Vacancies in Succession, How to fill up such vacancy, and Intestate Succession

VACANCY
The vacancy in succession can be created either by: (1) predecease; (2) incapacity; (3) valid
disinheritance; or (4) repudiation.
In testamentary succession, where there is a will/succession by will, the law provides for
Substitution and Accretion as Modes for Filling up such vacancies created by reason of
predecease, incapacity, and repudiation.

SUBSTITUTION
Let us start with substitution as mode of filling up vacancies.
The same has already been discussed at the lectures made accessible to you, but let us just
reiterate here. SUBSTITUTION is a mode of filling up vacancy that is applicable only in
SUCCESSION BY WILL. In succession by will/testamentary succession, substitution is
applicable only with respect to the disposable free portion. Substitution, on the other hand, is not
applicable to the legitime. The law says that there can be no substitution upon the legitime. Any
substitution imposed upon the legitime will simply be considered as not imposed.
Basic rule: substitution is pursuant to the testator’s express will. But that express will can only
be imposed upon the share of a voluntary heir, devisee, or legatee. It is applicable only to the
disposable free portion, whether the substitution is simple or fideicommissary. It cannot be
imposed upon the legitime. If any substitution is imposed upon the legitime, the same is simply
considered as not imposed.
In Intestate/Legal Succession, which is succession pursuant to the provisions of law and not of
the testator’s will, the concept of substitution does not apply.
So, to summarize: only a voluntary heir, devisee, or legatee may be substituted. There can be
no substitution of a compulsory heir. We will not be talking of substitution of legal heir, because
intestate succession presupposes the absence of a will.

ACCRETION
Accretion as a mode of filling up vacancy is applicable to BOTH testamentary
succession and intestate succession.
In testamentary succession on the other hand, accretion is applicable only to the DISPOSABLE
FREE PORTION. Accretion cannot take place with respect to the legitime – that is a basic rule
that you must remember. There can be no accretion with respect to the legitime in testamentary
succession, as it takes place only with respect to the disposable free portion. The rule is stated
in:
Art. 1021 - Among the compulsory heirs the right of accretion shall take place only when the
free portion is left to two or more of them, or to any one of them and to a stranger. xxx
Okay, clear. If a compulsory heir is at the same time a voluntary heir, devisee, or legatee, ang
sabi ng 1021 par. 1: Accretion can only take place with respect to what is given to him as a
voluntary heir, devisee, or legatee. It cannot take place with respect to the legitime.
Should the part repudiated be the legitime, the other co-heirs shall succeed to it in their own
right, and not by the right of accretion.
Okay, clear. Second paragraph: in case of repudiation of the inheritance including the legitime,
the other heirs shall succeed to it in their own right and not by right of accretion. Remember the
rule: there is no accretion with respect to the legitime. In testamentary, accretion can only take
place with respect to the disposable free portion.
Let us talk of accretion with respect to the disposable free portion. Requisites are provided for in
Art. 1016, and those requisites are explained in Art. 1017.
Let us start with the requirements of Accretion in 1017. But before that, what is the concept of
accretion? The concept of accretion is explained in Art. 1015.
Art. 1015 - Accretion is a right by virtue of which, when 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.
It presupposes that there are co-heirs, co-devisees, or co-legatees. And the part that cannot
go/will become vacant by reason of predecease, incapacity, or repudiation, will go to the co-
heirs, co-devisees, or co-legatees. That is simply the concept of accretion.
Now, what are the requirements of accretion in testamentary succession? Provided for in Art.
1016:
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, requirements of accretion in succession by will.

Una: there must be vacancy in succession, created either by predecease, incapacity, or
repudiation.
Since we are talking here of the disposable free portion, we will not be talking as
disinheritance as reason for the vacancy. So, the vacancy will be created by reason of
predecease, incapacity, or repudiation.
 And, that there be several voluntary heirs called upon to inherit the same inheritance.
Marami silang voluntary heirs. OR, there are several co-devisees or co-legatees, who
are called upon to inherit same property.
Those are the basic requirements. Again: they are called upon to inherit the same inheritance
with respect to the voluntary heirs. So, there will be several voluntary heirs called upon to inherit
the same inheritance OR they are with respect to devises and legacies, there are several
devisees or legatees who are called upon to inherit the same property. And that there be
vacancy created by reason of predecease, incapacity, or repudiation.
But, the requisites in 1016 are further explained in Art. 1017.
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. xxx
In order for accretion to take place with respect to the disposable free portion, ang requirement:
the part that was given to one/share given to one must not make him an exclusive owner of a
determinate portion. If one will be made an exclusive owner of an identifiable part of the
inheritance, accretion cannot take place. That is further explained by paragraph 2:
In case of money or fungible goods, if the share of each heir is not earmarked, there shall be a
right of accretion.
If there is earmarking in case of money or other fungible, there will be no accretion.
Example: the testator has left 1 million in cash. Yung 1 million in cash na iyan is divided as
follows: 500k stored in his vault; 200k that is deposited in his account in BPI; 300k that is stored
in his safety deposit box in BPI. If he will give to A the 500k that is stored “in my safety deposit
box in my house, I will give to Ruallo the 500k, the 200k in my BPI account to Renedo, and the
300k stored in my safety deposit box in BPI to Gomez,” may earmarking yun. In which case,
accretion will not take place in case of vacancy.
But, if I will dispose the 1M, “I am bequeathing my 1M cash in favor of Ruallo, Renedo, and
Gomez,” walang earmarking. In which case, accretion will take place among the three.
So, in other words, to clarify 1017. If ang requirement ng accretion that there must be several
voluntary heirs called upon to inherit the same inheritance, or there be several devises/legatees
called upon to inherit the same property – but dapat, it must create a state of co-ownership
where the share of one is merely represented by an ideal share whether that ideal share is
equal or unequal, it will not matter sabi ng 1017 – so long as it will create a state of co-
ownership among them where the share of each is not yet identifiable. But if the share of one is
a definite portion, he will become an exclusive owner of a definite part – walang accretion doon.
So, those are the requirements of accretion with respect to the disposable free portion.
ACCRETION IN INTESTATE SUCCESSION
Let us go to accretion in Intestate Succession.
As I’ve said earlier, accretion is likewise applicable to legal/intestate succession. What are the
grounds that may give rise to accretion in intestate succession?
Art. 1018 - In legal succession the share of the person who repudiates the inheritance shall
always accrue to his co-heirs.
OK, in case of repudiation by one of the legal heirs and that there be other heirs who will be
willing to accept. Sabi ng 1018: it is always accretion that will take place. That is clear. If the
vacancy is by reason of repudiation, it is always accretion that will take place kung mayroon
pang co-heir na tatanggap.
Bakit repudiation/why is repudiation will always take place? Simple lang. Because in case of
repudiation, bawal ang representation. The rule is stated in Art. 977:
Art. 977 - Heirs who repudiate their share may not be represented.
Basic rule in succession, tandan: an heir who renounces his share cannot be represented.
Instead, in intestate succession, in case of repudiation, it is always accretion that will take place
PROVIDED that there is a co-heir who will be willing to accept the inheritance. Clear?
If all of the heirs, should there be several, will be repudiating the inheritance, of course accretion
cannot take place kasi walang willing na tumanggap. Instead, it is the rule in Art. 969 that will
apply.
Art. 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.
If all the heirs will be repudiating the inheritance/all kinds of legal heirs of the same degree will
be repudiating the inheritance, accretion cannot take place kasi walang kakain nung share;
walang tatanggap if all of them will be repudiating. And, at the same time, representation cannot
take place. So, those in the next degree cannot represent those who repudiated – bawal, Art.
977. That is the reason why those in the next degree will now inherit in their own right.
So, take note, general rule: in succession by operation of law, whether it is with respect to the
legitime or intestate succession. Ang mga grandchildren, they ordinarily inherit only by right of
representation [that is the] rule.
Art. 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.
So, ordinarily, the grandchildren inherit by right of representation.
Example, all the children of the decedent have predeceased him but survived by their own
children, who are the grandchildren of the decedent. In that case, the grandchildren will not
inherit in their own right. Instead, they will inherit by right of representation. So, the division of
the estate is per stirpes, not per capita. Not equal among the grandchildren. Bakit hindi equal?
Mamaya pag-aaralan natin – because in representation, the representative simply takes the
place of the person represented. The representative will only be entitled to the share of the
person he represents. So, kung ang isang anak na naunang namatay sa decedent (isa lang ang
anak nya), yung share niya ay buong-buong mapupunta sa nag-iisa nyang anak. Kung yung
pangalawang anak of the decedent who predeceased him had two children, dalawa maghahati
sa share nya. Kung yung pangatlong anak, lima anak nya, lima maghahati sa share nya. So,
yung mga apo, hindi pantay pantay ang makukuha nila because they ordinarily inherit by right of
representation. Basic rule. That is also true in case of incapacity or in case of invalid
disinheritance – all of the children turned out to be incapacitated by they can be represented by
their own children who are the grandchildren of the decedent. The grandchildren will not inherit
in their own right – instead they will only inherit by right of representation. So, per stirpes ulit
tayo. If all of the children were validly disinherited, they can again be represented by their own
children who are the grandchildren of the decedent, and again, the grandchildren will only inherit
by right of representation – per stirpes parin tayo.
The only situation where the grandchildren can inherit in their own right is the situation provided
for in Art. 969. If all the children are alive, capacitated to inherit, none was disinherited, but all
will be repudiating the inheritance. Lahat sila, lahat buhay, lahat capacitated, lahat walang
disinherited sa kanila, but all of them will be repudiating the inheritance. That is the only time
that the grandchildren can inherit in their own right pursuant to Art. 969. Kaya, bihirang
mangyari yan that the grandchildren will inherit in their own right.
But if 969 will happen, the division of the estate among the grandchildren will now be per capita;
equal na if they will inherit in their own right pursuant to Art. 969.
So, again, in intestate succession, in case of repudiation, it is always accretion that will take
place if there is a remaining co-heir willing to accept the inheritance. But, if all of the heirs
repudiated the inheritance, it is the heir in the next degree that will inherit in their own right.

