Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BASIC PRINCIPLES ............................................................
WILLS
44
LEGITIMES
49
Reserva Troncal ..
51
Collation ..
57
DISINHERITANCE
63
Form of Wills
Notarial Will .................................................
10
67
17
72
22
Right of Representation .
73
23
75
Revocation ..................................................................
25
28
78
29
78
32
Capacity to Succeed
82
37
86
Page 1
BASIC PRINCIPLES
Page 2
Some provisions where they are treated differently, and where the
legal consequences would be radically different:
Page 4
When would it be better to be an heir? In cases of afteracquired properties, for example. These are the properties referred
to in article 793 those acquired after the execution of the will and
before the death of the testator. What is the rule? After-acquired
properties shall only pass thereby as if the testator had possessed
them at the time he made his will if it expressly appears upon the
face of the will that such was his intention.
Thus, the General Rule: they do not go to the testamentary
beneficiary concered. Exception: express provision of the will to
the contrary effect.
Suppose, in the will of X he said I give to my friend F, all
of my cars. At that time, he had 5 cars. Upon death, F is entitled to
5 cars. Suppose that after making the will, X acquired 4,995
additional cars, how many cars will F be entitled to? Still 5 cars,
applying the general rule. If X provided to give all his cars, as well
as any other cars which he may hereafter acquire, then it clearly
appears on the face that his intention is to give even the afteracquired cars.
Page 5
WILLS in GENERAL
What is a Will? Article 783 gives a codal definition it is an act
whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by
law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of his estate, to
take effect after his death.
From the provisions, we can deduce certain fundamental
characteristics of a will:
It is a strictly personal act we have to do it personally and
cannot delegate its making to another, even with an expressed
power of attorney. It cannot be accomplished through the
instrumentality of an agent or attorney. The testamentary
disposition should come from the testator himself. As a matter of
fact, the testator is prohibited from making testamentary
dispositions whose validity or compliance will depend upon the will
of another person. For example, in article 787 the testator cannot
make a disposition in such a way that another person will have the
power to determine whether it shall be operative or not. You cannot
say in the will I hereby give my house and lot and farm in Bulacan
to my brother, provided my wife will agree.
Note the provisions of 786 the testator is permitted by the
law to give in general specific property or sums of money to a class
or a cause, and also to delegate the actual distribution to a third
person.
You can say I leave the amount of P100M for the street
children of Metro Manila. I leave the distribution of that amount to
my executor. Then the executor by himself can determine who the
specific street children to be benefited. But I cannot say I authorize
my executor to get from my estate as much as he may deem
Transcribed by: Bjone Favorito
provisions of the will. Extrinsic evidences other than the will itself,
but excluding the oral declarations of the testator. Hindi pwedeng
during the contest as to who the two brothers are, all five bothers
will be presenting 100 witnesses each, because it will be hearsay and
fundamentally dangerous and risky. At that point, the testator is dead
and in no position to object the witnesses.
What about letters? Pwede yan.
Latent those that are not obvious
Ex.: I give my first cousin Jose Santos my house and lot in
Quezon city. The provision is very clear. But assume, however, that
after the death lima pala ang first cousin nya na pare-pareho
pangalan Jose Santos? In some families there are certain favorite
names. What now? Same solution intrinsic evidence you read the
other provisions which may clarify the ambiguity. Or you may resort
to extrinsic evidence, but then again, excluding oral declarations of
the testator.
subsequent changes in the law, they will generally not affect the
validity of the will.
Exception if the subsequent law provides for retroactivity.
Exception to the exception even if retroactivity is provided for, if
in the mean time, prior to the effectivity of the new law, the testator
has died. Why? Because in that case, we apply 777, upon the death
of the testator, successional rights would have been transmitted and
are already in the nature of vested rights, which cannot be impaired
by a subsequent change in the law even where retroactivity is
provided for.
