Case and Doctrine

Facts

Issue

Held

Fernandez v Dimagiba

Ismaela Dimagiba submitted to

the CFI a petition for the
probate of the purported will of
the late Benedicta de los Reyes.
Dionisio Fernandez, Eusebio
Reyes and Luisa Reyes and one
month later, Mariano, Cesar,
Leonor and Paciencia, all
surnamed Reyes, all claiming to
be heirs intestate of the
decedent, filed oppositions to
the probate asked. Grounds
advanced for the opposition
were forgery, vices of consent
of the testatrix, estoppel by
laches of the proponent and
revocation of the will by two
deeds of conveyance of the
major portion of the estate
made by the testatrix in favor of
the proponent in 1943 and
1944, but which conveyances
were finally set aside by this
Supreme Court.

(a) whether or not the

decree of the Court of First
Instance allowing the will to
probate had become final
for lack of appeal;

A. Yes. It was not made in due time.

Revocation of will by subsequent

conveyance
SUMMARY:
Dimagiba submitted for probate
opposed by other claiming to be heirs
on the ground that will was forged,
vices of consent, and REVOKED by
subsequent conveyances of
properties to the legatees.
NO! Exemption to 957. Subsequent
conveyance was without
consideration. There was no intention
to sell.
It is not absolute revocation but
merely implied
Question of revocation by virtue of
conveyance is irrelevant to the issue
of WON the will was duly executed.

(b) whether or not the order

of the Court of origin dated
July 27, 1959, overruling
the estoppel invoked by
oppositors-appellants had
likewise become final; and
(c) whether or not the
1930 willof Benedicta de los
Reyes had been impliedly
revoked by her execution of
deeds of conveyance in
favor of the proponent on
March 26, 1943 and April 3,
1944.
WON ART 957 applies

B. The presentation and probate of a will are requirements of

public policy, being primarily designed to protect the
testator's, expressed wishes, which are entitled to respect as
a consequence of the decedent's ownership and right of
disposition within legal limits. Evidence of it is
the duty imposed on a custodian of a will to deliver the same
to the Court, and the fine and imprisonment prescribed for its
violation (Revised Rule 75). It would be a non sequitur to allow
public policy to be evaded on the pretext of estoppel.
C. NO., Article 957 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, does
not apply to the case at bar.
The alleged revocation implied from the execution of the
deeds of conveyance in favor of the testamentary heir is
plainly irrelevant to and separate from the question of
whether the testament was duly executed.
1. if the will is not entitled to probate, or its probate is denied,
all questions of revocation become superfluous in law, there is
no such will and hence there would be nothing to revoke.
2.Only the total and absolute revocation can preclude probate
of the revoked testament
Revocation invoked by the oppositors-appellants is not an
express one, but merely implied from subsequent acts of the
testatrix allegedly evidencing an abandonment of the original
intention to bequeath or devise the properties concerned. As
such, the revocation would not affect the will itself, but merely
the particular devise or legacy.
3. No Consideration in previous conveyance
As found by the Court of Appeals in its decision annulling
these conveyances ), "no consideration whatever was paid by
respondent Dimagiba" on account of the transfers, thereby
rendering it even more doubtful whether in conveying the
property to her legatee, the testatrix merely intended to

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

comply in advance with what she had ordained in her

testament, rather than an alteration or departure therefrom.
4. it was the moral influence, originating from their
confidential relationship, which was the only cause for the
execution
BELEN v BPI
Substitution Article 860
If grandchildren are included?
SUMMARY:
Benigno lef t a will since he had no
legal heirs. One of legatees is
Filomena Diaz who died. She had 2
children Milagros and Onesima.
Onesima appealed that wha their
mother inherited from Benigno
should only be divided between 2
sisters excluding grand children.
However will states the clause "sus
descendientes legitimos" .
NO. Grandchildren included.