ACCRETION BY REASON OF REPUDIATION

Pwede pa bang magkaroon ng accretion other than by reason of repudiation?
Yes. The rule is provided for in Art. 968
Art. 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.
If there are several relatives of the same degree – example, the legal heirs are the children
(same degree);
And one or some of them are unwilling or incapacitated to succeed – the two causes for
vacancy mentioned in 968: repudiation and incapacity;
His portion shall accrue to the others of the same degree – accretion yon, shall accrue in favor
of a co-heir in the same degree;
Save the right of representation when it should take place – If representation cannot take place.
So, there are two causes of vacancy mentioned: repudiation and incapacity. And, there are two
modes of filling up vacancy mentioned: accretion and representation. But, ang sabi ng 968,
representation muna if it is proper. If not proper, then accretion.
So, there are two causes for vacancy mentioned in Art. 968:
(1) Repudiation – if it is repudiation reason for vacancy, hindi pwede ang representation
because of Art. 977. So, it is always accretion that will take place; and that is confirmed
by Art. 1018.

(2) Incapacity – if it is incapacity that is the reason for vacancy, representation muna tayo if
representation is proper. Can representation take place by reason of incapacity? Yes,
Art. 1035:

Art. 1035 – If the person excluded from the inheritance by reason of incapacity should be
a child or descendant of the decedent and should have children or descendants, the
latter shall acquire his right to the legitime. xxx

So, the law allows representation in case of legal capacity. 1035 is our legal basis.

But, in order for representation to take place, it is necessary that there must be a
representative. Dapat, mayroon syang decendant who can represent him. So, if the
incapacitated heir has no decendant, who can represent him? Representation cannot
take place.
Intestate Succession tayo.
1M ang estate, apat ang anak. One of them will be incapacitated – si A. Kung si A ay
may anak, his share will go to his child by representation pursuant to Art. 1035.
However, kung walang anak si A, representation cannot take place. Naintindihan? What
will happen to the share of A? Art. 968 is telling us that the share of A will go to the other
co-heirs: B, C, and D by accretion.
I-twist natin ang example.
1M estate, intestate succession. Apat ang anak: Ruallo, Renedo, Gomez, and David. Let
us assume that David predeceased the decedent; but David was survived by his child,
Eleonor. So, yung share ni David will go to Eleonor by right of representation. Madali
lang naman yun sundan – so David can be represented by his child, Eleonor. However,
let us assume that Gomez turns out to be incapacitated to inherit from the decedent. Si
David, predeceased. Si Gomez, incapacitated to inherit.
Anong gagawin natin sa 1M?
Hahatiin parin natin yan sa apat, divided by 4 – hindi divided into 3 parts. Hindi natin
kaagad tatanggalin si Gomez. We will still count Gomez, kasi hindi naman automatic ang
incapacity. Incapacity, that will have to be proven. Kung hindi magrereklamo si Renedo,
Ruallo, and Eleonor (representing David), kung hindi naman nila isusumbong si Gomez
as incapacitated, Gomez will be getting his share. Ganyan yan. But syempre, kung gusto
 ni Ruallo, Renedo na lumaki ang share nila, sasabihin nila: incapacitated si Gomez and
they will have to prove that.
There is a prescriptive period for doing the same. Art. 1040.
Art. 1040 - The action for a declaration of incapacity and for the recovery of the
inheritance, devise or legacy shall be brought within five years from the time the
disqualified person took possession thereof. It may be brought by any one who may
have an interest in the succession.
So, hindi naman automatic yan, no. An action must be filed for the declaration of
incapacity and it has a 5-year prescriptive period, ano ulit yun?
“it shall be brought within 5 years from the time the disqualified person took possession
thereof.”
5 years from the time the disqualified heir took possession of the inheritance. So, hindi
yan automatic. Makukuha muna ni Gomez ang share nya, then magrereklamo ang iba
that she was incapacitated. If proven incapacitated – kung may anak si Gomez, the
share of Gomez will go to her child by representation. But, kung walang anak si Gomez,
the share of Gomez will accrue in favor of, ang sabi ng 968, co-heirs of the same
degree. Iyan ang huwag nyong kakalimutan: it will accrue in favor of the co-heirs of the
same degree.
Sa problem natin, sino yung co-heir ni Gomez who are of the same degree as that of
Gomez? Renedo, yes kapatid nya; Ruallo, yes, kapatid nya; si Eleonor, entitled din ba
sya sa right of accretion? No, hindi sya same degree ni Gomez, Renedo, Ruallo. So,
yung share ni Gomez na 250k, that will only accrue in favor of Renedo and Ruallo: 125k
each. Eleonor who is inheriting only by right of representation will not be entitled to
accretion because she is not of the same degree. Huwag nating kakalimutan: 968 – the
accretion is in favor of the same degree.

ACCRETION AND ART. 1019

An important principle in accretion is Art. 1019.
Art. 1019 - The heirs to whom the portion goes by the right of accretion take it in the same
proportion that they inherit.
They will take it in the same proportion that they inherit. Mamaya ko na ipapaliwanag. Basta
tandan nyo, hindi laging equal yung dividing the equal part in accretion in distributing the equal
part. Ang sabi ng 1019, the co-heirs will be taking it in the same proportion that they inherit.
Hindi laging equal yan, mamaya magbibigay tayo ng example.
We are through discussing substitution and accretion, let us discuss representation, another
mode of filling up vacancy.

REPRESENTATION
What are the basic principles/rules in representation?
1. It is applicable only in succession by operation of law.

So, ang substitution, applicable only in succession by law. and it is applicable only with
respect to the disposable free portion.

Ang representation naman, it is applicable only in succession by operation of law; hindi

naman sya applicable in succession by will. So, hindi sya applicable sa disposable free
portion in testamentary succession.

But, yung accretion, it is applicable to both: succession by will, applicable only to the
disposable free portion; but it is also applicable to legal succession.

Basic principle in representation: It applies only to succession by operation of law.

Applicable ba sya sa testamentary succession? YES, with respect to the legitime.

Because legitime is succession by operation of law. But, representation does not apply
with respect to the disposable free portion because that is succession by reason of the
testator’s will – no longer by operation of law. And, at the same time representation is
applicable to intestate/legal succession.

Mayroon pang ibang paraan ng pagsabi nyan. Stated otherwise: ang representation
does not apply to a voluntary heir/devisee/legatee. A voluntary heir/devisee/legatee
cannot be represented because they inherit by reason of the testator’s will. On the other
hand, a compulsory heir and a legal heir can be represented because they inherit
through operation of law.

So, we will narrow down the application of representation only with respect to the
legitime/compulsory heir and in intestate succession/legal heir.

2. Titingnan natin ang reason for the vacancy. What are the grounds that may give
rise to representation?

(A) PREDECEASE – Art. 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.

“If he were living.” Clear, in case of predecease, representation is allowed.

(B) INCAPACITY – Or “if he could have inherited.” Ano ibig sabihin nun? What if he was
incapacitated to inherit, can he be represented? Art. 1035 – the law allows
representation in case of incapacity.

(C) DISINHERITANCE – What about disinheritance, does the law allow representation in
case of disinheritance?
 Art. 923 is our basis - 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.

So, ang disinheritance at ang incapacity, the cause is personal only to the heir who is
incapacitated or disinherited. That will not affect his or her descendant. Kaya, the law
allows representation in cases of disinheritance and incapacity. But, let us not forget
the prohibition, second paragraph: yung share nya mapupunta sa anak nya, sabi ng
923 at 1035 in case of disinheritance and incapacity. Yung share nya mapupunta sa
anak nya.

What if yung anak nya is a minor? Mapupunta pa rin yung share nya sa anak nyang
minor. Napag-aralan natin in Persons and Family Relations that the parents are the
legal guardian of the property of their minor children – but not in the case of
incapacity or disinheritance of the parent. If the reason why the child acquired a
property is because the minor child represented his incapacitated parent/validly
disinherited parent, the parent who was incapacitated/validly disinherited cannot be
the administrator of that property: bawal. And at the same time, he cannot enjoy the
usufruct of that property, bawal. Let us not forget that prohibition.

