Succession TSN 3rd Exam (Based On The Lectures of Atty. Leilanie Espejo)

Succession TSN 3rd Exam Coverage
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Leilanie Yangyang Espejo

1

SUCCESSION September 25, 2013
DISINHERITANCE
The legitime is safeguarded by the law. The testator cannot
just deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime. We have
discussed preterition the institution of heirs shall be
annulled and the preterited heir shall be given his legitime.
There will be intestate succession.

Art. 915. A compulsory heir may, in consequence of
disinheritance, be deprived of his legitime, for causes
expressly stated by law. (848a)
Art. 916. Disinheritance can be effected only through a
will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be
specified. (849)
What is Disinheritance? It is defined in Art 915.
So a comp8ulsory heir can actually be deprived by his
legitime but that is for grounds provided for by law. And
the process of withholding his legitime is what we call
disinheritance.

REQUISITES OF DISINHERITANCE
1) it should be for causes expressly stated by law (Art 915)
Dili pwede for any cause, pareha sa teleserye na
idisinherit kay magminyo sa dili gusto sa parents. That
cannot be. That is not valid. That is not a ground for
disinheritance.

2) it should be made in an extrinsically valid will(Art 916)
So no disinheritance can be made without a will. For
the disinheritance to be valid, the will must also be
valid. So if there were valid grounds but the will was
witnessed by 2 persons only, the will is not valid.
Therefore, the disinheritance cannot be given effect.
In Probate, the court will discuss only the extrinsic
validity of the will identity, due execution,
testamentary capacity. One exception is preterition. If
preterition is apparent from the very face of the will the
court may proceed to determine the question of
preterition because it will be a waste of time of the
court and the parties if they later discover that the will
cannot be given effect because there is preterition.
That is not an absolute rule ha na once the question of
preterition is raised the court will immediately
consider that even during the probate proper. It is in a
case to case basis.

MANINANG vs CA
GR L-57848 June 1982
Issue: won the omission in the will is preterition or
disinheritance.
Held: preterition and disinheritance are 2 diverse concepts.
Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator's will of
the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are
not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are
neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited."
Disinheritance, in turn, "is a testamentary disposition
depriving any compulsory heirs of his share in the legitimate
for a cause authorized by law." Disinheritance is always
"voluntary", preterition upon the other hand, is presumed to
be "involuntary"
The effects of preterition and disinheritance are also totally
different.
The effects flowing from preterition are totally different from
those of disinheritance. Pretention under Article 854 of the
New Civil Code shall annul the institution of heir. This
annulment is in toto, unless in the wail there are, in addition,
testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies.
In ineffective disinheritance under Article 918 of the same
Code, such disinheritance shall also "annul the institution of
heirs", but only "insofar as it may prejudice the person
disinherited", which last phrase was omitted in the case of
preterition. Better stated yet, in disinheritance the nullity is
limited to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited
heirs have been illegally deprived.
We cannot go directly to the determination of that issue,
without first determining won the will is extrinsically valid.
Why? because if indeed it was a disinheritance, a valid
disinheritance can only take place in a valid will. How do we
know if the will is valid? - If the 3 questions of identity, due
execution, and testamentary capacity are answered. So that
is not an excuse for going directly to the question on
intrinsic validity. If the issue is won there is preterition or
disinheritance, we should first go to the extrinsic validity of
the will first before we proceed to the intrinsic validity.so
that would not warrant an exception to the general rule.
Again because the question of disinheritance can only be
addressed if indeed there is a valid will. So it is a prerequisite
that you first know won the will is extrinsically valid.
2

3) the legal cause should be specified (Art 916)

Even if there is indeed a ground for disinheritance but
it was not mentioned in the will, niingon lang na I
hereby disinherit my son, the disinheritance cannot be
given effect.

4) it should be for an existing cause

For example: iyang anak 2 yrs old pero naay tendency
na mahimong criminal. So gidisinherit na niya. That is
not valid because the cause does not yet exist. It cannot
be for a future cause.

Art. 917. The burden of proving the truth of the cause
for disinheritance shall rest upon the other heirs of
the testator, if the disinherited heir should deny it.
(850)
5) the cause for the disinheritance must be a true cause
It has to be a true cause because it has to be proved. If the
disinherited heir would deny having attempted against the
life of the testator, the other heirs have the burden of
proving the truth of the cause for disinheritance. So dili
automatic na ma exclude, the heir can actually
question/oppose/deny the ground for disinheritance.

Art. 918. Disinheritance without a specification of the
cause, or 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. (851a)
INVALID DISINHERITANCE is when
disinheritance does not specify the cause or
even if there is a cause specified but it does not
prove to be true or
if there is a cause but it is not one of those
mentioned in the Civil Code.
Effect of invalid disinheritance
It 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.
Example:
Estate = 1.2M. ABC children. He only instituted A and B
testator said that I hereby disinherit C because I
dont like his face, he looks like our driver. >>>
INVALID DISINHERITANCE
Consequence: it shall annul the institution of
heirs but only insofar as the legitime of C is
prejudiced. So if there is invalid disinheritance,
give the legitime of the invalidly disinherited heir
and all other provisions can be given effect.
So here you give the legitime of C = 200K. The free
portion of 600K will be given to A and B only
because they are the only ones instituted. This is
the consequence if there
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRETERITION (Art 854) AND
INVALID DISINHERITANCE (Art 918)
PRETERITION INVALID
DISINHERITANC
E
Consequenc
e to the
institution
of heir
Shall annul the
entire institution
of heirs
shall annul the
institution of heirs
insofar as it may
prejudice the
person
disinherited
How
distributed
distribute the
estate by intestate
succession
the devises and
legacies and other
testamentary
dispositions shall
be valid to such
extent as will not
impair the legitime
Example
NHE = 1.2M,
ABC are the
heirs.
Instituted A,
B and X
(friend).
NHE 1.2M / 3 =
400K each to ABC.
X gets nothing
because hes an
instituted heir
unless X is given a
devise or legacy
which is not
If C is disinherited
because he is gay.
That is invalid
disinheritance. We
give the legitime of
the compulsory
heirs = 200K each.
The free portion of
3

inofficious.
But if you are an
instituted heir and
there is preterition,
unless you are also
a compulsory heir,
you will not
receive anything.
600K is divided by
A, B and X equally
= 200K each.
So here it does not
matter if X is just
an instituted heir
he can still inherit
from the free
portion.
What if C was
invalidly
disinherited
and B is
preterited
The institution of heirs shall be annulled.
Mas mag prevail ang effects sa
preterition.

Art. 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for
the disinheritance of children and descendants,
legitimate as well as illegitimate:
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;
When a child or descendant has accused the
testator of a crime for which the law prescribes
imprisonment for six years or more, if the
accusation has been found groundless;
When a child or descendant has been convicted of
adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the
testator;
When a child or descendant by fraud, violence,
intimidation, or undue influence causes the
testator to make a will or to change one already
made;
A refusal without justifiable cause to support the
parent or ascendant who disinherits such child or
descendant;
Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by
the child or descendant;
When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable
or disgraceful life;
Conviction of a crime which carries with it the
penalty of civil interdiction. (756, 853, 674a)
GROUNDS FOR DISINHERITANCE
(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;
So here we are talking about CHILDREN or
DESCENDANTS (legitimate/illegitimate) who are being
disinherited. found guilty so there must be conviction
by final judgment. attempt with more reason if
frustrated or consummated. This also contemplates an
intentional one, not by reckless imprudence, because this
connotes a perversity on the part of the child or
descendent.
(2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a
crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six
years or more, if the accusation has been found groundless;
This is false accusation of a crime which the law prescribes
imprisonment for six years or more. So na acquit jud ang
testator.
Accused father na nag patay sa manok only
malicious mischief, not a ground
The false accusation may be in these forms:
The descendant filed a case against the testator or
The descendant refuse to be a witness for the
testator (on a ground which would have been
sufficient to acquit the testator)
The descendant acted as a false witness against the
testator (but again the testator was found
innocent)
(3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of
adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
So this presupposes conviction by final judgment of the
child or descendant for adultery or concubinage with the
spouse of the testator. The SPOUSE can be disinherited but
not under this ground but under Article 921 (4) - when the
spouse has given cause for legal separation, this does not
even need conviction.
(4) When a child or descendant by fraud, violence,
intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to make
a will or to change one already made;
Self-explanatory
(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent
or ascendant who disinherits such child or descendant;
So here the child refuses to give support to the parent or
ascendant. For the ground of refusal to be justifiable, we
4

have to consider the means of the child and the necessity of
the parent to demand such support.
(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the
child or descendant;
It is the child or descendant who maltreats the testator.
Example: yawyawan nimo pirminti imong mama,
ginasagpa, gina dukol, gina kusi. Ok lang sa parent ang
mgangusi sa anak pero dili pwede na ang anak ang mangusi
sa parent. That is why it is a ground for disinheritance of a
child but it is not a ground for disinheritance of a parent.
Walay nakabutang ana sa Art. 920.

PECSON vs MEDIABILIO?
FACTS: The testator disinherited his granddaughter Rosario
because she was grossly disrespectful to me, she raised her
hand against me (usually this is a ground for disinheritance
of the descendant) but why did Rosario raise her hand
against the testator? SC found out the cause why Rosario
acted that way, kag gistoryahan diay siya about sa lalake na
nanguyab sa iyaha. After that incident, Rosario lost all her
mental faculties (nabuang xa).

HELD: SC said that she was not responsible for the
disrespect and disobedience shown to her grandfather during
that occasion. It was found that she was of very tender age
(14 at that time) and she lost the use of her mental faculties.
So basig buang na xa before pa ato. It was invalid
disinheritance, the ground was disregarded because it was
not a valid ground for disinheritance.

(7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or
disgraceful life;

This is a very controversial ground. dishonorable or
disgraceful we have to take the norms of society. If
acceptable na sa society ang mangawat, then dili na xa
dishonorable. Example: Napoles she can be disinherited if
maconvict na xa, although she doesnt need it. Tuition fee
girl not dishonorable daw (ana si mac2! Hahaha! The law
here presupposes something HABITUAL kay life. So ang
one-night-stand or first-time ok lang! haha!

(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of
civil interdiction.

Mga grave na jud ni xa na mga offenses. Conviction
presupposes a final judgment.

Succession Sept 30,2013-1
st
part
Article 920. The following shall be sufficient causes for the
disinheritance of parents or ascendants, whether legitimate
or illegitimate:
(1) When the parents have abandoned their
children or induced their daughters to live a
corrupt or immoral life, or attempted against their
virtue;
(2) When the parent or ascendant has been
convicted of an attempt against the life of the
testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or
ascendants;
(3) 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 to be false;
(4) When the parent or ascendant has been
convicted of adultery or concubinage with the
spouse of the testator;
(5) When the parent or ascendant by fraud,
violence, intimidation, or undue influence causes
the testator to make a will or to change one already
made;
(6) The loss of parental authority for causes
specified in this Code;
(7) The refusal to support the children or
descendants without justifiable cause;
(8) An attempt by one of the parents against the
5

life of the other, unless there has been a
reconciliation between them. (756, 854, 674a)

(Note:Kulangan dri nga part kay wala narecord-as I can
remember ana si mam, dili na idiscuss tanan kay tapos na
daw dati- I think No.1 ni siya- When the parents have
abandoned their children or induced their daughters to live a
corrupt or immoral life, or attempted against their virtue)

This refers to the kind of abandonment when the children
are deprived of the basic necessity in life. So it is not
necessary that this abandonment should equate to a crime.
So as long as, again because of the abandonment, the
children have been deprived of the basic necessity, so that
it may be a ground for disinheritance. Or inducement to
live a corrupt or immoral life or attempted against their
virtue. The law says a daughter, so you could just imagine a
daughter who has been led to a life of prostitution for
example, or the parent attempted to rape the daughter or
child or seduce. Does this apply to son? Ok, by analogy,
this can apply to son because __ nowadays, males can be
induced to live a corrupt or immoral life. Diba tong unang
panahon, usually mga babae man ang ga engage sa
prostitution, pero karun dili ta makaingon nga ang mga
customers mga lalaki lang kay naa namay mga matron, nay
mga bading diba so pwede na ma include ang son.

Next No. 6- The loss of parental authority for causes
specified in this Code
You have to know that not all grounds __law have authority
to be a cause for disinheritance, like for example, age of
majority, that causes the loss of parental authority, but that
would not be ground to disinherit because what the law
contemplate to be a ground to disinherit a parent or an
ascendant is one that is due to the fault of the parent or the
ascendant. So only those grounds.

No. 8- An attempt by one of the parents against the life of
the other, unless there has been a reconciliation between
them.
The attempt here does not mean conviction by final
judgement, it can be proved by preponderance of evidence.
Now take note, we also have No. 2- ) When the parent or
ascendant has been convicted of an attempt against the life
of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or
ascendants- and as we discussed last meeting, this requires
conviction by final judgement but actually, the same
situation can apply in No. 8.__ attempt by the guilty
parents against the life of the other(?). the father attempted
against the life of the mother of the testator, so the testator
is the child, so the testator can disinherit his father.

Under No.2 the ascendant could mean the mother of the
testator, so this provision is similar to the attempt by one of
the parents against the life of the other parents. So for
example, when the father of the attempted against the life
of his spouse who is also the mother of the testator, do we
need conviction by final judgement or the mere attempt
suffice? If you are the lawyer for the testator and you were
consulted by the testator. And you asked, did your mother
filed a case, and he says no, you cannot just say, ah wala na.
kalimti nalang na kay wala kay ground. Hulata sa magfile
imong mama. Actually, you can use that as a ground to
disinherit, not under No. 2 but under No. 8. An attempt by
one of the parents against the life of the other, unless there
has been a reconciliation between them. So kung
nagreconcile na ang mother og father sa testator, then with
more reason that the testator must forgive the offending
parent because he is not the directly affected. That is the
reason of law there.

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 law prescribes imprisonment
of six years or more, and the accusation has been
found to be false;
(3) When the spouse by fraud, violence,
intimidation, or undue influence cause the testator
to make a will or to change one already made;
(4) When the spouse has given cause for legal
separation;
6

(5) When the spouse has given grounds for the loss
of parental authority;
(6) Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or
the other spouse. (756, 855, 674a)

So, some of the grounds for disinheriting a spouse are the
same with the grounds for disinheriting a child, ascendant
or descendant, we have No.1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. So basically ang
bag-o lang dri is No. 4- When the spouse has given cause for
legal separation. Again as we discussed before, in 919, the
ground to disinherit a child when the child or descendant
have been convicted of adultery or concubinage to the
spouse of the testator and under art 920 also a ground to
disinherit - When the parent or ascendant has been
convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of
the testator(4) but in 921 it has not been mentioned that
when the spouse has been convicted of adultery or
concubinage with the child, parents of the testator, that is
not mentioned in the provision but we have here when the
spouse has given cause for legal separation. Now, what are
the cause for legal separation? Art 55 of the Family Code.

Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any
of the following grounds:
(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive
conduct directed against the petitioner, a common
child, or a child of the petitioner;
(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel
the petitioner to change religious or political
affiliation;
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the
petitioner, a common child, or a child of the
petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance
in such corruption or inducement;
(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to
imprisonment of more than six years, even if
pardoned;
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the
respondent;
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the
respondent;
(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent
bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or
abroad;
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of
the petitioner; or
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent
without justifiable cause for more than one year.
For purposes of this Article, the term "child" shall include a
child by nature or by adoption. (9a)

So take note of those grounds for legal separation. They are
also grounds for the disinheritance of the spouse. Can you
disinherit your son because he is gay? Is this provided for in
Art 919? Could you say that being a gay is living a corrupt
or an immoral life? Then you are bound to receive a lot of
objections. So just because a person is a gay is not a ground
if he is a child or a parent. But if the spouse or the husband
is gay or if the wife is a lesbian, is that a ground to
disinherit him or her? YES. So for example, if the spouse
has an affair with the child or ascendant of the testator, can
that be a ground for disinheritance? Ok so that could be
considered as infidelity or perversion, so that is also a
ground for legal separation. And take note that there is no
more need of conviction. Like when a child is convicted of
adultery or concubinage to the spouse of the testator, there
is a conviction there, but here sexual infidelity or
perversion does not need conviction, a mere
preponderance of evidence is sufficient. If that can be
proved by preponderance of evidence, then that can be
ground for disinheritance.