Page 7
Basic Requirements:
At least 18 years of age hindi pwedeng kulang kahit na
ilang araw lang. The testator must have already celebrated his 18th
birthday. If the testator made his will two days before his 18th
birthday, that is not a valid will.
Must be of Sound Mind remember the codal definition of
soundness of mind under 799, specially paragraph (2) to be of
sound mind, all that the law requires is that the testator, at the time
he makes his will, should know:
(1) the Nature of the estate to be disposed of;
(2) the Proper objects of his bounty; and
(3) the Character of the testamentary act.
As long as the testator knows all of these three, at least in a general
way, then he has testamentary capacity.
The law is even more categorical in paragraph 1, it is not
required that the mind be wholly uninjured or unimpaired by
disease or any other cause. In other words, kahit na may konting
topak, pwede parin, as long as he satisfies the minimum
requirements in 799.
Nature of the estate the testator must know, in at least a
general way, what his properties are. He may remember that he has a
house and lot in Quezon City, even if he cannot remember the exact
address, it will be sufficient. He remembers that he has a substantial
deposit in a certain bank. He may not remember the exact amount, as
long as he knows that it is quite substantial, that should be
considered sufficient.
Transcribed by: Bjone Favorito
Page 8
Page 9
FORM of WILLS
First rule is in 804. We do not have oral wills. All wills must
be in writing. The law does not specify the material to be used. In
the case of a holographic will, any material may be used. You may
write it on a piece of paper, on the ceiling, on a wall, anything, even
sa balat ng pakwan.
I remember a case in US, where there was a farmer tilling his
farm with a tractor. Perhaps the slope was just too much that the
tractor overturned and the farmer was pinned down and he realized
he was dying. And so, he got a sharp object and scratched on a metal
part of the tractor everything to my wife, placed a date and signed.
That is a valid holographic will.
With the technological advances we have, practically every
household has a video camera. Even then, it is not sufficient for a
person to simply dictate his will in a recorded video.
In 804, the law is categorical when it said that the will must
be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.
Therefore, if the will was written in English but the testator knew
only Filipino, but the lawyer who drafted the will fully explained,
translated and interpreted everything to the testator completely that
remains an invalid will. The law is not satisfied with mere
translations or interpretations. It must be in a language or dialect
known to the testator. Reason? No matter how good the interpreter or
translator may be, certain nuances of language are always lost in the
process of translation or interpretation.
It is not necessary, however, that the will itself should
contain a statement to the effect that it is in a language or dialect
known to the testator.
Transcribed by: Bjone Favorito
Page 10
Notarial Will
Found in 805 every will, other than a holographic will,
must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by
the testators name written by some other person in his presence and
by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or
more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one
another.
The first important thing we should remember in paragraph 1
is that: it tells us, in very clear language, that it must be subscribed
at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testators
name written by some other person in his presence and by his
express direction. The requirement, therefore, for the subscription
or signing at the end of the will, is an essential requirement for
validity.
If the will is 5 pages, and the testator affixed his signature in
each and every page thereof in the left margin, but did not sign at the
end of the will, that is NOT a valid will, because it fails to comply
with an essential requirement.
Where is the end of the will? When the law mentions the
end of the will, it refers not to the physical end but to the logical
end. Meaning, after the last testamentary disposition.
So if there are 10 testamentary dispositions, the end of the
will is after disposition number 10. Sa baba nun is the end of the
will, that is where the testator should affix his signature.
The law allows the affixing of the testators name by a third
person, but remember the two requirements:
(1) it must be done in the presence of the testator;
(2) and by his express direction
Both requisites must concur, otherwise the will is void.
Transcribed by: Bjone Favorito
his bigtoe ang ginamit nya pwede rin yan. Extreme example:
Supposing he is very romantic fellow, and he uses his lips with the
intent to sign the will with the imprint of his lips. Would that be a
valid will? Yes, as long as it can be established that he intended to
use that as his sign or mark.
A Notorial Will should have three or more credible
witnesses.
