XII.

LEGITIME

A. Concept, NCC 866;

Art. 886. Legitime is that part of the testator's property which he cannot dispose of because
the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs.

Cases:

FRANCISCO VS. FRANCISCO-ALFONSO, GR 138774, MARCH 8, 2001;

FACTS: Respondent Aida Francisco-Alfonso is the sole legitimate daughter of Gregorio
Francisco while Petitioners are daughters of the latter with his common law wife Julia
Mendoza. Gregorio Francisco owned two parcels of residential land situated in Bulacan. When
Gregorio was confined in a hospital in 1990, he confided to his daughter Aida that the
certificate of title of his property were in the possession of the petitioners. When Gregorio
died. Aida inquired about the certificate of title from petitioners and they informed her that
Gregorio had sold the land to them in 1983 as executed by a “Kasulatan”. After verification,
Aida learned that there was indeed a deed of absolute sale in favor of petitioners.

In 1991, Aida filed with the Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, a complaint against petitioners for
annulment of sale with damages. In their joint answer, petitioners denied the alleged forgery
or simulation of the Deed of Sale. The trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint
while upon appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE: W/N the “Kasulatan” or Deed of Sale is valid?

HELD: The petition is hereby denied and decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

The Kasulatan was simulated. There was no cause or consideration for the contract of sale.
The same was a simulation and hence, null and void. We find it incredible that engaging in
buy and sell could raise the amount of P10,000.00 , or that earnings in selling goto could save
enough to pay P 15,000.00, in cash for the land. The testimonies of petitioners were incredible
considering their inconsistent statements as to whether there was consideration for the sale
and also as to whether the property was bought below or above its supposed market value.
They could not even present a single witness to the Kasulatan that would prove receipt of the
purchase price.

SPOUSES JOAQUIN vs. CA, GR 126376, NOV. 20, 2003;

DOCTRINE: The legitime of a compulsory heir is merely inchoate and vests only upon the
death of the parents. While still alive, the parents are free to dispose of their properties,
provided such dispositions are not made in fraud of creditors.

FACTS: Spouses Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito are the parents of plaintiffs
Consolacion, Nora, Emma and Natividad, as well as of defendants Fidel, Tomas, Artemio,
Clarita, Felicitas, Fe and Gavino.

Sought to be declared null and void ab initio are certain deeds of sale of real property executed
by defendant parents in favour of their co-defendant children.

The plaintiff children are claiming that no actual valid consideration for the deeds of sale were
made and that the purported sale was the result of a deliberate conspiracy designed to
unjustly deprive the rest of the compulsory heirs of their legitime.
ISSUE: W/N the deeds of sale by the parents to their co-defendant children valid?

HELD:
Yes, The right of children to the properties of their parents, as compulsory heirs, is merely
inchoate and vests only upon the parents’ death. While still alive, parents are free to dispose
of their properties, provided such dispositions are not made in fraud of creditors.

Compulsory heirs have the right to a legitime but such right is contingent since said right
commences only from the moment of death of the decedent.

There can be no legitime to speak of prior to the death of their parents. In determining the
legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the testator shall be considered.

The legitime of a compulsory heir is computed as of the time of the death of the decedent.
Plaintiffs cannot claim an impairment of their legitime while their parents live.

The testimony of the defendants particularly that of the father will show that the Deeds of
Sale were all executed for valuable consideration.

Petitioners failed to show that the prices in the Deeds of Sale were absolutely simulated.

MAONONSONG vs. ESTIMO, GR 136773, June 25, 2003;

FACTS: Allegedly, AgatonaGuevarra (“Guevarra”) inherited a property from Justina Navarro,
which is now under possession of the heirs of Guevarra. Guevarra had six children, one of
them is Vicente Lopez, the father of petitioner Milagros Lopez Manongsong (“Manongsong”).
The respondents, the Jumaquio sisters and Leoncia Lopez claimed that the property was
actually sold to them by Justina Navarro prior to her death. The respondents presented deed
of sale dated October 11, 1957. Milagros and CarlitoManongsong (“petitioners”) filed a
Complaint on June 19, 1992 praying for the partition and award to them of an area equivalent
to one-fifth (1/5), by right of representation. The RTC ruled that the conveyance made by
Justina Navarro is subject to nullity because the property conveyed had a conjugal character
and that AgatonaGuevarra as her compulsory heir should have the legal right to participate
with the distribution of the estate under question to the exclusion of others. The Deed of Sale
did not at all provide for the reserved legitime or the heirs, and, therefore it has no force and
effect against AgatonaGuevarra and should be declared a nullity ab initio.

ISSUE: W/N the rights of the compulsory heirs were impaired by the alleged sale of the
property by Justina?

HELD:
No, The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged before a notary public, is a public
document and prima facie evidence of its authenticity and due execution. There is no basis
for the trial court’s declaration that the sale embodied in the Kasulatan deprived the
compulsory heirs of Guevarra of their legitimes. As opposed to a disposition inter vivos by
lucrative or gratuitous title, a valid sale for valuable consideration does not diminish the estate
of the seller. When the disposition is for valuable consideration, there is no diminution of the
estate but merely a substitution of values, that is, the property sold is replaced by the
equivalent monetary consideration. The Property was sold in 1957 for P250.00.

The trial court’s conclusion that the Property was conjugal, hence the sale is void ab initio was
not based on evidence, but rather on a misapprehension of Article 160 of the Civil Code, which
provides: “All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership;
unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.” The presumption
under Article 160 of the Civil Code applies only when there is proof that the property was
acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition
for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership. There was no
evidence presented to establish that Navarro acquired the Property during her marriage.

B. Who are entitled to legitimes: Compulsory heirs, NCC 782, 887, 902;
Art. 782. An heir is a person called to the succession either by the provision of a will or by
operation of law.

Devisees and legatees are persons to whom gifts of real and personal property are
respectively given by virtue of a will.

Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:

(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;

(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their
legitimate children and descendants;

(3) The widow or widower;

(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;

(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287.

Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and 2;
neither do they exclude one another.
In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved.

The father or mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall inherit from
them in the manner and to the extent established by this Code.

Art. 902. The rights of illegitimate children set forth in the preceding articles are transmitted
upon their death to their descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate.

Cases:

ROSALES vs. ROSALES, 148 SCRA 69;

FACTS: 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.

ISSUE: W/N Irenea is entitled to inherit from her mother-in-law?

HELD:
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-in-law.