Benigno Diaz (DIAZ) executed a

codicil on September 29, 1944.,
leaving 10% of his properties to
one Filomena Diaz.
Filomena Diaz (FILOMENA) then
died in 1954, leaving two
legitimate children, MILAGROS,
married, with 7 legitimate
children, and ONESIMA, single.
ONESIMA filed a petition in
Special Proceedings No. 9226,
contending that the amount
that would have appertained to
FILOMENA under the codicil
should now be divided equally
between herself and MILAGROS,
as the surviving children.
The court denied this petition.
The share of FILOMENA from the
codicil does not and should not
form part of her estate. The
aforesaid share of should be
distributed not only between
her children but also among her
other legitimate descendants
which also includes her
grandchildren, etc., and in this
connection. it is not amiss to
observe that one may be a
descendant and not yet not be
an heir, and vice versa, one
may be an heir and yet not be a
descendant.
Onesima contends that the
term "sus descendeintes
legitimos," as used in the

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

Do the words "sus

descendientes legitimos"
refer conjointly to all living
descendant (children and
grandchildren) of the
legatee, as a class; or they
refer to the descendants
nearest in degree?

NO.
We conclude that in the absence of other indications of
contrary intent, the proper rule to apply in the instant case is
that the testator, by designating a class or group of legatees,
intended all members thereof to succeed per capita, in
consonance with article 846. So that the original legacy to
Filomena Diaz should be equally divided among her surviving
children and grandchidren.

WON Art 959 applies: A

distribution made in
general terms in favor of
the testator's relatives shall
be understood as made in
favor of those nearest in
degree.

1. testator ordained a simple substitution (sustitucion

vulgar) with a plurality of substitutes for each legatee.
This form of substitution authorized by the first poart of Article
860 of the Civil Code Two or more persons may be substituted
for one and one person for two or more heirs.
2. This article 959 is specifically limited in its application in
cases where the beneficiaries are relatives of the testator, not
those of the legatee. In such an event, the law assumes that
the testator intended to refer to the rules of intestacy, in order
to benefit the relatives closest to him based on the ratio legis
that among a testator's relative the closest are dearest.
Obviously, this does not apply where the beneficiaries are
relatives of another person (the legatee) and not of the
testator .
3. Testatot did not intend to refer to the rules of intestacy, for
he precisely made a testament and provided substitutes for
each legatee; nor can it be said that his affections would
prefer the nearest relatives of the legatee to those more
distant, since he envisages all of them in a group, and only as
mere substitutes for a preferred beneficiary.
This could hardly be the intention of the testator who, in the
selfsame clause 10 of his council (ante), speaks of "cuatro
hijos de mi difunto hermano Fabian" and of "los hijos de
Domingo Legarda," as well as of "descendientes legitimos" of
the other legates, to us indicating clearly that he understood
well that hijos and descendientes are not synonymous terms.
Observe that, in referring to the substitutes of Filomena Diaz,

codicil, should be interpreted to

mean descendants nearest in
the degree to the original
legatee FILOMENA, which are
the two daughters.

ROSALES v ROSALES

Petra Rosales died intestate.

Widow wants to inherit form mother

in law

She was survived by her

husband Fortunato and their 2
children Magna and Antonio.
Another child, Carterio,
predeceased her, leaving
behind a child, Macikequerox,
and his widow Irenea, the
petitioner.

NO. No relation and provision.

In the intestate proceedings,

the trial court issued an Order
declaring the following
individuals the legal heirs of the
deceased and prescribing their
respective share of the estate:
Fortunato (husband), 1/4;
Magna (daughter), 1/4;
Macikequerox (grandson), 1/4;
and Antonio (son), 1/4.
Irenea insisted in getting a
share of the estate in her

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

Nestor Santiago and Isabel M. de Santiago, the testator, does

not even use the description "sus hijos o descendientes," but
only "descendientes".
It is suggested that "descendientes legitimos" could mean the
nearest descendant but with the right of representation in
favor of the more distant relatives. Unquestionably, the
testator was at liberty to provide a series of successive
substitutions in the order of proximity of relationship to the
original legatee. And he, likewise, was free to ordain that the
more distant descendants should enjoy the right of
representation as in intestate succession.

WON the widow whose

husband predeceased his
mother can inherit from the
latter, her mother-in-law.

A surviving spouse is not an intestate heir of his/her parent-inlaw.