The law uses the adjective credible is it necessary,
during the probate of the will, that there must first be preliminary
proof that the witnesses are credible individuals in the sense that they
enjoy a high degree of respectability, reputation of probity and
honesty in the community? No. the SC held: when the law says
credible witnesses, it simply means qualified or competent. So
there is no need for a preliminary proof as to the reputation of the
witnesses.
Can there be more than three witnesses? Yes, even more
than 10, but should not be less than three. If it only has two
witnesses, that is not a valid will.
Paragraph 2 states that: the testator or the person requested by him to
write his name shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page
thereof, except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be
numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each
page.
The testator and the witnesses are required to sign each and
every page of the will, except the last, on the left margin.
Supposing they wanted to be different, they signed on the
right margin. Pwede ba yon? Oo, pwede yon. They signed on the
bottom margin, or at the top margin pwede parin yon, as long as
each page has the marginal signature of the testator and the three
witnesses.
Supposing that it is a 5-page will which is perfectly
executed, except that on page 3, you dont find the signature of the
testator on any of the margins. Should the will be allowed?
In this connection, you have the case of Icasiano vs
Icasiano. In the case, the oppositor practically threw everything
against the petitioner. On page 3 of the original will, there was a
missing signature that of one of the witnesses. The oppositor
claims forgery on the signature of the testator, undue influence, fraud
and failure to comply with the formalities because the one witness
had no signature on page 3. The petitioner presented the duplicate
original, and such was perfectly signed by the testator and the
witnesses in all the places required. They contended that if the
original cannot be probated, then lets just probate the duplicate
original. The SC said: we are not convinced that the will is a forgery.
The mere fact that the oppositors alleged both fraud and undue
influence in one and the same opposition, simply shows how weak
their position is, because these two are mutually exclusive they
cannot exist together. If they are opposing the allowance of the will
because of the absence of signature of one of the witnesses on page
3, there is no reason why they should also oppose the probate and
allowance of the duplicate original, which, after all, contains all the
required signatures at all of the appropriate places. It would seem,
under the circumstances, that the failure of one of the witnesses to
sign on page 3 was simply due to inadvertence caused by the
simultaneous lifting of two pages.
Now, if youre asked a problem where page 3 of a 5-paged
will does not have the marginal signature of either one of the
witnesses or the testator, should the will be allowed? I submit that
Page 12
that case, the will should not be allowed because it is clear that when
the witnesses attested the execution of the will, they were attesting to
a falsehood because the testator had clearly not yet signed as of
January 1.
If a third person has been asked by the testator to write his
name on the will under his express direction and in his presence, the
mere silence of the testator or his failure to object to the signing by a
third person is NOT the express direction contemplated by law.
If the testator is very sick, and his lawyer, who had earlier
drafted the will in accordance with his instructions, told the testator,
in the presence of the three witnesses Mr. Testator, I dont think
you are in a position to sign this will yourself. Unless you have an
objection, I will sign this will for you. Later on, the testator just
stared at the lawyer. Sabi ng lawyer O, wala syang objection, so I
will sign the will for him. That is NOT a valid will, there is no
express direction. Mere failure to object and mere silence is not
express direction.
The express direction, however, need not be done verbally.
If the lawyers asks the testator Mr. Testator, do you want me to sign
this will for you? and the testator nodded pwede na yon. That is
already an express direction.
It must be done in the presence of the testator. If the
testator orders his lawyer Atty, ipirma mo na pangalan ko dyan.
And the three witnesses were there, but it was too crowded in that
small hospital room so the lawyer and the witnesses went to another
room to sign. That is not a valid will because the signing by the third
person must be done in the presence of the testator.
Page 14
appears on each page beside the signature of the witnesses will NOT
prove that the testator affixed his signature in the presence of the
witnesses.
If, for example, the testator invites the three witnesses to his
residence on January 1, tells them I will make my will, and I want
you to be my witnesses. Here is my will, I already signed it, here is
my signature on each page and at the end. Is that a valid will? NO,
the mere admission or acknowledgement by the testator that the
signatures already appearing on the will are his, is not enough. The
law requires that the signature of the testator be affixed in the
presence of the witnesses.