So, if the vacancy is by reason of predecease, incapacity, or valid disinheritance, the law
allows representation. But not if the reason for the vacancy is repudiation. The rule is
stated in Art. 977:
Art. 977 - Heirs who repudiate their share may not be represented.
3. Kahit na succession by operation of law yan, referring to the legitime in
testamentary succession and intestate succession, and even if the reason for the
vacancy is predecease, incapacity or disinheritance, ang susunod na titingnan:
WHERE is the representation taking place?

DIRECT LINE – does the law allow representation in the direct line?

The rule is provided for in Art. 972, par. 1 - The right of representation takes
place in the direct descending line, but never in the ascending.

In the direct line, representation is allowed only in the direct descending line, but
not allowed in the direct ascending line. Anong ibig sabihin nun? Ang
representative must be a degree lower than a person represented. A
representative must be lower in degree than the person represented.

Sample: a representative is a child. The person represented is a parent. So, that

is representation in the descending line: paakyat, ang representative ay nasa
ibaba ng person represented nasa itaas. So, descending line yan. That is
representation in the descending line.
 But, kung ang representative mo ay parent, and the person to be represented is
the child, pababa yun; that is representation in the ascending line, which is not
allowed. Ang representation, paakyat, hindi pababa. The law does not allow
representation in the ascending line.

In the direct line, yung representation in the direct descending line will be
applicable to both compulsory succession/legitime, because the direct
descending line are compulsory heirs. So, applicable yan sa legitime. Applicable
din yan sa intestate succession. Applicable to both.

COLLATERAL LINE - Mayroon bang representation in the collateral line? Paragraph 2:

Art. 972, par. 2 - 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.
In the collateral line, representation is allowed only by law in favor of NEPHEWS
AND NIECES (children of brothers and sisters). But may condition, stated in Art.
975:
Art. 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.
Mayroon din tayong representation in the collateral line; but only in favor of
nephews and nieces.
Now, applicable lang yan sa intestate succession. Why? Kasi, when we talk of
compulsory succession/with respect to the legitime, walang collateral relatives na
compulsory heir. So, ang representation in favor of a collateral relative can only
take place in intestate succession.
Sa intestate succession, ang mga collateral relatives who are legal heirs are
divided into 2 groups: hinati yan sa dalawang grupo. Ang pwedeng maging legal
heir among the collateral relatives are those collateral relatives up to 5 th degree
of relationship from the decedent. So, mayroong 2 nd degree, 3rd, 4th, 5th degree.
Kaya lang, yang mga collateral blood relatives nay an, hinati sila sa dalawang
grupo:
Team A, Team B.
Team A: composed of the brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces.
Team B: composed of the other collateral relatives up to 5th degree, other
than the brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces.
Team B, who are the other collateral relatives, they will only inherit in the
absence of Team A. They can only become legal heirs kung walang Team A. But
kung may Team A/any member of Team A, Team B will not inherit.
Art. 1009 - Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor children of brothers or
sisters, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the estate. Xxx
OK, tandan nyo na yan. In intestate succession, in order for any member of
Team B to inherit, dapat, there must be no surviving member of Team A. Kapag
natanong yan, yan ang sabihin nyo sa bar: In order for Team B to inherit, there
should be no surviving member of Team A. According to Atty. Rabuya, the
following are the members of Team A: Brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces.
Malinaw ang rule? Bago mag-inherit ang any member of Team B, dapat walang
surviving member ang Team A. Team A will exclude Team B.
And, in intestate succession, representation is only allowed in Team A. Clear?
The law does not allow representation in Team B. So, if the legal heirs are Team
B, the only rule within the group of Team B is: proximity – the farther in degree
shall be excluded. Proximity is an absolute rule. Yung 3 rd degree will exclude the
4th and the 5th; the 4th will exclude the 5th.
Example, mga ordinaryong questions na itatanong sa inyo pag naging abogado
na kayo: ang mga naiwang closest relatives na namatay ay ang mga pinsan nya,
1st cousins. Mayroon syang 5 surviving 1st cousins, kasi yung pang-anim ay
namatay na. Yung anak nung pang-anim, magtatanong: can I take the place of
my parent? Para magmana ako kasabay nung mga ibang first cousins of the
decedent? Sagot: hindi pwede. Excluded sya, proximity. Anak lang sya ng 1 st
cousin, so 5th degree. 1st cousin is 4th degree. Since 5th degree sya, excluded sya
kasi wala nang representation in Team B. Ang representation is allowed by law
only in Team A.
Another example: ang anak ng nephew. Kung ang nephew is 3rd degree, ang
anak ng nephew is 4th degree from the decedent. So, kung ang mga nabuhay ay
puro mga nephews, pero may isang nephew na namatay na, can he be
represented by his child to take his place? NO. Because in Team A, the
representation is in favor only of nephews and nieces; ang pwede lang maging
member ng Team A are bros, sis, nephews, and nieces. Yung anak ng nephews
and nieces, hindi na Team A; Team B na yun at wala nang representation sa
Team B. Sa Team A, ang representation is in favor only of children of brothers
and sisters.
So, sa Team B, maliwanag: ang members ng Team B ay other collateral relatives
other than brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces. So, kasama na yung mga
anak ng nephews and nieces – Team B na yan, not Team A. Team A – brothers,
sisters, nephews, and nieces. Representation is allowed by law only in favor of
nephews and nieces in the collateral line.
BUT, in order for nephews and nieces to represent, dapat mayroon silang
makakasabay na brothers and sisters of the decedent who are their uncles and
aunts. Because if only nephews and nieces are left, wala silang makakasabay na
surviving brother/sister of the decedent, ang sabi ng Art. 975 – they will inherit in
their own right: per capita. Equal division yun.
 Example. Iko-compare natin yung representation in the direct line vis a vis
representation in the collateral.
Sa direct line, kung lahat ng mga anak, apat na anak, ay namatay na ahead of
the decedent, but they were survived by their own children who are the
grandchildren of the decedent, the grandchildren will not inherit in their own right.
Instead, they will inherit by right of representation. So, yung division of the estate
among the grandchildren shall not be equal; it shall be per stirpes, because the
representative is only entitled to get the share of the person he represents.
But in the collateral line, kung ang mga tagapagmana ay mga nephews and
nieces, lahat ng mga kapatid ng decedent ay patay na ahead of him, but leaving
their respective children who are nephews and nieces of the decedent, the
nephews and nieces will inherit in their own right; not by right of representation.
So, with respect to newphews and nieces, they shall inherit in equal portions –
per capita, not per stirpes.
Parang sinasabi ng Art. 975 – that representation in the collateral line can only
take place in case of predecease of one of the brothers or sisters, but he was
survived by his own child who is a nephew or niece of the decedent, and the
nephew or the niece survived together with the brothers and sisters of the
decedent. Parang sinasabi ng Art. 975, pwede lang ang representation in case of
predecease.
But, what if one of the brothers/sisters is incapacitated to inherit? But mayroon
syang anak. May the nephew represent his parent (father or mother who is a
brother or sister of the decedent) but incapacitated to inherit from the decedent?
Pwede ba ang representation in the collateral line by reason of incapacity? YES,
sabi ni Senator Tolentino. It can also take place by reason of incapacity, hindi
lang predecease. But, dapat mayroong makakasabay na uncles and aunts. Kung
puro sila nephews and nieces, they will inherit in their own right. Those are the
rules.
SURVIVING SPOUSE – Kung ang vacancy is in relation of the surviving spouse, the
surviving spouse cannot be represented.
ASCENDANTS – if in relation with the ascendant, an ascendant cannot be represented.
Because representation cannot be in the ascending line. Walang representation sa
ascending line.
LEGITIMATE CHILD – If in the relation to a legitimate child, can he be represented?
Yes, nasa descending line sya.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILD – can an illegitimate child be represented? Yes, both with
respect to the legitime and intestate succession. An illegitimate child, if the vacancy
exists in relation to him, can be represented.
Legitime of the illegitimate child.
If there will be vacancy because the illegitimate child either died ahead or
incapacitated, or was validly disinherited, can he be represented? Art. 902:
 Art. 902 - The rights of illegitimate children set forth in the preceding articles are
transmitted upon their death to their descendants, whether legitimate or
illegitimate.
Yung right of an illegitimate child to legitime is transmissible to his descendants,
whether the descendants are legitimate or illegitimate. So, an illegitimate child
can be represented by his descendants, whether the descendants are legitimate
or illegitimate with respect to his legitime – 902.
Intestate succession of the illegitimate child.
Art. 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.
In intestate succession, the law also allows representation of an illegitimate child
by his descendants, whether the descendants are legitimate or illegitimate.

BARRIER RULE – So, mga pwedeng heirs natin: legitimate children, they can be
represented. But, who can represent a legitimate child? Barrier rule, 992.
Art. 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.
If the vacancy is with respect to a legitimate child, can he be represented by an
illegitimate child? NO, because of the barrier rule, Art. 992. So, only the
legitimate descendants of the legitimate child can represent him.