There is no provision which states that a widow (surviving
spouse) is an intestate heir of her mother-in-law. The entire
Code is devoid of any provision which entitles her to inherit
from her mother-in-law either by her own right or by the right
of representation.

capacity as the surviving

spouse of the late Carterio, son
of the deceased, claiming that
she is a compulsory heir of her
mother-in-law together with her
son, Macikequerox.
DELOS SANTOS V. DELA CRUZ
SUMMARY:
Gertrude grandniece of deceased
wants to execute partition but
Maximo nephew of deceased said she
is not an heir so partition is void.
It is void since she is not an heir.
The rule of proximity; i.e., the nearer
relatives exclude the more remote
ones, except if the right of
representation is applicable. Thus, in
intestate succession, the nephews
and nieces shall exclude the
grandniece, who in the specific
instance, is barred from exercising
the right of representation.

Pelagia de la Cruz, who died

instestate on October 16, 1962;
Maximo is a nephew of the said
decedent; that Gertrude is a
grandniece of Pelagia de la
Cruz, her mother, Marciana de
la Cruz, being niece of the
decedent. Plaintiffs mother
died on September 22, 1935,
thus predeceasing the
decedent; and that the purpose
of the extrajudicial partition
agreement was to divide and
distribute the estate among the
heirs of Pelagia de la Cruz.
Gertrude de los Santos (grand
niece of deceased) filed for
specific performance against
Maximino de la Cruz, alleging
that she and several co-heirs,
including defendant, executed
an extrajudicial partition
agreement over a portion of
land and that the parties agreed
to adjudicate 3 lots to the
defendant in addition to his
share, on the condition that the
defendant would undertake the
development of the estate, all
expenses shall be defrayed
from the proceeds of the sale of
the 3 lots.
Defendant asserts that plaintiff
had no cause of action against

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

WON plaintiff-apellee
Gertrude de los Santos is
an heir of the decedent.

No, plaintiff-appellee being a mere grandniece of Pelagia de la

Cruz, she could not inherit from the latter by right of
representation, much less could Gertrude inherit in her own
right.
Applying Art. 972 and Art. 962 of the Civil Code:
In and intestate succession a grandniece of the deceased and
cannot participate with a niece in the inheritance, because the
latter being a nearer relative, the more distant grandniece is
excluded. In the collateral line the right of representation does
not obtain beyond sons and daughters of the brothers and
sisters.
1. In the case at bar, the relatives nearest in degree to
Pelagia de la Cruz are her nephews and nieces, one of
whom is the defendant-appellant. Necessarily,
Gertrude, a grandniece is excluded by law from the
inheritance.
The legal effect of Gertrudes inclusion and participation in the
extrajudicial partition agreement insofar as her right to bring
the present action did not confer upon her the right to
institute this action.
Gertrude not being such heir, the partition is void with respect
to her, pursuant to Article 1105 of the Civil Code.
The extrajudicial partition agreement being void with respect
to Gertrude, she may not be heard to assert estoppels against
defendant-appellant.
Estoppels cannot be invoked on void contracts

him because the agreement

was void with respect to her,
since the plaintiff was not an
heir of Pelagia de la Cruz,
deceased owner of the
property, and was included in
the extrajudicial partition
agreement by mistake.
Defendants counterclaim
alleged that since the plaintiff
had sold her share in the estate
and that extrajudicial partition
agreement being void as to the
latter, he is entitled to of the
proceeds as his share by way of
reversion.
The court held that the
defendant, being a party to the
extrajudicial partition
agreement, was stopped from
raising in issue the right of the
plaintiff to inherit from the
decedent Pelagia de la Cruz;
hence he must abide by the
terms of the agreement.
The parties admit that the
owner of the subject matter of
the extrajudicial agreement was
Pelagia de la Cruz, who died
instestate on October 16, 1962;
that defendant is a nephew of
the said decedent; that plaintiff
is a grandniece of Pelagia de la
Cruz, her mother, Marciana de
la Cruz, being niece of the
decedent. Plaintiffs mother
died on September 22, 1935,
thus predeceasing the
decedent; and that the purpose
of the extrajudicial partition

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

agreement was to divide and

distribute the estate among the
heirs of Pelagia de la Cruz.

Teotico vs Del Val

Mortera died, leaving her niece
Josefina as heir. Vicente descendant
of Josefina filed for probate. Ana
opposed stating she is an heir
because she is adopted daughter of
Morteras sister and illegitimate
daughter of Morteras brother.