Page 15
the page containing the clause. Should the will be allowed? NO. It is
clear in Azuela case. As pointed out by the SC: without the
witnesses signature at the end of the attestation clause, the will is
void because the requirement for marginal signatures is a separate
distinct requirement from the requirement that there should be an
attestation clause. The signatures of the witnesses simply comply
with the requirement for marginal-signature. That is not compliance
with the requirement that there should be an attestation clause. An
attestation clause not signed by the witnesses is not valid the will
should also be considered invalid.
Page 16
Page 18
Holographic Will
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
If H wrote his will on a paper, and on the back page, his wife
W wrote her will, that is not a joint will. Those are two separate
distinct wills. But if they wrote only one will and they both signed it,
it is prohibited and void for Filipinos, even if you execute it at a
place where joint wills are allowed.
Page 22
WITNESSES to WILLS
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
REVOCATION
ngayon. and he digs a hole and buried the will. Is there a valid
revocation? NO, there is no physical act of destruction. Burying is
not one of the acts mentioned.
Although in one case, the SC considered the act of
crumpling the will and throwing it as sufficient to produce a
revocation. But civilists have agreed, the enumeration is really
exclusive.
To revoke a will by burning, you dont have to completely
burn the will. Even if only the edges are burnt in such a way that not
a single word of the will was affected by the fire that is considered
already as sufficient to revoke.
When it comes to tearing, the slightest tear is sufficient as
long as it is coupled with the necessary intent to revoke. Even if the
tear extended only up to the margins, and not a single word was
affected by the tearing that will produce a valid revocation.
Instead of tearing, you can use a paper shredder revocation
din yan, or you can use a pair of scissors.
How do you revoke a will by cancelling? By crossing out
the lines. How does cancelation differ from obliteration? In the
latter, the words can no longer be read binubura. In cancellation,
they are simply crossed out with whatever lines you may use crisscrosses, spirals, etc.
As a matter of fact, one of the simplest ways of revoking a
will through cancellation is by crossing out the signature of the
testator at the end of the will. In a very real sense, you strike at the
heart of the will that will operate to revoke the entire will.
However, writing the word cancelled along the margin of
the will is revocation not by cancellation, but through other
writing.
testator revoked his old will was because of the erroneous belief that
X was already dead. Can X question the validity of the revocation?
NO, there is no basis, because the testator simply revoked his will
without stating the cause therefore, thus, no basis for invoking 833.
Even if a will is revoked, any recognition of an illegitimate
child contained in that will is not affected, because the recognition of
an illegitimate child is not in the nature of a testamentary disposition
subject to the sole will of the testator. Recognition creates a status,
thus, there must be a certain element of stability, insofar as the status
of individuals is concerned.
Page 29
and the 1990 will, which is to be given effect? The 1985 will,
because it is now the later expression of the testators will due to
republication.
When it comes to revival, isa lang naman provision dyan, yung 837.
The only thing you ask yourself is this: How was the first
will revoked by the second will? If the first will was expressly
revoked by a second will, forget about revival. Even if the second
will is itself revoked by a third will, the first will not be revived.
If, however, the first will is merely impliedly revoked by a
second will, then the moment the second will is revoked by a third
will, the first is revived.
Page 30
the old man. And that undue influence was, in turn, used by him to
foist the fraud upon the old man, to make him sign that supposed
second will, without the old man realizing that he was signing
another last will and testament. Moral of the story? Moderate your
greed.
Page 33
INSTITUTION of HEIRS
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Remember the basic principle under 856 a voluntary heir who dies
ahead of the testator transmits nothing to his own heirs.
Lets assume that X has no compulsory heirs, and then says
in his will I give my entire estate to my friend F. And F happens to
have 2 children, A and B. However, F dies before X. What rights, if
any, will A and B get? Nothing, because F is purely a voluntary heir.
