Chapter 2 Testamentary Succession

Section 6: Disinheritance

ARTICLE 915. A COMPULSORY HEIR MAY, IN CONSEQUENCE OF DISINHERITANCE, BE DEPRIVE OF HIS LEGITIME, FOR
CAUSES EXPRESSLY STATED BY LAW.

Disinheritance the process or act, through a testamentary disposition of depriving in a will any cumpolsory heir of his
legitime for true and lawful causes.
- Purpose: Not Vengeance but RETRIBUTION inasmuch as there can be possible be no feelings of vengeance
between parents and children or between husband and wife at the supreme hour of death.
- Object: To punish the ungrateful, the culpable, the cruel, the innatural heir, or an unfaithful spouse/ To maintain
good order and discipline within the family
- Implications:
o Since it must be made in a will, there is NO DISINHERITANCE IN LEGAL SUCCESSION
o ONLY SOMPULSORY HEIRS CAN BE DISINHERITED for they alone are entitled to the legitime.
o COURTS MAY PROPERLY INQUIRE INTO THE VALIDITY OF DISINHERITANCE
o A disinheritance EXCLUDES the heir not only from the legitime but also from the free portion

Other ways of DEPRIVING the heirs of their legitime:

- Predecease (with right of representation on the heirs)
- Incapacity (with right of representation on the heirs)
- ARTICLE 1032. THE FOLLOWING ARE INCAPABLE OF SUCCEEDING BY REASON OF UNWORTHINESS:
1) PARENTS WHO HAVE ABANDONED THEIR CHILDREN OR INDUCED THEIR DAUGHTER TO LEAD
A CORRUPT AND IMMORAL LIFE, OR ATTEMPTED AGAINST THEIR VIRTUE;
2) ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF AN ATTEMPT AGAINST THE LIFE OF THE
TESTATOR, HIS OR HER SPOUSE, DESCENDANTS, OR ASCENDANTS;
3) ANY PERSON WHO HAS ACCUSED THE TESTATOR OF CRIME FOR WHICH THE LAW PRESCRIBES
IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX YEARS OR MORE, IF THE ACCUSATION HAS BEEN FOUND
GROUNDLESS;
4) ANY HEIR OF FULL AGE WHO, HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE VIOLENT DEATH OF THE
TESTATOR, SHOULD FAIL TO REPORT IT TO AN OFFICER OF THE LAW WITHIN A MONTH,
UNLESS THE AUTHORITIES HAVE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACTION; THIS PROHIBITION SHALL
NOT APPLY TO CASES WHEREIN, ACCORDING TO THE LAW, THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO
MAKE AN ACCUSATION;
5) ANY PERSON CONVICTED OF ADULTERY OR CONCUBINAGE WITH THE SPOUSE OF THE
TESTATOR;
6) ANY PERSON WHO BY FRAUD, VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, OR UNDUE INFLUENCE SHOULD
CAUSE THE TESTATOR TO MAKE A WILL OR TO CHANGE ONE ALREADY MADE;
7) ANY PERSON WHO BY THE SAME MEANS PREVENTS ANOTHER FROM MAKING A WILL, FROM
REVOKING ONE ALREADY MADE, OR WHO SUPPLANTS, CONCEALS, OR ALTERS THE LATTERS
WILL;
8) ANY PERSON WHO FALSIFIES OR FORGES A SUPPOSED WILL OF THE DECEDENT
- Repudiation (no right of representation on the heirs)
- In case the liabilities of the estate is equal or exceed its assets, there would be no hereditary estate, and
consequently, no legitime.