[Summarized]:
Illegitimate children, kung ang tagapagmana natin, they can also be represented. Nasa
direct descending line yan, and Art. 902 and 990 specifically allows representation of an
illegitimate child.
Kapag illegitimate child naman ang person to be represented, sino ang pwedeng maging
representative nya? Ang sabi ng Art. 902 at 990, ang representative nya pwedeng:
legitimate or illegitimate descendants.
Kapag ang tagapagmana are the ascendants, and there is vacancy with respect to an
ascendant, can an ascendant be represented? NO. There is no representation in the
ascending line.
Kung ang tagapagmana are the brothers and sisters, can brothers and sisters, and
merong vacancy with respect to them, can they be represented in intestate succession?
YES. The law is allowing that, by the nephew or niece of the decedent – Art. 975.
 Kung ang tagapagmana are other collateral blood relatives other than brothers or
sisters, at mayroong vacancy, the law is no longer allowing representation. The only rule
is proximity.

BREAK.

Let us continue with representation.

PER STIRPES
Bakit per stirpes in representation? Art. 970:
Art. 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.
In representation, the representative simply takes the place of the person represented. In short,
the representative is entitled to get only the share of the person that he represents. So, kung
marami silang representatives, they will have to divide among themselves the share of the
person represented. That is the reason why, in representation, per stirpes tayo because the
representative simply takes the place of the person that he represents.

Art. 971 and Art. 973.

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.
In 970, the representative does not inherit from the person represented. That is clear. The
representative does not inherit from the person that he represents. Instead, he inherits from the
person from whom the person represented would have inherited. So, the representative is
inheriting from the decedent, not from the person represented.
That is the reason why, 973 is telling us:
Article 973. In order that representation may take place, it is necessary that the representative
himself be capable of succeeding the decedent.
It is necessary in representation that the representative is capable of succeeding the decedent.
The representative must also be an heir of the decedent. Otherwise, representation cannot take
place.
So, application nyan: if the person to be represented is a legitimate child, can he be represented
by his illegitimate child? NO. Because of the Barrier Rule. Under the rule, an illegitimate child
cannot inherit ab intestate from the legitimate relatives of the parent. Under the barrier rule, the
parent of the illegitimate child is a legitimate person himself. Nag-aapply lang ang barrier rule if
the parent of the illegitimate child is a legitimate child himself. So, if the person to be
represented is a legitimate child, hindi pwedeng maging representative nya ang illegitimate child
nya because in representation, the illegitimate child is not inheriting from the parent/person he
represents. Instead, he will be inheriting from the decedent/from the parent of his parent. That is
not allowed. The barrier rule does not allow an illegitimate child to inherit from the legitimate
grandfather.
But the barrier rule take note is applicable only if the parent of the illegitimate is a legitimate
child. If the parent of the illegitimate is also illegitimate, hindi nag-aapply ang barrier rule. That is
not covered by Art. 992. Barrier rule applies only if the parent of the illegitimate child is himself
legitimate. Dapat legitimate yung parent of the illegitimate child. The barrier rule does not apply
if the parent of the illegitimate child is also illegitimate. That is not covered by the barrier rule.
Instead, the applicable law, if the parent of the illegitimate is also illegitimate, the applicable law
is Art. 902 and Art. 990 with respect to the rights of an illegitimate child.
Kanina, diniscuss natin. With respect to the rights of an illegitimate child to succession by
operation of law, meaning, with respect to the legitime and share in intestate succession, he can
be represented by his descendants, whether the descendants are legitimate or illegitimate. The
basis is Art. 902, with respect to the legitime, and Art. 990, with respect to intestate succession.

Adopted and adopter

If the person to be represented is an adopted child, with respect to the estate of the adopter,
may the adopted child be represented by his child with respect to the estate of the adopter? NO,
because of Art. 971 and 973.
Bakit? Because the child of the adopted is not capable of succeeding the adopter. Why not?
Because they are not related. In adoption, it only creates a personal relationship between the
adopter and the adopted, so the child of the adopted is not related to the adopter; so hindi
pwedeng mag-represent because the child of the adopted is not capable of succeeding the
adopter. Walang filiation that exists between them, wala silang relationship.
If the person to be represented is the adopter, the representative is the adopted, and the estate
is the estate of the parent of the adopter, pwede ba ang representation dyan?
Again, NO. Because the adopted is not related to the parent of the adopter. The adopted is not
capable of succeeding the parent of the adopter; they are not related because the relationship
created by adoption is personal only between the adopted and the adopter.
Naintindihan ang 971 at 973?

PREDECEASE
If the one who died ahead is a legitimate child of the decedent. E.g., ang decedent
mayroong apat na anak, 1M estate. But one of the 4 children predeceased him. A, B, C, and D
ang children; A predeceased the decedent.
Kung may anak si A, in succession by operation of law, the child of A will represent A whether it
is with respect to the legitime/intestate succession. So, yung legitime ni A will go to his child by
representation. Yung share ni A sa intestate succession will go to his child in intestate
succession by representation.
But kung walang anak si A, representation cannot take place of course. There is no
representative. What will happen in compulsory succession?
Legitime
Ang legitime ng legitimate children is ½ of the estate of 1M. That is 500k. Yung 500k
share ng legitimate children will only be divided into 3 parts because A is no longer a
compulsory heir if he dies without leaving descendants. Hindi na sya heir. Hindi na natin
sya ibibilang. Why? Art. 42 – death extinguishes civil personality. Unless he can be
represented. But since walang anak, he cannot be represented. So, kakalimutan na
natin sya; hindi na ibibilang. So, yung legitime ng mga legitimate children is only to be
divided among the 3 surviving legitimate children: B, C, and D.
Intestate Succession
Yung estate na 1M, hindi na natin hahatiin sa apat. Hahatiin na lang natin sa tatlo
because there are only 3 surviving legal heirs: B, C, and D.

VALID DISINHERITANCE
Estate is 1.2M; there are 4 legitimate children; but A was validly disinherited.
Kung may anak si A, yung legitime ni A will go to his child by representation. So, yung legitime
ng legitimate children which is 600k, that will still be divided into 4 parts, each getting 150k
each. So yung legitime ni A na 150k will go to his child by representation. But kung walang
descendant si A, representation cannot take place. Anong mangyayari to the legitime of the
legitimate children? Yung 600k legitime of the legitimate children will be divided into 3 parts;
hindi na counted si A because valid disinheritance is a legitimate way of depriving a compulsory
heir of legitime. Hindi na sya compulsory heir if he is validly disinherited and he cannot be
represented. Not counted na, divided into 3.
Intestate succession tayo. The testator executed a will. The only provision of the will is to
disinherit A. And the disinheritance, let us assume, is valid. What will happen to the rest of the
estate? The estate will be distributed by intestate succession because the testator did not
dispose of the estate in his will. The only provision of the will is to disinherit A. Anong
mangyayari?
If A has a child, yung share ni A sa intestate succession will go to his child by representation. So
yung estate na 1.2M, hahatiin pa rin natin sa apat, each getting 300k and the share of A will go
to his child by representation. But if A has no child, yung estate na 1.2M, kung walang
representative si A, representation cannot take place. But if the estate is 1.2M, we will only
divide it into 3 parts; hindi na counted si A – because a valid disinheritance will deprive the
validly disinherited heir not only of his share of the legitime but any share to which he is entitled
to by operation of law including any share in intestate succession. Hindi na sya counted –
divided by 3.
INCAPACITY
Apat ang anak; 1.2M ang estate.
Legitime muna. A is incapacitated. Kung may anak si A, he can be represented. So yung
legitime ng legitimate children which is 600k, that will still be divided into 4 parts, each getting
150k. Yung legitime ni A na 150k, that will go to his child by representation.
However, if A has no child, he cannot be represented. What will happen to his share of the
legitime? Ang gagawin ba natin yung 600k, divided into 3? NO. Hindi automatic ang incapacity.
As I’ve said, an action for declaration of incapacity must be filed and must be proven. And may
prescriptive period yan. IF that was filed after the prescriptive period, A will be entitled to his
share. Hindi na sya pwedeng ipa-declare na incapacitated if the action was filed after the
prescriptive period – kaya ibibilang pa rin natin si A.
BUT, if he was declared incapacitated because the action was filed before the allowable
prescriptive period, ang tanong, anong mangyayari sa share ni A? Kung may anak sya, he can
be represented. Kung wala syang anak, what will happen to his share? THAT WILL not go to his
siblings. Hindi yun mapupunta automatic sa other 3 legitimate children. Bakit? That will be
accretion – magiging accretion yun, at malinaw ang rule ng 1021: THERE IS NO ACCRETION
WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGITIME.
Instead, following paragraph 2 of 1021, the other heirs will be entitled to that portion in their own
right, but not by accretion. So, hindi mapupunta yang share na yan sa B, C, and D because that
will be accretion. Instead, that share will be distributed following the rules of intestate
succession. That will go to the legal heirs of the testator following rules of intestate succession.