Page 38
SUBSTITUTION of HEIRS
If the testator does not specify the causes for the substitution,
it is understood that substitution will take place in case of RIP
(repudiation, incapacity, predecease).
The testator may specify, and in such case, substitution will
only take place upon the occurrence of the particular cause specified
Transcribed by: Bjone Favorito
Page 39
not have any properties other than those which came from X under
the fideicommissary substitution. Can B, the other son of A, claim
part of those properties as his legitime from A? NO. Those properties
were given to A under a fideicommissary substitution, therefore,
those properties should go only to C.
Suppose that A has many unpaid debts when e died. Can his
creditors run after those properties? NO. At best, all that A has over
those properties would be the rights of a usufructuary.
Assume that what X said was I give all of my properties to
A but , upon his death, whatever shall remain of those properties
shall go to his son C. Is that a case of fideicommissary substitution?
NO. Why? There is an implied authority to dispose. There is no
obligation to preserve and transmit all of the properties.
That is what happened in the case of PCIB vs Escolin the
testatrix died with a will where she said I give all of my properties
to my husband, except for a certain one in Texas. Whatever will
remain in the properties I am giving to my husband will pass to my
relatives. That is not a fideicommissary substitution because there is
no obligation to preserve. As a matter of fact, there is an implied
authority to dispose.
Supposing that what happened was that the testator gives
of a parcel of land to a niece, and the other half to the brothers of the
testator. He also said upon the death of my niece, whether before or
after my own death, the given to her will pass to my brothers or, if
they are dead, to their own heirs. Is there a fideicommissary
substitution? There is none.
The facts are similar to Crisologo vs Singson in the case
the SC held: there is no fideicommissary substitution because you
Page 41
can only have such in either of two ways: (1) by expressly calling it
by that name; (2) by imposing upon the first heir the absolute
obligation to preserve and transmit the properties to a second heir.
Outside of these two situations, there is no fideicommissary
substitution. Then what kind of substitution is this? That should be
considered as a simple substitution.
Lets assume that X institutes A and B as the heirs in a
fideicommissary substitution, saying I institute A as fiduciary heir,
and B as the fideicommissary substitute. B dies in 1995. X dies
1998. In other words, when X died, B was already dead. Is there a
fideicommissary substitution in this case? NO. Remember one basic
requirement in 863 is that both the first and second heir must be
living at the time of the testators death. The question is, will A be
able to inherit? YES. Why? Because of 868 the nullity of the
fideicommissary substitution does not prejudice the right of the first
heir to inherit. The fideicommissary clause will simply be
disregarded
Supposing that it is the other way around. It was the first heir
who died ahead of the testator. When X died, only B was alive. Can
B inherit? Strictly speaking, B cannot, because there is no provision
in favor of the second heir similar to 868. But I submit, the better
view is that B should be allowed to inherit. We consider this as no
longer a case of fideicommisary substitution because it was no
longer valid, and thus shall be considered as merely a simple
substitution. Why? Go back to a basic principle in testamentary
succession, the principal guide is always the intention of the testator.
When the testator designated A and B as heirs in a fideicommissary
substitution, what was his intention? That the properties will
ultimately end up with B. The first heir only has temporary rights
over the property. Thus, the intention will best be served if we
Transcribed by: Bjone Favorito
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
The legitime goes to the compulsory heir not because of the will, but
because of the law. In that case, H will only lose the free portion, he
retains the legitime.
Page 46
So, applying 885, since the period is suspensive, during the 5-year
period, the legal heirs will get to enjoy the property having the same
rights as usufructuaries. Upon arrival of the 5th year, it will be given
to the instituted heir.
Under 885 before the legal heirs can take possession of the
properties, they are required to post a security in order to guarantee
that the properties will be transmitted intact to the instituted heir
upon arrival of the term or period.