Requisites for a Valid Disinheritance (9)

(a) Must be made in a will ARTICLE 916. DISINHERITANCE CAN BE EFFECTED ONLY THROUGH A WILL WHEREIN
THE LEGAL CAUSE THEREFORE SHALL BE SPECIFIED.
(b) Must be made expressly Disinheritance must not be presumed

ARTICLE 918. DISINHERITANCE WITHOUT A SPECIFICATION OF THE CAUSE, FOR A

CAUSE THE TRUTH OF WHICH, IF CONTRADICTED, IS NOT PROVED, OR WHICH IS NOT
ONE OF THOSE SET FORTH IN THIS CODE, SHALL ANNUL THE INSTITUTION OF HEIRS
INSOFAR AS IT MAY PREJUDICE THE PERSON DISINHERITED; BUT THE DEVISES AND
LEGACIES AND OTHER TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS SHALL BE VALID TO SUCH
EXTENT AS WILL NOT IMPAIR THE LEGITIME.
(c) Must be for a legal The cause must be one authorized by the law, hence, even if graver than those set forth
cause in the law, if it be not one of those enumerated, the disinheritance will be ineffective.
(see Art 916 and 918)
(d) Must be for a true See 917 and 918
cause ARTICLE 917. THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE TRUTH OF THE CAUSE FOR
DISIINHERITANCE SHALL REST UPON THE OTHER HEIRS OF THE TESTATOR, IF THE
DISINHERITED HEIR SHOULD DENY IT.

(e) Must be for an existing
cause
(f) Must be a total or
complete
(g) The cause must me
stated in the will itself
Disinherited may file an opposition to the motion of the executor regarding
disinheritance and deny the cause.
How to prove truth of the cause of disinheritance? The other heirs of the testator may
present witnesses or documents to prove the truth of the cause stated in the will.
The disinherited should be given a chance to rebut the proof presented against him.
In the end, the Court who should decide if disinheritance is valid.
There can be no conditional or preventive disinheritance; although REVOCATION of a
DISINHERITANCE may be conditional (ex. Disinheritance is valid even there is conditional
revocation: I hereby disinherit my child A but if he reforms from his disgraceful life, this
inheritance will be void
Not Partial
See Art 918
Although the exact words of the law need not be used nor details given nor is it essential
that the statement of the fact of disinheritance and the statement of the cause be made
together in one will or instrument as long as necessary connection is proved.

(h) Heir disinherited must
be clearly identified
(i) The will must not have
been revoked
Neither is it essential that the disinheritance be made in the same instrument by which
the testator provides for the disposition of his properties mortis causa, for the law merel
says a will, meaning any will.
So that there will be no doubt as to who is really being disinherited.
Applying the rule of institution of heirs, we may say that evidence aliunde can even be
allowed to determin the indentity of the heirs concerned, but in no case may oral
declarations of the testator be taken into account.
At least in so far as the disinheritance is concerned.

Under Art. 918:

Ineffective/ Illegal/ invalid Disinheritance:
(a) No CAUSE STATED
(b) NOT TRUE CAUSE
(c) NOT LEGAL CAUSE
(d) ARTICLE 922. A SUBSEQUENT RECONCILLIATION BETWEEN THE OFFENDER AND THE OFFENDED PERSON
DEPRIVES THE LATTER OF THE RIGHT TO DISINHERIT, AND RENDERS INEFFECTUAL ANY DISINHERITANCE THAT
MAY HAVE BEEN MADE.

Reconciliation mutual restoration of feelings to the status quo/ resumption fo family relations
- no special form; [This is a judicial question of fact] may be expressed or implied/presumed (parties live
together again)
- No reconciliation on the following
1) General pardon given at hour of death unless there be a removal of hurt feelings
2) Pardon not accepted by disinherited heir
3) Pardon which does not specify the heir or the act committed
4) Pardon given in the same will wherein he provides for the disinheritance. (stated forgiveness in
the name of morality)
- Effects of Reconciliation:
1) If no disinheritance has been made yet, no disinheritance can now be done.
2) Disinheritance already made is rendered INEFFECTUAL (as if no disinheritance at all)

HOW IS DISINHERITANCE REVOKED?

(a) Subsequent reconciliation;
(b) The making of a new will making the disinherited heir an instituted heir.