INTESTATE SUCCESSION
Apat ang anak, A, B, C, and D. A is incapacitated.
Kung may anak si A, yung share ni A sa 1.2M which is divided into 4 parts (each getting 300k),
that will go to his child by representation (300k). But, kung walang anak si A, yung share ni A
will go to B, C, and D by accretion following Art. 968.
Mag-introduce tayo ng konting twist. Let us assume that B predeceased the decedent. But B
was survived by his child no. 1. Si C, buhay. Si D, buhay. Si A, buhay, but incapacitated, and
has no descendant. So, what will happen to the share of A? Anong gagawin natin sa estate na
1.2M, divide it into 3 parts? NO, it will be divided into 4 parts, each getting 300k. Yung 300k ni
B, that will go to his child no. 1 by representation; C and D will be getting their shares in their
own right. What will happen to the share of A who has no descendant/representative? Following
Art. 968, that will accrue in favor of co-heirs of the same degree. Who are the co-heirs of the
same degree as that of A? Si C lang at si D – hindi kasama yung anak ni B (no.1). So, yung
share ni A na 300k, that will be divided into 2 equal parts of 150k each that will go to C and D by
accretion. Yung child ni B (no.1) is not entitled to accretion because he is not a co-heir of the
same degree.
REPUDIATION
Estate is 1.2M. Apat ang anak: A, B, C, and D.
Legitime tayo of the legitimate children: ½ of the estate (600k). Apat yung anak, one of them
repudiated. Ibig sabihin nun, hindi nya tinanggap. So yung legitime na 600k, hahatiin natin sa
apat, hindi sa tatlo; kasi kailangan muna ibigay sa kanya yun para hindi nya tanggapin, clear?
Hindi nyo kaagad ie-etsapwera sya kasi tatanungin muna natin sya: are you willing to accept?
Hindi naman natin alam kaagad na hindi nya tatanggapin; kaya hahatiin muna natin yung
legitime into 4, each getting 150k.
Kaya lang, si A will be repudiating his inheritance including the legitime. Yung legitime nya na
150k, mapupunta ba sa anak nya? NO, Art. 977 – walang representation with respect to the
legitime in case of repudiation. An heir who renounces his share cannot be represented. So,
kahit may anak sya, the law does not allow representation in case of repudiation. So, anong
mangyayari sa share nya, automatic ba mapupunta kay A, B, C, and D? NO, because that will
be accretion – at bawal ang accretion sa legitime. Tandaan nyo na yan, 1021: sabi nga ni Kuya
Germs, “Walaaaaang accretion sa legitime.” Bawal ang accretion.
So, instead, walang accretion sa legitime, but the other heirs will inherit that in their own right by
way of intestate succession. So, we will be distributing that vacant part following the rules of
intestate succession to the legal heirs of the testator.

INTESTATE SUCCESSION
Apat ang anak; 1.2M estate. Isa sa kanila, magre-repudiate. Following 1018, in case of
repudiation, it is always accretion that will take place. It will accrue in favor of B, C, and D who
are co-heirs in the same degree.
But kung merong isa dyan who will be inheriting by right of representation, hindi sya kasama sa
accretion because he is not a co-heir of the same degree. If all of the children will be repudiating
their inheritance in intestate succession (A, B, C, and D will be repudiating) the grandchildren
(children of A, B, C, and D) will not inherit by representation; hindi tayo per stirpes. Bakit?
Because there is no representation in case of repudiation; instead, 969 – the heirs in the next
degree will inherit in their own right. So, the grandchildren will inherit in their own right, per
capita tayo. This time, that is the only situation where the grandchildren will inherit in their own
right.

ASCENDANTS
Si nanay at si tatay, let us talk of their legitimes. Estate is 1.2M; legitime ng ascendant, ½ of the
estate (600k).
Kung buhay si nanay at tatay, paghahatian nila ang 600k (300k each). What if the father died
ahead of the descedent? What will happen to the legitime of the ascendant which is 600k? Can
the father be represented by his parent? NO, walang representation in the ascending line. Since
walang representation sa ascending line, the only rule in the ascending line is proximity. And
proximity is an absolute rule. Meaning, the mother will exclude the other ascendants following
the rule of proximity. So, yung entire 600k na share ng ascendant will go to the mother.

DISINHERITANCE
If the father was validly disinherited, i-count pa ba natin sya? Yun bang legitime ng ascendant,
which is 600k, hahatiin ba sa dalawa? NO. If the father is validly disinherited, hindi na sya
kasama. So, yung legitime ng ascendant na 600k will all go to the mother because valid
disinheritance is a valid way of depriving a compulsory heir of his/her legitime.
If he cannot be represented because an ascendant cannot be represented, he will no longer be
counted.

INCAPACITY
The father is incapacitated to inherit. Legitime ng ascendant: 600k. Anong gagawin natin sa
600k na legitime ng ascendant?
Automatic ba na yung 600k will all go to the mother? NO. Ika-count pa rin natin si tatay,
because there is a prescriptive period. Hindi naman automatic na incapacitated sya. Makukuha
muna nya yung share nya which is 300k of the 600k. But an action for incapacity will have to be
filed against him within the allowable prescriptive period and if proven to be incapacitated,
magiging vacant yun.
And, what will happen to that share? It cannot go to the mother. That will be accretion; at
walang accretion to the legitime. INSTEAD, yang share na iyan will have to be distributed by
way of intestate succession to the legal heirs of the testator – if that is legitime, kasi walang
accretion sa legitime.

INTESTATE SUCCESSION
In intestate succession, if the father predeceased, yung share ng ascendant mapupunta lahat
kay nanay, same rule. If the father was validly disinherited, and that is the only provision in the
will, intestate succession tayo. The only provision of the will is to disinherit the father – at wala
namang disposition so intestate tayo. But the father will not be a legal heir because he was
validly disinherited.
So yung share of the ascendant will all go to the mother, 600k.

INCAPACITY
Intestate succession, incapacity. Yung 600k na share ng ascendant, ika-count pa rin natin si
father. 300k kay father, 300k kay mother. But if the father is declared incapacitated, yung share
nyang 300k, magiging vacant. What will happen to that? How do we distribute that, intestate pa
rin? Hindi na, intestate succession na tayo eh. Instead, in case of incapacity and representation
cannot take place because there is no representation in the ascending line, sabi ng 968:
accretion will take place.
Kanino mag-accrue yung 300k ni father? Assuming there is a surviving spouse and assuming
that there are 2 illegitimate children. In intestate succession, paano natin dapat hahatiin yung
estate?
1.2M. Kalahati nun, ½ is the intestate share of the ascendant (600k – 300k each parent); ¼ of
the estate (300k) is the share of the surviving spouse; and the other ¼ is the share of 2
illegiitmate children each getting 150k. But, since the father is incapacitated, and representation
cannot take place because an ascendant cannot be represented, yang share nya will accrue in
favor of the OTHER LEGAL HEIRS: mother, surviving spouse, and illegitimate children, who are
co-heirs. Hindi lang si nanay; kasama yung surviving spouse. Paano natin idi-distribute yung
300k na vacant? To the mother, to the SS, and to the 2 illegitimate children?
Anong sabi ng Art. 1019:
Art. 1019 - The heirs to whom the portion goes by the right of accretion take it in the same
proportion that they inherit.
The co-heirs shall take the vacant part in proportion to which they inherit. So, ang share ni
mother, 300k. Ang share ng SS, 300k. Ang share ng illegitimate children, 150k each. So, yung
300k na vacant, idi-distribute natin dun sa apat in proportion to which they inherit. Kung
mapapansin nyo: 1/3 of the estate is the share of the mother; 1/3 is the share of the SS; and 1/3
ang share ng illegitimate children. Edi simple lang, 300k divided into 3. 100k to the mother, 100k
to the SS, 100k to the illegitimate children (50k each dalawa sila e). They will be receiving the
vacant part in the same proportion that they inherit – that is 1019.
Simple math lang naman yan.

REPUDIATION
The father repudiates his share. Kung legitime yang ni-repudiate nya, there is no accretion with
respect to the legitime. Kaya yung legitime nyang 300k, that will have to be distributed to the
legal heirs of the testator following the rules of intestate succession.
Now, kung intestate succession naman yan, yung share nya na 300k will accrue in favor of the
other co-heirs in the same proportion that they inherit.
Ganito ulit: 100k to the mother, 100k to the SS, and 50k each to the 2 illegitimate children.

Naintindihan paano natin i-fill up ang vacancies? You are now ready for intestate
succession/legal succession.

INTESTATE SUCCESSION
In intestate succession, it is succession by operation of law. The distribution of the estate as to
who are the heirs and how much are their shares in the estate, those are all provided for by law.
Kaya natin sya tinatawag na legal succession – the manner of distributing the estate is pursuant
to the provision of law kung kanino natin ibibigay, kung magkano ang share nila. All provided for
by law, kaya sya tinawag na legal.
Kailan pwede mangyari yan?