On the other hand, if the institution of the heir is subject to a
resolutory term or period, as for example, the testator instead said I
give my properties to my friend F, but he will enjoy it only for a
period of 5 years. Upon the death of the testator, the instituted heir
will get the properties. And upon the arrival of the resolutory term or
period, his rights are extinguished the properties will now go the
legal or intestate heirs of the testator.
If you are instituted under a suspensive condition, apply 880
prior to the fulfillment of the condition, while waiting if whether or
not the condition will be fulfilled, what will be done with the
properties? Under administration yan. The heir is not allowed to
secure the properties even if he is able and willing to post a security.
Page 48
LEGITIMES
Rules of thumb:
(1) Legitimates are always entitled to
(2) Any class surviving alone - basta walang kahati,
isang klase lang
(3) Spouse surviving alone - kung walang ibang
compulsory heirs.
Exception to (3) If the marriage was solemnized in
articulo mortis, and the testator died within 3 months, the law looks
with suspicion at that marriage and reduces the legitime of the
surviving spouse to only 1/3. Why? During the marriage, the testator
is at the point of death. (Take note, articulo mortis is at the point of
death, not merely with a danger of dying there is a difference) Kase
baka naman kaya mo lang pinakasalan yan dahil alam mo na isang
bulate nalang ang di pumipirma bago mamatay yan. Thus, the
marriage might have been impelled by economic considerations
lalo na kung mayaman yung himamatayin, para kang nanalo sa lotto
nyan.
Exception to the exception even if the marriage was
contracted in articulo mortis and the testator died within 3 months, if
the parties has been living together as husband and wife for at least
5 years, the law raises back the legitime to . Baka naman totoong
may pag ibig because of their cohabitation.
For the exception to apply, it is necessary that the marriage
is in articulo mortis. If H and W were married healthy in 7:00am,
and during the honeymoon at 7:00pm of the same day, H suffered a
massive heart attack and dies, the legitime of W is assuming she is
Transcribed by: Bjone Favorito
the only compulsory heir. It does not matter that the marriage lasted
only for several hours, because it was not in articulo mortis.
The dying party should be the one who actually dies.
Example, H and W were married in articulo mortis on January 1, W
was dying. Even the doctor said that she can die any minute.
Syempre hindi sila nag honeymoon on January 1, himamatayin nga
si W. In the mean time, H nursed W back to health. By Feb.14, W
was well enough in perfect health, so they finally had their
honeymoon. That evening of Feb14, H suffered a heart attack and
died. What is the legitime of W? still , because it was W who was
dying during the celebration of marriage but it was H who died
within 3 months. Kelangan yung himamatayin yung mamatay
otherwise you dont apply the exception.
Page 49
the legitimate children, you then give to the surviving spouse the
same as one legitimate child, thus, also P30,000.
Under the Family Code, C, D, E, F, G and H are supposed to
get of the share of a legitimate child. So theoretically, they each
should get P15,000. However, you have P30,000 left in the estate.
What is the net consequence? They would just have to share the
P30,000, thus, since there are 6 of them, they each get P5,000.
Survivors One legitimate child and Spouse:
to the legitimate child
to the spouse.
Thus, there will be a free disposal of .
Survivors Illegitimate children:
- any class surviving alone
Survivors 2 legitimate children and Spouse:
for legitimate children to be divided equally to them.
After determining the share of each child, give the same to
the spouse
Quick Summary:
Page 50
Reserva Troncal
What is Reserva Troncal? It is a reservation established by
law for the benefit of certain relatives within the 3rd degree who
belong to the line from which the property came.
The purpose is to return property, which was somehow
strayed from one family to another, back from where it originally
came.
Assume: A and B are married; C and D married; E and F are
the children of A and B; G and H are the children of C and D. F and
G got married and had a child, X. thereafter, F died.
Page 51
relative, but still out as reservatario for not belonging in the line
from which the property came.
If A, the origin, is still alive, can he be a reservatario? YES.
That is in fact the most ideal situation walang duda that the
property had come home if it returns to the origin. So A is
qualified if still living.
