
8
and I
What if the attestation clause is defective?
E, D, F & G (4 each)
Answer:
each)
A = 32
B = 32/4 = 8
C = 32/2 = 16
H and I (8
61
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
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
1. Legitimate Children and Legitimate
Descendants
2. Legitimate Parents and Legitimate
Ascendants
3. Illegitimate Child and Illegitimate
Descendants
4. Surviving Spouse
5.Brothers and Sisters/Nephews and
Nieces
6. Collateral Relatives of the 5th Degree
7. State
Illegitimate Line
1. Legitimate Children and Legitimate
Descendants
2. Illegitimate Children and Illegitimate
Descendants
3. Illegitimate Parent (old school thinking;
blemish on the name, thus penalized)
4. Surviving Spouse
5. Brothers and Sisters/Nephews and
Nieces
6. 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.
62
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.
Suntay III v. Cojuangco Suntay (Atty. Sebastian: agree with the result
but not the decision)
Fedrico (grandfather)
Aguinaldo)
Cristine
Federico adopted
Mistress----------------- Emilio
Cojuangco)
2 illegitimate children
(Grandmother
and
relative
of
Emilio
Isabel (youngest sister of Danding

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.
63

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.
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
TOTAL
HEIR
INSTITUTION
EQUIVALENT RATIO ACCREATION

64

A, B, C and D heirs
15,000
120
Repudiate D
60
All are universal heir
3,500
30
All are voluntary heir
_________
____
1/2
105
1/4
52.5
1/8
26.25
1/8
26.25
26,250
4:2:1=
7
4
2
7,500
1
_____
210
= 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 (Ds 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);
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
65

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 4 th 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.
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;
66

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.
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.
67

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 2ICs
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 50s in what is today a prime lot, thus you dont 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.
Thats 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:
(theoretical estate)
Estate = 190
each
Kids = A, B & C who are legit
C = 50 donation
Will = to receive equally
from (FP)
190 +50 =240

equally
C (50)
80
80
30
40
from
240/3
=80
40
legitime
40 Legitime 50 CD = 10
donation
68
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.
EX#2
Same facts but the donation
Is now not a collationable donation.
T
A
C50
(non
CD)
1. Honor the donation
In
order
to
63,333.33 Each
190 + 50 =240/2 = 120
50
2. 190/3 = 63,333.33
do
such
check
if
such
inofficious.
50 can fit
thus not inofficious
What if there are plenty of donations?

Priority in time equals priority in right.
Seatwork #1
E = 210
step 2
A, B & C are legit kids
Donation to C = 30 is non CD
1. 210 + 30 = 240/ 2 = 120
FITS! Thus
30
2. 210/3 =70 each

A
C
Seatwork #2
Same facts but now
70
70
70
Non CD is 100
1. 210 + 100 = 310/2 = 155
Fits!
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
C (non CD 100)
69

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
60
60
240
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
90
90
180 (total legitime)

- 120 (Estate)
- 60
60
(Balance)
240 (CD)
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
after
Given facts:
is to provide
E = 200
2 legit kids A & B
Legacy to B 10K
3.
* thus first thing

1. 200 + 10 = 210/2 = 105
can fit
step 1
10
for the legacy.
2. 200/2 = (legitime) 100/2 =
50 each
= (free portion) 90/2 = 45 each
95 each
T (E=200)
A
B
(95+10 =105)
95 105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------70
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.
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 dont 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)
D
B
E
C
Right of representation
71

Donor
8M
H
donated to
F
4M
Donor donated to
M 1/2
8M
the ACP
Son
F & M
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.
More Examples
Given facts:
2 legitimate Kids (A & B)
A received a donation of 50
Estate = 100
Debts and taxes = 10
Value of assets
Debts/Taxes
Net Estate
Collationable Donation
Theoretical Estate
100
- 10
90
+50
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.
72

What is not collationable?
What is not collationable is only up to 1/10 th 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 persons 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!).
Alternative Formula for solving ratios
Legacy to receive
Rodriguez v.
80
105= (the ratio)
to
120
Total free portion
provision first
Total Legacy
Note: Always remember

Rodriguez; always give priority
the testamentary
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
NonCollationable Donation
E = 150
25
35
45
what is collationable
(legitime)
STEP 1.
73

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.
Heirs
A
B
C
150 Total
of non-collationable
Non-CD
15
15
15
-45
donations (blue line)
45
Legitime
+70 +7 +7
105
0
0
+105
Total of the collationable
By
way
of
-25
-35
-45
105
Advances
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EX#3:
(E = 750,000)
D
A
B
Estate
Total
WG
Total OD
STEP 1. Compute for the legitime