Maria Mortera died leaving

properties. She executed a will
1. Among the legacies made in
the will was the P20,000 for
Rene Teotico who was married
to the testatrixs niece, Josefina
Mortera.
2. The usufruct of Marias
interest in the Calvo Building
were left to the said spouses
and the ownership thereof was
left in equal parts to her
grandchildren, the legitimate
children of said spouses.
3. Josefina was likewise
instituted, as sole and universal
heir to all the remainder of her
properties not otherwise
disposed by will.
Vicente Teotico filed a petition
for the probate of the will but
was opposed by Ana del Val
Chan, claiming that she was an
adopted child of Francisca
(deceased sister of Maria) and
an acknowledged natural child
of Jose (deceased brother of
Maria), that said will was not
executed as required by law
and that Maria as physically and
mentally incapable to execute
the will at the time of its
execution and was executed

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

WON defendant has right to

intervene in this
proceeding.

NO.

It is a well-settled rule that

in order that a person may
be allowed to intervene in a
probate proceeding is that
he must have an interest in
the estate, will or in the
property to be affected by
either as executor or as a
claimant of the estate and
be benefited by such as an
heir or one who has a claim
against it as creditor.

Under the terms of the will, defendant has no right to

intervene because she has no such interest in the estate
either as heir, executor or administrator because it did not
appear therein any provision designating her as heir/ legatee
in any portion of the estate.

-Illegitimate niece cannot

inherit from legitimate
relatives.
-adopted cannot inherit
from adopters relatives.

1. No provision designating her as heir in will

2. She is not a legal heir because being an illegitimate child

she is prohibited by law from succeeding to the legitimate
relatives of her natural father
Even if her allegations were true, the law does not give her
any right to succeed the estate of the deceased sister of both
Jose and Francisca because being an illegitimate child she is
prohibited by law from succeeding to the legitimate relatives
of her natural father and that relationship established by
adoption is limited solely to the adopter and adopted and does
not extend to the relatives of the adopting parents except only
as expressly provided by law
Thus, Article 992 of our Civil Code provides: "An illegitimate
child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother; ... ." Between
the natural child and the legitimate relatives of the father or
mother who acknowledged it, the Code denies any right of
succession. They cannot be called relatives and they have no
right to inherit. Of course, there is a blood tie, but the law
does not recognize it
3. She is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives
of the adopter.
under our law the relationship established by adoption is
limited solely to the adopter and the adopted and does not
extend to the relatives of the adopting parents or of the
adopted child except only as expressly provided for by law.
Hence, no relationship is created between the adopted and
the collaterals of the adopting parents. As a consequence, the

under duress, threat, or

influence of fear.
DIAZ V. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT
An illegitimate child has no right to
inherit ab intestato from the
legitimate children or relatives of his
father or mother; nor shall such
children or relatives inherit in the
same manner from the illegitimate
child.

Felisa is the niece of the

decedent.

Petitioners are illegitimate

grandchildren of the decedent;
Felipe & Petronila
1. SIMONA Pascual x
Son: Pablo x
Children: 4 from Anselma and 2 from
Felixberta
2. JULIANA-Simon
Daughter: Felisa
Petitioners father is the legitimate
child of the decedent; petitioners are
illegitimate children; thus:
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. (943a)

1.Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece

of Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero who together with
Felisa's mother Juliana were the
only legitimate children of the
spouses Felipe Pamuti and
Petronila Asuncion.
2.Juliana married Simon Jardin
and out of their union were born
Felisa Pamuti and another child
who died during infancy
3.Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero is the widow of Pascual
Santero and the mother of Pablo
Santero
4.Pablo Santero was the only
legitimate son of his parents
Pascual Santero and Simona
Pamuti Vda. de Santero
5.Pascual Santero died in 1970;
Pablo Santero in 1973 and
Simona Santero in 1976
6.Pablo Santero, at the time of
his death was survived by his
mother Simona Santero and his
six minor natural children to
wit: four minor children with
Anselma Diaz and two minor
children with Felixberta Pacursa.

adopted is an heir of the adopter but not of the relatives of the

adopter.
Who are the legal heirs of
Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero her niece Felisa
Pamuti-Jardin or her
grandchildren (the natural
children of Pablo Santero)?