Rules in case the Cause of Disinheritance (Art 919 921) is ALSO a Cause of Unworthiness (Art 1032):
(a) If the cause of unworthiness was made a ground for disinheritance and there is reconciliation, Art 922 will
govern and not Art 1033. the mere fact of reconciliation extinguishes the unworthiness and NO written
document is needed for a condonation [Person is rendered unworthy to succeed because the law presumes that
this is the will of the testator but the presumption cannot prevail over the express will of a person shown by his
act of reconciliation]
(b) If the cause of unworthiness was NOT made the ground for disinheritance or there has been no disinheritance at
all, Art 1033 will apply.
 ARTICLE 1033. THE CAUSES OF UNWORTHINESS SHALL BE WITHOUT EFFECT IF THE TESTATOR HAD
KNOWLEDGE THEREOF AT THE TIME HE MADE THE WILL, OR IF HAVING KNOWN OF THE SUBSEQUENTLY, HE
SHOULD CONDONE THEM IN WRITING.

Representation of the Disinherited Heir

ARTICLE 923. THE CHILDREN AND DESCENDANTS OF THE PERSON DISINHERITED SHALL TAKE HIS OR HER PLACE AND
SHALL PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF COMPULSORY HEIRS WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGITIME; BUT THE DISINHERITED
PARENT SHALL NOT HAVE THE USUFRUCT OR ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH CONSTITUTES THE
LEGITIME.
The HEIRS OF DISINHERITED CHILD OR HEIR OR DESCENDANT (not disinherited spouse nor parent may be
represented) can represent the latter only insofar as the LEGITIME (not the free portion) of the said disinherited
heir is concerned.
The children and descendant are allowed to inherit by representation, the legitime of the disinherited heir
because the fault of the heir is not the fault of the representative and it would be unjust to punish them.

