Arellano v.

Pascual (Property Subject to Collation)

Facts: Angel N. Pascual Jr. died intestate on January 2, 1999 leaving as heirs his siblings,
namely: petitioner Amelia P. Arellano who is represented by her daughters Agnes P. Arellano
(Agnes) and Nona P. Arellano, and respondents Francisco Pascual and Miguel N. Pascual.
In a petition for Judicial Settlement of Intestate Estate filed by respondents on April 28, 2000
before the RTC of Makati, respondents alleged, inter alia, that a parcel of land located in Teresa
Village, Makati, which was, by Deed of Donation, transferred by the decedent to petitioner the
validity of which donation respondents assailed, may be considered as an advance legitime of
petitioner.
Respecting the donated property, covered in the name of petitioner by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 181889 of the Register of Deeds of Makati, which respondents posited that it may be
considered as an advance legitime to petitioner, the trial court, acting as probate court, held that it
was precluded from determining the validity of the donation. The probate court found the Deed
of Donation valid in light of the presumption of validity of notarized documents. It thus went on
to hold that it is subject to collation following Article 1061 of the New Civil Code. The probate
court partitioned the properties of the intestate estate. The CA affirmed the probate court and
held that the property subject of donation inter vivos in favor of Amelia is subject to collation
and that Amelia cannot be considered a creditor of the decedent.
Issue: Whether the property donated to petitioner is subject to collation.
Held: Collation takes place when there are compulsory heirs, one of its purposes being to
determine the legitime and the free portion. If there is no compulsory heir, there is no legitime to
be safeguarded.
The records do not show that the decedent left any primary, secondary, or concurring compulsory
heirs. He was only survived by his siblings, who are his collateral relatives and, therefore, are
not entitled to any legitime that part of the testators property which he cannot dispose of because
the law has reserved it for compulsory heirs.
The decedent not having left any compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime, he was at
liberty to donate all his properties, even if nothing was left for his siblings-collateral relatives to
inherit. His donation to petitioner, assuming that it was valid is deemed as donation made to a
stranger, chargeable against the free portion of the estate. There being no compulsory heir,
however, the donated property is not subject to collation.

Armas v. Calisterio
Facts: On 24 April 1992, Teodorico Calisterio died intestate, leaving several parcels of land with
an estimated value of P604,750.00. Teodorico was survived by his wife, herein respondent
Marietta Calisterio. Teodorico was the second husband of Marietta who had previously been
married to James William Bounds on 13 January 1946 at Caloocan City who disappeared without
a trace on 11 February 1947. Teodorico and Marietta were married eleven years later without
Marietta having priorly secured a court declaration that James was presumptively dead.
On 09 October 1992, petitioner Antonia Armas, a surviving sister of Teodorico, filed with the
RTC of Quezon City a petition claiming to be inter alia, the sole surviving heir of Teodorico
Calisterio, the marriage between the latter and respondent Marietta bigamous and thereby null
and void. Respondent Marietta opposed the petition. Marietta stated that her first marriage with
James Bounds had been dissolved due to the latter's absence, his whereabouts being unknown,
for more than eleven years before she contracted her second marriage with Teodorico.
Contending to be the surviving spouse of Teodorico, she sought priority in the administration of
the estate of the decedent.
The lower court ruled that petitioner, Antonia Armas, was the sole heir of the estate of Teodorico
Calisterio. The CA reversed the lower court and held that Marietta Calisterio, being Teodorico's
compulsory heir, is entitled to one half of her husband's estate, and Teodorico's sister, herein
petitioner Antonia Armas and her children, to the other half.
Issue: Whether petitioners children may inherit over the estate Teodorico Calisterio.
Held: The conjugal property of Teodorico and Marietta, no evidence having been adduced to
indicate another property regime between the spouses, pertains to them in common. Upon its
dissolution with the death of Teodorico, the property should rightly be divided in two equal
portions -- one portion going to the surviving spouse and the other portion to the estate of the
deceased spouse. The successional right in intestacy of a surviving spouse over the net estate of
the deceased, concurring with legitimate brothers and sisters or nephews and nieces (the latter by
right of representation), is one-half of the inheritance, the brothers and sisters or nephews and
nieces, being entitled to the other half.
Nephews and nieces, however, can only succeed by right of representation in the presence of
uncles and aunts; alone, upon the other hand, nephews and nieces can succeed in their own right
which is to say that brothers or sisters exclude nephews and nieces except only in representation
by the latter of their parents who predecease or are incapacitated to succeed.
The appellate court has thus erred in granting, in paragraph (c) of the dispositive portion of its
judgment, successional rights, to petitioner's children, along with their own mother Antonia who
herself is invoking successional rights over the estate of her deceased brother. The Court held

that said one-half share of the decedent's estate pertains solely to petitioner to the exclusion of
her own children.