Attempt by the spouse against the life of the other. Again,
in Art 921, No.1 When the spouse has been convicted of an
attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
descendants, or ascendants, so here conviction by final
judgement is required but in Art 55 of FC, as a ground for
legal separation, when the guilty spouse attempted against
the life of the innocent spouse, again here there is no need
for conviction by final judgement because a mere
preponderance of evidence is sufficient.
7

Seangio vs Reyes- Actually this case falls under Art 919- So
here the testator left a holographic will disinheriting his
son Alfredo Seangio for a cause. The document is a
holographic will which reads as follows: Ako si Segundo
Seangio Filipino may asawa naninirahan sa 465-A Flores St.,
Ermita, Manila at nagtatalay ng maiwanag na pag-iisip at
disposisyon ay tahasan at hayagang inaalisan ko ng lahat at
anumang mana ang paganay kong anak na
si Alfredo Seangio dahil siya ay naging lapastangan sa akin
at isan beses siya ng sasalita ng masama harapan ko at mga
kapatid niya na si Virginia Seangio labis kong kinasama ng
loob ko at sasabe rin ni Alfredo sa akin na ako nasa ibabaw
gayon gunit daratin ang araw na ako nasa ilalim siya at siya
nasa ibabaw.
Labis kong ikinasama ng loob ko ang gamit ni Alfredo ng
akin pagalan para makapagutang na kuarta siya at kanya
asawa na si Merna de los Reyes sa China Bangking
Corporation na millon pesos at hindi ng babayad at hindi ng
babayad ito ay nagdulot sa aking ng malaking kahihiya sa
mga may-ari at stockholders ng China Banking.
At ikinagalit ko pa rin ang pagkuha ni Alfredo at ng kanyang
asawa na mga custome[r] ng Travel Center of the Philippines
na pinagasiwaan ko at ng anak ko si Virginia.
Dito ako nagalit din kaya gayon ayoko na bilanin si Alfredo
ng anak ko at hayanan kong inaalisan ng lahat at anoman
mana na si Alfredo at si Alfredo Seangio ay hindi ko siya
anak at hindi siya makoha mana.
So the document was entitled Kasulatan sa pag-aalis ng
mana. I think we already discussed this case when we were
still in the essential elements and characteristics of the will.
The first issue was WON this document is the last will and
testament because it only contains a disinheritance? So as
ruled by the SC even if the document contains only
disinheritance, it is considered as indirect disposition. So
now as to the ground of disinheritance, is there a ground
based on the wordings of the will? Now, the SC said With
regard to the reasons for the disinheritance that were
stated by Segundo in his document, the Court believes that
the incidents, taken as a whole, can be considered a form of
maltreatment of Segundo by his son, Alfredo, and that the
matter presents a sufficient cause for the disinheritance of a
child or descendant under Article 919 of the Civil Code.
Article 922. A subsequent reconciliation 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. (856)
What is reconciliation? Reconciliation is a mutual
restoration(?) of the relationship between the testator and
the disinherited heir after the incident.
Both diba nagka-ayuhay, example katong heir kay
nangayog pasaylo tapos gipasaylo pod siya sa testator, so
there is reconciliation. For example pardon lang? father
disinbherited his son because his son attempted against his
life and the son was convicted and put into prison. What if
the father one day, went to the detention cell and then he
saw the condition of the son. And then told the son,
gipasaylo na taka sa imong gibuhat pero ang anak dili siya
mangayo og pasaylo, hilom diha pa, makagawas ra gani ko
dri, bantay lang ka. Pero ang papa gipasaylo jud niya. So is
there reconciliation? No that is pardon, unilateral. So if
there is reconciliation, this will now erase the ground for
disinheritance.
In my example, if the son was not yet disinherited and then
there is reconciliation , the father can no longer
subsequently disinherit the son because there is already
reconciliation. Halimbawa naman, there was already a
disinheritance made in the will and subsequently there was
a reconciliation, so that is reconciliation makes the
disinheritance ineffectual. Halimbawa namatay ang father
nga wala niya nausab ang will, in his will, there was
disinheritance but actually there was already reconciliation,
during the probate of the will and the distribution, the son
who was disinherited could actually say that I already had a
reconciliation with my father. So that the disinheritance in
the will is no longer effective. As long as the son can prove
that he already reconciled with his father.
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. (857)
So under this article, we can say that a disinherited heir
may be represented. For example, if the testator has a son B
and B has a son X. For example B was convicted for an
attempt against the life of his father and his father
disinherited B. So when we sa disinherited, he was deprived
of his legitime, he is excluded from the distribution of the
8

estate. But if B has a child X, the share of B will go to his
son X. So a person who has been disinherited can be
represented. So in the distribution of the estate, bisan pa
nay na disinherit validly, maapil lang gihapon og bahin
pero iya ng anak mukuha. SO that is what is meant by Art
923.
Now for example, X is a minor. Under the FC if you still
remember, if a child owns property and he is minor. Under
the law, the parents shall act as guardian of the minor child
and the properties of the minor child shall be under the
administration of the parents. And the parents also has __
over those properties except that if the annual income of
the property shall exceed Php50,000, the parents will have
to post bond.
But in the example, since B as the parent of X who is a
minor was validly disinherited, he cannot have
administration or usufruct over the property of his minor
child, with respect only to the property nga nadisinherit si
B. So this is the exception to the rule in FC that parents
should administer. So knsa man karun mag administer? A
guardian has to be appointed because the parent is
disqualified.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013
PART 2
ADCJ

Article 924. All things and rights which are within the
commerce of man be bequeathed or devised.

Ok so what will be the subject of a legacy or devise? When
you say bequeath that is when you give a legacy devise
when you give a devise. Actually this article is the same
when we discussed the subjects of successionproperty,
rights and obligationsalthough legacy and devise walay
apil ang obligation. What you can bequeath or devise are
only properties and rights unlike inheritance na apil
obligation.
Why obligations are not included? For example the testator
says I hereby bequeath my debt worth P10M to my
bestfriend X would X accept that? Of course not. The
subjects are only things or rights as mentioned under Art.
924. Ok so what are those things and rights? Those which
are transmissible, not within the commerce of men, not res
nullius, not res communes and of course remember the
Organ Donation Act. Organs of the human body can be a
subject of legacy as long as the conditions under the law are
complied with.

Article 925. A testator may charge with legacies and
devises not only his compulsory heirs but also the
legatees and devisees.
The latter shall be liable for the charge only to the
extent of the value of the legacy or the devise received
by them. The compulsory heirs shall not be liable for
the charge beyond the amount of the free portion
given them.

This is what we call a sub-legacy or a sub-deviselegacy
within a legacy; a devise within a devise. For example: I
hereby give to A P1M, but A would have to give an
allowance P1k/week to X, so that allowance to X is a sub-
legacy. Of course, the sub-legacy should not also exceed the
value of the legacy. In that example, hantod na mahurot
ang P1M? dili pud pwede. Only up to the amount of the
legacy or devise. Who can be charged of a legacy or a
devise? Legatee, devisee or even the compulsory heir. But
insofar as the compulsory heirs are concerned, the value or
the charge should not exceed the amount of the free
portion given to them. So, pwede ka ma-charge ug sub-
legacy or sub-devise sa compulsory heirs kung natagaan
siya ug free portionover and above the legitimes because
you cannot charge the legacy with another legacy or devise.
Intact jud dapat ang legitimes. So only in addition to the
legitime can be charged with a legacy or devise.

Article 926. When the testator charges one of the heirs
with a legacy or devise, he alone shall be bound.
Should he not charge anyone in particular, all shall be
liable in the same proportion in which they may
inherit.

This is easy to be understood. Pero halimbawa there are
several legatees and there is a sub-legacy mentioned but
the testator did not mention who has the obligation to
9

fulfill that sub-legacy so, legatee 1, 2, 3 gitagaan sila ug 50k,
100k, 50k respectively and there is this sub-legatee to be
given 1k/month. Wala giingon sa testator kung kinsa kay
1,2,3 ang maghatag so they all shall bear the charge
proportionally, so , , and sharing. So thats the
proportion.

Article 927. If two or more heirs take possession of the
estate, they shall be solidarily liable for the loss or
destruction of a thing devised or bequeathed, even
though only one of them should have been negligent.
So for example there is a legacy or devise, given by the
testator: I hereby give my house and lot to X but prior to
the distribution, naa pa man na probate, daghan pang
proceeding, so the devisee cannot demand to deliver to him
the house and lot. In the meantime some of the heirs, for
example A and B, they possess the house and lot and then
naguba ang balay or nagdeteriorate, even if A is only
negligent, both of them shall be solidarily liable. This is
another instance where the law provides for solidarity.
Although the innocent heir can claim from the one who is
negligent, but as to the estate and as to the devisee, they
are solidarily liable.

Article 928. The heir who is bound to deliver the legacy
or devise shall be liable in case of eviction, if the thing
is indeterminate and is indicated only by its kind.

So for example, devise of a parcel of land. The estate has
several lands. I hereby leave to X, a parcel of land with an
area of 1Ha and another heir should deliver it to the
devisee. For example si X, X is an heir and he is charged of
the obligation to deliver the land to the devisee. There are
several lands in the estate ha but the testator did not
specify which land. So si heir karon ang mamili kung asa na
land ang ihatag kay devisee. Now, if X gave this land in
Jacinto St. Davao City and later on, it turned out that the
land has a problem and the devisee has been evicted or
ejected from that land, what do we mean by shall be
liable in case of eviction, if the thing is indeterminate
and is indicated only by its kind.? meaning, another
land has to be delivered because there are several lands in
the estate and the testator himself did not specify which
land to give to the devisee. So why did the heir give this
land in Jacinto St. Davao City na he could have chosen
another land.

If the testator said I hereby give the 1Ha land in Jacinto St.,
Davao City to D and the heir should deliver that land to D,
and D has been later on evicted from that land, there is no
liability for eviction because it was the testator himself who
said that that land should be delivered to the devisee.

In the first case, wala, indeterminate, so ang heir ang
nagpili kung asa na land ang ihatag. There is liability for
eviction but of course again, ang ihatag ni heir kato ra pung
land belonging to the estate. Dili buot pasabot na in his
personal capacity si heir karon ang mangita ug land kay
devisee. Its only from the estate.

Article 929. If the testator, heir, or legatee owns only a
part of, or an interest in the thing bequeathed, the
legacy or devise shall be understood limited to such
part or interest,

Q: can the testator bequeath or devise something which is
more or less than his interest or he does not have the
interest in? this is the article that will answer. In this
article, the testator owns only a portion of the property. for
example, he owns the land in Matina. lang ang iyang
ownership and then the testator said I hereby give my land
in Matina to D so, pila karon ang mahatag kay D? for
exampl lang ang kay testator ato kay co-owner lang siya.
Pila? Of course the devise will be limited only to the
interest of the testator of that land, so . unless the
testator expressly declares that he gives the thing in
its entirety.

So, he can actually give more than what he has in the
property. like, the testator has share in a parcel of the 10-
hectare land and then he said I hereby give my 10 hectare
land in Matina Davao City to D but again testator only
owns of that land. Technically his share is 2.5 hectare but
he said I hereby give my 10 hectare land is that possible?
YES. The law says again unless the testator expressly
10

declares that he gives the thing in its entirety.So, how can
we give that? That would be equivalent in saying that the
estate shall acquire the entire land so that it can be given to
D. what happens if the other co-owners refuse to give up
their share or they demand an expensive price of their
shares what would be the obligation of the estate now? The
estate has only to give the just value of the thing to the
devisee.

Article 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.

So here, the thing devised or bequeathed did not belong to
the testator when he made the will. I hereby give the land,
or the TCT 14344 to B and the testator did not know that
he was not the owner of the land. He just thought that he
was the owner. So he gave that to B. so, what is the effect of
that disposition? It is void. The testator cannot give what
he does not own. Note, at the time he made the will, he
has thought that he owns the land but in reality he does
not own and he gave that to the devisee. But for example 10
years after he executed the will, and he wasstill alive that
time, the land was donated to him and the testator said
uyyy dili diay ni akoa? But anyway, thank you kay akoa
na ni karon and note that he previously made a will and he
did not change that. He died with that will. Can B claim the
land?

Yes, under Art. 930, xxxBut 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. Take note ha, in this
article, the testator did not own the property, but he
erroneously thought that he owned it.

Article 931. If the testator orders that a thing belonging
to another be acquired in order that it be given to a
legatee or devisee, the heir upon whom the obligation
is imposed or the estate must acquire it and give the
same to the legatee or devisee; but if the owner of the
thing refuses to alienate the same, or demands an
excessive price therefor, the heir or the estate shall
only be obliged to give the just value of the thing.

So here, the same thing as in Art. 930 that the thing devise
or bequeathed did not belong to the testator at the time
that he made the will BUT HE KNEW THAT HE DID NOT
OWN IT. Despite knowing that, he ordered that the thing
be given to the legatee or the devisee that be acquired so
that can be given to the devisee or legatee. So again, how
can the testator give a thing which he did not own it? It
shall be acquired from the owners but if the owner of the
thing refuses to alienate the same, or demands an excessive
price therefor, the heir or the estate shall only be obliged to
give the just value of the thing.

Article 932. The legacy or devise of a thing which at the
time of the execution of the will already belonged to
the legatee or devisee shall be ineffective, even though
another person may have some interest therein.
If the testator expressly orders that the thing be freed
from such interest or encumbrance, the legacy or
devise shall be valid to that extent.

Take note ha that the thing bequeath or devised here
already belong to the legatee or devisee at the time of the
execution of the will. So, D own a parcel of land. Testator
said I hereby give to D a parcel of land covered by TCT
14344, but again as I mentioned, that land already belongs
to D. what is the status of the devise? It is VOID because
you cannot give to a person what he already own. So, that is
void.

What if that land owned by the devisee had been
mortgaged by him? And the will, the testator said I hereby
give to D a parcel of land covered by TCT 14344 and I order
that the land shall be free from the mortgage. Is the devise
valid? That land belongs to the devisee, when the testator
executed the will, ang owner ng land kay si D, but only that
it was mortgage. So, the devise itself is void because again
you cannot give to a person what he already own but
11

because the testator said that the land shall be free from
the mortgage, meaning the estate shall pay the debt of D
so that it can be free from mortgage. So, it shall be valid
only to such an extent, only as to free the thing from the
encumbrance or charge. Insofar as the devise of the land
itself, it is void VOID because you cannot give to a person
what he already own.

Article 933. If the thing bequeathed belonged to the
legatee or devisee at the time of the execution of the
will, the legacy or devise shall be without effect, even
though it may have subsequently alienated by him.

In 1990, the testator executed a will giving to X a parcel of
land. At that time, X was the owner of the land. In 1995, X
sold the land and in 2000, the testator died. What is the
status of the devise? When the testator died in 2000, X was
no longer the owner of the land, but when the testator
made the will in 1990, X was the owner of the land, so upon
the death of the testator, because X was no longer the
owner of the land and he was made the devisee of that land
in 1990. Can X claim the land from the estate of the testator
by virtue of the devise made by the testator? no. simple
lang ha. You just have to remember na if the devisee or the
legatee is the owner of the thing bequeath or devised at the
time of the execution of the will, the devise or legacy is
void. There is no exception. Even if subsequently it was
donated by the devisee, at the time of death of the testator,
the devisee is no longer the owner of the property, so void
jud siya.

If the legatee or devisee acquires it gratuitously after
such time, he can claim nothing by virtue of the legacy
or devise; but if it has been acquired by onerous title
he can demand reimbursement from the heir or the
estate. In this paragraph, refers to the situation wherein at
the time of the execution of the will, legatee or devisee is
not the owner of the thing. Dili siya ang tag-iya, pero after
the execution of the will, the legatee or devisee acquired
the thing gratuitously.

So, in 1990, the testator made a will devising to X a parcel
of land. X was not the owner of that land. In 1995, X
acquired the land. So katong gidevise sa iya na land by the
testator, he acquired that in 1995 and then the testator died
in 2000, that time si X gyapon ang tag-iya sa land. Is that
devise to X of the land valid? IT DEPENDS. If he acquired
the land in 1995 by gratuitous title, X can no longer claim
anything more from the estate. He has no more claim. But
if he acquired the land onerously, like he bought the land
for 1M but earlier it was devised to him by the testator,
upon the death of the testator, he can demand
reimbursement from the heir or the estate for the value of
what he paid of the land. Kay dapat free man iyang
pagkakuha sa land, iyaha mang gibayran so i-reimburse
siya for the price which he paid.

Article 934. If the testator should bequeath or devise
something pledged or mortgaged to secure a
recoverable debt before the execution of the will, the
estate is obliged to pay the debt, unless the contrary
intention appears.
The same rule applies when the thing is pledged or
mortgaged after the execution of the will.
Any other charge, perpetual or temporary, with which
the thing bequeathed is burdened, passes with it to
the legatee or devisee.

The testator owned a parcel of land 2 hectares. That land
was mortgaged by him. And then he made a will giving that
land to B as a devise. The testator died. What is the
obligation of the estate? Can B get the land? Yes because it
was devised to him. He can get that. Now, as I said, that
land was mortgaged by the testator. can he give by
inheritance that land which was mortgaged? Yes, because
mortgage in the land does not lose the ownership over the
land. Thats merely a collateral. Although again, if you fail
to pay the debt the mortgagee has preferential right to get
the land but we have to follow the procedure. It has to be
foreclosed dili diretso kwaon sa mortgagee, but this is a
different story. So, can the devisee get the land? YES. How
about the debt? Naka-mortgage man siya? Unsa may
obligation sa estate? The estate has to free the thing from
the mortgage. Meaning, the estate has to pay the debt so
that the land will go to the devisee without any
encumbrance or charged. Thats if the thing is pledged or
mortgaged to secure a recoverable debt.

12

What if during the lifetime of the testator, he posted that
property as property bond because he was an accused in a
case and then to secure his provisional liberty, he posted
the land as a bond, but that same land he devised to B in
his will and the testator died. Can B get the land? Yes.
Again, kung proeprty bond siya, dili man mawala ang
ownership over that land. Ang lisod lang ana kung mag-
escape ang testator kay ma-forfeit ang bond katong land
kay makuha pero in this case namatay man ang testator.
ok, for example, posted that as a property bond to secure
the provisional iberty of his son. That same land was given
to B as a devise. He died. Can the devisee own the land? Is
the estate oblige to free the land from that bond? No, there
is no such obligation.

the land shall go to the devisee but still it is encumbered by
the fact that it is constituted as a property bond. That is the
meaning of Any other charge, perpetual or temporary,
with which the thing bequeathed is burdened, passes
with it to the legatee or devisee. So kato lang pledge or
mortgage. Didto lang kutob ang obligation sa estate to free
the thing from pledge or mortgage. Of course, unless the
contrary intention appears. General rule: if the thing
pledged or mortgaged to secure a recoverable debt was
given as a devise or legacy, kung silent lang ang disposition,
the obligation to free the thing from the mortgage unless
ingon sa testator na dili na nako bayaran ang utang even if
the devisee gets the land, that is still burdened with the
mortgage. So, that was expressly stated otherwise, the
presumption is the estate has the obligation to pay the
debt.

Article 935. The legacy of a credit against a third
person or of the remission or release of a debt of the
legatee shall be effective only as regards that part of
the credit or debt existing at the time of the death of
the testator.
In the first case, the estate shall comply with the
legacy by assigning to the legatee all rights of action it
may have against the debtor. In the second case, by
giving the legatee an acquittance, should he request
one.
In both cases, the legacy shall comprise all interests
on the credit or debt which may be due the testator at
the time of his death.
For example, what is a legacy of credit and what is a legacy
of remission. For example the testator during his lifetime
lend some money to X. The testator is the creditor and X is
the debtor. Halimbawa ang utang ni X kay 400K. now in
the will the testator said if upon my death, X still owes me
some money, I hereby consider that portion of the debt as
remitted. So that is what we call a legacy of remission.

For example the same thing, the testator has a receivable
worth 100k, and then he has a friend Y. in his will, he said
If upon my death, I still have receivables from X, I am
giving those receivables to Y. So si Y na ang bahala mag
collect. Si X didto na magbayad kay Y. that is what we call a
legacy of credit.

So, the law says xxx shall be effective only as regards
that part of the credit or debt existing at the time of
the death of the testator. no problem if wala jud nibayad
si debtor so 100k jud iyang utang so if it is a legacy of
remission, ang value sa iyang legacy is 100k. if it is a legacy
of credit, ang value of legacy to Y kay 100k. assuming
during the lifetime of the testator, X paid 20k. while the
testator died, in year 2005, 80k na lang iyang utang. Sa
legacy of remission, pila karon ang value sa legacy? Only
80k. because that is the only debt existing at the time of
debt. Y also, in the legacy of credit, the value of the legacy
is worth 80k. you cannot deman 100k because that is the
only value of the debt at the time of death.

Assuming, instead of paying, the debtor paid some 20k
more. ahh remission diay, sige mangutang na pud ko.
So, at the time of the death of the testator, 120k iyang
utang. How much is the value of his legacy? 100k. why not
120k? the 20k is considered as after acquired properties.
Also in the case of legacy of credit, you can only claim 100k
because the 20k is an after-acquired properties unless it is
expressly provided by the testator that additional credits
after the exectuion of the will shall be also considered as
part of the legacy.