SS
Part 1.
750,000
C predecease
+160,00
x
0
+200,00
0
1,110,00
0
74

10 50
70
80
100
50
(WG)
(OD)
1,110,000/2 = 555,000
= 555,000/2 = 277,500
SS
60
138,750
100
100
(Legacy)
= 277,500/2 =
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.
A
B
C
Estate
750,000
Wedding gift
10,00 50,00 100,00
Collationable (WG)
122,250
received
0
0
0
Ordinary Donation
Subtract (NCWG)
0
200,000
13,87 13,875
1,072,250
36,125
+
5
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!
Heirs
Supposed
Legitime
Collationable
(WG)
(OD)
Totals
A
134,031.
25
-0
B
268,062.5
0
-36,125
C
268,062.5
0
-86,125
-70,000
64,031.
25
-80,000
+151,937
.50
-50,000
+131,93
7.50
615,968.75
134,031.25
SS
268,062.5
0
New Total
Legitime with
The WG & OD
computed
= 615,968.75
+268,06
2.50
750,000.00
Actual Estate
New Total Legitime with WG & OD accounted for
Free Disposal
Continued Next Page
75
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
Legitime with WG
and OD
Legacy
Total
A
64,031.2
5
50,261.7
2
114,392.
96
B
C
SS
151,937.
131,937. 268,062.5
50
50
0
83,769.5
0
0
3
+235,70 +131,93 +268,06
7.03
7.50
2.50
= 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:
- A, B and F as per will shall
each for A&B
inherit in equal shares
continue
- A & B are CH and F is a VH
- Estate = 300
= 75
- B = DIP, with 2 children
= 25
who are X & Y
To
out what
portion.
F got
Hei
r
A
F
X
Instituti
on
100,000
100,000
0
Y
Tot
al
0
200,00
0
Representatio
n
0
0
37,500
75
37,500
+75,000
T (E=300)
A
1. Check the legitime

300/2=150/2=75
F
not affected, thus

100
legitime
Free Portion
Accretion
5,000
20,000
0
0
+25,000
determine
accretion
check
each got from the Free
100
76

A got 25 since the legitime is 75
Thus ratio is 4:1 = 25,000 = 5,000
5,000
Missing 25K, thus accretion

EX#5
Same facts but this time
B Repudiates
When B Repudiates there

comes
a new computation
300/2 = 150
Actual
legitime
Based again from the FP
F = 100
A = 25
Ration is 4:1
Hei
r
A
F
X
Y
Instituti
on
100
100
-
Additional
Legitime
75
Accretio
n
5
20
THUS, A= 180 and F = 120
4:1 = 25/5 = 5,000

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thats all folks!
77

V2&#39;s Succession Notes

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

V2&#39;s Succession Notes

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty.

Art 774. Succession is a mode of Acquisition by virtue of which the property,

What are the modes of acquisition? (OLD TIPS)

Inheritance of a person consists of property, transmissible rights and obligations

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

Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety;

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Uson v. Del Rosario;

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

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)

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

to the 21 substitute, since supposedly the

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

Ramirez v. Baltazar ( Rights of the heirs)

Requisites for extra judicial settlement

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

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

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

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

Example of future inheritance

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Henry C --------------- Big Boy

Art. 781 (relate to Art 440 accrue)

Art. 793 (Property acquired after making the will)

No other application except to

Is to still give the testator the

Refers to properties gain after

In relation to Art 793, application

Characteristics of a valid will (usual bar question)

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Art 785 (what can be and cannot be delegated)

Dizon-Rivera v. Dizon (Testamentary Preference)

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Art. 789 (Ambiguities)

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

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

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Probate only looks at the extrinsic

Who can write a will?

De Guzman v. Intestate of Franciso Benitez

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Definition of acknowledgement before a notary public

Suroza v Honrado (language must be understood)

Reyes v. De Vidal ( Disputable presumption)

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

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

Garcia v Lacuesta ( Dont lie, admit mistakes)

Nera v. Rimando (Test of Presence)

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Taboada v. Rosal (Attestation v. Subscription)

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

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

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Lopez v Liboro ( 2 page sequence)

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

Abada v. Abaja ( no. of witnesses need not be stated on the attestation

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Garcia v. Gatchalan (Article 806 is a must)

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

Will and Succession; From the Lectures of Atty. Sebastian

Guerero v. Bihis (It is the responsibility of the testator to check the

V2's Succession Notes

V2's Succession Notes