Kung walang will. Either because:

The decedent did not execute a will;
Or he executed one, but was declared void;
Mixed Succession

- Or there was preterition, and there are no legacies and devises and the entire
estate will have to be distributed by way of intestate succession (but kung
meron devises and legacies, hindi apektado ang mga devises and legacies
ng preterition; so the devises and legacies shall remain valid, idi-distribute
natin yun; but after distributing, the institution of voluntary heirs will be
annulled in its entirety and the remaining estate will have to be distributed by
intestate succession). Kung may preterition, and there are devises and
legacies, yan yung example ng mixed succession. Mayroon tayong
succession, there is a part of the estate that will be distributed by way of
testator’s will; at mayroon that will be distributed following the rules of
intestate succession kaya mixed ang succession.

- Magkakaroon din tayo ng mixed succession if the testator did not dispose of
the entire estate. Yung estate disposed in his will will be distributed pursuant
to his will. But the estate not disposed of in the will will be disposed of by way
of intestate succession, kaya magkakaroon ulit tayo ng mixed succession,

- Kailan pa may mixed succession? Kapag may will, at may compulsory heirs,
but one of the compulsory heirs repudiated/one or some repudiated. Yung
part that was repudiated, if that will be pertaining to the legitime, that will have
to be distributed by way of intestate succession. Kaya mayroon tayong part
distributed by way of will, and may part by way of intestate succession. Mixed
din yun.

- In testamentary succession, in case of incapacity of a compulsory heir na

walang representative, yung vacant part will also be distributed by way of
intestate succession. Magkakaroon din tayo ng mixed succession.

Maraming rules ang intestate succession.

 RULE OF PREFERENCE – Mayroong mga line that is preferred over other lines.
Example: the direct lines are preferred over the collateral lines. That is a rule of
preference.
RULE OF EXCLUSION – Mayroong rules of preference sa direct line, mayroon in favor
of the descending line. And that is also a rule of exclusion. Ang preference is also a rule
of exclusion. Kapag may direct line, excluded ang collateral; kapag may descending line,
excluded ang descending line.
RULE OF CONCURRENCE – the descending line will not exclude the surviving spouse
and the illegitimate children. They will inherit together with the legitimate direct line.
RULE OF EQUAL DIVISION – kung pantay-pantay sila, the same degree, mayroong
rule of equal division.
But yang rule of equal division is subject to the rule na: If one is a full blood, the other is
half blood, the share of the full blood is double than the share of the half blood. Yung
mga brothers and sisters, they are of the same degree. But if some are of the full blood
and some are half blood, qualified yung rule of equal division among those of the same
degree: the full blood will be getting a share double than that of the half blood.
And the rule of equal division is further subject to the rule of representation. In case of
representation, per stirpes, hindi equal.
RULE OF PROXIMITY – the nearer in degree will exclude those which are farther.
But the rule of proximity is further subject to the right of representation if proper.

My point is, ang daming rules ng intestate succession. But huwag kayong matakot dahil lahat ng
rules na iyan, pwede namang pagsabay-sabayin/i-simplify.

ESTATE OF AN ILLEGITIMATE DECEDENT

Unahin natin ang estate of an illegitimate decedent/kung ang namatay ay illegitimate person.
Ano ang pinagkaiba kung ang decedent natin ay illegitimate? Ano lang ang magiging
pinagkaiba?
1. As to ascendants – ang ascendants nya are illegitimate ascendants. Yun lang naman,
illegitimate ascendants.

2. Among the illegitimate ascendants, only the illegitimate parents are given by law of
successional rights. The other illegitimate ascendants aside from parents are not
granted by law successional rights.

So, yung mga illegitimate grandfather/grandmother, hindi na legal heirs yan. Hindi yan
binigyan ng batas ng right to inherit from an illegitimate descendant. Among the
 ascendants, the right to inherit was given only to the illegitimate parents – hanggang sa
kanila lang.

So, kung patay na pareho ang illegitimate parents but survived by the grandparents,
hindi na tagapagmana yung mga illegitimate grandparents. Remember that rule.

Kaya, in succession by operation of law, whether it is legitime or intestate succession,

walang reciprocal rights of succession ang illegitimate grandparents at ang illegitimate
grandchildren. Wala silang reciprocal rights of succession. Bakit? Ang illegitimate
grandchild can inherit from the estate of the illegitimate grandparents. How? By
representing the illegitimate parents. Sabi natin kanina, by reason of Art. 902 and 990: if
the person to be represented is an illegitimate child, syempre ang mga magulang nya as
to him are also illegitimate parents. At kung mayroong anak yang illegitimate child na
iyan, pwedeng representative nya yang illegitimate child nya. So, if the person to be
represented is an illegitimate child, he can be represented by an illegitimate child. So,
yung illegitimate grandchild can inherit from the estate of the illegitimate grandparents by
representing the parent who is illegitimate.

E.g., si lolo (Dovalanta) may anak na illegitimate, si Rivera. Tapos, si Rivera, mayroon
ding illegitimate na anak, si Alfonso. Ang estate na pinag-uusapan natin ay estate ni
Dovalanta. Sa estate ni Dovalanta, tagapagmana nya si Rivera, the illegitimate child.
Ang sabi ng batas, yung right ni Rivera to inherit from Dovalanta being an illegitimate
child is transmissible to his descendants kahit na ang descendant nya ay illegitimate, si
Alfonso. So, kung patay na si Rivera (nauna bago kay Dovalanta), si Alfonso can take
the place of Rivera by representation and inherit from the estate of the grandfather,
Dovalanta. Pwede yun. So, the illegitimate grandchild can inherit from the illegitimate
grandfather in succession by operation of law.

Pero kung estate naman ni Alfonso ang pag-uusapan natin, si Alfonso ang decedent.
Ang tagapagmana lang ni Alfonso, hanggang kay Rivera lang. Only the illegitimate
parent. Hindi na nya tagapagmana ang illegitimate grandfather. The law did not grant the
other illegitimate ascendants successional rights other than the illegitimate parent. Kaya
walang reciprocal rights of succession si Dovalanta at Alfonso. Si Alfonso pwedeng
magmana kay Dovalanta kay grandfather; but the grandfather cannot inherit from the
grandchild. Kasi ang tagapagmana lang ni Alfonso is the illegitimate parent – si Rivera.

Again, kapag ang namatay ay illegitimate, unang rule: sa ascendants, the ascendants
are illegitimately filiated to him; and as to illegitimate ascendants, only the illegitimate
parents are the legal heir.

3. Pangatlong rule: the illegitimate parent is excluded by any kind of descendant of the
decedent.

Balik kay Alfonso, ang decedent. Illegitimate father nya si Rivera. Illegitimate mother nya
si Ruallo, kasi hindi kasal si Ruallo at Rivera. Si Alfonso, nag-asawa, si Torres, they are
validly, happily married. Nagkaanak sila, legitimate, si Renedo. Pero si Alfonso,
nagkaroon ng affair kay Velasquez, nagkaanak, si Garma (illegitimate child ni Alfonso).
So, estate ni Alfonso ang ping-uusapan natin. Nung namatay si Alfonso, ang mga
surviving relatives ni Alfonso: tatay (Rivera), nanay (Ruallo), asawa (Torres), anak na
legitimate (Renedo), anak na illegitimate (Garma), paramour (Velasquez).

Tagapagmana ba si Velasquez? NO, out, hindi asawa.

Si Renedo? Yes, legitimate child. Si Garma? Yes, illegitimate child. Si Torres? Yes,
surviving spouse.

Sina Rivera and Ruallo? NO. Excluded by the descendants.

Tanggalin natin si Renedo, naunang namatay kaysa kay Alfonso. Pwede namang
magmana: si Rivera at Ruallo? HINDI pa rin, kasi mayroong illegitimate child (Garma).

So, ang illegitimate parents are excluded by any kind of descendant, whether legitimate
or illegitimate.

Tanggalin natin si Garma, naunang namatay kaysa kay Alfonso. Wala na rin si Renedo.
Surviving spouse Torres, matatag. Pwede na bang magmana sina Rivera at Ruallo?
YES. Wala nang descendants. Tagapagmana na ngayon yung illegitimate parents
TOGETHER with Torres.

Papaano haahtiin ang estate? 1M. Kalahati kay Torres, 500k; kalahati kay Rivera and
Ruallo, each getting 250k.

Patayin natin ang surviving spouse. But Alfonso was also survived by Gonzales (another
child of Ruallo and Rivera, ie., kapatid). Gonzales is also illegitimate. Pwede bang
magmana si Gonzales kay Alfonso? Mamaya. Eh buhay pa si Rivera at Ruallo – hindi
pwede. Excluded yung brother. So, ang tagapagmana lang natin, si Rivera at Ruallo; the
entire estate will go to them.

Si Alfonso and Gonzales are full-blood brothers (anak ng hindi kasal na parents). Let us
assume na itong si Rivera is validly married to Antiquera, at may anak sila: Punzalan. Si
Punzalan ay kapatid din ni Alfonso at ni Gonzales; kaya lang, half blood. Itong si Rivera,
aside from Ruallo, mayroon ding affair kay Gomez (hindi kasal) at nagkaroon din sya ng
anak kay Gomez. Ang anak nya kay Gomez, si Malabanan.