13

Article 936. The legacy referred to in the preceding
article shall lapse if the testator, after having made it,
should bring an action against the debtor for the
payment of his debt, even if such payment should not
have been effected at the time of his death.

what do you mean by should bring an action? does it
include sending a demand letter to the debtor? Actully, the
law contemplates JUDICIAL action. Mere sending of
demand letter to the debtor will not revoke the legacy. This
article is an example of revocation by confirmation of law.
Even if it is not the intention of the testator but he brought
an action/ filed a case against the debtor after he made the
legacy of credit of legacy of remission, so the legacy is
considered revoked even if there was no payment made.

The legacy to the debtor of the thing pledged by him is
understood to discharge only the right of pledge. Take
note: when a thing is pledged, you need a collateral for debt
and when you pledge a thing meaning you have to deliver
the thing to the pledgee. Pledge is a real contract; there is a
need of delivery of the thing to the pledgee. Here there is a
neclace or cellphone. A very expensive cellphoneNOKIA
5110. So nangutang si legatee kay testator and then as a
collateral of that debt, the legatee pledged to the testator
his NOKIA 5110 cellphone. Now, the testator said in the will
I hereby bequeath to L this particular cellphone is that
legacy valid which is in the first place was owned by L and
was pledged to secure his debt to the testator?

NO. that is void because you cannot devise or bequeath a
thing which already belongs to the legatee or devisee. Does
the legatee have any other legal consequence? Yes, it shall
discharge the right of pledge. Ao, unsay mahitabo? Iuli sa
estate ang cellphone to the legatee, if the legatee cannot
pay, the estate cannot proceed against that cellphone, sell it
at public auction and use the proceeds in payment of the
debt. So ang utang ni legatee naa lang gyapon. Its only the
pledge that has been discharged. Meaning, kung dili
makabayad si legatee, wala lang. it now becomes an
unsecured debt. Only the pledge ha but not the loan itself.
But the legacy of the cellphone is not valid because in the
first place it is owned already by the legatee.

Article 937. A generic legacy of release or remission of
debts comprises those existing at the time of the
execution of the will, but not subsequent ones.

This is the one I explained to you before. Not included the
subsequent debts only those existing at the time of the
execution of the will. If there were payments, deduct those
payments from the value of the debt but if there are
subsequent debts, thy are not included in the legacy.

Article 938. A legacy or devise made to a creditor shall
not be applied to his credit, unless the testator so
expressly declares.
In the latter case, the creditor shall have the right to
collect the excess, if any, of the credit or of the legacy
or devise.

So, if X is also a creditor, naa siyay gipahulam sa testator na
1M and then in his will the testator also gives 1M also, will
that be considered payment of his debt? No. meaning over
and above pa to siya unless the testator says na pambayad
to siya sa utang. For example niingon si testator na
pambayad to siya sa utang, so naa siyay utang kay X na 2M
and then in his will, he left 1.5M to X in payment of the
debt, that will be applied to the debt, but X can also collect
the remaining 50K.

Article 939. If the testator orders the payment of what
he believes he owes but does not in fact owe, the
disposition shall be considered as not written. If as
regards a specified debt more than the amount
thereof is ordered paid, the excess is not due, unless a
contrary intention appears.

14

So if the testator said I hereby leave to X 1M in payment of
my debt when in fact he did not owe anything, so that is
not due to X. if he said I hereby leave to X 1M in payment of
my debt but ang iyahang utang lang diay kay 200k, so the
excess is not due. Meaning katong 800k dili to dapat ihatag
kay X. Unless the contrary intention appears.

The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the
fulfillment of natural obligations. If that debt has
already prescribed, and in his will the testator gave X 1M in
payment of his debt, if it is delivered to X, can the estate
recover that? No because the law on natural obligations
will now apply. Pero halimbawa wala pa nahatag, ang utang
niya kay X kay 1M, and then in his will he said that his
giving 1M to X in payment of his debt, is that demandable
even wala pa nadeliver? The law on natural obligation
authorizes the retention of what has been voluntary
delivered. Wala pa man nabayad, but again if nabayad na
siya, you cannot recover under the law on natural
obligations.

October 2, 2013
NOTE: Wala naka-start ang recording sa super start jud.
Sorry
Article 940. In alternative legacies or devises, the choice is
presumed to be left to the heir upon whom the obligation
to give the legacy or devise may be imposed, or the
executor or administrator of the estate if no particular heir
is so obliged.
If the heir, legatee or devisee, who may have been given the
choice, dies before making it, this right shall pass to the
respective heirs.
Once made, the choice is irrevocable.
In the alternative legacies or devises, except as herein
provided, the provisions of this Code regulating obligations
of the same kind shall be observed, save such modifications
as may appear from the intention expressed by the testator.
(874a)

is sufficient to extinguish the entire obligation. So in that
case, if for example, one of the things is lost by reason by
the fault of one who is bound to deliver obligation, the
debtor, he is not liable because general rule he has the right
of choice. So even if he destroyed the car for example he is
not liable, so even if the debtor destroys the car he is not
liable he because he can still choose the other things, so the
thing calls for alternative legacies or devises.
So the law in Oblicon respecting alternative obligations can
be applied also in alternative legacies and devises.
Article 941. A legacy of generic personal property shall be
valid even if there be no things of the same kind in the
estate.
A devise of indeterminate real property shall be valid only if
there be immovable property of its kind in the estate.
The right of choice shall belong to the executor or
administrator who shall comply with the legacy by the
delivery of a thing which is neither of inferior nor of
superior quality. (875a)

LECAGY OF GENERIC PERSONAL PROPERTY
a car So that is generic, not specified. Assuming the
testator gave to L a car. But theres no car in the estate. Is
that legacy valid? It is valid according to Art. 941, even if
there be no things of the same kind in the estate.
How can the estate comply? A car should be purchased so
that it can be given to the legatee.
I hereby give to D a parcel of landbut there is no land in
the estate, is that valid? The Second par. Says NO! A devise
of indeterminate real property shall be valid only if there be
immovable property of its kind in the estate. So kung naay
land in the estate, valid pero kung walay land the executor
has no obligation to buy a land.
What if the devise is I hereby give to D a parcel of land
consisting 10 has covered by TCT no. 123456, located in
Calinan Davao City so thats specific but it does not
belong to the estate. Will that devise be valid? IT
DEPENDS. If the testator did not know that he was not the
owner of that land, such devise is not valid but for example
by any title he acquires that property subsequently, that
devise will become valid.
But even if the testator did not own that land but he knew
that he did not own that land, so that would be valid, so
what will happen is the estate will get that land from its
owner. If the owner refuses to alienate the property or
15

demands an excessive price, the estate will just have to give
just value of the land to the devisee.
So because here, the legacy or devisee is generic, the
obligation of the heir, or the executor or administrator who
has the right of choice shall be to deliver the thing of
MIDDLE QUALITY, not inferior and not superior. Taking
to account of course the status of the person to whom the
property is to be given, the purpose and also the capacity of
the estate to give such property.
For example, I hereby bequeath to my niece a car for her
to use on her wedding day So unsa man nga car? So it
depends on the circumstances.
Article 942. Whenever the testator expressly leaves the
right of choice to the heir, or to the legatee or devisee, the
former may give or the latter may choose whichever he may
prefer. (876a)

So that is self explanatory.
Article 943. If the heir, legatee or devisee cannot make the
choice, in case it has been granted him, his right shall pass
to his heirs; but a choice once made shall be irrevocable.
(877a)

So for example the one to whom the choice has been given
cannot make the choice, such right shall pass to his heirs,
meaning the right to make a choice and once the choice
has been made it is already irrevocable.
Article 944. A legacy for education lasts until the legatee is
of age, or beyond the age of majority in order that the
legatee may finish some professional, vocational or general
course, provided he pursues his course diligently.
A legacy for support lasts during the lifetime of the legatee,
if the testator has not otherwise provided.
If the testator has not fixed the amount of such legacies, it
shall be fixed in accordance with the social standing and
the circumstances of the legatee and the value of the estate.
If the testator or during his lifetime used to give the legatee
a certain sum of money or other things by way of support,
the same amount shall be deemed bequeathed, unless it be
markedly disproportionate to the value of the estate. (879a)

LEGACY OF EDUCATION
The law says UNTIL THE LEGATEE IS OF AGE. So when
does a person become of age? 18. So for example a legatee
of education so that an heir may pursue a study in law. So
until 18 lang? NO! So or beyond the age of majority in
order that legatee may finish some professional, vocational
or general course. And provided he pursues his course
diligently.
For example law school so beyond the age of majority, ok
lang, basta kay ingon man diri until finish. Pero 4 years
lang man ang law school diba? Unya times two naman siya,
so would that legacy continue? Well theres that phrase
provided he pursues his course diligently So when you say
8 years diligent ba na? (*class: YEEEEESSS! ) Siguro 8
years gud, kung dili ka diligent nag undang naka So it
can be argued that it is diligently pursued.
SUPPORT.
During the lifetime of the legatee unless the testator
provides otherwise.
What is the value of the legacy? According to the social
standing and circumstances of the legatee and the value of
the estate. So if during his lifetime the testator used to give
the legatee support so that can be the basis unless it is
already markly disproportionate to the value of the estate.
Article 945. If a periodical pension, or a certain annual,
monthly, or weekly amount is bequeathed, the legatee may
petition the court for the first installment upon the death
of the testator, and for the following ones which shall be
due at the beginning of each period; such payment shall
not be returned, even though the legatee should die before
the expiration of the period which has commenced. (880a)

So just remember here, when shall the estate be obliged to
deliver the legacy? At the beginning of each period. If the
legatee died his estate is not bound to return what he has
received by virtue of that legacy or devise.
For example montly pension. So for the month of January,
So Jan. 1 palang ihatag na nimo tanan for that month. For
example 30k, and then he died on the second day of Jan.
Ofcourse his estate is not required to return the balance.
16

Article 946. If the thing bequeathed should be subject to a
usufruct, the legatee or devisee shall respect such right
until it is legally extinguished. (868a)

So meaning during his lifetime the testator owned a parcel
of land but the usufruct of that land must be given to X for
example. And the testator devised that land to D. So upon
the death of the testator because the land is devised to D, it
would have to be delivered to D but the usufruct diba is
given to X, so is the usufruct extinguished? NO. the legatee
or devisee shall respect such right until it is legally
extinguished.
Now remember the law on usufruct. GR: If it is silent upon
the death of any party in the usufruct, actually it is
extinguished but they can provide that it shall continue. So
a contrary stipulation can be had. So in that case, that
stipulation will subsist even after the death of the owner of
the property and it shall pass on to the devisee.
Remember what we discussed before under Article 934:
Article 934. If the testator should bequeath or devise
something pledged or mortgaged to secure a recoverable debt
before the execution of the will, the estate is obliged to pay
the debt, unless the contrary intention appears.
The same rule applies when the thing is pledged or
mortgaged after the execution of the will.

[So the estate has to free the property from pledge or
mortgage.]
Any other charge, perpetual or temporary, with which the
thing bequeathed is burdened, passes with it to the legatee or
devisee.

One such example is a usufruct.even if the property is
given a s a devise, subject of a usufruct and the testator
dies, the usufruct shall continue, until it is legally
extinguished.

Article 947. The legatee or devisee acquires a right to the
pure and simple legacies or devises from the death of the
testator, and transmits it to his heirs. (881a)

PURE AND SIMPLE LEGACY OR DEVISENot subject to
any condition, term or mode so it will pass on to the
legatee or devise upon the death of the testator but of
course since its a legacy or devise diba it is given by virtue
of a will and as what we have discussed before, no will shall
pass unless it has been allowed in accordance with the rules
of court. So that will has to be probated first and only when
the probate is granted and the will is allowed can the
legatee or devisee claim the property in the will. But of
course, his right starts not from the probate of the will but
from the death of the testator.
Article 948. If the legacy or devise is of a specific and
determinate thing pertaining to the testator, the legatee or
devisee acquires the ownership thereof upon the death of
the testator, as well as any growing fruits, or unborn
offspring of animals, or uncollected income; but not the
income which was due and unpaid before the latter's death.
From the moment of the testator's death, the thing
bequeathed shall be at the risk of the legatee or devisee,
who shall, therefore, bear its loss or deterioration, and shall
be benefited by its increase or improvement, without
prejudice to the responsibility of the executor or
administrator. (882a)

We are talking here of a specific and determinate thing
being given as a legacy or a devise. The law says the thing
shall pertain to the legatee or devisee upon the death of the
testator because that is the time when there is already
transmission of ownership.
So for example there is a parcel of land and it has growing
crops or fruits, that growing crop or fruit is included in the
legacy or devise but if at the time of the death of the
testator that has already been cut or harvested, can the
legatee or devisee claim that fruit? NO MORE! The law says
growing fruits.
Or unborn offsprings of animals, the land have cows, cattle
of course upon the death imoha na na xa because and
legacy is specific. What if buntis ang cow during the
lifetime of the testator nya nanganak na xa after the death
of the testator, kinsa ang tag iya atong anak? LEGATEE
17

because unborn, when you say unborn, unborn at the time
of death. Kay kung nanganak xa during the lifetime of the
testator walay question sa ESTATE jud xa. If nabuntis ug
nanganak xa after? LEGATEE by right of accretion.
Or uncollected income but not the income which was due
and unpaid before the latters death. For example the
devise is of a specific building, the building is being leased
by several lessees. So during the lifetime of the testator
there were already accrued and demandable rents but not
yet paid for example rent for one year. And then the
testator died. So the building will go to the devisee because
it was devised and because there are lessees, naa gihapoy
rentals but still those lessees did not yet pay the rentals
until after 1 year from the death of the testator. So after 1
year nagbayad karon ang lessees ug two-years worth of
rental, who owns the rentals? You have to make a
distinction. Those which became due during the lifetime of
the testator that belongs to the estate of the testator. Those
which became due after the death of the testator that
should belong to the devisee.
NOTE: those rentals which accrued before the death of the
testator is under the classification of After Acquired
property. Thus, it belongs to the estate.
The last par: the risk of the legatee or devisee, who shall,
therefore, bear its loss or deterioration, and shall be
benefited by its increase or improvement, without prejudice
to the responsibility of the executor or administrator.
(882a)Because he is now the owner.
Article 949. If the bequest should not be of a specific and
determinate thing, but is generic or of quantity, its fruits
and interests from the time of the death of the testator
shall pertain to the legatee or devisee if the testator has
expressly so ordered. (884a)

Here the bequeath is not specific and indeterminate thing.
Generic lang ang pagka.describe. So for example I hereby
give a parcel of land consisting of 10 has to D. and there is
a land there are several parcels of land in the estate. So it is
a valid devise. Now, because the testator did not specify
which land, it shall be the executor or the administrator or
the heir charged who will choose which of the several land
shall be given to the devisee. Now prior to choosing which
land, of course we have no idea which land should be given,
so eventually for example the executor chose the land in
calinan davao city and it so happens that such land even
before the delivery, after the death of the testator but
before the delivery to the devisee, that land had fruits
which were harvested, can the devisee claim those fruits
harvested after the death of the testator but before delivery
to him?
GR: NO! because it is generic or indeterminate. The right of
such legatee or devisee over such property (the fruits) shall
start only from the time it is chosen by the executor, etc.
UNLESS the testator would specify that the fruits and
interest which accrued in the property from the time of
death shall likewise pertain to the legatee or devisee.
Article 950. If the estate should not be sufficient to cover
all the legacies or devises, their payment shall be made in
the following order:
(1) Remuneratory legacies or devises;
(2) Legacies or devises declared by the
testator to be preferential;
(3) Legacies for support;
(4) Legacies for education;
(5) Legacies or devises of a specific,
determinate thing which forms a part of
the estate;
(6) All others pro rata. (887a)

So this article gives us the order of priority in satisfying the
different legacies and devises if the estate is not sufficient
to pay off all these legacies and devises.
1.) Remuneratory legacies or devisesso those which are
rewards for services given to the testator.
2.) Legacies or devises declared by the testator to be
preferentialkadtong iyang gi.ingon nga PREFERRED.
3) Legacies for supportsupport contemplated in the
family code. Excluding education from the term support.
4 ) Legacies for education;
5) Legacies or devises of a specific, determinate thing which
forms a part of the estate;

18

6) All others pro rataif legacy or devise is generic.
(*maam writes on the board, some amounts for an
example, dili madunggan ang amounts.sorry basta ang
point sundon ang pagkasunodsunod)
CF: Article 911
Article 911. After the legitime has been determined in
accordance with the three preceding articles, the reduction
shall be made as follows:
(1) Donations shall be respected as long as the legitime can
be covered, reducing or annulling, if necessary, the devises or
legacies made in the will;
(2) The reduction of the devises or legacies shall be pro rata,
without any distinction whatever.
If the testator has directed that a certain devise or legacy be
paid in preference to others, it shall not suffer any reduction
until the latter have been applied in full to the payment of the
legitime.
(3) If the devise or legacy consists of a usufruct or life
annuity, whose value may be considered greater than that of
the disposable portion, the compulsory heirs may choose
between complying with the testamentary provision and
delivering to the devisee or legatee the part of the inheritance
of which the testator could freely dispose. (820a)

In Article 911, the free portion is not sufficient to satisfy all
donations intevivos and all legacies and devises.
First is between legacies and donations, donations are
preferred.
Between two or more donations, those made earlier are
preferred.
After those donations, if there are preferred legacies, then
kato sila ang isatisfy.
Kung naa pay mabilin, all others pro rata.

But here, lahi atong priority, so when do we apply article
911 and when do we apply article 950?
REMEMBER: we only apply Art. 911 if there are compulsory
heirs and there are donations intevivos made by the
testator. These two conditions must be present because
even if there are donations made intervivos but there are
no compulsory heirs there is no need of charging donations
to the free portion. Why? Because there is no need of
collation. Collation is required only if there are compulsory
heirs and donation intervivos. Because we have to preserve
the legitimes.
So if there are compulsory heirs but there are no donation
intevivos then we follow article 950.
Article 951. The thing bequeathed shall be delivered with
all its accessories and accessories and in the condition in
which it may be upon the death of the testator. (883a)

Article 952. The heir, charged with a legacy or devise, or
the executor or administrator of the estate, must deliver
the very thing bequeathed if he is able to do so and cannot
discharge this obligation by paying its value.
Legacies of money must be paid in cash, even though the
heir or the estate may not have any.
The expenses necessary for the delivery of the thing
bequeathed shall be for the account of the heir or the
estate, but without prejudice to the legitime. (886a)

Just remember here that it must be the very thing that is
delivered. As a GR you cannot just pay in cash if the legacy
is of a car you have to deliver the car, if it is money ofcourse
it should be delivered in cash, even if the estate does not
have cash. So how Can the estate derive cash? By selling
properties. First the personal properties and then later the
real properties.