Articles 902, 982, 989, and

990, claimed by petitioners
to have conferred
illegitimate children the
right to represent their
parents in the inheritance
of their legitimate
grandparents, would in
point of fact reveal that
such right to this time does
not exist.

NO the illegitimate children of the legitimate child of deceased

may not inherit by virtue of representation.
"The rules laid down in Article 982 that 'grandchildren and
other descendants shall inherit by right of representation and
in Article 902 that the rights of illegitimate children ... are
transmitted upon their death to their descendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate are subject to the
limitation prescribed by Article 992 to the end that an
illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the
legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother."'
Needless to say, the determining factor is the legitimacy or
illegitimacy of the person to be represented. If the person to
be represented is an illegitimate child, then his descendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, may represent him;
however, if the person to be represented is legitimate, his
illegitimate descendants cannot represent him because the
law provides that only his legitimate descendants may
exercise the right of representation by reason of the barrier
imposed Article 992.
The descendants (of these illegitimate children) who may
inherit by virtue of the right of representation may be
legitimate or illegitimate.
In whatever manner, one should not overlook the fact that
the persons to be represented are
themselves illegitimate. The three named provisions are very
clear on this matter.
The right of representation is not available to illegitimate
descendants of legitimate children in the inheritance of a
legitimate grandparent.
Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron
curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab
intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate
children and relatives of the father or mother of said
illegitimate child. They may have a natural tie of blood, but

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

this is not recognized by law for the purpose of Article 992.

Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family
there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and
incompatibility.

ABELLANA-BACAYO V. FERRARISBORROMEO
Missing woman Melodia was declared
dead for succession.
She was survived by her aunt (half
sister of her father) and nieces and
nephews (children of her brother)
Who will succeed? Her nieces and
nephews.

Melodia Ferraris was a resident

of Cebu City. More than ten (10)
years having elapsed since the
last time she was known to be
alive, she was declared
presumptively dead for
purposes of opening her
succession and distributing her
estate among her heirs.
The deceased Melodia Feraris
was survived only by collateral
relatives:
a. Filomena Abellana de
Bacayo, an aunt and half-sister
of decedents father,
b. Gaudencia,
Catalina,Conchita, and Juanito,
all surname Ferraris, her nieces
and nephew, who were the
children of Melodias only
brother of full blood, Arturo
Ferraris, who predeceased the
decedent.
The trial court ruled that the
children of the only
predeceased brother of the
decedent, exclude the aunt of
the same decedent for the
reason that the former are

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

Who should inherit the

intestate estate of a
deceased person when he
or she is survived only by
collateral relatives, to wit
an aunt and the children of
a brother who predeceased
him or her?

NO the aunt will not inherit so long there are her nephews and
nieces.
a. She is of same degree since in the collateral line to which
both kinds of relatives belong degrees are counted by first
ascending to the common ancestor and hen descending to the
heir (Civil Code, Art. 966).
b. Also, nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by right of
representation (i.e.. per stirpes) unless concurring with
brothers or sisters of the deceased, as provided by Art. 975.
The Court held that in case of intestacy, nephews and nieces
of the de cujus exclude all other collaterals (aunt and uncles,
first cousins, etc.) from the succession. Under Art. 1009, the
absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the
decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles,
cousins, etc.) being called to the succession.
The Court ruled that under the laws of succession, a
decedents uncles and aunts may not succeed ab intestate so
long as nephews and nieces of the decedent survive and are
willing and qualified to succeed.

nearer in degree (2 degrees)

than the latter since nieces and
nephews succeed by right of
representation, while the aunt is
3 degrees distant from the
decedent, and that other
collateral relatives are excluded
by brothers or sisters or
children of brothers or sisters of
the decedent in accordance
with article 1009 of the New
Civil Code.
Filomena Abellana contends
that she is of equal degree to
the others and that no right of
representation could take place
and when the nieces and
nephew of the decedent do not
concur with an uncle or aunt,
but rather the former succeed
in their own right.

TOMAS CORPUS V.
ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTOR OF
THE ESTATE OF TEODORO
YANGCO
Corpus illustrates an instance where a
legitimate child is excluded from the
inheritance of an illegitimate relative.

