Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

01 Rosales v Rosales - G.R. No.



On February 26, 1971, Mrs. Petra Rosales died intestate. She was survived by her husband Fortunato
Rosales and their two children Magna Rosales Acebes and Antonio Rosales. Another child, Carterio
Rosario, predeceased her, leaving behind a child, Macikequerox Rosales, and his widow Irenea C. Rosales,
the herein petitioner. Magna Rosales Acebes instituted the proceedings for the settlement of the estate
of the deceased. The trial court ordered that Fortunato, Magna, Macikequerox and Antonio be entitled
each to ¼ share in the estate of decedent. Irenea, on the other hand, insisted in getting a share of the
estate in her capacity as the surviving spouse of the late Carterio Rosales, son of the deceased, claiming
that she is a compulsory heir of her mother-in-law.


Whether Irenea is entitled to inherit from her mother-in-law.


NO. Under the law, intestate or legal heirs are classified into two groups, namely, those who inherit by
their own right, and those who inherit by the right of representation. There is no provision in the Civil
Code which states that a widow (surviving spouse) is an intestate heir of her mother-in-law. The law has
already meticulously enumerated the intestate heirs of a decedent. The Court held that Irenea
misinterpreted the provision of Article 887 because the provision refers to the estate of the deceased
spouse in which case the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir. It does not apply to the estate of a parent-
in-law. Therefore, the surviving spouse is considered a third person as regards the estate of the parent-

02 De Los Santos v De La Cruz - G.R. No. L-29192


The parties admit that the owner of the estate, subject matter of the extrajudicial partition agreement,
was Pelagia de la Cruz, who died intestate; that defendant-appellant (De la Cruz)is a nephew of the said
decedent; that plaintiff-appellee (De los Santos) is a grandniece of Pelagia de la Cruz, her mother,
Marciana de la Cruz, being a niece who predeceased said Pelagia de la Cruz; and that the purpose of the
extrajudicial partition agreement was to divide and distribute the estate among the heirs of Pelagia de la


What is the effect of an extra-judicial partition which included a person who is not an heir of the deceased?


The extrajudicial partition agreement is void with respect to plaintiff-appellee.

Article 1105 of the Civil Code provides: “A partition which includes a person believed to be a heir, but who
is not, shall be void only with respect to such person.” Partition of property affected between a person
entitled to inherit from the deceased owner thereof and another person who thought he was an heir,
when he was not really and lawfully such, to the prejudice of the rights of the true heir designated by law
to succeed the deceased, is null and void. A fortiori, plaintiff-appellee could hardly derive from the
agreement the right to have its terms enforced.

03 Teotico v del Val, etc. - G.R. No. L-18753


Maria Mortera died on July 1955 leaving properties worth P600,000. She executed a will written in
Spanish, affixed her signature and acknowledged before Notary Public by her and the witnesses. Among
the legacies made in the will was the P20,000 for Rene Teotico who was married to the testatrix’s niece,
Josefina Mortera. The usufruct of Maria’s interest in the Calvo Building were left to the said spouses and
the ownership thereof was left in equal parts to her grandchildren, the legitimate children of said spouses.
Josefina was likewise instituted, as sole and universal heir to all the remainder of her properties not
otherwise disposed by will. Vicente Teotico filed a petition for the probate of the will but was opposed
by Ana del Val Chan, claiming that she was an adopted child of Francisca (deceased sister of Maria) and
an acknowledged natural child of Jose (deceased brother of Maria), that said will was not executed as
required by law and that Maria as physically and mentally incapable to execute the will at the time of its
execution and was executed under duress, threat, or influence of fear.


Whether defendant has right to intervene in this proceeding.


It is a well-settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding is
that he must have an interest in the estate, will or in the property to be affected by either as executor or
as a claimant of the estate and be benefited by such as an heir or one who has a claim against it as creditor.
Under the terms of the will, defendant has no right to intervene because she has no such interest in the
estate either as heir, executor or administrator because it did not appear therein any provision designating
her as heir/ legatee in any portion of the estate. She could have acquired such right if she was a legal heir
of the deceased but she is not under the CIVIL CODE. Even if her allegations were true, the law does not
give her any right to succeed the estate of the deceased sister of both Jose and Francisca because being
an illegitimate child she is prohibited by law from succeeding to the legitimate relatives of her natural
father and that relationship established by adoption is limited solely to the adopter and adopted and does
not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents except only as expressly provided by law. As a
consequence, she is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the adopter.

