Rosales vs. Rosales, G.R. No.

L-40789, 148 SCRA 59, February 27, 1987

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:

Whether or not Irenea is entitled to inherit from her mother-in-law.

RULING:

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.

Baritua vs. CA, G.R. No. 82233, 183 SCRA 565, March 22, 1990

Facts:
Tricycle collided with bus, tricycle driver died. Bus operator settled with tricycle driver’s estranged wife. A year
later, tricycle driver’s parents sued bus operator for damages alleging that the latter promised to indemnify them
for the death of the son, his funeral expenses and the damaged tricycle.

Held:
Tricycle driver’s parents cannot claim because they are not his compulsory heirs. His wife and his child are the
compulsory heirs. The surviving spouse concurs with all classes of heirs. The parents are compulsory heirs only
when decedent dies without a legitimate descendant.

As it has been established that Bienvenido was married to Alicia and that they begot a child, the private
respondents are not successors-in-interest of Bienvenido; they are not compulsory heirs. The petitioners therefore
acted correctly in settling their obligation with Alicia as the widow of Bienvenido and as the natural guardian of
their lone child. This is so even if Alicia had been estranged from Bienvenido. Mere estrangement is not a legal
ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse.

Locsin vs. CA, G.R. No. 89783, 206 SCRA 383, February 19, 1992

The trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the private respondents, nephews and nieces of Doña
Catalina J. Vda. de Locsin, entitled to inherit the properties which she had already disposed of more than ten (10)
years before her death. For those properties did not form part of her hereditary estate, i.e., “the property and
transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of (the decedent’s), death and those which have accrued
thereto since the opening of the succession.” The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from the moment
of his death, and do not vest in his heirs until such time. Property which Doña Catalina had transferred or
conveyed to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed part of her estate at the time of her death to
which her heirs may lay claim. Had she died intestate, only the property that remained in her estate at the time of
her death devolved to her legal heirs; and even if those transfers were, one and all, treated as donations, the right
arising under certain circumstances to impugn and compel the reduction or revocation of a decedent’s gifts inter
vivos does not inure to the respondents since neither they nor the donees are compulsory (or forced) heirs
 Escuin vs. Escuin, G.R. No. 4359, 11 Phil 332, September 24, 1908
Facts:

The decedent designated in his will his father and his wife as his sole heirs. He ignored his recognized natural
child.

Issue:

Whether or not the will is valid.

Held:

The will is partly valid. It is valid with respect to the 2/3 of the properties which the testator can freely dispose.
The 1/3 should be give to his recognized natural child.
The above-mentioned will neither null, void, nor illegal in so far as the testator leaves two-thirds of his property to
his father and wife; testamentary provisions impairing the legal portion of a general heir shall be reduced in so far
as they are illegal or excessive.
The late testator did not leave a recognized natural child, the appellant minor, and a widow; that the said minor,
Emilio Escuin y Batac, is the general heir of his natural father, the said testator who recognized him while living,
and in the present case is entitled to one-third of his estate, which amount constitutes the legal portion of a
natural child; and for the reason that the minor was ignored by his natural father in his will, the designation of
heirs made therein was, as matter of fact annulled by force of law, in so far as legal portion of the said minor was
thereby impaired. Legacies and betterments shall be valid, in so far as they are not illegal, for the reason that a
testator can not deprive the heirs of their legal portions, except in the cases expressly indicated by law.

Lajom vs. Leuterio, G.R. No. L-13557, 107 Phil 651, April 25, 1960
Doctrine: Preterition
FACTS:
Maximo Viola died on September 3, 1933. Judicial proceedings of his testate estate were instituted in the Court of
First Instance. An agreement of partition and distribution was executed by and between Jose P. Viola, Rafael Viola
and Silvio Viola, legitimate children of Maximo Viola and Juana Toura, whereby the properties left by their father,
Maximo Viola, were divided among themselves. Donato Lajom filed a complaint praying, among other things, that
he be declared a natural child of Maximo Viola, impliedly recognized and acknowledged in accordance with the
laws in force prior to the Civil Code, thereby being a co-heir of Jose P. Viola, Rafael Viola and Silvio Viola; that the
agreement of partition and distribution executed in 1935 by these three legitimate children of Maximo Viola be
declared null and void. ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is a victim of preterition.
HELD:
It is alleged that petitioner having been the victim of preterition, the institution of heirs made by the deceased Dr.
Maximo Viola became ineffective, and that Civil Case No. 8077 was thereby converted into an intestate
proceedings for the settlement of his estate. This contention is clearly untenable. There might have been merit
therein if we were dealing with a special proceedings for the settlement of the testate estate of a deceased person,
which, in consequence of said preterition, would thereby acquire the character of a proceeding for the settlement
of an intestate estate, with jurisdiction over any and all properties of the deceased. But, Civil Case No. 8077 is an
ordinary civil action, and the authority of the court having jurisdiction over the same is limited to the properties
described in the pleadings, which admittedly do not include the aforementioned riceland.