Article 953. The legatee or devisee cannot take possession
of the thing bequeathed upon his own authority, but shall
request its delivery and possession of the heir charged with
the legacy or devise, or of the executor or administrator of
the estate should he be authorized by the court to deliver
it. (885a)

So there has to be authority, either from the heir charged
or from the executor or administrator authorized by the
court to deliver. Again as I mentioned before since we are
19

talking about legacies or devises which are provided for in
the will there has to be a prior probate of the will before
things can be delivered.

Article 954. The legatee or devisee cannot accept a part of
the legacy or devise and repudiate the other, if the latter be
onerous.
Should he die before having accepted the legacy or devise,
leaving several heirs, some of the latter may accept and the
others may repudiate the share respectively belonging to
them in the legacy or devise. (889a)

We are talking here if a single devise or legacy and it is
partly onerous and partly gratuitous. For example, two
story apartment, so sa ground floor there is a charge that
you have to maintain it every month. Sa second floor there
is no such obligation. Now the legatee or devisee cannot
just accept the second floor dili ang first floor. He cannot
do that. But he can repudiate BOTH. But if he should
accept, he should accept BOTH.

Now can he accept the onerous and not the gratuitous?
Based on the wordings of Art 954 there is no such
prohibition. What is prohibited? Only Accepting the
gratuitous and repudiating the onerous. The same thing
goes for the heirs of the legatee or devisee who died.

Article 955. The legatee or devisee of two legacies or
devises, one of which is onerous, cannot renounce the
onerous one and accept the other. If both are onerous or
gratuitous, he shall be free to accept or renounce both, or
to renounce either. But if the testator intended that the two
legacies or devises should be inseparable from each other,
the legatee or devisee must either accept or renounce both.
Any compulsory heir who is at the same time a legatee or
devisee may waive the inheritance and accept the legacy or
devise, or renounce the latter and accept the former, or
waive or accept both. (890a)

Here there are two or more legacies or devises, the same
rule as before, you cannot accept the gratuitous and
renounce the onerous.
You can accept BOTH
You can renounce BOTH
You can accept the onerous and renounce the
gratuitous
BUT you cannot accept the gratuitous and renounce the
onerous.

If both legacies or devise are gratuitos, walay problema
kung irenounce nimo and isa or renounce both or accept
both. EXCEPT if the testator should say that you should
accept both.

So even if both legacies are both gratuitous or both are
both onerous if the testator says they are inseparable then
you choice would only be to accept both or renounce both.

Compulsory heir who is at the same time a legatee or
devisee may:
waive the inheritance and accept the legacy or
devise, or
renounce the latter and accept the former, or
waive or accept both.

Article 956. If the legatee or devisee cannot or is unwilling
to accept the legacy or devise, or if the legacy or devise for
any reason should become ineffective, it shall be merged
into the mass of the estate, except in cases of substitution
and of the right of accretion. (888a)

In this article you will see that intestacy is the last resort. So
remember the acronym here ISRAI. First if there is an
instituted heir or there is a legatee or devisee give the thing
to them. If he cannot accept for some reason if there is a
substitute then give to the substitute. Now if there is no
substitute and the right of representation is proper (we say
if proper because the right of representation will be
proper only in so far as the legitime is concerned or in so
far as the entire share in legal succession) So if proper sa
20

representative, if dili proper then we go to the next
accretion. Simply stated, there can be accretion in two or
more heirs are instituted to one inheritance. And if
accretion is not proper then the last resort would be
intestacy. So that portion shall go to the legal heirs of the
testator.

Article 957. The legacy or devise shall be without effect:
(1) If the testator transforms the thing bequeathed in such a
manner that it does not retain either the form or the
denomination it had;
(2) If the testator by any title or for any cause alienates the
thing bequeathed or any part thereof, it being understood
that in the latter case the legacy or devise shall be without
effect only with respect to the part thus alienated. If after
the alienation the thing should again belong to the testator,
even if it be by reason of nullity of the contract, the legacy
or devise shall not thereafter be valid, unless the
reacquisition shall have been effected by virtue of the
exercise of the right of repurchase;
(3) If the thing bequeathed is totally lost during the lifetime
of the testator, or after his death without the heir's fault.
Nevertheless, the person obliged to pay the legacy or devise
shall be liable for eviction if the thing bequeathed should
not have been determinate as to its kind, in accordance
with the provisions of article 928. (869a)

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROVISION!!!!

So article 957 talks of revocation by operation of law of the
legacy or devise. NOTE: these refers to specific things.

1. TRANSFORMATION-- If the testator transforms the thing
bequeathed in such a manner that it does not retain either
the form or the denomination it had;

I hereby bequeath to B my ring subsequently mga 2 years
after the execution of the will, the testator had the ring
melted and he made it into a pair of earrings. And then the
testator died. Can B claim the earrings? No because of
transformation.

2. ALIENATION--(2) If the testator by any title or for any
cause alienates the thing bequeathed or any part thereof, it
being understood that in the latter case the legacy or devise
shall be without effect only with respect to the part thus
alienated. If after the alienation the thing should again
belong to the testator, even if it be by reason of nullity of the
contract, the legacy or devise shall not thereafter be valid,
unless the reacquisition shall have been effected by virtue of
the exercise of the right of repurchase;

So the testator might have alienated the thing by donation
or sale, so for any title subsequent to the legacy or devise.
So for example I hereby divise my land in calinan davao
city to B so a specific land was devised. Now 2 years after
the testator sold the very same land to X. SO what happens
to that devise? Can B claim the land? NO, by the
subsequent sale or donation or any other kind of alienation
by the testator of that very same property given as a devise
or legacy by operation of law that legacy or devise becomes
void.

For example in 1990 the testator devised a specific land to X
and then in 1995 the land was sold to B. and then
subsequently in 1999 the sale to by the testator was
declared null and void because maybe there was absence of
consideration or prohibited by law . So naa nampud ang
land sa testator. Then the testator died in 2005. Can the
devisee claim this land? NO.
NOTE: with the same facts except that in 1995 the testator
filed a case for annulment of contract of sale on the ground
of vitiated conset. Can X claim the land? YES because here
the alienation made by the testator was actually
involuntary because his consent was vitiated. SO the
alienation referred to in article 957 should be
VOLUNTARY. If it was involuntary like it was foreclosed
and sold to public auction it is also considered as
involuntary. SO it will not cause the revocation of the
legacy or devise.
Another, ever if the sale was voluntary, same situation
above but in 1995 the testator sold the land to B. the sale
was pacto de retro and true enough he was able to
21

repurchase the land. Can X claim the land? YES because by
reserving his right to repurchase the land the law presumes
that the testator really intended to give effect to the devise
or legacy.
NOTE: if there is no right of repurchase but the testator
bought the land again. Can X claim the land? NO. because
it was an absolute sale.

3. LOSS OF THE THING BEQUAETH-- If the thing
bequeathed is totally lost during the lifetime of the testator,
or after his death without the heir's fault.

Nevertheless, the person obliged to pay the legacy or devise
shall be liable for eviction if the thing bequeathed should
not have been determinate as to its kind, in accordance
with the provisions of article 928.

Article 958. A mistake as to the name of the thing
bequeathed or devised, is of no consequence, if it is
possible to identify the thing which the testator intended to
bequeath or devise. (n)

MISTAKE IN THE NAME-you can use here the rules in the
interpretation of wills and also the rules in resolving an
intrinsic or extrinsic ambiguity. So as long as it is possible
to indentify the thing then the devise or legacy will be
effective.

Article 959. A disposition made in general terms in favor of
the testator's relatives shall be understood to be in favor of
those nearest in degree. (751)

So here the disposition is in favor or the testators relatives,
so it is a general or collective disposition, who are these
relatives entitled? Here we follow the rule on PROXIMITY.
They do not have the right of representation. This is
applicable to the free portion. We also do not follow the
rule that those who are in the ascending line are preferred
to those who are in the descending line. BAsta kay kung
kinsa and dool basta parehas sila ug degree whether
descending or ascending parehas sila nga mag inherit. Also
there is no application of the rule that those in the
collateral line are favored over those who are in the direct
line. Again remember lang proximity. Mao lang na xa ang
rule that applies in article 959.

What if the disposition is in favor of those who are entitled
thereto? do you follow article 959? NO! so in that case it
refers actually to the legal heirs so we follow the rule on
legal succession even if it is testamentary hah. We are
limited in legal sux, kay diba ang heirs if collateral line is
only up to the 5
th
degree. So kung walay collateral relatives
ug wala pud in the ascending or descending line then the
property will go to the state.

Note also na kung ang disposition is limited to the relatives
of the testators spouse dili mag apply ang article 959.

CHAPTER 3
Legal or Intestate Succession

SECTION 1
General Provisions

NOTE: there are provisions here that are no longer
applicable.

Ok. So legal succession, actually in the civil code there is no
definition of what is legal or intestate succession. But the
law only enumerates the instances where there is legal or
intestate succession.

Article 960. Legal or intestate succession takes place:
(1) If a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one
which has subsequently lost its validity;
(2) When the will does not institute an heir to, or dispose
of all the property belonging to the testator. In such case,
legal succession shall take place only with respect to the
22

property of which the testator has not disposed;
(3) If the suspensive condition attached to the institution of
heir does not happen or is not fulfilled, or if the heir dies
before the testator, or repudiates the inheritance, there
being no substitution, and no right of accretion takes place;
(4) When the heir instituted is incapable of succeeding,
except in cases provided in this Code. (912a)

(Actually ang gibasa nalng n imam ang provi balik, no
discussion)

Article 961. In default of testamentary heirs, the law vests
the inheritance, in accordance with the rules hereinafter set
forth, in the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of the
deceased, in the surviving spouse, and in the State. (913a)

So as we discussed before, all compulsory heirs are legal
heirs, so we have the legitimate heirs and the descendants,
in their absence legitimate parents and ascendants so we
have the surviving spouse and the illegitimate children. So
they are all legal heirs if the testator left no will. But not all
legal heirs are compulsory heirs. Why? Because in addition
to them we also have other relatives who are considered as
legal heirs we have brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts,
nephews and nieces. So relatives within the 5
th
degree of
consanguinity are considered as legal heirs if that is in the
collateral line but if it is in the ascending or descending
line, direct there is no limitation as I said.so pwede nga
muabot ug 10 degree pero that is already physically
impossible. In the absence of both relatives then we have
the state.

Article 962. In every inheritance, the relative nearest in
degree excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of
representation when it properly takes place.
Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares,
subject to the provisions of article 1006 with respect to
relatives of the full and half blood, and of article 987,
paragraph 2, concerning division between the paternal and
maternal lines. (912a)

RULE ON PROXIMITY- the relative nearest in degree
excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of
representation when it properly takes place.
Actually this concept is also applicable in the case o f
testamentary succession with respect to the legitime. So the
rule on proximity with the exception of the right of
representation. With that the children excludes the
grandchildren, if all the children are alive but if some of the
children predecease the testator and they have their own
children. Then their children will have the right of
representation.

GR: Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal
shares
EX:
1.) Article 1006 with respect to relatives of the full and half
bloodbecause those full blood inherit more than those
which are half-blood even if there are of the same degree.
2.) Article 987, paragraph 2, concerning division between
the paternal and maternal linesrecall that in the
ascending line we always divide by the line even if they are
in the same degree.
3.) when the right of representation applies.note that
although theoretically the children og ht e heir who
predeceased are elevated to the status of the heir but their
shares are not equal to the share of the brothers and sisters
of the person they represented.
4.) Inheritance of legitimate and illegitimate children.

Succession 10-7-1
st
part
SUBSECTION 1. Relationship
Article 963. Proximity of relationship is determined by the
number of generations. Each generation forms a degree.
(915)
Article 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be
either direct or collateral.
A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees
among ascendants and descendants.
23

A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees
among persons who are not ascendants and descendants,
but who come from a common ancestor. (916a)
Article 965. The direct line is either descending or
ascending.
The former unites the head of the family with those who
descend from him.
The latter binds a person with those from whom he
descends. (917)
Article 966. In the line, as many degrees are counted as
there are generations or persons, excluding the progenitor.
In the direct line, ascent is made to the common ancestor.
Thus, the child is one degree removed from the parent, two
from the grandfather, and three from the great-
grandparent.
In the collateral line, ascent is made to the common
ancestor and then descent is made to the person with
whom the computation is to be made. Thus, a person is two
degrees removed from his brother, three from his uncle,
who is the brother of his father, four from his first cousin,
and so forth. (918a)
Art 963 to 966 tell us how to compute the number of
generation. For example parents to child? How many
generation? One. Parents to grandchildren? Two. Brothers
and sisters? Two. Why? Halimbawa parents have children
A, B C and D. SO from D, how many degree to A? Two.
Because From D to the common ascendant, their parents
then go down to A. Nephews and nieces? Three. From you,
to the parents, to brothers or sisters, to nephews and
nieces. These is what is explained in 963 to 966, how to
compute the proximity of the relationships determined by
the number of generation. Each generation forms a degree.
Article 967. Full blood relationship is that existing between
persons who have the same father and the same mother.
Half blood relationship is that existing between persons
who have the same father, but not the same mother, or the
same mother, but not the same father. (920a)
How do you know WON your brother is your full blood
brother? We have same parents, the same father and the
same mother. Half blood? We have either the same father,
but not the same mother, or the same mother, but not the
same father. When we say halblood, do we mean
illegitimate? Not necessarily because for example, the
father have been married before and have children, then
the spouse died and then he remarried and then he have
another children. So those brothers and sisters to the 1
st

marriage are half blood brothers and sisters but they are all
legitimate.
Article 968. If there are several relatives of the same
degree, and one or some of them are unwilling or
incapacitated to succeed, his portion shall accrue to the
others of the same degree, save the right of representation
when it should take place. (922)
Art 968 talks about incapacity or __ or repudiation. Let us
illustrate. For example. There is a decedent with 3 children,
A have own children X and Y, B has also child Z. So under
the rule of proximity, if the decedent died, he will be
survived by his children A, B and C, and they will all inherit
in equal share. X,Y and Z shall be excluded.
If for example A is incapacitated to inherit, because he was
convicted of an attempt against the life of his parents, also
a ground for disinheritance, also a ground for incapacity.
What will happen to his share? Remember, if it is
incapacity, predecease, disinheritance, the heir who is
incapacitated or disinherited can be represented. So if
the estate is 1.2M, each should get 400k. But since A is
incapacitated, his share shall go to X and Y.
Now, what if instead of incapacity, A repudiated his share.
What will happen to his share of 400k? It shall go or accrue
to his co-heirs namely B and C. Nothing will go to X and Y.
It is because in repudiation, an heir who repudiated cannot
be represented.
Article 969. If the inheritance should be repudiated by the
nearest relative, should there be one only, or by all the
nearest relatives called by law to succeed, should there be
several, those of the following degree shall inherit in their
own right and cannot represent the person or persons
repudiating the inheritance. (923)
So in my previous example, if A repudiated his share, it will
accrue to B and C because he cannot be represented. What
if A, B and C repudiated? Who shall be the heir of the
decedent? And how much shall he receive? Since they
cannot be represented, so the heirs next in degree shall be
the heirs. Who are in next degree? X, Y and Z. So they will
inherit in their own right. And how would they divide the
estate? Divided by 3, each will share in his own right.
24

If for example, C has own child also, M. this time, all of
them, X, Y, Z and M shall divide equally the inheritance in
their own right.
Assuming, not repudiate, but A, B and C predeceased the
decedent, so X, Y, Z and M shall represent their parents. SO
their inheritance would be by right of representation. How
do we divide the estate? Divided by 3, the number of
person represented.
SUBSECTION 2. Right of Representation
Article 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of
law, by virtue of which the representative is raised to the
place and the degree of the person represented, and
acquires the rights which the latter would have if he were
living or if he could have inherited. (942a)
Ok, so that is the meaning of the Right of Representation.
Article 971. The representative is called to the succession
by the law and not by the person represented. The
representative does not succeed the person represented but
the one whom the person represented would have
succeeded. (n)
So in my previous example, A predecease the decedent so
his children X and Y shall represent him. They will now be
raised to the degree and status of A, assuming X and Y are
alive, they will inherit together with B and C. Take note,
that by represenating A, X and Y do not inherit from A,
they inherit from the decedent himself. That is why their
qualification to inherit will be measured based on
their relationship with the decedent not with A. So, if
they are incapacitated to inherit from the decedent himself,
even if A died, they cannot inherit.
Article 972. The right of representation takes place in the
direct descending line, but never in the ascending.
In the collateral line, it takes place only in favor of the
children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full
or half blood. (925)
So take note, we already discussed this before that right of
representation takes place in the direct descending line not
in the ascending line. This is based on the principle in
Succession that Love always descend. In collateral line,
right of representation is proper as long as again, it is
descending up to nephews and nieces, so grandnephews
and grandnieces are not included.
For example, A,B and C are brothers, and their children
were X,Y and Z. If for example, they have another brother D
who is the decedent. D died, and his only heirs were his
brothers A, B and C. The children of brothers are excluded
under the rule on proximity. But for example, A predecease
the decedent. So X and Y are alive, together with B and C.
Insofar as the decedent is concerned X and Y are his
nephews and nieces. So, the nephews and nieces can
represent their parent A, who is the brother of the
decedent.
Assuming, namatay na pod ni si X og Y pero naa na pod
silay mga anak O an P. So patay na si A, X, and Y, si O og P
na lang. Bali apo ni D si O og P, grandnephews and
grandnieces ni decedent. Can O and P represent? No,
because right of representation shall apply only up to
nephews and nieces.
Article 973. In order that representation may take place, it
is necessary that the representative himself be capable of
succeeding the decedent. (n)
So I already explained this before. The representative
inherit not from the person represented but from whom
the person represented succeeded.
Article 974. Whenever there is succession by
representation, the division of the estate shall be made per
stirpes, in such manner that the representative or
representatives shall not inherit more than what the person
they represent would inherit, if he were living or could
inherit. (926a)
If for example the decedent have children A, B and C and
grandchildren X, Y, Z and M. Assuming that A predeceased
the decedent, and he is survived by his own children x and
y, as we discussed, well divide the estate by 3. So 400k for
A, B and C. Since X and Y only represented A, they will
divide the share of A, so each( X and Y) will get 200k. So
the inheritance of X and Y is called per stirpes, they shall
divide the share of the person represented. Their share
cannot exceed that of the person represented. How about B
and C? Their share are called per capita, in their own right.
Article 975. When children of one or more brothers or
sisters of the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the
latter by representation, if they survive with their uncles or
aunts. But if they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal
portions. (927)
25