Estate ni Alfonso. Patay na ang legitimate child, ang illegitimate child, ang spouse
(Torres), at patayin din natin ang mga magulang nyang sina Rivera at Ruallo. So, ang
natitira nyang relatives: kapatid nyang si Gonzales (full-blood), kapatid na Punzalan
(half-blood), kapatid na Malabanan (half-blood). Will all of them inherit from the estate of
Alfonso?

Si Punzalan, hindi pwede – barrier rule, legitimate si Punzalan. Balik tayo sa 992 – an
illegitimate child cannot inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children of the parent and
other legitimate relatives of the parent.
 Si Gonzales, tagapagmana ni Alfonso? Yes. Pareho silang illegitimate at magkapatid
silang buo – tagapagmana nya.

Si Malabanan, tagapagmana ni Alfonso? Yes, pareho silang illegitimate. Hindi sila sakop
ng barrier rule because all of them are illegitimate.

So, ang tagapagmana ni Alfonso ay si Gonzales at si Malabanan. Ang pinagkaiba lang,

si Gonzales ay full-blood; si Malabanan, half-blood, pareho tatay magkaiba nanay. So,
ang share ni Gonzales sa estate ni Alfonso, double than the share of Malabanan.

Patayin natin si Malabanan. But Malabanan was survived by his child, Tamayo. So,
nung namatay si Alfonso, ang surviving relatives nya, yung kapatid nya, si Gonzales –
full blood, at ang nephew na si Tamayo – half-blood. Will Tamayo inherit from Alfonso?
Yes, same rule, by representing his father. Art. 975 – if a nephew survives with the
brother/sister of the deceased, the nephew will inherit by right of representation. But
since the nephew is a half-blood nephew, the nephew will only be entitled to get the
share of the person represented – which is ½ of the share of Gonzales. Ang share ni
Gonzales is double than the share of Malabanan. Yung share ni Malabanan, yun lang
ang makukuha ng representative nya, following the rules of representation that the
representative simply steps into the shoes of the person represented.

Patayin natin si Tamayo, patayin din natin si Gonzales. So, nung namatay si Alfonso,
ang surviving relative na lang ni Alfonso ay ang kapatid ni Rivera – si David. So, in
relation to Alfonso, ano nya si David? Alfonso’s uncle. Tagapagmana ba yung uncle?
NO, not anymore. Kung ang namatay ay illegitimate, ang pwede lang
tagapagmana/legal heirs among the collateral blood relatives are the brothers, sisters,
nephews, and nieces. But, dapat, illegitimate din sila. Otherwise, the barrier rule will
apply. Sana, si David illegitimately filiated din kay Alfonso (kapatid ni tatay, who is an
illegitimate parent); but David is not a brother, sister, nephew, or niece of the decedent.
Tandaan natin pag ang namatay ay decedent, as to collateral relatives, the law grants
the right to succession in favor only of [illegitimate?] brothers, sisters, nephews, or
nieces. The other collateral blood relatives are not granted by law successional rights.

So, sino ang susunod na tagapagmana ni Alfonso, eh hindi na tagapagmana si David?

Kasi wala na si Alfonsong brother, sister, nephew, or niece. Sino ang susunod? The
State.

So, mas madali ang estate ng illegitimate, those are the rules.

ESTATE OF A LEGITIMATE PERSON/DECEDENT

Kung ang namatay ay legitimate, rules:
1. The legitimate direct line will exclude the collateral line.
 So kung yung namatay ay mayroon syang direct line, whether descending/ascending,
the collateral blood relatives do not inherit starting from brothers and sisters. Automatic
yan. Kapag may descendant na naiwan or ascendant, hindi tagapagmana ang brothers
and sisters and the other collateral blood relatives. Tandaan nyo nay an, that is a
provision of law simplified: the direct line will exclude the collateral line whether the direct
line is descending or ascending.

2. Within the direct line, there is a rule of preference and exclusion. The direct descending
line will exclude the direct ascending line. In other words, if there is a legitimate
descendant, the legitimate ascendants do not inherit – excluded.

3. Rule of concurrence. The direct line, whether descending or ascending will not exclude
the surviving spouse and the illegitimate children of the decedent. They will inherit
together with the direct line.

3 simple rules.
Unang rule – the direct line will exclude the collateral line.
The collateral relatives, starting from brothers and sisters can only inherit in the absence
of descendants or ascendants.
Next rule – within the direct line, there is a rule of exclusion.
The direct descending line will exclude the direct ascending line.
So, the ascendants will only inherit by way of intestate succession in the absence of
descendants. They are excluded by the children of the decedent/grandchildren/great-
grandchildren/great-great-great to the max grandchildren of the decedent. Basta kung
mayroong descendant, excluded ang ascendant.
So the ascendant will only inherit in intestate succession in the absence of descendants.
But whether it is the descendant or ascendant inheriting in the direct line, the surviving
spouse is not excluded. The surviving spouse concurs with the direct line together with
the illegitimate children – they are not excluded.
Next rule – so malalaman na natin kung sino ang unang tinatawag in intestate succession. Who
is the first in the order of succession in intestate succession?
Sino? Direct line. Sino sa direct line? Legitimate descendants are the first in the order of
intestate succession. Kumbaga, kung iha-hire kayong lawyer sa intestate succession, ang una
nyong tanong: yung namatay ba, may legitimate descendants? Because they are the first in the
order of succession. Pangalawa lang yung legitimate ascendants; kung wala yung legitimate
descendants, ang susunod nyong tanong: yun bang namatay ay may legitimate ascendants.
So, una muna, mapapansin nyo ang rule ng succession by operation of law: spaghetti pababa.
Kung hindi pwede ang spaghetti pababa kasi walang descendant, saka lang tayo mag-spaghetti
pataas. So, ang rule ng intestate: Spagetthing pababa, bago mag spaghetting pataas.
Kailang pumumpunta sa collateral? In the absence of spagetthing pababa at pataaas. Doon
lang nag-sspaghetting sideways.
So yan ang basic rule ng intestate succession. The THRUST is first downward, before it goes
upward, and before it goes sideways. CLEAR? I can teach succession using body language.
The first in the order of succession: downward bago umakyat. Bakit? Kasi ganun tayo magbigay
ng pagmamahal. Ang pagmamahal natin, the thrust is first downward before it goes upward,
before it goes sideways.
Kapag magulang ka na at mayroong mga anak ka, at may mga apo ka, sino ang una mong
mahal? Descendants mo. Yun ang mga una mong pinaglalaanan – mga anak mo, mga apo mo.
Bago ka tumitingala, bago ka magbigay ng pagmamahal kung may sobra sa ascendant. Tsaka
na yung mga brothers and sisters, kaya din nilang mabuhay. Ganun daw tayo magbigay ng
pagmamahal, baba muna bago itaas: kasi yung itaas, they had their turn. Nung panahon nila,
ang mga minahal din nila, nasa baba bago taas. Weather weather lang. Kung magulang ka na
rin, you are likewise looking down. Inuuna mom una yung mga descendants mo – we are
following that in our law in succession. Una muna descendants.
Let us talk of the descendants.

DESCENDANTS
The first in the order of succession – legitimate descendants of different degrees.
Counted from the decedent, the children are the first degree related to him (mga anak);
The grandchildren are related to him by 2 degrees;
The great grandchildren are 3rd degree away from him.

Lahat ba sila, legal heirs? NO. We will be following the rule of proximity. Art. 962:
Art. 962 - In every inheritance, the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones,
saving the right of representation when it properly takes place. xxx
In succession by operation of law, mayroon tayong rule of proximity. The relatives nearest in
degree shall exclude those which are farther in degree save, except, when the right of
representation properly takes place.
So, among the descendants, kung sino ang magiging legal heir, rule of proximity tayo. But the
rule of proximity is subject to: the right of representation when it is proper.
So, among the descendants, if representation will not take place (dahil walang vacancy). So, if
all the children are alive, all are capacitated, none was validly disinherited, all are willing to
accept the inheritance, walang bakante. Proximity lang tayo: only the children are the legal
heirs. Yung mga grandchildren will not become legal heirs by representation kasi walang
vacancy.
But, in the event of vacancy, representation may take place if the vacancy is by reason of
predecease, incapacity, or disinheritance, AND there is a representative.
In case of repudiation, the law does not allow representation. Instead, in intestate succession, it
is always accretion that will take place kung may matitirang co-heir who will be willing to accept.
But if all of the children will be repudiating the inheritance, the grandchildren will become legal
heirs in their own right following Art. 969.
Diniscuss naman na natin ang rules of representation and different scenarios.