Teodoro Yangco died with a will.

He left no forced heirs. At the
time of his death, his nearest
relatives were:

Teodoro an illegitimate child of

Ramona and Luis died.
Yangco had no forced heirs.
At the time of his death, his nearest
relatives were:
1. a half-brother and half-sister (Luis
and Paz)
2. children of a half-brother Pablo
3. Juanita
4. daughter of half-brother Jose

(b) half-sister Paz Yangco and

wife of Miguel Osorio;

Juanita is the half sister of Teodoro and

legitimate child of their mother from
first husband.

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

(a) his half-brother Luis Yangco;

(c) children of his half-brother

Ramon Corpus; and
(d) Juanita Corpus; daughter of
his half-brother Jose Corpus
Pursuant to this, a project of
partition was submitted to court
but was opposed.Tomas, son of

WON Juanita Corpus,

mother of Tomas, was a
legal heir of Yangco

No. To determine Juanitas right to inherit, it is necessary to

ascertain Yangcos filiation. Luis Rafaels will states that
Teodoro was an acknowledged natural child and not a
legitimate child. On the other hand, the children of Ramona
Arguelles and Tomas Corpus are presumed to be legitimate
following the principle of simper preasumitur pro matrimonio,
that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband
and wife are presumed to have entered into a lawful
marriage.
Since Teodoro was an acknowledged natural child
(illegitimate) and Juanita was the legitimate child of Ramona
Arguelles and Tomas Corpus, petitioner-appellant Tomas has
no cause of action for the recovery of the supposed hereditary
share of his mother in Yangcos estate. Juanita was not a legal
heir of Yangco because there is no reciprocal succession
between legitimate and illegitimate relatives.
Art 992 NCC provides that an illegitimate child has no right to

Juanita had a son Tomas who is now

claiming from Teodoros estate.
Can he succeed? NO
Juanita was not a legal heir of Yangco
because there is no reciprocal
succession between legitimate and
illegitimate relatives. (art 992)

CRESENCIO LEONARDO v CA and

Maria Cailles
The filiation of a person may be
looked into for the purpose of
determining his qualification to
inherit from a deceased person.
Reyes died intestate with 2 daughter,
Maria and Sotero. Leonardo claiming
to be the son of Sotero filed a case
seeking to be declared as lawful heir
with Maria. Maria contended that
Leonardo is an illegitimate child and
cannot succeed by right of

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

Juanita signed a receipt

acknowledging that he
received from Yangco estate.

inherit ab intestate from the legitimate children or relatives of

his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit
in the same manner from the illegitimate child. This rule is
based on the theory that the illegitimate child is disgracefully
looked upon by the legitimate family while the legitimate
family is, in turn, hated by the illegitimate child. The law does
not recognize the blood tie and seeks to avoid further grounds
of resentment.

Tomas, as the sole heir of

Juanita Corpus, filed an action
to recover the supposed share
in Yangcos intestate estate. He
alleged that the dispositions in
Yangcos will imposing
perpetual prohibitions upon
alienation rendered it void
under Art 785 Old Civil Code
and that the 1949 partition is
invalid and as such, the estate
should be distributed according
to the rules of intestacy

Francisca Reyes died intestate

in 1963. She was survived by 2
daughters, Maria and Silvestra
Cailles, and a grandson, Sotero
Leonardo, the son of her
daughter Pascuala who
predeceased her. Sotero died in
1944 while Silvestra died in
1949.
Leonardo claiming to be the son
of Sotero filed a case seeking to
be declared as lawful heir with

Following the rule in Art 992, it was held that:

a.
b.
c.

WON petitioner has legal

right to inherit by
representation to
Franciscas estate

Legitimate relatives of the mother cannot succeed

her illegitimate child
The natural child cannot represent his natural father
in the succession to the estate of the legitimate
grandfather
The natural daughter cannot succeed to the estate of
her deceased uncle, a legitimate brother of her
natural mother.

