FINALS CASE DIGEST | SUCCESSION of the intrinsic validity thereof.

If it is
EH 405 | GRAVADOR extrinsically valid, the next test is to
determine its intrinsic validity — that is
whether the provisions of the will are valid
MODULE 12 according to the laws of succession. In this
case, the court had ruled that the will of
Dorotheo vs. CA, G.R. No. 108581 (Dec. Alejandro was extrinsically valid but the
8, 1999) intrinsic provisions thereof were void. Thus,
the rules of intestacy apply as correctly held
Facts: by the trial court.
After the death of Aniceta Reyes and her
husband Alejandro Dorotheo. Lourdes Rodriguez vs. De Borja
Dorotheo filed a special proceeding for the G.R. No. L-21993 (Jun. 21, 1966)
probate of Alejandro’s will alleging that she
took care of him prior to his death. It was Facts:
admitted to probate, the children of Fr. Celestino Rodriguez was born in
Dorotheo did not appeal from the order. In Parañaque, Rizal but stayed in Hagonoy,
1983 however they filed a Motion to Declare Bulacan for 33 years when he became a
the Will Intrinsically void which was granted parish priest up to the time of his death in
by the trial court. The respondent-oppositors 1963. Fr. Rodriguez left real properties in
were declared as the only heirs of the Rizal, Cavite, Quezon City and Bulacan.
spouses.
On March 4, 1963, respondents Pangilinan
Issue: and Jacalan delivered to the Clerk of Court
May a last will and testament admitted to of Bulacan a purported last will and
probate but declared intrinsically void in an testament of Fr. Rodriguez. While on March
order that has become final and executory 8, 1963, petitioners Maria and Angela
still be given effect? Rodriguez filed a petition for leave of court
to allow them to examine the alleged will;
Held: however, the said petition was later
NO. The general rule is testacy is preferred withdrawn.
to intestacy. But before there could be
testate distribution, the will must pass the On March 12, 1963, petitioners filed before
scrutinizing test and safeguards provided by the CFI Rizal a petition for the settlement of
law considering that the deceased testator the intestate estate of Fr. Rodriguez
is no longer available to prove the alleged, among other things, that Fr.
voluntariness of his actions, aside from the Rodriguez died without leaving a will. On
fact that the transfer of the estate is usually the same day, respondents filed a petition in
onerous in nature and that no one is the Court of Bulacan for the probate of the
presumed to give. No intestate distribution will delivered by them on March 4, 1963.
of the estate can be done until and unless
the will had failed to pass both its extrinsic The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss
and intrinsic validity. If the will is extrinsically contending that since the intestate
void, the rules of intestacy apply regardless proceedings in the CFI Rizal was filed at
8:00 A.M. on March 12, 1963 while the fulfilled, or if the heir dies before the
petition for probate was filed in the CFI testator, or repudiates the inheritance, there
Bulacan at 11:00 A.M. On the same date, being no substitution, and no right of
the latter Court has no jurisdiction to accretion takes place; and (4) When the heir
entertain the petition for probate. instituted is incapable of succeeding, except
in cases provided in this Code."
On the other hand, respondents stand that it
was CFI Bulacan acquired jurisdiction over As ruled in ​Castro, et al. vs. Martinez​, "​only
the case upon delivery by them of the will to after final decision as to the nullity of
the Clerk of Court on March 4, 1963, and testate succession could an intestate
that the case in this Court therefore has succession be instituted in the form of
precedence over the case filed in Rizal on pre- established action​".
March 12, 1963."
The institution of intestacy proceedings in
CFI Bulacan denied the motion to dismiss. Rizal may not thus proceed while the
probate of the purported will of Father
Issue: Rodriguez is pending. The court ruled that
WON the intestate proceedings filed in the the Bulacan Court of First Instance was
Court of Rizal shall take cognizance over entitled to priority in the settlement of the
testate proceedings already filed in Court of estate in question, and that in refusing to
Bulacan when petitioners Rodriguez learned dismiss the probate proceedings, said Court
of the delivery of the Fr. Rodriguez's will did not commit any abuse of discretion. It is
was made in bad faith. the proceedings in the Rizal Court that
should be discontinued.
Held:
No​. CFI Bulacan is entitled to priority in the
settlement of the estate in question. De Bacayo vs. De Borromeo, G.R. No.
Intestate succession is only subsidiary L-19382 (Aug. 31, 1965)
or subordinate to the testate, since
intestacy only takes place in the absence Nephews and nieces alone do not
of a valid operative will. inherit by right of representation unless
concurring with brothers or sisters of the
Article 960 of the Civil Code states that deceased.
“legal or intestate succession takes place:
(1) If a person dies without a will, or with a
Facts:
void will, or one which has subsequently lost
Melodia Ferraris (Decedent) has not
its validity; (2) When the will does not
institute an heir to, or dispose of all the
been heard of and her whereabouts
property belonging to the testator. In such were unknown. More than ten (10) years
case, legal succession shall take place only having elapsed since the last time she
with respect to the property of which the was known to be alive, she was
testator has not disposed; (3) If the declared presumptively dead for
suspensive condition attached to the purposes of opening her succession and
institution of heir does not happen or is not distributing her estate among her heirs.
 representation unless concurring with
Decedent left properties in Cebu City. brothers or sisters of the deceased (Art.
She left no surviving direct descendant, 975).
ascendant, or spouse, but was survived
only by collateral relatives, to wit, Nevertheless, the Court held that in
Filomena De Bacayo (Petitioner), her case of intestacy, nephews and nieces
aunt, and half-sister of decedent’s of the decedent exclude all ​other
father, and decedent’s nieces and collaterals (aunts and uncles, first
nephew, who were the children of cousins, etc.) from the succession. This
decedent’s only brother of full blood, is readily apparent from Art.
who predeceased the decedent. 1001,1004,1005, and 1009 of the Civil
Code.
Petitioner contends that she is of the
same or equal degree of relationship as Under Art. 1009, the absence of
the oppositors-appellees, three degrees brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of
removed from the decedent; and that the decedent is a precondition to the
under Art. 975 of the NCC no right or other collaterals being called to the
representation could take place when succession.
the nieces and nephew of the decedent
do not concur with an uncle or aunt, as Thus, under our laws of succession, a
in the case at bar, but rather the former decedent’s uncles and aunts may not
succeed in their own right. succeed ab intestate so long as
nephews and nieces of the decedent
Issue: ​Whether petitioner-appellant aunt survive and are willing and qualified to
may inherit in the intestate estate of a succeed.
decedent when the decedent is
survived only by collateral relatives, ADD INFO: ​Paragraph 2 of Tolentino's
nephews and nieces. commentaries to Article 1009 of the
present Civil Code declares that Article
Held: 1009 does not establish a rule of
No. While the court agrees that as an preference. It is true as to "other
aunt of the deceased, she is as far collaterals", since preference among
distant as the nephews from the them is according to their proximity to
decedent since in the collateral line to the decedent. But Tolentino does not
which both kinds of relatives belong state that nephews and nieces concur
degrees are counted by first ascending with other collaterals of equal degree.
to the common ancestor and then
descending to the heir (Art, 966).
Further, appellant is also correct in her MODULE 13
contention that nephews and nieces
alone do not inherit by right of
People vs. Barona, G.R. No. 119595 (Jan.
25, 2000)

Facts:

Issue:

Held:
Baritua vs. CA, G.R. No. 82233 (Mar. 22,
1990)

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Del Prado vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-20946

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Ablaza vs. Republic, G.R. No. 158298

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Vda. de la Rustia vs. Heirs of Rustia, G.R.

Facts:

Issue:

Held: