Uson vs.

Del Rosario
P was only heir to the death of estranged
husband
P filed for recovery of properties from commonlaw-spouse (D)
D alleged that P signed a deed of separation
relinquishing her rights to inherit
D also alleged that the new civil code has
retroactive effect in granting inheritance to
illegitimate children
WON D is correct?
No
Future inheritance cannot be renounced
Ownership was vested upon the death, not
retroactive
Borja vs. Borja
Husband filed probate for deceased wife as he
was appointed administrator
Husband died and left P as sole administrator
Husband had second wife (D) after death of
first
P & D entered into compromise agreement
providing that she shall receive 800k as full
payment of her share
WON the CA is valid
Yes
Settlement of estate is not needed as there is
no bar for a successor to dispose of her actual
share even without determination (in this case:
conveyance)
Bonilla vs. Barcena
Mother of minors (P) filed an action for quieting
but then died
D filed to dismiss alleging since mother is
dead, there exist no legal capacity
CFI dismissed
WON CFI is correct
NO
Heirs may be substituted in pursuing a case
Complaint was clearly filed before her death
De Vera vs. Galauran
P, surviving spouse and guardian of six minor
children filed a complaint naming his children
thereto
P alleged they executed a mortgage with D
but then later found out that it was a pacto de
retro sale
D alleged that minors have no cause of action
having not yet declared heirs
WON D is correct
NO
Legal heirs may commence an action arising
from a right belonging to an ancestor
Suroza vs.Honrado
Marcelina Suroza supposedly executed a
notarial will bequeathing her house and lot to
certain Marilyn Suroza
Marcelina died, Marina Paje was named
executrix and probate was filed in the court of
D Judge
P, daughter-in-law of Marcelina alleged that the
notarial will was void, alleging among others:
Marilyn Suroza is actually Sy and is a
stranger
Marcelina was an illiterate and the will
was in English
Agapito Suroza is still alive
Will was thumbmarked
Notary never saw Marcelina
D continued the probate hearing
WON D is correct
No
Guilty of misconduct
First paragraph : English was understood and
known

Last paragraph : will was read to the testator

and translated into Filipino

Matias vs. Salud

Will of Gabina Raquel was probated
Gabina left a thumbprint on each page of the
will with her name written by another person
beside it for she had a shoulder injury and had
difficulty affixing her signature
CFI denied alleging that the attestation clause
did not describe the thumbprint nor the writing
of Gabinas name by Lourdes.
WON the thumbprint is sufficient
YES
The absence in the attestation clause that
another person wrote her name beside her
thumbprint is not a fatal defect
The law only requires a signature, which was
complied by a thumbprint
Barut vs. Cabacungan
Will was applied for probate
The will was witnessed by 3 persons and stated
she (testatrix) was unable to read and write
and that the will was read to her
Thus, had one witness sign her name in her
behalf
WON the will is valid
YES
Immaterial who wrote the name provided that
the same was written at her request and in the
presence of the witnesses
Balonan vs. Abellana
Abellana made a will having Juan Bello sign the
will for her
The first page signature is handwritten while
the second page is typewritten signed by Juan
WON the typewritten phrase complies with the
law?
No
Testators name must be written by himself or
by another in his request
The name on the second page was not written,
thus, invalid will
Nera vs. Remando
A will was signed but was alleged that the
testator and some witnesses were in one room
and the other witnesses in another during
signing separated by a curtain
WON the signing is valid
No, but in this case SC ruled YES for the facts
were not proven
The true test is not whether the actually saw
each other sign, but whether they might have
seen each other sign
All witnesses must be in one room (not
separated by a curtain)
Taboada vs. Rosal
A 2 page will was left which was Probated by P
Judge D denied the petition alleging that the
testator signed at the bottom of both pages
and not on the left margin; and that the
attestation clause did not contain the number
of pages
WON the will is valid
Yes, Liberally interpreted
The number of pages would have been a fatal
defect, but interpreted liberally, and the will
only having two pages, and and the will was
titled Last will consisiting of two pages and
the second page properly labeled
As long as the signatures are found