Balanay vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-39247, 64 SCRA 452, June 27, 1975

TOPIC/DOCTRINE: Partition and Distribution of the Estate

FACTS: -Leodegaria Julian died leaving her husband Felix Sr., and six legitimate children, Felix, Jr. Avelina,
Beatriz, Carolina, Delia, and Emilia. -She left a notarial will and in paragraph 5 of the will she said that after the
death of Felix Sr. her land and all conjugal lands should be divided in the manner set forth in that part of her will.
She devised and partitioned of in the will her husband’s one-half share of the conjugal assets. -Felix Sr and
Avelina opposed. -Subsequently, Felix Sr withdrew and he conformed and renounced his hereditary rights.
However, Avelina continued on with her opposition. -The lower court declared the will as void and converted the
testate proceeding to an intestate proceeding. -Felix, Jr. appealed.
ISSUES:
1. WON the will should first be determined to be intrinsically valid prior to the determination of its allowance or
formal validity
2. WON the declaration that the will was void is proper
3. WON the renunciation of Felix, Sr. of his hereditary rights is valid
4. WIN Felix, Sr. will was intrinsically void because it preterited him
HELD:
1. Yes, it was correct in passing upon the question of intrinsic validity first. The court was of the opinion that in
view of certain unusual provisions of the will (i.e. paragraph 5), which are of dubious legality, and because of the
motion to withdraw the petition for probate. It was correct to pass upon the will’s intrinsic validity even before its
formal validity is established. The probate of a will might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be
intrinsically void. Where practical consideration demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even
before it is probated, the court should meet the issue.
2. No, it was not proper. The invalidity of one of the several dispositions does not affect the validity of the other
dispositions. Except if the other dispositions is dependent on the first invalid disposition that has been made. The
valid parts should be upheld if they can be separated from the invalid without defeating the intention of the
testator or interfering with the general scheme, or doing injustice to the beneficiaries.
3. Yes, it was valid. Art. 793 of the Civil Code states that Property acquired after the making of a will shall only
pass thereby, as if the testator had possessed it at the time of making the will, should it expressly appear by the
will that such was his intention and Art. 930 The legacy or devise of a thing belonging to another person is void, if
the testator erroneously believed that the thing pertained to him. But if the thing bequeathed, though not
belonging to the testator when he made the will, afterwards becomes his, by whatever title, the disposition shall
take effect. The partition then has become valid.
4. No, Felix, Sr.’s case In the case, the preterited heir was the surviving spouse. His preterition did not produce
intestacy. Moreover, he signified his conformity to his wife’s will and renounced his hereditary rights. Thus it is
different from the Nuguid case because where the testatrix as heir her sister and preterited her parents. Her will
was intrinsically void because it preterited her compulsory heirs in the direct line. Art. 854 of the Civil Code
provides, “The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living
at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir;
but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. If the omitted compulsory heirs
should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation.”
Since the preterition of the parents annulled the institution of the sister as testatrix and there were no legacies
and devises, total intestacy resulted. Moreover, testacy is preferable to intestacy. Doubts are resolved in favor of
intestacy. As far as legally possible, the expressed desire of the testator must be followed and the dispositions in
the will should be followed.

Solano vs. CA, G.R. No. G.R. No. L-41971, 126 SCRA 122, November 29, 1983
FACTS:

Bienvenido and Emeteria filed an action for recognition against Melita Solano Meliton died during the pendency of
the petition and his daughter substituted him while asking for the probate of the will of the decedent. RTC
specified the legal issues as 1) the recognition of Garcias, 2) correct status of Zonia, 3) the hereditary share of
each of them in view of the probated will. In deciding, RTC declared Garcias as illegitimate children of late Meliton;
the institution of Sonia as sole heir declared null and void, the 3 children shall share equally the estate CA
affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not total intestacy resulted from the declaration that the institution of sole heir from decedents will.

RULING:

That being compulsory heirs, the Garcias were preterited from Meliton’s will, and as a result, Sonia’s institution as
sole heir is null and void pursuant to Art. 854:

“The preterition or omission of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the
time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir, but the
devises and legacies shall be valid xxx

The intention of the decedent is to favor Sonia with certain portions of his property which the testator had the
right to such so that it should be upheld as to the one-half portion of the property that the testator could freely
dispose of Sonia’s share is hereby declared to be 4/6 of the estate and Garcias 1/6 each. The usufruct in favor of
will should not be invalidated all together.