Take note of that. We are talking here of the inheritance of
nephews and nieces. So assuming again that A, B and C are
brothers of D, decedent. X, Y, Z and M are the children of
brothers of decedent. So kung si A lang ang namatay, he
will be survive by his children X and Y. But assuming all A,
B and C died, survived by their children, mga nephews and
nieces ni D. How do we divide? The law says, in equal
shares, like per capita. So we divide the estate by 4.
Remember that because we have a different rule when it
comes to grandchildren.
Kung grandchildren, If all of the children of the decedent
died ahead and survived by their children, the inheritance
of the children would be by right of representation, it
would not be per capita but per stirpes. So sa succession
better pa ang position sa grandnephews/nieces who are in
the collateral line kesa grandchildren, because
grandchildren always inherits by right of representation as
long as there is no repudiation. Because if there is
repudiation, that is when they inherit in their own right,
that is per capita.
Article 976. A person may represent him whose
inheritance he has renounced. (928a)
For example, the decedent, D has a child B and B has a
child Z. For example B died ahead, so predeceased,
pagkamatay ni B, kinsa gani ang heir? Si Z ang iyang anak.
Not D coz he is excluded. Descendant is favoured over
ascendant. Z repudiated his share in Bs estate. Example the
D died, ang nabilin iyang mga anak, A and C, because as
Ive mentioned, B died ahead. So ang nabilin, Z ang iyang
apo. So can Z now represent B? Yes. Because a person who
repudiated his inheritance can represent the person whose
inheritance he has repudiated.
Assuming nga naa pay anak si Z nga si R katong time nga
namatay si B, Z cannot be represented by R. Why? Because
again, a person who repudiated his inheritance cannot be
represented.
But when D died, the grandfather of Z, and as Ive said B
already predecease, so Z now, who repudiated his share to
his fathers estate may represent him to his grandfathers
estate. Again, a person who repudiated his share cannot
be represented but he can represent.
Article 977. Heirs who repudiate their share may not be
represented. (929a)
So we already discussed that before.
SECTION 2
Order of Intestate Succession
In Intestate succession, who are legal heirs? Remember the
compulsory heirs, the legitimate children and descendants,
in their absence the legitimate parents or ascendants. We
have the surviving spouse and we also have the illegitimate
children.
And then we have the collateral relatives up to the 5
th

degree of consanguinity. Who are these collateral relatives?
Brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces,
up to the 5
th
degree of consanguinity. The counting starts
from the decedent. Kung direct line, there is no limitations.
In the absence of collateral relatives up to the 5
th
degree of
consanguinity and relatives in the ascending or descending,
we have the STATE, as a legal heirs. So those are the heirs
of the decedent.
So under the legal succession, we follow the three basic
rules, which we already discussed in reserve troncal:
1. The nearer relatives excludes those who are
far(rule of proximity),
2. Those who are in the descending line are favoured
over those in ascending line,
3. Those who are in the direct line are favoured over
those who are in collateral line.
SUBSECTION 1. Descending Direct Line
Article 978. Succession pertains, in the first place, to the
descending direct line. (930)
Article 979. Legitimate children and their descendants
succeed the parents and other ascendants, without
distinction as to sex or age, and even if they should come
from different marriages.
An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting
parents in the same manner as a legitimate child. (931a)
Legitimate children as long as they are legitimate, even if
they came from different marriages, they have the same
right. They are all entitled to the same share. An adopted
child, based on Domestic Adoption Act, has the same
successional right as a legitimate child. So, he shall be
considered as legitimate child for the purpose of
succession.
26

For example, the decedent, has child B and B has adopted
child Z. Insofar as Z is concerned , he is considered as
legitimate child of B. So he will enjoy same as the
legitimate child.
Assuming B predecease the decedent(D), so he is survived
by Z. So subsequently, D died, survived by his other
children A and C and Z, the adopted child of B. So who are
the legal heirs entitled to inherit? A and C. How about Z?
Can he not represent B, since we said that an adopted child
may inherit like a l legitimate child? No. For the purpose of
representation, an adopted child cannot represent his
adopter because the fiction created by adoption is only
existing between the adopter and the adoptee. Sa ilaha lang
nang duha. It does not extend to the relatives of the
adopter, like his parents for example.
And take note, that in Right of Representation, the
representative inherit not from the person represented but
from the decedent himself, from whom the person
represented should have succeeded. And we also discussed
that, the capacity of the representative to inherit shall be
measured in terms of his relationship with the decedent. So
here walay relationship at all.
Article 980. The children of the deceased shall always
inherit from him in their own right, dividing the
inheritance in equal shares. (932)
As long as the child is the child of the decedent, under the
rule on succession, the descendants are preferred over the
ascendants. The computation would be per capita.
Article 981. Should children of the deceased and
descendants of other children who are dead, survive, the
former shall inherit in their own right, and the latter by
right of representation. (934a)
I already explained that.
Article 982. The grandchildren and other descendants
shall inherit by right of representation, and if any one of
them should have died, leaving several heirs, the portion
pertaining to him shall be divided among the latter in equal
portions. (933)
The grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by
right of representation. As we discussed before, if A
predecease the decedent and survived by his own children
X and Y. X and Y shall represent. If for example, for
example all, A, B and C died survived by their own children,
the inheritance of the grandchildren would be by
representation. So per stirpes, divided by 3 and whatever
would be the share of A shall go to X and Y.
if any one of them should have died, leaving several heirs,
the portion pertaining to him shall be divided among the
latter in equal portions- meaning if any one of the
grandchildren have died and he has several heir, for
example, Z died, the share of Z as representative would be
divided by his heirs in equal portion.
Remember ha, if parents predeceased, children inherit by
right of representation, but if we are talking of nephews
and nieces, they will inherit in equal shares.
Article 983. If illegitimate children survive with legitimate
children, the shares of the former shall be in the
proportions prescribed by article 895. (n)
Sa legal succession, and even in testamentary succession,
illegitimate children inherit half of the share of one
legitimate child. Illustration (Note: based ni sa akong
kopya sa illustration ni Maam kay mas dali sabton):
Intestate Succession: Art 983 Estate=5,000,000 (5M)
Assumption: 2 legitimate; 1 illegitimate child
Distribution: legitimate children= 2M each
Illegitimate child= 1M
How? Use algebra
Let x= 1 illegitimate child
2x= 1 legitimate child
2x + 2x + x = 5M
5x/5=5M/5
X=1M refer to the distribution above

Still intestate, but this time assuming: Estate= 14 M; 2
legitimate; 14 illegitimate child
Distribution: Must follow testamentary succession.
Why? Legitime of legitimate children will be impaired if
computation of intestate succession will be followed. Look
at the illustration below.
Let x= 1 illegitimate child
27

2x= 1 legitimate child
2x + 2x + 10x = 14M
14x/14=14M/14
X=1M
So if this would be the computation, distribution would be:
2 legitimate children= 2M each while each illegitimate
child=1M? No, their legitimes are impaired.
Now remember, even if it is legal or intestate succession,
we have to preserve the legitimes of the compulsory heirs
especially the legitimate children. Kanang mga legitime nga
dili pwede magamay (Parents, spouse and legitimate
children). Ang sa illegitimate children, pwede na siya
magvary. So take note of that, even if it is a legal succession
and we are not supposed to concern about the legitime,
BUT IN ALL CASES, THE LEGITIME OF THE
LEGITIMATE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE
PREJUDICED. That is another protection given by law for
the legitime of the legitimate children. So in the example, if
magkulang na ang legitime sa legitimate children, we
follow the computation of the testamentary succession. So
the estate, divided by 2 and the remaining free portion shall
be divided equally among the illegitimate children. So 7M
divided by 10. Illustration:
If Testate, the legitimes of 2 legitimate children would be:
Estate: 14M/2
7M/2(no. of legitimate children)
1 legitimate child shall get 3.5 M or total of 7M
10 illegitimate children shall divide the remaining free
portion.

Octobr 7, 2013 Part II

Actually we have the Family Code insofar as the succession
to the estate of an adopted child is concerned. We will just
discuss separately succession by an adopted child to the
estate of an adopted child.

Lets proceed. Ok, I already explained to you that the order
in legal succession. Who are these legal heirs. Now insofar
as the ascending direct line is concerned, the computation
again if only 1 class of heir in legal succession survives like:
all illegitimate children or all legitimate children only, or
legal spouse onlyor parents only, only the brothers or
sisters, if there is only 1 class, the entire estate will go to
them. Unlike in testamentary succession na legitimate
children , surviving spouse and there is a qualification
or but in legal succession kung 1 class lang jud ang
nabilin, all of them will inerit the entire estate. For example
in Art. 985, as we all know, legitimate parents and
ascendants only inherit in the absence of legitimate
children. Their inheritance is dependent on the absence of
legitimate children and descendants. In accordance with
the rule that those which are in the descending line, are
favored over those who are in the ascending line.

Now for example under Art. 986, only the father and ghe
mother survive, all of them, the 2 of them shall get the
entire estate dividng that in equal shares. Now for example,
only the mother survived, but the grandparents in the
paternal line also survived. Who are the heirs of the
decedent? Katong gi-explain nako before di ba, the mother
excludes the grandparents. Under the rule on proximity.
There is no right of representation in the ascending line. So
all will go to the mother. If the mother also dies and
survivors are grandparents of both sides, then we divide it
by 2. to the paternal line and other to the maternal
line. For example the grandmother in the maternal line
died already, so grandfather na lang sa maternal line ang
nabilin and kumpleto pa sa paternal side, how do you
divide the estate by 3? NO, by 2. to the maternal and
other half to the paternal. Kung kinsa man ang nabilin sa
maternal siya na lang isa ang magdawat ato. That is what
we had discussed before in testamentary succession.

SUBSECTION 3. Illegitimate Children
Article 988. In the absence of legitimate descendants
or ascendants, the illegitimate children shall succeed
to the entire estate of the deceased.

We now go to the illegitimate children. Of course, they are
compulsory heirs and they are also legal heirs. Their share,
if compared to legitimate children of the share of 1
legitimate child. Now, under Art. 988 as I mentioned, if
there are no other relatives, only 1 class survives like only
28

the illegitimate children survive, they shall succeed to the
entire estate.

Article 989. If, together with illegitimate children,
there should survive descendants of another
illegitimate child who is dead, the former shall
succeed in their own right and the latter by right of
representation.

So the same thing. For example: we have D(decedent)
A,B,C are his children and A has X, B has Y and Z, and C
has M. all of them are illegitimate children. So under Art.
989, assuming A predeceased the decedent, A is an
illegitimate child, he predeceased his parent D and survived
by his child X. of course, the child of A (si X) can represent
him together with B and C.

Article 990. The hereditary rights granted by the two
preceding articles to illegitimate children shall be
transmitted upon their death to their descendants,
who shall inherit by right of representation from their
deceased grandparent.

Ok, same example, assuming B, an illegitimate child of D,
has children Y (illegitimate) and Z (legitimate). Buhi pa si A
and C patay na si B. Can Y and Z represent B in the estate of
the latter? Can Y represent? YES. Can Z represent? YES.
Will it matter that Y is an illegitimate and Z is legitimate?
NO, because Art. 990 says xxx to illegitimate children shall
be transmitted upon their death to their descendants
xxxthis means that the law does not distinguish a
legitimate and an illegitimate descendant. It does not
matter whether the descendant is legitimate or illegitimate.

Article 991. If legitimate ascendants are left, the
illegitimate children shall divide the inheritance with
them, taking one-half of the estate, whatever be the
number of the ascendants or of the illegitimate
children.

I already explained this before.
Article 992. An illegitimate child has no right to
inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such
children or relatives inherit in the same manner from
the illegitimate child.

This article is very important. This is known as the IRON-
BAR RULE in succession. This article sets a bar or
separation between the legitimate and the illegitimate
family because the law recognizes and presumes that there
is a natural animosity the exists between the legitimate
family and the illegitimate family. For one, the illegitimate
family is the reminder of sin, a blemish broken in life. For
the other side, they look the legitimate family with envy.

NOTE: Iron bar rule applies only in legal succession. In
testamentary succession, if you institute the illegitimate
sister or brother as an heir, then there is no problem. They
can inherit. Only in legal succession.
Ex: Decedent has 2 children: A (legitimate) and B
(illegitimate). A has 2 children: P (legitimate) and Q
(illegitimate) the same thing with B: R(legitimate) and
S(illegitimate).
1. Can A and B inherit from the decedent?
Yes, because the children, insofar as the
children are concerned regardless whether
legitimate or illegitimate, you are considered
as a legal heir.

2. Assuming A and B both predeceased the decedent.
The survivors are: P,Q,R,S. who would now be
entitled to inherit from the decedent as
represenatives of their parents?
Can B, an illegitimate child be represented by
X (his legitimate child)? YES.
How about S? Yes. Art. 990.

Lets go to A, can P represent A? YES because P
is a legitimate granchild of the decedent.
Can Q represent A? NO, because of the
prohibition under Art. 992. An illegitimate
child has no right to inherit ab intestato
from the legitimate children and relatives
of his father or mother. Insofar as A and the
decedent are concerned, they have a legitimate
29

relationship. Decedent is a legitimate relative
of A, the father of Q. thats the difference
between Art. 992 and 993.
NOTE: Insofar as R is concerned, dili mag-apply
kay in the first place, insofar as B is
concerned, B is his illegitimate relative. So
S, even if he is illegitimate, he can
represent B because the latter is an
illegitimate relative of the decedent.
Illegitimate gyapon.
For example we have an illegitimate brother or sister, the
same thing. If for example you are survived by legitimate
sister and illegitimate brother, from your estate your
illegitimate brother cannot inherit. Only the legitimate
sister.
Kung halimbawa, wala jud moy legitimate na heir tapos
tanan nimong nahibilin kay mga illegitimate na brothers
wala nay lain. Wala kay mga cousins na. can they inherit?
No. To whom does it go? To the State.

DIAZ VS. IAC
There was a grandparent and he has a legitimate child and
his legitimate child predeceased him leaving his
illegitimate child. Can the illegitimate child represent him?
NO, because of the iron bar rule.

DELA MERCED VS. DELA MERCED
We have the decedent (D) and then A and Q. A is a
legitimate child of D. Q is an illegitimate child of A. now,
the decedent died and then A aldo died. When the
decedent died, his properties went to his legitimate child A.
when A died survived by his illegitimate child, Q, is Q
entitled to inherit considering that the properties
composing the estate of A came from the decedent who is a
legitimate child of his father. Can he inherit? Yes, because
this is not a case of representation. He is not representing
A. he will be inheriting in his own right as an heir of A, his
father even if all the properties came from his grandfather,
but thats not the one contemplated in Art. 992. So,
magmatter ha kung kinsa ang unang namatay. Kay kung
una namatay si A, in that example and followed by the
decedent, then Q will not be able to inherit anything
because ehe cannot be allowed to represent his father.

SUNTAY GR No. 183053
June 16, 2010

In this case, the grandparents had a legitimate son Emilio
and then Emilio had children: Emilio II ( legitimate) and
Emilio III (illegitimate). Here, Emilio I predeceased his
parents. The grandmother died. Supposedly ang heir ni
grandmother kay si grandpa and si Emilio I pero
predeceased man siya. So we now have Emilio II and Emilio
III. Now the grandfather filed a petition to include Emilio
III as a co-administrator in the estate of grandmother. Now,
that petition was opposed on the ground that Emilio III is
an illegitimate child of Emilio I, so he cannot represent his
father in the succession in the estate of his grandmother
because insofar as Emilio III is concerned, he is an
illegitimate grandson, he cannot inherit by legal succession
in this case. But in this particular case, since birth, Emilio
III and his sister were taken in the home of their
grandparents. They cared for these children like their own.
They showered them with care and attention without any
discrimination from the legitimate grandchildren. So, there
is actually no animosity. Like a normal legitimate
grandchild. And note that when the grandmother died, the
grandfather adopted Emilio III. Will Art. 992 apply insofar
as Emilio III is concerned? NO.
1. Because Art. 992 is premised on the presumption
that there is a natural animosity between the
legitimate family and the illegitimate family. But in
this particular case, these children were treated
like legitimate children by the grandparents. There
is no discrimination whatsoever.

2. Emilio III was adopted. By adoption, he became
not just a grandchild but a son by legal fiction of
the grand father.

3. With respect to the petition questioned, he was
just appointed as an administrator not to inherit
from the estate of the grandmother. Being an
administrator, you will not inherit. You will just
administer the property.

NOTE: Halimbawa kung wala jud niy adoption dire na
case, would you think the same gyapon ang answer
30

sa SC? Dili ta kaingon kay wala naman tong
animosity. In that case the SC said, na walay
animosity so Art. 992 will not apply, but aside from
that reasoning naa pay laing reasons gi-consider
ang court.

Article 993. If an illegitimate child should die without
issue, either legitimate or illegitimate, his father or
mother shall succeed to his entire estate; and if the
child's filiation is duly proved as to both parents, who
are both living, they shall inherit from him share and
share alike.

Here, the survivors are the illegitimate parents. If youre an
illegitimate child, your parents are your illegitimate
parents. So if you dont have your own children and they
will survive, they alone inherit the entire estate. If there are
2, then they share alike.

Article 994. In default of the father or mother, an
illegitimate child shall be succeeded by his or her
surviving spouse who shall be entitled to the entire
estate.

Now, will the parents of an illegitimate child succeed
together with the spouse of an illegitimate child? YES they
can, but in default of the father or mother, then the spouse
succeed to the entire estate of the decedent.

If the widow or widower should survive with brothers
and sisters, nephews and nieces, she or he shall
inherit one-half of the estate, and the latter the other
half. If there are brothers and sisters surviving together
with the spouse, will the spouse exclude the brothers and
sisters? NO, the spouse will succeed together with the
brothers and sisters.

How about illegitimate children surviving with the brotehr
and sisters of the deceased? So the deceased had illegitmate
children and brothers and sisters, so when he died, this
person survived him. Who will inherit? Will the illegitimate
child exclude the brothers and sisters of the decedent? YES.
So, even if the brothers and sisters are legitimate but they
are excluded by the presence of illegitimate children.

SUBSECTION 4. Surviving Spouse
Heirs of Spouses Remedios R. Sandejas, et al., vs. Alex
A. Lina
G.R. No. 141634
February 5, 2001
This is just an illustration on how to compute the conjugal
share and the hereditary share of the surviving spouse. If a
person dies leaving properties co-owned with his ir her
spouse, before you divide that to the heirs, liquidate first
the conjugal partnership or absolute community. Kapag
madeliver na nimo ang share sa spouse, only that share of
the deceased spouse in the conjugal estate or absolute
community shal be included in his estate. So, in the
estateof the deceased spouse, naa ra gyapon share ang
iyang surviving spouse.
Article 995. In the absence of legitimate descendants
and ascendants, and illegitimate children and their
descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, the
surviving spouse shall inherit the entire estate,
without prejudice to the rights of brothers and sisters,
nephews and nieces, should there be any, under
article 1001.