Hence, defendant has no right to intervene either as testamentary or as legal heir in the probate

04 Diaz v IAC - G.R. No. L-66574


It is undisputed:

1) that Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who together with Felisa's mother
Juliana were the only legitimate child of the spouses Felipe Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion;

2) that Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow of Pascual Santero and the mother of Pablo Santero;

3) that Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his parents;

4) that Pascual Santero died in 1970; Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in 1976;

5) that Pablo Santero, at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona Santero and his six
minor natural children to wit: four minor children with Anselma Diaz and two minor children with
Felixberta Pacursa.

Who are the legal heirs of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero — her niece Felisa Pamuti-Jardin or her
grandchildren (the natural children of Pablo Santero)?


Since petitioners herein are barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent Intermediate
Appellate Court did not commit any error in holding Felisa Pamuti Jardin to be the sole legitimate heir to
the intestate estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.

The term relatives, although used many times in the Code, is not defined by it. In accordance therefore
with the canons of statutory interpretation, it should be understood to have a general and inclusive scope,
inasmuch as the term is a general one. Generalia verba sunt generaliter intelligenda. That the law does
not make a distinction prevents us from making one: Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguera debemus.

The term relatives in “Article 992 of New Civil Code” in more restrictive sense than it is used and intended;
is not warranted by any rule of interpretation. Besides, when the law intends to use the term in a more
restrictive sense, it qualifies the term with the word collateral, as in Articles 1003 and 1009 of the New
Civil Code.

05 de Bacayo v de Borromeo - G.R. No. L-19382


Melodia Ferraris left no surviving direct descendant, ascendant, or spouse, but was survived only by
collateral relatives, namely, Filomena Abellana de Bacayo, an aunt and half-sister of decedent’s father,
Anacleto Ferraris; and by Gaudencia, Catalina, Conchita, and Juanito, all surnamed Ferraris, her nieces and
nephew, who were the children of Melodia’s only brother of full blood, Arturo Ferraris, who pre-deceased
her (the decedent).


Whether nephews and nieces exclude aunts and uncles?


YES. Art 1009, the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the decedent is a precondition to
the other collaterals (uncles, cousins, etc.) being called to the succession. The Supreme Court ruled that
under our laws of succession, a decedent’s uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestato so long as
nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are willing and qualified to succeed.

06 Corpus v Corpus - G.R. No. L-22469


Teodoro Yangco is the testator. He died in April 20, 1939. His will was probated in 1934. Yangco had no
forced heirs. At the time of his death, his nearest relatives were (1) his half brother, Luis R. Yangco, (2) his
half sister, Paz Yangco, the wife of Miguel Ossorio (3) Amalia Corpus, Jose A. V. Corpus, and Ramon L.
Corpus, the children of his half brother, Pablo Corpus, and (4) Juana (Juanita) Corpus, the daughter of his
half brother Jose Corpus. (Juanita had a legit son whose name was Tomas Corpus. Siya yung Tomas Corpus
na Respondent) Juanita died in October, 1944 at Palauig, Zambales.

Teodoro R. Yangco was the (natural) son of Luis Rafael Yangco and Ramona Arguelles, the widow of Tomas
Corpus. Before her union with Luis Rafael Yangco, Ramona had begotten five children with Tomas Corpus
(the first and the LEGIT husband), two of whom were the aforenamed Pablo Corpus and Jose Corpus (Jose
is the mother of Juanita. Tomas Jr. is the legit. son of Juanita).

The testate heirs of Teodoro had a PARTITION AGREEMENT. Tomas Corpus Jr. signed a COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT as the sole heir of Juanita Corpus. The estate of Teodoro Yangco entered into a similar
compromise with Tomas Jr. This agreement was approved by the court and became F&E in 1947. After
this agreement was signed, Tomas Jr. signed receipt wherein he acknowledged his receipt of P2,000 as

Subsequently, however, in 1951, Tomas Jr., as SOLE HEIR OF JUANITA, filed an ACTION FOR ANNULMENT
properties (see NCC 785). Such will being void, the partition is also void, and the estate should have been
distributed according to INTESTATE SUCCESSION.