Page 52
Page 53
actually get the property once the reservista dies, we apply the other
rules of succession such as rule of preference between lines or
rule of proximity or even representation provided that the
representative is himself a relative within 3 degrees counted from the
descendant propositus.
Page 54
Page 56
Collation
the P3M will not be considered in the distribution of the estate when
your father dies. It will not be added to the value of the estate, and
will completely be ignored.
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Summary:
Second, they come ahead in time than the legacies and devises
priority in time is priority in right. Thus, only after you have
charged the donations inter vivos against the free portion, should you
attempt to satisfy the legacies and devises in the will.
As among the legacies and devises, what is the order of
preference in satisfying them? This is very simple: You first satisfy
those which are expressly declared preferencial by the testator.
Second, all others pro rata yun lang.
How do we apply these rules? Example: Let us assume that
X has three legitimate children A, B and C, and W as the surviving
spouse. During his lifetime, he made the following donations inter
vivos:
1975 a parcel of land worth P20,000 to his son A;
1988 another parcel of land worth P70,000 to his friend F;
Page 61
Page 62
DISINHERITANCE
Page 64
cause for legal separation. Just have a run down on the grounds for
legal separation, as there is nothing complicated about them
I call your attention to 923 if a person is disinherited, but
he happens to have children and descendants, his children and
descendants will be able to get at least the legitime. What is the
reason for this? The law is just being fair and equitable and even
compassionate to the children of a validly disinherited heir. If your
grandfather validly disinherits your father, it means your father must
have done something terribly wrong, mabibigat yang grounds for
disinheriting a child or descendant especially in a Filipino or Asian
culture. It also means you are very unfortunate that you have that
kind of father. If the law would not allow you to inherit, not even the
legitime, thats double jeopardy sobra sobrang parusa yun. As it
is, you are already unfortunate for having that kind of a parent, so the
law allows you to get the legitime that your father would have
inherited.
this case, D will not just get his legitime. He will share together with
A, B and C the P120,000 by way of intestacy, thus, each of them gets
P30,000.
Let us assume this time that the testator said I disinherit my
son D. without specificying the cause, and I give my entire estate
to my children A, B and C. so there is no preterition. This is where
D would be limited to his legitime. Legitime for the children is of
the estate, which is P60,000, thus, each of them is entitled to a
legitime of P15,000. The other P60,000 in the free portion, under the
testament of X, shall go to A, B and C only, thus, each of the three
will get a total of P35,000, while D only gets P15,000.
Supposing that D is validly disinherited he does not get
anything. But if he has two children E and F, the legitime of P15,000
will go to them under 923.
Page 66
you paid for your purchase. If, however, Mr. ODC simply donated
that property to you, you have no right to claim any reimbursement
because your acquisition would have been by gratuitous title.
Page 68
Page 69
If the Loss took place during the lifetime of the testator, the
legacy or devise is ineffective regardless of the cause of the loss.
For example, the testator gives you, by way of legacy, a
grand piano. One day before his death, because of his frustrations
ibinalibag nya yung piano or he burned the piano. Regardless of the
cause of the loss, as long as it took place during the lifetime of the
testator, it will render the bequest in your favor ineffective.
If the loss occurred after the death of the testator, you
should determine the cause.
If the loss is caused by a Fortuitous event, without the fault
of the heirs, it renders the bequest in your favor ineffective.
But if the loss happened because of the fault of any of the
heirs, you can recover the value of the property. As a matter of fact,
that is one of the circumstances under the law where solidarity is
imposed. Thus, if several heirs take possession of the hereditary
estate after the death of the testator, they are solidarily liable for any
loss.
Page 70
Page 71
INTESTATE SUCCESSION
Thus, numbers (1), (4) and (5) are common in both orders.
The irregular order is shorter by one number. After number
(5), the next is already the (6) State. In the regular order, number (6)
is other collateral relatives within the 5th degree, the state is only
number (7).