Article 996. If a widow or widower and legitimate
children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse
has in the succession the same share as that of each of
the children.

So we have the surviving spouse and the children. Di ba in
testamentary succession, if the surviving spouse survives
with one illegitimate child, ang legitimate child is of the
estate ang spouse, 1/4 . if there are 2 or more legitimate
children, ang legitimate child dividing to them in equal
share then and wife is equivalent to 1 legitimate child. In
legal succession, equal sharing. So kung a spouse and 1
legitimate child, they shall divide by 2. Kung spouse and 2
legitimate children then divide by 3 and so on. Equal ang
share sa spouse with the legitimate children or decendant.

Article 997. When the widow or widower survives with
legitimate parents or ascendants, the surviving spouse
shall be entitled to one-half of the estate, and the
legitimate parents or ascendants to the other half.

31

legitimate parents or ascendants, the surviving spouse
shall be entitled to one-half of the estate, and the
legitimate parents or ascendants to the other half.
(836a)

Article 998. If a widow or widower survives with
illegitimate children, such widow or widower shall be
entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the
illegitimate children or their descendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, to the other half. (n)

legitimate children or their descendants and
illegitimate children or their descendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, such widow or widower
shall be entitled to the same share as that of a
legitimate child. (n)

Actually, the spouse has the same share as 1 legitimate
child. Ang illegitimate child has a share equivalent to of 1
legitimate child. In the computation, we just indicate the
share of the spouse as to X, di ba? X= share of an
illegitimate child, naay 2 ka children and naa spouse, so
divide the entire estate. So, x is 1 illegitimate child ang uban
kay 2x,2x,2x so thats the computation. BUT again
remember, we just have to preserve the legitimes of the
children and the spouse. So, if there are 10 illegitimate
children, again we follow the computation in testamentary
successiongive the legitimes of the children and the
spouse and whatever remains, give that to the illegitimate
children.

Article 1000. If legitimate ascendants, the surviving
spouse, and illegitimate children are left, the
ascendants shall be entitled to one-half of the
inheritance, and the other half shall be divided
between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate
children so that such widow or widower shall have
one-fourth of the estate, and the illegitimate children
the other fourth. (841a)

Article 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their
children survive with the widow or widower, the latter
shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the
brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.
(953, 837a)

Article 1002. In case of a legal separation, if the
surviving spouse gave cause for the separation, he or
she shall not have any of the rights granted in the
preceding articles.

SUCCESSION October 9,2013 part 1
As I mentioned last time, you have to memorize the
intestate shares of the legal heirs.
Art. 1000. If legitimate ascendants, the surviving
spouse, and illegitimate children are left, the
ascendants shall be entitled to one-half of the
inheritance, and the other half shall be divided
between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate
children so that such widow or widower shall have
one-fourth of the estate, and the illegitimate children
the other fourth.
Whereas in testamentary sux: to parents, to
illegitimate child, and 1/8 to surviving spouse, so there is a
free portion of 1/8.
Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children
survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be
entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the
brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.
(953, 837a)
In testamentary sux: brothers and sisters do not get
anything unless theyre instituted as heirs, legatees, or
devisees. So if the spouse alone she gets , or 1/3, or . We
discussed that before.
Art. 1002. In case of a legal separation, if the surviving
spouse gave cause for the separation, he or she shall
not have any of the rights granted in the preceding
articles. (n)
Were talking here of the surviving spouse as the guilty
spouse or the one who gave cause to the legal separation.
So the spouse is disqualified to inherit from the deceased.
So there must be a decree of legal separation. If for example
there is only a cause for legal separation, but there is no
decree yet, the surviving spouse can still inherit. UNLESS
the spouse who was entitled disinherited the guilty spouse,
because giving cause to legal separation is also a ground for
disinheritance.
SUBSECTION 5. - Collateral Relatives
Art. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants,
illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the
32

collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of
the deceased in accordance with the following articles.
(946a)
So if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate
children, or a surviving spouse, that would be the time that
the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate.
Among them you follow the rule of proximity, so those who
are in the descending are favored over those who are in the
ascending.
Art. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and
sisters of the full blood, they shall inherit in equal
shares. (947)
Art. 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together
with nephews and nieces, who are the children of the
descendant's brothers and sisters of the full blood, the
former shall inherit per capita, and the latter per
stirpes. (948)
In my example before: If the survivors are all brothers and
sisters and there are also nephews and nieces, the brothers
and sisters exclude the nephews and nieces. But if some of
these brothers and sisters already predeceased the
decedent and they left their own children who are, in
relation to the decedent, are nephews and nieces, the
nephews and nieces will inherit together with the brothers
and sisters. The nephews and nieces inherit by right of
representation of their deceased parents. Their inheritance
is per stirpes meaning they only get what the person
they are representing are entitled to receive.
Art. 1006. Should brother and sisters of the full blood
survive together with brothers and sisters of the half
blood, the former shall be entitled to a share double
that of the latter. (949)
So full blood brothers and sisters inherit twice as much as
half blood brothers and sisters, that is in legal succession.
Remember that in testate sux, if full blood brothers and
sisters are instituted together with half blood brothers and
sisters, they will get equal shares. Because this is testate
sux. The testator had the opportunity to specify their share
if he wanted them to have different shares but because the
institution is silent, it is presumed that they are equal.
But in legal sux, there is no will, their share is 1:2.
Art. 1007. In case brothers and sisters of the half blood,
some on the father's and some on the mother's side,
are the only survivors, all shall inherit in equal shares
without distinction as to the origin of the property.
(950)
Because they are all half blood, there is no distinction as to
their sharing although they come from different lineages.
Art. 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half
blood shall succeed per capita or per stirpes, in
accordance with the rules laid down for the brothers
and sisters of the full blood. (915)
Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters
nor children of brothers or sisters, the other collateral
relatives shall succeed to the estate.
The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or
preference among them by reason of relationship by
the whole blood. (954a)
So in the absence of brothers and sisters or nephews and
nieces, other collateral relatives shall succeed without
distinction of lines or preference among them by reason of
relationship by the whole blood. AS LONG AS: (art 1010)
Art. 1010. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not
extend beyond the fifth degree of relationship in the
collateral line. (955a)
As long as they do not go beyond the 5
th
degree in the
collateral line of consanguinity. In so far as the direct line
is concerned, theres a distinction whether ascending or
descending.
Take note that in the collateral line the right of
representation is only up to nephews and nieces.

RIGHT TO INHERIT OF ADOPTED CHILDREN
Based on the ___ adoption act, adopted children have the
same successional rights as adopted children. So theyre
entitled to of the NHE.
What if the adopted child survives with the parents of the
adopter? Will the adopted child exclude the parents of the
adopter? Diba legitimate children exclude the legitimate
parents of the decedent.
Del Rosario vs Cunanan
SC gave more weight to the blood relationship between the
adopter and his parents. So in that case the SC treated the
33

adopted child as an illegitimate child. So how will they divide
the estate? In legal sux, to the parents, to the
illegitimate children. So all of them will inherit. Because the
fiction of law only exists between the adopter and the
adopted child. So that should not affect the rights of the
parents themselves to inherit from their children.
AN ADOPTED CHILD CANNOT REPRESENT THE
ADOPTER because the fiction of law created by adoption
exists only between the adopted and the adopter. There is
no relationship between the parents of the adopter and the
adopted. UNLESS the adopted is actually a relative (pwede
man na diba? Mag adopt ka ug relative?) so he can
represent not because of adoption but because of blood
relationship.
SUCCESSION TO THE ESTATE OF AN ADOPTED
CHILD
Art. 190. Legal or intestate succession to the estate of
the adopted shall be governed by the following rules:
(1) Legitimate and illegitimate children and
descendants and the surviving spouse of the adopted
shall inherit from the adopted, in accordance with the
ordinary rules of legal or intestate succession;
(2) When the parents, legitimate or illegitimate, or the
legitimate ascendants of the adopted concur with the
adopter, they shall divide the entire estate, one-half to
be inherited by the parents or ascendants and the
other half, by the adopters;
(3) When the surviving spouse or the illegitimate
children of the adopted concur with the adopters, they
shall divide the entire estate in equal shares, one-half
to be inherited by the spouse or the illegitimate
children of the adopted and the other half, by the
adopters.
(4) When the adopters concur with the illegitimate
children and the surviving spouse of the adopted, they
shall divide the entire estate in equal shares, one-
third to be inherited by the illegitimate children, one-
third by the surviving spouse, and one-third by the
adopters;
(5) When only the adopters survive, they shall inherit
the entire estate; and
(6) When only collateral blood relatives of the adopted
survive, then the ordinary rules of legal or intestate
succession shall apply.
Now take note in all cases of legal sux, Generally, there are
2 classes of heirs that if they survive they concur, they shall
divide the estate in equal shares. Like parents and spouse,
spouse and legitimate children (except when legitimate
children survive with illegitimate children- legit inherit
twice as much as the illegit).
SUBSECTION 6. - The State
Art. 1011. In default of persons entitled to succeed in
accordance with the provisions of the preceding
Sections, the State shall inherit the whole estate.
(956a)
So the state is also a legal heir of the decedent. That means
that when the decedent dies without leaving any heirs
(relatives w/in the 5
th
degree of consanguinity in the
collateral line or any relative in the direct line whether
ascending or descending) .
CADUCIARY RIGHT
the right of the state to succeed to the estate of a
person who died without a will and without heirs.
The right of a state to claim through estate
proceedings the property of a decedent who are
not survived by any heir.
NB: without heir and without a will. If there is a will, the
estate will be divided using the will, it will not go to the
state.
Art. 1012. In order that the State may take possession
of the property mentioned in the preceding article,
the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court must be
observed. (958a)
That is the RULE 91 ROC - RULE ON ESCHEAT
PROCEEDING.
ESCHEAT it is the process by which the state acquires
the properties of a decedent who died intestate and
without ___.
Art. 1013. After the payment of debts and charges, the
personal property shall be assigned to the
municipality or city where the deceased last resided in
the Philippines, and the real estate to the
34

municipalities or cities, respectively, in which the
same is situated.
If the deceased never resided in the Philippines, the
whole estate shall be assigned to the respective
municipalities or cities where the same is located.
Such estate shall be for the benefit of public schools,
and public charitable institutions and centers, in such
municipalities or cities. The court shall distribute the
estate as the respective needs of each beneficiary may
warrant.
The court, at the instance of an interested party, or on
its own motion, may order the establishment of a
permanent trust, so that only the income from the
property shall be used. (956a)
So take note of how the properties instituted in favor of the
state is shall be distributed.
personal property - shall be assigned to the
municipality or city where the deceased last
resided in the Philippines
real estate - to the municipalities or cities,
respectively, in which the same is situated.
because you cannot uproot these real estate
If the deceased never resided in the
Philippines - the whole estate shall be assigned to
the respective municipalities or cities where the
same is located.
FOR WHOS BENEFIT - public schools, and public
charitable institutions and centers, in such municipalities
or cities.
Art. 1014. If a person legally entitled to the estate of the
deceased appears and files a claim thereto with the
court within five years from the date the property was
delivered to the State, such person shall be entitled to
the possession of the same, or if sold the municipality
or city shall be accountable to him for such part of the
proceeds as may not have been lawfully spent. (n)
If after the escheat of the properties in favor of the state
and there appears an heir who claims that he should be
entitled to the property he can claim that provided he
files a claim within five years from the date the property
was delivered to the State.

PARTIAL INTESTACY
There is a will but the will does not dispose of the entire
estate.
Example: NHE=120K. Legacy 10K in favor of X (friend).
Heirs: Parents, Surviving Spouse, Illegitimate children.
Diba in legal sux parents , SS , IC . Where do we
deduct the 10K? Remember, even if legal sux, we have to
preserve the legitime of the compulsory heirs. They
cannot be given anything less than their legitime even if
legal sux. So if we deduct first the 10K, we will make the
estate 110K, therefore we would now be distributing less
than their legitime. So you do not deduct the legacy first.
How? We charge the legacy/devise to the share of the
legal heir who gets more in legal sux than in
testamentary sux. K pila gani ilang legitime? If
testamentary succession parents 1/2, spouse 1.8, illegitimate
children . Kinsa karon ang nakadawat ug more than
his/her legitime? It is the spouse. So sa iyaha nato icharge
ang legacy kay naa pa xay allowance, pwede pa xa kuhaan
na dili pa mabawasan iyang legitime.
Estate = 120K, legitime: parents 60K, Spouse 15K, Illegit
child 30K. Sa parents and child, their legal shares are the
same as their legitimes, so dili na sila pwede bawasan. How
much can we deduct from the spouse? Actually, up to 15K.
pero ang legacy 10K lang man, so we charge the legacy of
10K to the spouse. So now we distribute. Ang spouse,
supposed to be iyang legal share = 30K, but we charge to
her the legacy of 10K. so iya nlng madawat is 20K which is
still over and above her legitime. Kung halimbawa ang
legacy kay 15K, pwede gihapon nato xa icharge sa spouse.
Kung ang legacy is 30K, ang pwede lang icharge kay 15K kay
para dili maprejudice iyang legitime.
So that is how we compute in case of partial intestacy.
Charge the legacy/devise to the legal share of the heir
who gets more in legal succession than in
testamentary succession.

CHAPTER 4
PROVISIONS COMMON TO TESTATE AND INTESTATE
SUCCESSIONS
SECTION 1. - Right of Accretion

Art. 1015. Accretion is a right by virtue of which, when
35

two or more persons are called to the same
inheritance, devise or legacy, the part assigned to the
one who renounces or cannot receive his share, or
who died before the testator, is added or incorporated
to that of his co-heirs, co-devisees, or co-legatees. (n)
The concept of accretion is that there is:
3 REQUISITES
UNITY OF OBJECT - Meaning there is only
inheritance, legacy, or devise.
PLURALITY OF SUBJECT 2 or more heirs are
instituted to the same one inheritance.
THERE IS A VACANT PORTION meaning one of
them cannot inherit.
For example a house. what will happen to the share of A? it
will accrue to B. all those 3 requisites must be present
unity of object, plurality of subject, and vacancy.
Examples:
No unity of object. A sa 1
st
floor, B sa 2
nd
floor. A dies. To
whom will the share of A go? There is no accretion. There is
no unity of object. There is an earmarking of the respective
share of A and B although its the same house. Gispecify na
sa testator asa ang maadto kay A, asa ang maadto kay B.
So the concept of accretion again is subject to the priorities
as we discussed before. Katong ISRAI. Insitution,
Substitution, Representation, Accretion, and Intestate
Succession.
Art. 1016. In order that the right of accretion may take
place in a testamentary succession, it shall be
necessary:
(1) That two or more persons be called to the same
inheritance, or to the same portion thereof, pro
indiviso; and
(2) That one of the persons thus called die before the
testator, or renounce the inheritance, or be
incapacitated to receive it.
So these are the requisites of accretion as I mentioned
before.
Art. 1017. The words "one-half for each" or "in equal
shares" or any others which, though designating an
aliquot part, do not identify it by such description as
shall make each heir the exclusive owner of
determinate property, shall not exclude the right of
accretion.
In case of money or fungible goods, if the share of
each heir is not earmarked, there shall be a right of
accretion.
So for example the testator said in his will na I devise to A
of my land, and to X of the same land. Is there
earmarking if you say to A and to X? No. Accretion is
possible in that case. The words "one-half for each" or "in
equal shares" or any others which, though designating
an aliquot part, do not identify it by such description
as shall make each heir the exclusive owner of
determinate property, shall not exclude the right of
accretion. You are not making any one of them the
exclusive owner of a determinate portion of the property.
In every sq. m. of the property A owns and X owns 3/4 .
so dili ka maka ingon na akua ning diri imo nang dira.
You cannot claim a specific portion.
BUT! If you say kay A, kay B. Kay A katong naay
kasilyas dapit, kay B katong naay garden. In that case there
is no accretion because there is already earmarking. You are
now specifying which portion goes to A which portion goes
to B.
In case of money or fungible goods.
Example:
I hereby bequeath to A and B my money, and giving of
my cash to A and of my cash to B. there is accretion
because there is no earmarking, you are just specifying
their share.
my cash in metrobank shall go to A, my cash in BPI shall
go to B NO ACCRETION because there is now
earmarking. You are making each heir an owner of a
specific portion of the property.
Art. 1018. In legal succession the share of the person
who repudiates the inheritance shall always accrue to
his co-heirs.
Remember this ha! The concept of accretion applies only to
testamentary succession and legal succession. Not all
vacancy in testamentary succession or legal succession will
there be accretion.
36

What are those instances of vacancy when there can be
accretion?
In testamentary succession: there can be accretion if the
vacancy is caused by
Predeceased
Incapacity
Repudiation
If the Suspensive condition is not fulfilled
There is failure to identify one particular heir or
the institution becomes ineffective.

October 9, part 2
SUCCESSION
October 19, 2013
MAKE UP CLASS
Part 1 of Part 4

Ok, last meeting we discussed about the law on accretion.
We now proceed to capacity to succeed by will or by
testacy. When we say testamentary capacity, we are
referring to the qualifications of the testator to execute a
will. Now under the capacity to succeed, we are referring
tto the qualifications of the heir, legatee or devisee to
inherit either by legal succession or testamentary
succession.
Article 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law
of the nation of the decedent. So what law governs the
capacity to succeed whether an heir, legatee or devisee?
The national law of the decedent. Is this familiar to you?
We discussed that before under Article 16. Di ba under Art.
16, what matters are governed by the national law of the
decedent? We have the order of succession, amount of
successional rights and the intrinsic validity of the
testatmentary provisions. In relation to that we have the
capacity to succeed. This was asked before in the bar exam:
what matters are governed by the national law of the
decedent? We have four those that I mentioned. Ok, so not
the law of the place of execution, not where he dies but the
national law of the decedent.

Now, who can inherit in general? When it comes to
testamentary succession, of couse we have natural persons
even those who are still conceived subject to the conditions
under Art. 40-41 of the Civil Code. Can a juridical person
inherit? Do they have the capacity to succeed? It depends.
In the testamentary succession, if they are allowed by the
law of creation by charter to inherit, then they can inherit.
Even as we have discussed before, a class: the poor, the
soul, na-discuss na ba nako ang the institution of the soul?
Ay wala pa diay, but they can be instituted but in legal
succession, of course, notnatural persons have the
capacity to succeed, juridical persons they cannot inherit
by legal succession but the State can inherit because the
State is also a legal heir if there are no other relatives of the
decedent who died intestate.
Insane persons, do they have the capacity to succeed?
Insane persons cannot execute wills. They do not have
testamentary capacity. Can they inherit by will? There is no
prohibition.

