SAYSON vs.

CA
DOCTRINE: Adopted child/ children has no
right of representation
FACTS: Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot five
children, namely, Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa,
Remedios and Teodoro. Eleno died on
November 10, 1952, and Rafaela on May
15,1976. Teodoro, who had married Isabel
Bautista, died on March 23, 1972. His wife
died nine years later. Their properties were
left in the possession of Delia, Edmundo, and
Doribel, all surnamed Sayson, who claim to
be their children.
Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, and Remedios,
together with Juana C. Bautista, Isabel's mother, filed a complaint for partition and
accounting of the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isabel Sayson. Delia, Edmundo and
Doribel filed their own complaint, this time for the accounting and partition of the
intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela Sayson, against the couple's four surviving
children.
Both cases filed on the Lower Court were decided in favor Delia, et al. on the basis of
practically the same evidence. The Lower Court declared that Delia and Edmundo were
the legally adopted children of Teodoro and Isabel Sayson by virtue of the decree of
adoption. Doribel was their legitimate daughter as evidenced by her birth certificate.
Consequently, the three children were entitled to inherit from Eleno and Rafaela by right
of representation.
Both cases were appealed to the Court of Appeals, where they were consolidated. The
appellate court affirmed that Delia, et al. are entitled to the intestate estate of spouses
Teodoro and Isabel Sayson. However, Delia and Edmundo are disqualified from
inheriting from the estate of the deceased spouses Eleno and Rafaela Sayson.
ISSUE: W/N CA is correct in holding that Delia and Edmundo are disqualified to inherit
from the estate of the deceased spouses Eleno and Rafaela Sayson.
HELD: A different conclusion must be reached in the case of Delia and Edmundo, to
whom the grandparents were total strangers. While it is true that the adopted child shall
be deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same right as the latter, these rights do
not include the right of representation. The relationship created by the adoption is
between only the adopting parents and the adopted child and does not extend to the
blood relatives of either party.
In sum, we agree with the lower courts that Delia and Edmundo as the adopted children
and Doribel as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro Sayson and Isabel Bautista, are their
exclusive heirs and are under no obligation to share the estate of their parents with the
petitioners. The Court of Appeals was correct, however, in holding that only Doribel has
the right of representation in the inheritance of her grandparents' intestate estate, the
other private respondents being only the adoptive children of the deceased Teodoro.

BAGUNU vs. PIEDAD

DOCTRINE: By right of representation, a more distant blood relative of a decedent is, by
operation of law, raised to the same place and degree of relations as that of a closer blood
relative of the same decedent. The representative thereby steps into the shoes of the
person he represents and succeeds, not from the latter, but from the person to whose estate
the person represented would have succeeded.

FACTS:
Ofelia Hernando Bagunu (collateral relative of the fifth civil degree) moved to intervene
in a special proceeding for the intestate proceeding of the Estate of Augusto H. Piedad.
Ofelia assailed the finality of the order of the trial court awarding the entire estate to
respondent Pastora Piedad (collateral relative of the third civil degree) contending that
the proceedings were tainted with procedural infirmities including an incomplete
publications of the notice of hearing, lack of personal notice to the heirs and creditors,
and irregularity in the disbursements of allowances and withdrawals by the administrator
of the estate.
ISSUES:
Can petitioner, a collateral relative of the fifth civil degree (Ofelia), inherit alongside
respondent, a collateral relative of the third civil degree (Pastora)?
Does the rule of proximity in intestate succession find application among collateral
relatives?
RULING:
Ofelia cannot inherit alongside Pastora.
The rule on proximity is a concept that favors the relatives nearest in degree to the
decedent and excludes the more distant ones except when and to the extent that the
right of representation can apply.
In the direct line, right of representation is proper only in the descending, never in the
ascending, line. In the collateral line, the right of representation may only take place in
favor of the children of brothers or sisters of the decedent when such children survive
with their uncles or aunts.

Among collateral relatives, except only in the case of nephews and nieces of the
decedent concurring with their uncles or aunts, the rule of proximity, expressed in Article
962, is an absolute rule.
Respondent, being a relative within the third civil degree, of the late Augusto H. Piedad
excludes petitioner, a relative of the fifth degree, from succeeding ab intestato to the
estate of the decedent.
Thus, Pastora excludes Ofelia from succeeding ab intestate to the estate of Augusto. In
fine, a maternal aunt can inherit equally with a first cousin of the half blood but an uncle
or an aunt, being a 3rd degree relative, excludes the cousins of the decedent, being in
the 4th degree in relationship, the latter in turn would have priority in succession to a 5th
degree relative.