Whether Juanita Corpus, as REPRESENTED by TOMAS JR., may inherit from Teodoro Yangco as a forced


NO. Juanita cannot be a forced heir of Teodoro Corpus in the first place. Hence, Tomas has no right of
Here, the RTC found that Teodoro Yangco is ONLY A NATURAL CHILD.

The basis of the trial court's conclusion that Teodoro R. Yangco was an acknowledged natural child and
not a legitimate child was the statement in the will of his father, Luis Rafael Yangco, dated June 14, 1907,
that Teodoro and his three other children were his acknowledged natural children. His exact words are:
“First. I declare that I have four natural children recognized: Teodoro, Paz, Luisa, and Luis, which are my
only heirs.”

On the other hand, the children of Ramona Arguelles and Tomas Corpus are presumed to be legitimate.
A marriage is presumed to have taken place between Ramona and Tomas. Semper praesumitur pro

Since Teodoro R. Yangco was an acknowledged natural child or was illegitimate and since Juanita Corpus
was the legitimate child of Jose Corpus, himself a legitimate child, we hold that appellant Tomas Corpus
has no cause of action for the recovery of the supposed hereditary share of his mother, Juanita Corpus,
as a legal heir, in Yangco's estate. Juanita Corpus was not a legal heir of Yangco because there is no
reciprocal succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. The trial court did not err in dismissing
the complaint of Tomas Corpus. (READ NCC 992)

Under articles 944 and 945 of the Spanish Civil Code, “xxx In default of natural ascendants, natural and
legitimated children shall be succeeded by their natural brothers and sisters in accordance with the rules
established for legitimate brothers and sisters."

That rule is based on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully looked upon by the legitimate
family while the legitimate family is, in turn, hated by the illegitimate child. The law does not recognize
the blood tie and seeks to avoid further grounds of resentment.

07 Sayson v CA - G.R. Nos. 89224-25


Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot five children, namely, Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, Remedios and Teodoro.
Eleno died on Nov. 10, 1952, and Rafaela on May 15, 1976. Teodoro, who had married Isabel Bautista,
died on Mar. 23, 1972. His wife died nine years later, on Mar. 26, 1981. Their properties were left in the
possession of Delia, Edmundo and Doribel, all surnamed Sayson, who claim to be their children.

On Apr. 25, 1983, Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa and Remedios, together with Juana (Isabel’s mother), filed a
complaint for partition of the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isabel. Delia, Edmundo (both legally
adopted) and Doribel (the legitimate daughter), who alleged successional rights to the estate as the
decedents’ lawful descendants, resisted said complaint and filed their own complaint for the partition of
the intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela claiming that they are entitled to inherit Teodoro’s share in his
parents’ estate by right of representation.
The trial court declared them entitled to inherit by right of representation.

On appeal, the CA modified the decision disqualifying Delia and Edmundo from inheriting from the estate
of the deceased spouses Eleno and Rafaela. Hence, this petition.


Whether Delia, Edmundo and Doribel are entitled to inherit their father’s share in the estate of his
(Teodoro) parents’ estate by right of representation.


YES as to Doribel but NO as to Delia and Edmundo.

There is no question that as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and thus granddaughter of Eleno and
Rafaela, Doribel has a right to represent here deceased father in the distribution of the intestate estate of
her grandparents. Under Art. 981 (NCC), she is entitled to the share her father would have directly
inherited had he survived, which shall be equal to the shares of her grandparents’ other children.

But a different conclusion must be reached in the case of Delia and Edmundo, to whom the grandparents
were total strangers. While it is true that the adopted child shall be deemed to be a legitimate child and
have the same right as the latter, those rights do not include the right of representation. The relationship
created by the adoption is between only the adopting parents and the adopted child and does not extend
to the blood relatives of either party.

In sum, we agree with the lower courts that Delia and Edmundo as the adopted children and Doribel as
the legitimate daughter of Teodoro Sayson and Isabel Bautista, are their exclusive heirs and are under no
obligation to share the estate of their parents with the petitioners. The CA was correct however, in holding
that only Doribel has the right of representation in the inheritance of her grandparents’ intestate estate,
the other private respondents being only the adoptive children of the deceased Teodoro.