Petitioner failed to prove his filiation; the name of the child

described in the birth certificate presented as evidence, is not
that of the plaintiff but a certain Alfredo Leonardo who was
born on September 13, 1938 to Sotero Leonardo and Soccoro
Timbol. Other than his bare allegations, plaintiff did not submit
any durable evidence showing that Alfredo Leonardo
mentioned in the birth certificate is no other than he himself.
Even if it is true that petitioner is a child of Sotero, he still
cannot, by right of representation, claim a share of the estate
left by the deceased Francisca considering that he was born
outside of wedlock as shown by the fact that when he was
born, his alleged putative father and mother were not yet

representation.
He is an illegitimate child, since he
was born when 1st marriage was still
subsisting. As an illegitimate child, he
has no right to inherit ab intestato
from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father, like the
deceased Francisca

Maria. Maria contended that

Leonardo is an illegitimate child
and cannot succeed by right of
representation.

BICOMONG v ALMANZA
The subject matter of the complaint
concerns the one-half undivided
share of Maura Bagsic in five (5)
parcels of land which she inherited
from her deceased mother, Silvestra
Glorioso (second marriage).

SIMEON BAGSIC and

SISENANDRA BARCENAS (died)
(first marriage)

Gaudencio Bicomong

After the death of Maura, the subject

properties were administered by her
niece Cristeta. The plaintiffs
requested the partition of the
properties but Cristeta convinced
them to wait until the expenses for
Mauras illness and burial have been
paid. After all the debts have been
paid, Cristeta agreed to the request
but she died before the partition was
effected.

Felicidad Bicomong

Salome Bicomong

Gervacio Bicomong

The possession and administration of

the properties were left to Cristetas
father and Cristetas husband,
defendants Geronimo Almanza and

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

WON Maura is succeeded

by Felipa to the exclusion of
nephews and nieces of half
blood

Perpetua (died)

Igmedia (died)

Dionisio Tolentino

Maria Tolentino

Petra Tolentino

married; and his alleged fathers first marriage was still

subsisting. As such, petitioner would be an illegitimate child
who has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father, like the deceased
Francisca.

Ignacio (died)

NO. In the absence of descendants, ascendants, illegitimate

children, or surviving spouse, collateral relatives succeed to
the entire estate of deceased. Since Maura died intestate and
her husband and her ascendants died ahead of her, she is
succeded by surviving collateral relatives, namely the
daughter of her sister of full blood and the children of her
brother and sisters of half blood, in accordance with Art 975 of
New Civil Code.The nephews and nieces are entitled to inherit
in their own right. Nephews and nieces alone do not inherit by
right of representation (that is per stirpes) unless concurring
with brothers or sisters of the deceased. The contention that
Maura should be succeeded by Felipa to the exclusion of the

Engracio Manese, respectively.

Defendant Geronimo Almanza died
and was substituted by Florentino
Cartena.
The grandchildren from the first
marriage brought suit for the
recovery of their lawful shares in the
properties left by Maura Bagsic.

Francisca Bagsic

SIMEON BAGSIC (died) and

SILVESTRA GLORIOSO (died)
(second marriage)
o Felipa (died) and Geronimo
Almanza

Cristeta Almanza (died)

and Engracio Manese
o

Maura (died)

- The subject matter is the half

undivided share of Maura
Bagsic in 5 parcels of land w/c
she inherited from Silvestra
Glorioso.
- There are 3 sets of plaintiffs:
the Bicomongs. The Tolentinos,
and Francisca Bagsic, for their
shares in the properties of
Maura Bagsic.
- When Maura Bagsic died, the
properties passed on to Cristeta
Almanza, who also died without
division of the properties.

SOLIMAN, LATJING
AUSL- WILLS- ABUGAN

nephews and nieces of half blood is erroneous. As it was

shown, Felipa predeceased her sister Maura.
They inherit in their own right and not by representation.
Articles 975, 1006 and 1008 are applicable in this case.
By virtue of said provision, the aforementioned nephews and
nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right. Nephews and
nieces alone do not inherit by right of representation (that is
per stirpes) unless concurring with brothers or sisters of the
deceased."
Felipa, the full-blood sister predeceased the decedent Maura
which means that only nephews and nieces are claiming
inheritance in this case. In Art 975, the sole niece of whole
blood (Cristeta) of the deceased does not exclude the ten
nephews and nieces of half blood.
The only difference between the whole and half blood
relatives is in the amount of their shares provided in Arts 1006
and 1008