ARTICLE 919. THE FOLLOWING SHALL
BE SUFFICIENT CAUSES FOR THE
DISINHERITANCE OF CHILDREN AND
DESCENDANTS, LEGITIMATE AS WELL
AS ILLEGITIMATE:
(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;
(2) WHEN A CHILD OR DESCNEDANT
HAS ACCUSED THE TESTATOR OF
A CRIME FOR WHICH THE LAW
PRESCRIBES IMPRISONMENT FOR
6 YEARS OR MORE, IF THE
ACCUSATION HAS BEEN FOUND
GROUNDLESS;
(3) WHEN A CHILD OR DESCENDANT
BY FRAUD, VIOLENCE,
INTIMIDATION OR UNDUE
INFLUENCE CAUSES THE
TESTATOR TO MAKE A WILL OR
TO CHANGE ON ALREADY MADE;
(4) A REFUSAL WITHOUT A (4) THE REFUSAL TO SUPPORT THE
JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT
THE PARENT OR ASCENDANT
WHO DISINHERITS SUCH CHILD
OR DESCENDANT;
(5) WHEN A CHILD OR DESCENDANT
HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF
ADULTERY/ CONCUBINAGE WITH
THE SPOUSE OF THE TESTATOR;
(6) MALTREATMENT OF THE (7) WHEN TH PARENTS ABANDONED
TESTATOR BY WORDS OR DEEDS, THEIR CHILDREN OR INDUCED THEIR
BY CHILD OR DESCENDANT;
(7) WHEN A CHILD OR DESCENDANT (8) AN ATTEMPT BY ONE OF THE
LEADS A DISHONORABLE LIFE;
(8) CONVICTION OF CRIME WHICH
CARRIES WITH IT THE PENALTY
OF CIVIL INTERDICTION.
ARTICLE 920. THE FOLLOWING SHALL
BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE
DISINHERITANCE OF PARENTS OR
ASCENDANCTS, WHETHER
LEGITIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE:
(1) WHEN THE PARENT OR
ASCENDANT HAS BEEN
CONVICTED OF AN ATTEMPT
AGAINST THE LIFE OF THE
TESTATOR, HIS OR HER SPOUSE,
DESCENDANTS OR ASCENDANTS;
(2) WHEN THE PARENT OR
ASCENDANT HAS ACCUSED THE
TESTATOR OF A CRIME FOR WHICH
THE LAW PRESCRIBES
IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX YEARS OR
MORE, IF THE ACCUSATION HAS
BEEN FOUND FALSE;
(3) WHEN THE PARENT OR
ASCENDANT BY FRAUD, VIOLENCE,
INTIMIDATION OR UNDUE
INFLUENCE CAUSES THE TESTATOR
TO MAKE A WILL OR TO CHANGE ON
ALREADY MADE;
CHILDREN OR DESCENDANT
WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE;
(5) WHEN THE PARENT OR
ASCENDANT HAS BEEN CONVICTED
OF ADULTERY OR CONCUBINAGE
WITH THE SPOUSE OF THE TESTATOR
(6) THE LOSS OF PARENTAL
AUTHORITY FOR CAUSES SPECIFIED
IN THIS CODE;
DAUGHTERS TO LIVE A CORRUPT OR
IMMORAL LIFE OR ATTEMPTED
AGAINST THEIR VIRTUE;
PARENTS AGAINST THE LIFE OF THE
OTHER, UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN
RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THEM.
ARTICLE 921: THE FOLLOWING SHALL
BE SUFFICIENT CAUSES FOR
DISINHERITING A SPOUSE:
(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 PRESCRIBES
IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX YEARS OR
MORE, IF THE HAS BEEN FOUND
FALSE;
(3) WHEN THE SPOUSE BY FRAUD,
VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION OR UNDUE
INFLUENCE CAUSES THE TESTATOR
TO MAKE A WILL OR TO CHANGE ON
ALREADY MADE;
(4) UNJUSTIFIABLE REFUSAL TO
SUPPORT THE CHILDREN OR THE
OTHER SPOUSE;
(5) WHEN THE SPOUSE HAS GIVEN
GROUNDS FOR THE LOSS OF
PARENTAL AUTHORITY;
(6) WHEN THE SPOUSE HAS GIVEN
CAUSE FOR LEGAL SEPARATION.
Article 919, 920, 921 Par 1: Article 919, 920, 921 Par 3:
Final Judgment of Conviction by a Court of Justice -
may come before or after the execution of the will FIVU fraud, violence, intimidation or undue
Intent to Kill (must) influence
If an attempt is sufficient to disinherit, it follows
that if the act is consummated or frustrated there is
sufficient cause for disinheritance. This is true even Art 919, 9210, 921 Par 4:
if the heir be only an accomplice, provided of course
that there was intent to kill. No judicial demand is needed for the law does not
Pardon on the conviction does not invalidate the require this
disinheritance (unless pardon is based on complete If there had been a refusal to support and support is
innocence) alter given but only because of judicial compulsion,
Not a ground under Par 1: homicide through this would still be a valid ground for disinheritance.
reckless imprudence Example: A son, although he could afford to do so,
refused to support his father, who needed the
Art 919, 920, 921 Par 2: same. The father can disinherit said son. But of
course if the father had been cruel to the son or had
3 elements:
abandoned the latter, the son would be justified in
o Act of accusing
o The fact that the accusation has been refusing to give support. In such a case, there would
found groundless be no valid cause of disinheritance under this
o The offense or crime charged carries a ground.
penalty of imprisonment for at least 6
years
Accusation includes: Art 919, 920 Par 5:
o Institution of a criminal action
It is essential that there must a final judgment of
o Witness in a case against the testator
conviction either in adultery case or in the
(he affirms or corroborates the
concubinage case
accusation)
o If the heir-witness is in possession of
facts which might result in the
testators acquittal and the heir- Art 920, 921 Par 6:
witness deliberately fails to reveal said
Parental Authority terminates:
facts
o Upon the death of parents or of the
If the accusation proves to be true, there will not be
child [for me absurd cause]