Palacios vs. Ramirez

Wanda was instituted as first heir
Juan and Horacio as second heirs in a
fideicommissary substitution
Both were strangers to Wanda
W/N the fideicommissary substitution is valid
No
Art 863 of the Civil Code validates a
fideicommissary substitution provided such
substitution does not go beyond one degree
from the heir originally instituted.
Cisologo vs. Singson
Donya Leona left a will
Upon Crisologos death, whether this happens
before or after Donya Leonas death, that
Crisologos share shall belong to the brothers
of Donya Leona
W/N this is a valid fideicommissary substitution
No
Purpose of fideicommissary substitution is for
the first heir to preserve and transmit to
another the whole or part of the estate
bequeathed to him, upon his death or upon the
happening of a particular event.
It is not stated that crisologo enjoy
usufructuary rights only
It only state that upon her death, the share
shall belong to her brothers, a mere sustitucion
vulgar (substitution upon the death)
Perez vs. Garchitorena
Acciano vs. Brimo
Turkish man executed a will and contained a
provision that the estate shall be distributed in
accordance with the laws of the Philippines
W/N this is valid?
No
Art 16 of the Civil code stated that the national
law of the testator shall govern testamentary
dispositions
Thus, such condition is an impossible condition
being contrary to law, and thus considered
unwritten
Santos vs. Buenaventura
Villaflor-Villanueva vs. Juico
Nicolas Villaflor left a will leaving most of his
properties to his wife Fausta, and his brother
Fausto
In addition, he left use and possession to his
wife while alive with the condition that she
doesnt remarry, otherwise the properties shall
go to the grandniece
Fausta died and never remarried
W/N the property shall remain with the estate
to Fausta of to the grandniece
Fausta was only granted no more than a life
interest as long as she does not marry during
her lifetime
Thus, goes to grandniece
Nieva vs. Alcala
Property was inherited BY LAW by Francisco
from his son Alfeo

Alfeo inherited form his mother Juliana, his

natural mother
Petitioner is natural sister of Alfeo
W/N Francisco is obliged by law to reserve said
property for the benefit of the petitioner and all
illegitimate relatives within the third degree of
Alfeo?
No
Only legitimate ascendants are obliged to
reserve
Thus only legitimate relatives are able to
receive

Celedonia vs. CA
the Court held that the property of the
deceased, Esteban Javellana, Jr., is not
reservable property, for Esteban, Jr. was not an
ascendant, but the descendant of his mother,
Salustia Solivio, from whom he inherited the
properties in question. Therefore, he did not
hold his inheritance subject to a reservation in
favor of his aunt, Celedonia Solivio, whois his
relative within the third degree on his mothers
side. The reserva troncal applies to properties
inherited by an ascendant from a descendant
who inherited it from another ascendant or a
brother or a sister. It does not apply to property
inherited by a descendant
Edroso vs. Sablan
two parcels of land where inherited by
Marcelina, mother of Pedro who died unmarried
Pedro inherited parcels of land from his father
who had died
Marcelina applied for registration of the
property but was opposed alleging that the
said lands were reservable and are merely
usufructuary
W/N reserva troncal transfers absolute
ownership?
Yes
He may alienate or dispose of property
Relative within the third degree may rescind
the contract upon the death of ascendant who
reserved the property.
Sienes vs. Esparcia
Saturnino with wife Teresa had four children
Saturnino had a second wife Andrea and had
one sone Francisco
When Saturnino died, his property was left to
Francisco
Francisco then died and then left the property
to Adrea his mother
Andrea then executed a sale of the property
2 of the four children from the original wife of
Saturnino Registered the property in their
names and declared the sale to be void
alleging that Andrea had no right to alienate
the same
W/N the reservista may alienate the same?
Yes
Andrea acquires absolute ownership that is
subject to a resolutory condition upon her
death
Maghirang vs. Balcita
Property was inherited by minor Balcita from
her grandfather in representation of her
predeceased mother
Bautista, her father, representing to be
absolute owner, sold the property with right to
repurchase within 10 years
Balcita died predeceasing the father
Her maternal aunt brought an action for
registration of the land in her capacity as
reserve
W/N the aunt may recover said property in her
capacity as reserve
Yes
during the existence of the life estate, the
remainderman has no right to possession and

consequently cannot bring an action to recover

it.
No possession can be deemed adverse to a
party who has not at the time the right of entry
and possession
Prescription ran from the date of the death of
Balcita, not the sale of the property

Carillo vs. De paz

Severino sold his land to Honoria
Severino died and was survived by his
daughter Francisca
Honoria, together with her mother and her
brother were massacred by the Japanese
They were survived by Agustina, mother of the
mother of Honoria
Intestate proceedings of Severino, the entire
property was adjudicated to Francisca
Agustina died
Prima Carillo, daughter of Augustina, sister of
Isabel, filed an action for recovery of the
from Francisca in her capacity as reservatario
W/N Carillos right has prescribed
Yes
There is a valid reserva troncal
It is presumed that Honoraria died first, then
Isabel, then Adolfo
Thus, when Honoria died, the property was
inherited by Isabel, her mother, then Isabel
died, it was inherited by Adolfo
When adolfo died, it was passed to his
maternal grandmother
Isabel is the origin
Adolfo the descendant-propositus
Agustina the ascendant-reservista
Prima as reservatario
Augustina died in 1950 and the reserva was
extinguished
Prima filed an action to recover property in
1963, more than 10 years after she had a
perfect right to recover the property
Period had prescribed
If the new civil code applied, they would have
died at the same time and no reserva troncal
would have been constituted