Article 1024. Persons not incapacitated by law may
succeed by will or ab intestato.
The provisions relating to incapacity by will are
equally applicable to intestate succession.
The general rule is capacity. So as long as they
are not disqualified or incapacitated by law,
they can inherit. Persons not incapacitated by
law xxx, again, when it comes to succession by
will, this may refer to natural or juridical
persons. In legal succession, this may refer to
natural persons and the State.

Article 1025. In order to be capacitated to inherit, the
heir, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment
the succession opens, except in case of representation,
when it is proper.
A child already conceived at the time of the death of
the decedent is capable of succeeding provided it be
born later under the conditions prescribed in article
41.
We already discuss this. Insofar as natural
persons are concerned, they must be living or
at least conceived at the time when succession
37

opens, meaning at the time of death. so the
point in time is the time of death because that
is when the transmission happens. So even
conceived, as long as the conditions under Art.
40-41 are complied with.

What are the kinds of incapacity? We have 2 kinds of
incapacity:
1. Absolute incapacity
The heir cannot inherit from anybody under all
circumstances. He cannot inherit.
Ex:
o Article 1026 (2).All other
corporations or entities may
succeed under a will, unless there
is a provision to the contrary in
their charter or the laws of their
creation, and always subject to the
same.
So, if their charter prohibits
them from inheriting, they
cannot inherit absolutely.

o Article 1027 (6) Individuals,
associations and corporations not
permitted by law to inherit.

o Those who lack juridical
personality
The abortive infant
Those who have an
intrauteline life of less than 7
months and died within 24
hours from the time of birth.

2. Relative Incapacity
They cannot inheit only from certain persons
but with the other persons, they can inherit.
Or they cannot inherit certain properties.
Some of the properties may be inherited but
some are not. So relative ang ilahang
incapacity.
3 classifications:
o Incapacity by reason of possible undue
influence
-here, by reason of the position, of the
person or his relationship to the
testator, he is considered to be
incapacitated because he is presumed
to have exercised undue influence
upon the testator. When you say there
is undue influence, meaning even the
testator instituted this person, that
institution is not voluntary. That must
be a reason of undue influence. Take
note that the disqualifications under
Art. 1027 shall apply only to
testamentary succession. If it is
testamentary succession, it will only
apply to the free portion because the
undue influence can only happen
when the testator by his will institutes
the heir. In legal succession, there is
no will. So even if there was undue
influence, but the right of the heir to
inherit is by virtue of the provision of
law. Not because they unduly
influecne the decedent. Again, this will
only apply to testamentary succession
and only to the free portion.
Article 1027. The following are
incapable of succeeding:
(1) The priest who heard the
confession of the testator
during his last illness, or
the minister of the gospel
who extended spiritual aid
to him during the same
period;
> this happens when the
testator is suffering from an
illness. And it should be the
last illness because that illness
should be the reason of which
he died or the illness which
subsisted immediately prior to
his death. it should be grave
one which there is a posiblity
of death because if the testaor
was just having a cough or
sipon at that time nagconfess
siya and then subsequently
instituted the heir who is the
priest and then he died
pagkahuman niya ug himo sa
will in a car accident. His last
illness was his cough or his
sipon and he made a
38

confession. Under this
circumstance, the testator
would not be thinking that he
will die. Kung naa ka sa sip-
on, do you think mamatay na
ka? So this is not what is
contemplated here. It must be
one which there is a great
possibility of death. grave
illness like naa siyay cancer,
stage 4 na siya, naghingalo na
siya, and he confessed. Iyang
last confession and after his
confession, he made a will and
he instituted that priest, the
law presumes that during his
confession, there was undue
influence. Maybe the priest
said, sir, hapit naman jud ka
mamatay noh, daghan kaayo
kag properties. Mas makaayo
sa imong kalag kung muhatag
ka sa simbahan bisan lang
or katong 1 hectare nimo sa
Puan para makatabang pud sa
imong kalag. Because of that,
di ba kung hapit na ka
mamatay, di naman jud ka
maghuna2 sa imong
properties imong huna-
hunaon jud imong kalag so
you instuted the church, the
priest or the order, the law
says there is undue influence.
So that institution, devise or
legacy would be void. It
cannot be given effect. Take
note: during the last illness
and after the confession
because it is presumed that
the undue influence took
place during the confession. If
the legacy was given or the
will is made even before the
confession, there is no undue
influence because wala pa
man nagstoryahanay si father
ug ang testator. so, thats not
by reason of undue influence.

It is not even necessary that
the testator should really die
from that illness. Like for
example, he was sick, he has a
cancer, he confessed and then
he made the will and then he
died mga 2 days after because
na hit ad run siya, he did not
die because of cancer but that
was the last illness that
existed just before his death.
pero halimbawa: he had
cancer and then he confessed
and he made a will and then
after 10 years he died, would
that institution be valid? Yes,
it can be given effect because
of the time. You have to
consider the time between the
institution of the will and the
death. if it was 10 years pa
before he died, there was a
sufficient time or opportunity
for him to cancel or change
his will if there was undue
influence but he did not
change his will. It cannot be
presumed that the institution
was by reason of undue
influence.

What if the priest was the son
of the testator and he gave the
priest a house and lot? Will
the priest be disqualified?
Insofar as his legitimes is
concerned, that would be
given to him because the law
mandates that the legitimes
should be given regardless of
the will of the testator; if that
heir who was also the priest
was given more than his
legitime, over and above his
legitime, he is not qualified to
receive that which exceeds his
legitime. Ang iyahang legitime
lang ang iyahang madawat.

39

If the priest was appointed as
executor or administrator,
would he be diqualified by
reason of this article? No,
because the appointment is
not an institution he is not
given a testamentary benefit.
He was just made an executor
or administrator.

(2) The relatives of such priest
or minister of the gospel
within the fourth degree,
the church, order, chapter,
community, organization,
or institution to which such
priest or minister may
belong;

(3) A guardian with respect to
testamentary dispositions
given by a ward in his favor
before the final accounts of the
guardianship have been
approved, even if the testator
should die after the approval
thereof; nevertheless, any
provision made by the ward in
favor of the guardian when the
latter is his ascendant,
descendant, brother, sister, or
spouse, shall be valid;
Take note that this
disqualification will apply only
once the guardianship subsists.
The law says xxxbefore the final
accounts of the guardianship have
been approvedxxx because again
when you are a guardian and you
have a ward, the law presumes
that you exercised moral
ascendancy over your ward and if
there is testamentary benefit given
in your favor, that may be because
of the undue influence that you
exercised over the ward but if the
final accounts have already been
approved, so the guardianship has
already extinguished and then the
former ward made a testamentary
succession in favor of the former
guardian, that would be valid.
Only the time when there is
guardianship and before the final
accounts have been approved.

Take note here that if the guardian
is the ascendant, descendant,
brother , sister or spouse of the
ward, the disposition would be
valid because it is presumed that if
the guardian is also those that I
mentioned, the disposition was
made because of the affection or
the relationship. Not because of
the undue influence. Take note
that this exception does not apply
to the priest. Sa guardian lang na
siya.

(4) Any attesting witness to the
execution of a will, the spouse,
parents, or children, or any one
claiming under such witness,
spouse, parents, or children;
I think this is familiar to you
because theres a similar provision
under Article 823. If a person
attests the execution of a will,
to whom or to whose spouse, or
parent, or child, a devise or
legacy is given by such will,
such devise or legacy shall, so
far only as concerns such
person, or spouse, or parent, or
child of such person, or any one
claiming under such person or
spouse, or parent, or child, be
void, unless there are three
other competent witnesses to
such will. However, such person
so attesting shall be admitted
as a witness as if such devise or
legacy had not been made or
given. For example: an attesting
witness is also given a legacy or
devise and he is also made as an
heir. What is the consequence of
this to the will? Will this
invalidate the will? No because he
40

is qualified to become a witness
but what is the consequence of
this? The person who is at the
same time the witness and the
devisee, legacy or an heir, is
disqualified to accept the
inheritance, legacy or devise.

Take note also that in Art. 823, of
there are more than 3 witnesses to
the will so there are 4 witnesses, si
A, B, C and D. D witness at the
same time legatee. In this case, D
will now be able to receive the
legacy because his presence as a
witness is no longer required for
validity of the will, so there is no
more conflict of interest insofar as
he is concerned. Kay kung 3 lang
mo, there will be a conflict of
interest because you are an heir,
you would like the will to be
upheld because you would get
soething from the will and
because of the that if you ar ethe
witness, you will really say that the
will is valid, but if there are 4
witnesses, even if you will testify
against or in favor of the will, that
will not matter because there are 3
other persons who can also testify.

(5) Any physician, surgeon,
nurse, health officer or druggist
who took care of the testator
during his last illness;
Again, because they ar in the
position to unduly influence the
testator. the law says xxx who
took care of the testator during his
last illness meaning the care
given is continuous over a period
of time. If for example the testator
just went to the doctor for a check
up 1 day lang and then he
instituted that doctor as an heir of
his will. Will that doctor be
disqualified? No because this will
jot fall under this ground. Isolated
incident ni. Dapat continuous ang
service na gihatag katong siya jud
ang nag-assist or nag-attend sa
imoha.

The law mentions druggists,
pharmacists ni sila.

(6) Individuals, associations
and corporations not permitted
by law to inherit.

NOTE: the disqualification under
this article would apply to
testamentary succession
and the free portion.

What if these persons were able to
prove or present evidence, that
they in fact did not exercise undue
influence? Would that rebut the
presumption? The presumption is
conclusive. Thus, no evidence to
the contrary would be accepted.

o Incapacity by reason of public policy
or morality
Article 1028. The prohibitions
mentioned in article 739,
concerning donations inter vivos
shall apply to testamentary
provisions.
Article 739. The following
donations shall be void:
(1) Those made between persons
who were guilty of adultery or
concubinage at the time of the
donation;
If we translate this ground for
disqualification here, no need
here for criminal conviction,
only preponderance of
evidence is needed.

Take note ha, in
disinheritance di ba with
conviction? But here, even if
there is no disinheritance,
they cannot still inherit and
41

the guilt again can be proven
by mere preponderance of
evidence.

(2) Those made between persons
found guilty of the same criminal
offense, in consideration thereof;
So, the disposition would be
by reason of criminal offense
and not for any other reason.

(3) Those made to a public officer
or his wife, descendants and
ascendants, by reason of his office.
So if you gave to him to the
judge and he was your best
friend, then that would be
valid not because of his office
but because you are a litigant
and you have a pending case,
you give a car to the judge, by
will, that would be disallowed.
(guys, mao jud ni ang actual
na gisulti ni maam pero
murag ni-ungot siya after niya
ni gisulti seems na conflicting
iyang explanation, pero kamo
na lang mag-discern, wala
kayo ni naclarify)

In the case referred to in No. 1, the
action for declaration of nullity
may be brought by the spouse of
the donor or donee; and the guilt of
the donor and donee may be
proved by preponderance of
evidence in the same action.

So, they are not allowed because this is
against our norms or morality.

o Incapacity by reason of unworthiness
Article 1032. The following are
incapable of succeeding by reason
of unworthiness:
(1) Parents who have abandoned
their children or induced their
daughters to lead a corrupt or
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 a 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 action; this
prohibition shall not apply to cases
wherein, according to 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, or from revoking
one already made, or who
supplants, conceals, or alters the
latter's will;
(8) Any person who falsifies or
forges a supposed will of the
decedent.

Article 1029. Should the testator dispose of the whole
or part of his property for prayers and pious works for
the benefit of his soul, in general terms and without
specifying its application, the executor, with the
court's approval shall deliver one-half thereof or its
proceeds to the church or denomination to which the
testator may belong, to be used for such prayers and
42

pious works, and the other half to the State, for the
purposes mentioned in article 1013.
So, this is what we call the institution of the soul. The
testator left a certain amount of his property for prayers
and pious works for the benefit of his soul. Is this valid?
Yes, under Art. 1029. If that happens who shall dispose of
the property? The executor shall deliver to the church
and to the State.

Article 1030. Testamentary provisions in favor of the
poor in general, without designation of particular
persons or of any community, shall be deemed limited
to the poor living in the domicile of the testator at the
time of his death, unless it should clearly appear that
his intention was otherwise.

The designation of the persons who are to be
considered as poor and the distribution of the
property shall be made by the person appointed by the
testator for the purpose; in default of such person, by
the executor, and should there be no executor, by the
justice of the peace, the mayor, and the municipal
treasurer, who shall decide by a majority of votes all
questions that may arise. In all these cases, the
approval of the Court of First Instance shall be
necessary.
The preceding paragraph shall apply when the testator
has disposed of his property in favor of the poor of a
definite locality.

So, we have the institution of the poor. That is under Art.
1030. If that is the tenor of the disposition, I hereby give
of my property to the poor Who are these persons? Who
will be considered as poor? The law says limited to the poor
living in the domicile of the testator at the time of his
death, unless it should clearly appear that his intention was
otherwise.

Article 1031. A testamentary provision in favor of a
disqualified person, even though made under the
guise of an onerous contract, or made through an
intermediary, shall be void.

For example the testator had a mistress and he wanted to
give a house and lot to the mistress, but he cannot do it by
will, he cannot do it by omission because that would be
void, can he be instead denominate it as a sale? Deed of
sale to his mistress when in fact it is not a sale? The law
says it is void even if it is made in under the guise of an
onerous contract, or ihatag sa niya sa iyang bestfriend, ang
iyang best friend ang muhatag sa mistress, still it is void. If
it can be proven that the best friend was just used as an
intermediary and intended to the mistress, that disposition
shall not be given effect.

Article 1031, cannot apply to Art. 1032. The latter would deal
on the incapacity by reason of unworthiness. So, because of
the act committed of that heir against the testator even if
there is no disinheritance, the persons or offenders here are
disqualified. They cannot inherit. For example the son
attempted against the life of the testator and he was
convicted. That is a ground for disinheritance but the
testator did not disinherit the son. The son still cannot
inherit because he is disqualified under the law to inherit.

What if during his lifetime, the testator sold the land to the
son or gave the land to his friends so that his friend can
give it to his son? Can that disposition be allowed? Yes,
because even the testator himself under Art. 1032 can give
directly to the son. By giving to the son, he has directly to
the son, he has forgiven his sin and therefore the son is
qualified. Thus, Art. 1031 will not apply to Art. 1032.
October 19 part 2 and 3

October 19, 2013 Makeup class part4/4
It will be charged to the free portion. Meaning, aside from
that donation of P200K, the heir will still receive his
legitime. In that case na duha ka anak na legitimate
children, tagaan silag P375K each. Ang lesion na P200k, It
will be charged to the free portion. So P750K-P200K =
P550K free portion.
Unless, if dako kaayo xa na it will impair the legitime of the
other child, so ireduce xa para macomplete ang legitime sa
isa. Example: Free portion P750K, donation is 1M. In that
case, it is inofficious by P250K because if the value of the
estate is still 1.5M, P500K nlng ang mabilin sa free portion,
43

kulang na xa para sa isa ka heir. So ibalik nimo ang P250K
para macomplete ang legitime sa isa ka compulsory heir.
Actually naa gihapoy collation by mathematical process but
theres no collation by equitation(?) because it can be
charged to the free portion.
Art. 1063. Property left by will is not deemed subject to
collation, if the testator has not otherwise provided,
but the legitime shall in any case remain unimpaired.
Actually were talking here of legacies and devises. They are
not subject to collation because they have not even
distributed the legacies and devises before the death of the
testator.
And of course, the legitime shall not be impaired. Meaning,
if hes legacies and devises exceed the free portion, they
shall be reduced accordingly.
How about donations made to strangers? Because the law
does not mention that. Is it subject to collation?
Vda de Tupas vs RTC Negros occidental
Here Tupas foundation incorporated was a donee of a
property belonging to the testator. It was made during the
lifetime of the testator. Would this be subject to collation?
SC said YES.
A person's prerogative to make donations is subject to
certain limitations, one of which is that he cannot give by
donation more than he can give by will (Art. 752, Civil Code).
If he does, so much of what is donated as exceeds what he
can give by will is deemed inofficious and the donation is
reducible to the extent of such excess, though without
prejudice to its taking effect in the donor's lifetime or the
donee's appropriating the fruits of the thing donated (Art.
771, Civil Code). Such a donation is, moreover, collationable
that is, its value is imputable into the hereditary estate of the
donor at the tune of his death for the purpose of determining
the legitime of the forced or compulsory heirs and the freely
disposable portion of the estate. This is true as well of
donations to strangers as of gifts to compulsory heirs,
although the language of Article 1061 of the Civil Code would
seem to limit collation to the latter class of donations.
So it is subject to collation. Meaning, upon the death of the
testator or decedent, the value of the donation will be added
back to the estate. So we have collation as a mathematical
process. And that donation shall be charged to the free
portion because thats a donation made not to a compulsory
heir.
Procedure of computing NET ESTATE:
(1) determination of the value of the property which remains
at the time of the testator's death;
(2) determination of the obligations, debts, and charges
which have to be paid out or deducted from the value of the
property thus left;
(3) the determination of the difference between the assets
and the liabilities, giving rise to the hereditary estate;
(4) the addition to the net value thus found, of the value, at
the time they were made, of donations subject to collation;
and
(5) the determination of the amount of the legitimes by
getting from the total thus found the portion that the law
provides as the legitime of each respective compulsory heir.