a valid disinheritance
o Upon emancipation [for me absurd
Alleged crime must be committed against the child
cause]
himself or against any descendant or for that
o Adoption of a child [for me absurd
matter against anybody.
cause]
This does not mean that the accusation is
o Upon appointment of a general
groundless:
guardian [for me absurd cause]
o Acquitted on the ground of lack of
o Upon judicial declaration of
proof og guilt beyond reasonable
abandonment of the child in case filed
doubt
for the purpose
o Acquitted on the ground of lack of
o Upon final judgment of a competent
criminal intent
court divesting the party concerned of
parental authority
 o Upon judicial declaration of absence or
incapacity of the person exercising
parental authority
The father, and in a proper case the mother, shall
temporarily (merely suspended) lose authority over
their children:
o Art 230 of FC. When by conviction in a
criminal case, the penalty of civil
interdiction is imposed upon him or her
o Art 231 of FC. Grounds of suspension of
parental authority may be declared by
the court.
[for me absurd cause] Art 328 of NCC. The mother
who contracts a subsequent marriage loses the
parental authority over her children, unless the
deceased husband, father of the latter, has
expressly provided in his will that his widow might
marry again, and has ordered that in such case, she
should keep and exercise parental authority over
the children.
Art 332 of NCC. The courts may deprive the parents
of their authority or suspend the exercise of the
same if they should treat their children with
excessive harshness or should give them corrupting
orders, counsels, or examples, or should make them
beg or abandon them.
Suppose parental authority which had been lost is
later on recovered while child-testator is still alive,
would the disinheritance made be valid?
o According to Sanchez Roman,
DISINHERITANCE CONTINUES TO BE
VALID reason: disinheritance is made
not so much because of loss of parental
authority but because there had been a
commission of an act resulting in such
loss of authority
o According to Paras, Manresa and
Scaevola, DISINHERITANCE BECOMES
INEFFECTIVE AND INVALID - reason:
Upon the death of the child-testator,
parental authority had been regained,
and therefore, there can exist no just
cause for the disinheritance.
Art 919 Par 6:
2 causes:
o Maltreatment by words (slanderous words,
offensive language)
o Maltreatment by deed
Spanish Court no need for final conviction but
maltreatment should have been caused
INTENTIONALLY and not merely through
IMPRUDENCE
Manresa as long as acts of violence are committed
against the testator, whether physical injuries
resulted or not, there would be a case of
maltreatment.
Maltreatment by an ASCENDANT of a descendant
does not constitute a ground for the descendant to
disinherit the ascendant, for while it may be an
ABUSE, it is generally in the exercise of a power. The
reverse is, however, repugnant to natural law, and
is therefore a ground for disinheritance.
Art 919 Par 7:
No need for final conviction
The essence of the cause is that anything that
brings dishonor or disgrace to the family of the
testator merits correction in the form of
disinheritance. However, a single act is not
ordinarily sufficient for leading a life implies
continuity.
Art 919 Par 8:
Final Conviction Needed
Under Arts 40 and 41 of RPC, civil interdiction is
given as an accessory penalty to:
o Death (if commuted)
o Reclusion perpetua
o Reclusion temporal
(Note: if indeterminate sentence law is
applied, it is the MAXIMUM that should
be considered and not the MINIMUM.)
 Art 34. Effects of Civil Interdiction: Deprivation of Art 921 Par 6:
following rights:
o Parental rights A decree of legal separation is NOT essential nor is a
o Guardianship over the ward final judgment in a criminal case is required. If there
is already a legal separation decree before the
o Marital authority
o Right to manage property and to dispose of execution of the will, disinheritance is
the same by acts inter vivos SUPERFLUOUS, for this in effect would be denying
the guilty spouse of a right NOT possessed.
Art 920 Par 7:

daughters includes other descendants

attempt against virtue no final judgment
needed
When parents encourage or force their daughters
into life of prostitution or corrupt or immoral
When mother helps stranger rape her own
daughter
Abandonment
o Includes not merely the exposure of the
child or descendant to danger but also
the failure to give it due care and
attention
o Indeed physical, moral, social or
educational (not technical definition of
abandonment under RPC)
o Whether intentional or not, the
negligent and careless failure to
perform duties of parenthood is a
significant element of abandonment.

Art 920 Par 8:

No Final Conviction Needed

The reconciliation between parents deprives the
child of the right to disinherit the offending parents
on this ground like living together again reason:
the child concerned should not be more severe than
the spouse who has been offended