Concurrence – kung makakasabay ng legitimate children ang surviving spouse. Both are legal
heirs.
Paano natin hahatiin ang estate? Punta tayo sa provision with respect to the surviving spouse,
Art. 996:
Art. 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.
Simple lang. Ang surviving spouse, same share as that of any of the legitimate children
regardless of the number of the children. Ang gagawin lang natin, ibibilang lang natin ang
surviving spouse as additional; and we will be dividing the estate among all of them.
E.g., estate 1M, isang anak, plus spouse. So estate is divided into 2 parts: ½ to the child, ½ to
the spouse.
Tatlo ang anak, together with the spouse, apat sila na maghahati sa estate of 1M. 1M divided
into 4 parts, ganun lang kasimple. The share of each child is 250k, and that is also the share of
the surviving spouse (Art. 996).

Concurrence between the legitimate children and the illegitimate. Kapag nagsabay yang
dalawang yan, Art. 983:
Art 983 - If illegitimate children survive with legitimate children, the shares of the former shall be
in the proportions prescribed by article 895.
Art. 895 - The legitime of each of the acknowledged natural children and each of the natural
children by legal fiction shall consist of one-half of the legitime of each of the legitimate children
or descendants.
Kaya lang, repealed na iyan by Art. 176 of the Family Code. Binanggit ko lang kasi ipapakita
lang natin yung basis. Pupunta tayo sa Art. 176 of the Family Code:
Art. 176 - xxx The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a
legitimate child. xxx
So, yung Art. 983, in relation to Art. 176 of the FC, ang share daw ng illegitimate child is in the
same proportion provided for in Art. 176. So ang share ng illegitimate child in intestate
succession is ½ of the share of the legitimate child. So, stated otherwise, ang share ng
legitimate is double than the share of the illegitimate child.
Magbigay tayo ng example: ang estate natin is 1M. Ang namatay, mayroon syang naiwang
isang legitimate child. Mayroon din syang naiwang dalawang illegitimate children.
Ang alam natin, ang share ng legitimate ay double sa share ng illegitimate. So, yung dalawang
illegitimate, ang share nila is ½ each of the share of the legitimate. Ang alam lang natin, yung
value of the estate, 1M. Kung pagsasama-samahin natin yung share ng legitimate and ng
dalawang illegitimate, ang total nyan: 1M. Gagawin nating equation yan:
Share of the legitimate + share of the 2 illegitimate = 1M.
But, ang alam natin, ang share ng nag-iisang legitimate is double than the share of the two
illegitimate. So:
If x is the share of the illegitimate, at dalawa sila, that is x + x. We are coming up with a simple
algebraic expression. And the share of the legitimate is double that, so that is 2x. Ang alam
natin, kapag inadd natin yang share ng tatlong yan, that will be a total of 1M. That simple
formula is:
x + x + 2x = 1M
The value of x is x + x + 2x = 4x. So, 4x = 1M.
To get the value of x, divide both equation by 4:
Sa unang equation, cancelled out yung 4.
1M / 4 = 250k. So, x = 250k. That is the share of the illegitimate.
2x = 500k. That is the share of the legitimate.

Now, in intestate succession, hindi na dapat pumapasok dito ang konsepto ng legitime.
Because legitime is a limitation on the right of the testator to dispose of his estate, at hindi yan
applicable sa intestate succession. Because sa intestate succession, the division of the estate is
pursuant to the provision of law. Kaya, hindi nyo ipinapasok ang konsepto ng legitime sa
intestate.
BUT, there is a possibility na yung share ng legitimate children will be in impairment of their
supposed legitime kung testamentary succession sana yan. Ang tanong: magiging intention ba
ng Congress na yung magiging share ng mga legitimate children in intestate succession will be
less than what they will get as their legitimes? Hindi pwede.
Magiging problema lang natin yung impairment of legitimes in case of concurrence between
legitimate and illegitimate children in intestate succession. Why? Following the formula of
computing their shares in intestate succession, hindi fixed yung share nila; instead variable. It
will depend on the number of the legitimate and illegitimate children. So, kung mas marami ang
illegitimate children, there is a tendency na makuyog nila yung illegitimate. There is a tendency
na kapag kinuyog nila, mababawasan, liliit yung share ng legitimate. Let us talk of Ramon
Revilla, Sr. Last count: 82 including the illegitimate. Kung 7 ang legitimate, so 82 – 7 = nakuyog
yung legitimate. So, kung susundin natin ang formula na to, ang liit ng magiging share ng bawat
legitimate children. Hindi naman pwedeng mangyari yun because that is not the intention of
Congress.
Kaya kapag may sitwasyon, mapapansin nyo where the illegitimate children will outweigh the
number of the legitimate in such a way that it will result in the impairment of the legitimes of the
legitimate children kahit na intestate succession to, hindi natin papayagan yun. There shall be
no impairment of the legitimes of the legitimate children even in case of intestate succession.
PWede lang naman mangyari yan in case of concurrence of illegitimate and legitimate, at mas
marami ang illegitimate. Rule, kahit na intestate to: there shall be no impairment of the legitimes
of the legitimate children. Kapag may impairment, hindi natin pwedeng sundin yun. Instead, we
will return to them their legitimes and that will be their share in intestate succession.
Eg. Estate of 1M. 2 legitimate children; 5 illegitimate children.
Kung susundin natin yung formula provided for by Art. 983, in relation to Art. 176 of the FC, ang
magiging formula din sana natin: 2x + 2x + 5x = 1M. Anong mapapansin nyo? Kahit huwag nyo
na i-compute. Yung total na share ng legitimate, 4; yung total ng illegitimate, 5. Umabot ba sa
kalahati ng estate ang share ng mga legitimate? Hindi. 4 + 5 = 9. Kalahati ng 9 = 4.5. Kaya
yung 4 na share legitimate children is impairment of their legitimes.
Kapag nagso-solve kayo ng problem sa intestate, ganyan muna ang tingnan nyo: yung share ba
ng legitimate aabot ng kalahati? By looking at this, hindi umabot ng kalahati; huwag na natin
isolve yun. That cannot be our solution because that will result in the impairment of the legitimes
of the legitimate children.
Instead, we will be returning to them their legitimes and their legitimes will also be their share in
intestate succession.
So, 1M estate. Legitime of 2 legitimate children = ½ of that, which is 500k. Divided between the
2, each getting 250k. Ang legitime ng illegitimate, dapat kalahati ng share ng bawat legitimate
(supposedly, 125k each). Kaya lang, lima sila, 125k x 5 = that will be more than the 500k
remaining portion. Gagawin na lang natin, the remaining 500k will be divided among the 5
illegitimate children each getting 100k; that will also be their shares in intestate succession.
Kung magkakasabay ang legitimate children, surviving spouse, and illegitimate children, apply
the same rules; but take note of the impairment of the legitimes of the legitimate children.
E.g., estate of 1M. 2 are legitimate children, so 2x + 2x; surviving spouse, so 2x; tatlong
illegitimate children, so x + x + x total 3x. Watch out for the impairment of the legitimes of the
legitimate children.
Compare nyo ang total ng magiging share ng legitimate which is 4x. Sa kabilang equation, ang
share ng SS at illegitimate children = 5x. May impairment ba of the legitimes of the legitimate
children? Meron. Hindi umabot sa kalahati yung magiging share ng legitimate; kaya hindi natin
susundin yan. Always watch out for that. Huwag nyo muna isolve, tingnan nyo kung aabot sa
kalahati ang magiging share ng legitimate children. Dito, hindi na aabot sa kalahati. Ang total
share ng legitimate = 4, the SS and IC = 5. Hindi umabot sa kalahati, so hindi natin pwede
sundin ang equation na yan. Instead, we will return to them their legitimes and that will be their
shares in intestate succession.
Legitime ng dalawa legit: 500k (250k each); legitime ng SS, same as the share of each of the
legitimate children: 250k; the remaining 250k, yun ang paghahatian ng tatlong illegitimate and
that will be their shares in intestate succession.
Dyaan nyo lang ibinabalik ang konsepto ng legitime: kapag nagsabay ang legitimate at
illegitimate children at mas marami ang illegitimate. Watch out for the impairment of the
legitimes of the legitimate children.
Sa ibang sitwasyon, huwag kayong mag-alala, walang impairment of the legitimes of the other
compulsory heirs kasi fixed ang share nila. Eg., ascendant, always ½ of the estate. We will be
talking impairment of the legitimes. Nagkaroon lang tayo ng problema sa share ng legit kasi ang
magiging share nya kapag makakasabay ang illegitimate will become variable; hindi fixed.
Walang fixed kung laging fixed sana sa ½ of the estate; eh hindi eh. We will be dividing the
estate according to their number. Dapat, walang impairment of the legitime.
So, ang minimum share nila sa intestate succession is ½ of the estate, hindi pwedeng less than
½ of the estate even intestate succession yan. Laging ang minimum share ng legitimate, always
½ of the estate. Pwedeng lumaki, but hindi pwedeng lumiit. Hanggang pinakamaliit nyan: 500k,
½ of the estate. But pwedeng mas Malaki, hindi pwedeng less than ½ of the estate; that is not
acceptable. They are always entitled to ½ of the estate EVEN in intestate succession.

END. 2:59:49.