What if the testator said that the donation is
IRREVOCABLE? Is that equivalent to saying that the
donation is not subject to collation? No.
Buhay De Roma vs CA
The donation was denominated as "sa pamamagitan ng
pagbibigay na di na mababawing muli" meaning irrevocable.
The phrase "sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay na di na
mababawing muli" merely described the donation as
"irrevocable" and should not be construed as an express
prohibition against collation. The fact that a donation is
irrevocable does not necessarily exempt the subject thereof
from the collation required under Article 1061.
The intention to exempt from collation should be expressed
plainly and unequivocally as an exception to the general rule
announced in Article 1062. Absent such a clear indication of
that intention, we apply not the exception but the rule, which
is categorical enough.
Anything less than such express prohibition will not suffice
under the clear language of Article 1062. The suggestion that
there was an implied prohibition because the properties
donated were imputable to the free portion of the decedent's
estate merits little consideration. Imputation is not the
question here, nor is it claimed that the disputed donation is
officious The sole issue is whether or not there was an
express prohibition to collate, and we see none.
44

So take not that when you say IRREVOCABLE meaning it
cannot be taken back by the donor. But when you say
COLLATION thats a totally different banana (haha! :P)
thats a different issue. Thats a mandate by law. That is not
in accordance with the will of the donor. So we really have to
add back the value of the donation to determine the value of
the estate to prevent the circumvention of the law on
legitime. Whether revocable or irrevocable, it is still subject
to collation.
If the testator says it is not subject to collation, the value
would still be added back to the estate, only that it will not be
considered as an advance to the legitime of the compulsory
heir.
Art. 1064. When the grandchildren, who survive with
their uncles, aunts, or cousins, inherit from their
grandparents in representation of their father or
mother, they shall bring to collation all that their
parents, if alive, would have been obliged to bring,
even though such grandchildren have not inherited
the property.
They shall also bring to collation all that they may
have received from the decedent during his lifetime,
unless the testator has provided otherwise, in which
case his wishes must be respected, if the legitime of
the co-heirs is not prejudiced.
Example: drawing2x si maam
So we have Testator, grandchildren A, B, C. During his
lifetime, testator donated to A 200K. Estate 1M. so the value
of the net estate at the time of death of the testator would
be 1.2M. for example A predeceased the Testator, so A will
now be represented by X and Y (children of A). How to
divide:
Legitime 600K/ 3 = 200K each child ABC. But their father A
already received the 200K. so X and Y cannot receive
anymore because they already received that in advance. So
even if the donation was given to their father, it will still be
subject to collation even if they inherit by representation.
In addition, They shall also bring to collation all that
they may have received from the decedent during his
lifetime So even the donations which they receive shall be
subject to collation and charged to their legitime unless the
testator provides otherwise.
Art. 1065. Parents are not obliged to bring to collation
in the inheritance of their ascendants any property
which may have been donated by the latter to their
children.
Example: So here X and Y are children of A. testator died,
the survivors are ABC. So legitime is 200K each. What if the
testator donated during his lifetime to X and Y? Would A
collate that? Would that be considered as an advance to the
legitime of A? No. because in the first place, dili man gani
heir ni testator si X ug Y. because under the rule on
proximity those who are near exclude those who are far.
So we will only consider those donations made to ABC but
not to their children.
Different sa previous article because the representative
inherit, so they will bring to collation all that they received
and all that their parents have received because they
represent their parents. So that is the difference.
Art. 1066. Neither shall donations to the spouse of the
child be brought to collation; but if they have been
given by the parent to the spouses jointly, the child
shall be obliged to bring to collation one-half of the
thing donated.
Example: So here the testator donated to the spouse of A.
testator died, his heirs are ABC. Will A bring to collation
what his spouse received? No, because hes a separate
person from his spouse. The donation was not made to him
but to his spouse. The donation was made to his spouse not
to A. the donation made to his spouse shall be charged to
the free portion and not considered as an advance to the
legitime of A.
If jointly gihatag sa ila ang donation, then ang half na share
ni A would be considered an advance to his legitime and he
has to collate that.
Art. 1067. Expenses for support, education, medical
attendance, even in extraordinary illness,
apprenticeship, ordinary equipment, or customary
gifts are not subject to collation.
So education this should only refer to up to high school.
Medical attendance so naoperahan ka, gigastosan ka sa
imong parents and gipakaon ka. so gikwenta sa imong
parents imong gatas since tung bata pa ka pati imong
diapers den o anak ha advance na to your legitime! pwede
ba na? No. it is not subject to collation, even the value of
those expenses will not be added back to the value of the
estate because these are obligations of the parents to their
children. Not included in collation. Customary gifts
birthday gifts, jewelry ginagmay, not subject to collation.
45

Art. 1068. Expenses incurred by the parents in giving
their children a professional, vocational or other
career shall not be brought to collation unless the
parents so provide, or unless they impair the legitime;
but when their collation is required, the sum which
the child would have spent if he had lived in the house
and company of his parents shall be deducted
therefrom.
This is what we call OPTIONAL COLLATION expenses
for professional, vocational or other career. So this is
education after high school.
GR: professional, vocational or other career are not subject
to collation.
EX: if your parents provide otherwise. So they can say na
subject to collation. Ikaw anak imong pagskwela nimo sa
lawschool icollate nako na xa as advance to your legitime,
since 10 years man ka nag lawschool, wala na kay madawat!
Actually ibalik pa nimo ang sobra anak kay na impair na
nimo ang legitime sa imong ubang igsuon! hahahaha!
agay! If they do that, dili pud tanan imong iuli. Because
imong expenses if nagpuyo lang ka sa inyong balay, wala ka
nag lawschool, magkaon man gihapon ka diba? So kana xa
pwede xa ideduct didto sa value sa imong iuli.
Optional collation added to the value of the estate to
determine the hereditary estate and charged to the legitime
of the compulsory heir if so directed by the testator.
Art. 1069. Any sums paid by a parent in satisfaction of
the debts of his children, election expenses, fines, and
similar expenses shall be brought to collation.
So remember ha na not only donations are subject to
collation. Anything given gratuitously by the parents, as
long as not excluded by law, are subject to collation. Such
as debts naay utang gibayaran, election expenses, fines -
nakulong gipyansahan, subject to collation.
Art. 1070. Wedding gifts by parents and ascendants
consisting of jewelry, clothing, and outfit, shall not be
reduced as inofficious except insofar as they may
exceed one-tenth of the sum which is disposable by
will.
General rule: when it is jewelry, clothing, and outfit not
subject to collation.
Exception: if their value exceed one-tenth of the free
portion.
Example: Free portion 1M, 10% is 100K. so if imong gown
kay 200K, ang excess na 100K kay considered na na advance
to your legitime.
Halimbawa gihatagan kag mga PLATO? They will not be
part of the collation, they are considered as customary gifts
under Art. 1067, not subject to collation.
What if HOUSE AND LOT during your wedding? That is
subject to collation. They are not mentioned under jewelry,
clothing and outfit. They are considered ordinary donations
which is subject to collation. BUT if ana ka ka rich (murag
si Napoles) na pag mag birthday, binyag, manghatag na kag
house and lot, then thats considered as customary gifts
under Art. 1067. It depends on your status.
Art. 1071. The same things donated are not to be
brought to collation and partition, but only their value
at the time of the donation, even though their just
value may not then have been assessed.
Their subsequent increase or deterioration and even
their total loss or destruction, be it accidental or
culpable, shall be for the benefit or account and risk of
the donee.
Now here, if the donations are subject to collation, what
shall be the value added back to the estate? It is the value
at the time of the donation. So if the value has
increased/decreased, sa donee na to xa na risk.
Art. 1072. In the collation of a donation made by both
parents, one-half shall be brought to the inheritance
of the father, and the other half, to that of the mother.
That given by one alone shall be brought to collation
in his or her inheritance.
Example: If the testator, jointly with his wife, made a
donation of 200K to A. if namatay si testator, only of that
or 100K is added back to his estate. So ang legitime ni A
from his father considered as advance is only 100K.
pagkaamatay sa mother, the other 100K mao napud tong
iadd back sa estate of the mother as an advance to A.
Art. 1073. The donee's share of the estate shall be
reduced by an amount equal to that already received
by him; and his co-heirs shall receive an equivalent, as
much as possible, in property of the same nature, class
and quality.
So theres a donation inter vivos to his son A. considered as
an advance to the legitime of A. If that is a parcel of land, in
46

the distribution of the estate, as much as possible to assure
equality, si B ug C hatagan pud ug land.
Art. 1074. Should the provisions of the preceding
article be impracticable, if the property donated was
immovable, the co-heirs shall be entitled to receive its
equivalent in cash or securities, at the rate of
quotation; and should there be neither cash or
marketable securities in the estate, so much of the
other property as may be necessary shall be sold at
public auction.
If the property donated was movable, the co-heirs
shall only have a right to select an equivalent of other
personal property of the inheritance at its just price.
IF IMMOVABLE: So kung ang estate has no land, the law
says that they should receive its equivalent in cash or
securities. If walay cash or securities, so much of the other
property as may be necessary shall be sold at public
auction.
IF MOVABLE: If ang gihatag kay A kay Car, supposedly ang
ihatag kay B ug C kay car. Kung wala nay lain car, the co-
heirs shall only have a right to select an equivalent of other
personal property of the inheritance at its just price.
Art. 1075. The fruits and interest of the property
subject to collation shall not pertain to the estate
except from the day on which the succession is
opened.
For the purpose of ascertaining their amount, the
fruits and interest of the property of the estate of the
same kind and quality as that subject to collation shall
be made the standard of assessment.
This will apply only if there is a need of reduction or
abatement. Because if wala na impair ang legitimes, we will
only consider its value at the time of donation. Pero if there
is a need to return kay inofficious xa, what happens to the
fruits and interest of the property?
General Rule: The fruits and interest of the property
subject to collation shall pertain to the estate from the day
on which the succession is opened. (At the time of death)
So the donee should return the property and the fruits and
interest of the property which accrued from the time of
death. So katong nakuha niya na fruits and interest during
the lifetime of the testator, wala na toy apil.
Art. 1076. The co-heirs are bound to reimburse to the
donee the necessary expenses which he has incurred
for the preservation of the property donated to him,
though they may not have augmented its value.
The donee who collates in kind an immovable which
has been given to him must be reimbursed by his co-
heirs for the improvements which have increased the
value of the property, and which exist at the time the
partition if effected.
As to works made on the estate for the mere pleasure
of the donee, no reimbursement is due him for them;
he has, however, the right to remove them, if he can
do so without injuring the estate.
This will only apply if there is a need to return because if
there is no need to return, there is no need for
reimbursements.
What expenses can be reimbursed to the donee who has to
collate:
necessary expenses
improvements - which have increased the value of the
property, and which exist at the time the partition if
effected
expenses for mere pleasure - no reimbursement is due
him for them; he has, however, the right to remove
them

Art. 1077. Should any question arise among the co-
heirs upon the obligation to bring to collation or as to
the things which are subject to collation, the
distribution of the estate shall not be interrupted for
this reason, provided adequate security is given.
So during the distribution of the estate theres a
controversy whether or not certain things are subject to
collation, the distribution will still continue but they will
just furnish a security for the property in question.

So, as we mentioned before, donation made inter vivos to
the heirs or strangers are subject to collation. Donations
47

made to children advances to their legitime. Donations
made to strangers charged to the free portion.
How about DONATIONS of the testator to his SPOUSE?
The donation would be VOID. So because it is void, its
value will not leave the estate, therefore there is no need
for collation.
What if dili pa sila asawa nag DONATE xa sa iyang
FUTURE SPOUSE then nahimo niyang wife? Would that be
valid? Yes. it will be subject to collation. That would be
considered as a donation made to strangers charged to the
free portion.
SUCCESSION
OCTOBER 21
First 17 minutes

SECTION 6
Partition and Distribution of the Estate
SUBSECTION 1. Partition

Article 1078. Where there are two or more heirs, the
whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition,
owned in common by such heirs, subject to the
payment of debts of the deceased.
So, upon the death of the testator, if there are several heirs
and there is still no distribution, there is now a state of co-
ownership among the co-owners. Ok, so what is the
consequence if, there is still co-ownership? Each heir is not
considered an absolute owner of any portion of the
property. even if you say that there are 4 heirs and each of
them owns 1/4 , but each of them cannot claim a specific
portion or exclusively own for a certain portion of the
property. so, for each and every square meter of the
property, they are co-owners, each. That is why, a
conveyance, donation, disposition, sale made by a co-owner
of a specific portion of the property prior partition is void.
If you sell 1hectare assuming that the land is 4 hectares, you
sell 1 hectare and you specify the meets and bounds, the
technical description, that is null and void, because again
there is no partition. So you cannot claim an exclusive
ownership over a specific portion. But if affter the partition,
that portion is allocated to the one who sold, then that sale
now becomes valid. Ok, it cannot later on question the sale
on the ground that it is void.
Article 1079. Partition, in general, is the separation,
division and assignment of a thing held in common
among those to whom it may belong. The thing itself
may be divided, or its value.
So, the laws says that the thing itself may be divided or its
value, for example it is not practicable, you divide a thing,
like a house, you cannot divide it physically, so pwede its
value.
Let us go to specific cases
How is partition done? Is there a specific formality or
requirement under the law on how it should be done?
Actually when you say partition, even the testator himself
can partition the thing during his lifetime. So that is what
we call partition inter vivos. Partition may also be done by
his heirs after the death of the decedent or testator. so, is
there a specific form? NONE. It can be done orally, in
writing, private or public document, but we also have
specific rules under the Rules of Court. For example, there
are several heirs and there are no debts and they can agree
among themselves how to partition, so they can just do
that by a document. They dont have to go to court to
partition the property. they can execute EXTRAJUDICIAL
PARTITION OF THE ESTATE. So that is just in a public
document notarized by the notary public.
If there is only 1 heir, he/she can just execute an
AFFIDAVIT OF SELF ADJUDICATION, adjudicating to
himself or herself the entire estate.
If the parties cannot agree as to ow to partition the
property, then they will have to go to court. Because it will
now be the court who will decide how to partition. That is
what we call, JUDICIAL PARTITION. So, in that kind of
partition, there is an administrator/ executor who will
submit a ____ of partition and that would have to be
approved by the court.
Usually pag di na magkasinabot ang parties, pwede na lang
na raffling. I-raffle2 kung pila imong share. Unsa imong
share, unsa imong makuha. That is how partition is done.

Now, lets go back to an EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION.
Onw which is done by the heirs themselves. When you
48

extrajudicially partition a property, one requirement is
there should be no will. Rule 74 Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court.
What are the conditions?
The decedent left no will
The decedent left no debts or if there were debts
left, they were paid.
The heirs are all of age or if there are minors, that
latter are represented by their judicial guardian or
legal representatives.
The partition was made by means of a public
instrument or affidavit duly filed in the register of
deeds.
So, it requires that the extrajudicial partition
should be written and acknowledge before the
notary public because its public document and
filed with the register of deed
It has to be published in a newspaper of general
circulation for 3 consecutive weeks.

In the case of HEIRS OF TEVES vs. CA, this involves an
extrajudicial partition. Now, the question is what if by
extrajudicial partition is not made in a public instrument
and not registered in the register of deeds? Will it be valid?
YES, even an oral partition is valid.
So, what about Rule 74 Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court?
According to the SC, this is only required, if there are
creditors affected because this will now serve as a
protection of the creditors because they should be apprised
that the heirs are now dividing the property. and this is also
for the benefit for the heirs themselves to protect them
against the time ____ of the creditors because there is a
certain period which is called the STATUTE OF
MANIFESTNG*** that the creditors have to present their
case in court otherwise, the claim will be barred. If there
are no creditors affected, then the partition, even if orally
mad ecan be respected and it is valid. It does not affect its
exclusive validity when there are no creditors or the rights
of the creditors are not affected.

Article 1080. Should a person make partition of his
estate by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition
shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the
legitime of the compulsory heirs.
A parent who, in the interest of his or her family,
desires to keep any agricultural, industrial, or
manufacturing enterprise intact, may avail himself of
the right granted him in this article, by ordering that
the legitime of the other children to whom the
property is not assigned, be paid in cash.
So here we are talking of partition made by the testator or
the decedent himself. When you say act inter vivos, there is
no particular requirement as to how it should be done. As
discussed in the case of
JLT Agro incorporated vs. Balansag
GR: 141882
March 11, 2005
The SC said, that if the partition is made by an act inter
vivos, no formalities are prescribed by the Civil Code. The
partition will of course be effective only after death. it does
not necessarily require the formalities of the will fo rafter
all it is not the partition that is the mode of acquiring
ownership. Neither will or formalities of a donation be
required since donation will not be the mode of acquiring
ownership hereafter death. since nobody has remain, it
follows that the mode will be succession or intestate
succession. Besides, the partition is limited to physical
determination of the part to be given to the heir. So, there
is no particular formalities. Although it can be done in a
will, but it can also be done in another way.
Now, with respect to future things, for example, the
testator or the decedent is still alive, so he makes the
partition of the property and he signed the partition and
also his heirs. Now, there is a general rule that contacts
upon future things may be entered into for as long as they
are not outside the commerce of men. Contracts which
involve future things can be valid. So future object or thing
may be an object of a contract. Exception: under the new
civil code, no contract may be entered into with respect to
future inheritance because again as we discussed before,
the rights of the heir to their inheritance will only be
inchoate or expectancy. So any contract with respect to
their future inheritance will be void. An exception to the
exception is the partition inter vivos referred to in Art.
1080. Because even if the decedent is still alive he can
already make a partition of his property and he can make
that as an agreement among his heirs. It is valid again
because the partition even if done during his lifetime will
not be effective then, it will not cause the transfer of
ownership to the heirs during the execution. It will only
transfer ownership to the heirs upon the death of the
49

decedent. The mode of acquisition or the mode of transfer
of ownership would not be the partition but succession.
Again, this is not covered under the exception to the
general rule that no contract will be entered into on future
inheritance.
Article 1081. A person may, by an act inter vivos or
mortis causa, intrust the mere power to make the
partition after his death to any person who is not one
of the co-heirs.
The provisions of this and of the preceding article
shall be observed even should there be among the co-
heirs a minor or a person subject to guardianship; but
the mandatary, in such case, shall make an inventory
of the property of the estate, after notifying the co-
heirs, the creditors, and the legatees or devisees.
So here, we are just talking of the right of the decedent to
entrust to another person the power to make a partition of
his property. that can be entrusted to another personany
person. In that case, the person is not making a
testamentary disposition. He will just be making a
partition.
Article 1082. Every act which is intended to put an end
to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees
is deemed to be a partition, although it should
purport to be a sale, and exchange, a compromise, or
any other transaction.
Again, this supports our discussion that theres no
particular form for partition. As long as it puts an end to
their co-ownership. Example:
Lucillo vs. Yap
Here, there was no specific document executed by the
heirs, but they already possessed certain portions of the
estate. They made improvements on their portions which
they possessed and they declared these portions which they
possessed in their names for taxation purposes. So wala
silay document na gi-execute but the SC said, these acts
amount already to partition. This is evidence of the fact
that they already made an agreement before an oral or
verbal partition of their property. so these are indications
that the heirs of Lucillo agreed to divide the subject estate
among themselves for why should they:
Contruct improvements thereon
Pay the taxes therefor and
Exercise acts of ownership
If they did not firmly believe that the property was theirs.

-End-
*ang last part kay pag.transcript nlng mo sa book. Hehe. No
recording. Good lucks. Para daghan.

Succession TSN 3rd Exam (Based On The Lectures of Atty. Leilanie Espejo)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Succession TSN 3rd Exam (Based On The Lectures of Atty. Leilanie Espejo)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Succession TSN 3rd Exam (Based On The Lectures of Atty. Leilanie Espejo)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Succession TSN 3rd Exam Coverage

Based on the Lectures of Atty. Leilanie Yangyang Espejo

You might also like