In the regular order, number (2) is the legitimate parents
and ascendants, then number (3) is the illegitimate children and
other descendants. Itong parents at illegitimate children,
magkabaliktad ang position sa irregular order. But take note, in
number (3) of the irregular order, only the illegitimate parents are
considered legal heirs, the other ascendants are not considered the
same rule as I earlier said in legitime. Pag ang namatay ay
illegitimate person, the direct ascending line is hanggang illegitimate
parents lang ang rights.
Page 72
classes are in the 3rd degree, the uncle is excluded by the presence of
C and D proximity yields to the order of succession.
Right of Representation
Page 73
father.
However, an heir may represent him whose
inheritance he has previously repudiated.
To illustrate: X dies survived by his children A and B, and
by C his grandson with B. Subsequently, B repudiates his inheritance
from X, thus, C cannot represent B and everything will go to A.
Lets assume that B predeceased X. When B died, C
repudiated the inheritance from B. Later on, X dies. Can C represent
B insofar as the inheritance from X is concerned? YES. An heir can
represent him whose inheritance he has earlier repudiated.
envy upon the former. However, the barrier applies only in intestate
succession. If you have an illegitimate half-brother, there is nothing
which can prevent you from instituting him as an heir.
Also be careful on instances like the case of DelaMerced
in that case, there were brothers and sisters A, B, C and D. B had an
illegitimate son S. Upon the death of A, his siblings B, C and D
inherited his estate. Later on, B died, and upon his death, his son was
claiming his entire estate. C and D opposed and said teka muna,
karamihan ng properties dyan ay galing kay A. You are illegitimate,
you cannot inherit these properties. Would they be correct, applying
992? NO. Instead, what should apply here is 777 from the moment
of death of A, successional rights were transmitted to B, C and D.
Thus, when B died, the properties which he inherited from A were
already his own. S is not inheriting from the legitimate relatives of
his father B, but from his own illegitimate parent, thus, he is clearly
entitled to inherit.
Intestate Shares
Rule of Thumb: the legitimates always get , whether they
be legitimate children or, in their absence, legitimate parents and
ascendants.
Survivors Legitimate parents, Illegitimate children and
Spouse:
to Legitimate parents
to Illegitimate children
to surviving spouse
Page 75
with respect to the part of the estate not disposed of by will, intestate
succession will govern.
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
CAPACITY to SUCCEED
For example, nobody knows who, between the father and the
son, died first, but the son happens to have his own children and
descendants. I submit that the children and descendants, in this case,
can inherit from the grandfather by the right of representation.
Page 82
soul. In this connection I order that there should be 1,000 masses for
me everyday all throughout the Philippines in different parishes and
churches, there should be special prayers for me every tuesday in St.
Anthonys shrine, every wednesday in Baclaran, every thursday in
St.Jude, and every friday in Quiapo. Then the entire P100M will be
spent on what he specified you do not apply the 50-50 rule.
Page 84
pardon can only come about if the unworthy heir is instituted in the
will of the testator, the latter having full knowledge of the facts
constituting the unworthiness. Since there is no express or implied
pardon, S is still unworthy, thus, cannot inherit.
Page 85
document stating that We have read the will of our father and we all
agreed to abide by the provisions of that will. Later on the old man
passed away, and his will was never probated. A problem arose when
some of the children wanted to get the properties given to the others,
which is one of the tragic things that can happen in any family. Upon
reaching the SC, the Court held: that will is void and ineffective, but
it can be considered as a valid partition under what is now 1080.
Does this mean that we can now safely and conveniently
forget about 804 to 814 na pinag hirapan naten memoryahin? Not
necessarily. For a void will to be considered a valid partition under
1080, two essential conditions must be present:
(1) the will must, in reality, be a partition meaning the
will must give out specific property to specified heirs or
individuals in such a way that if you follow the will, there will be no
co-ownership.
(2) the beneficiaries named in that void will must at least be
legal heirs if they are total strangers, there is no way that they can
acquire ownership over the properties given to them under the void
will. Why? Because the law enumerates the modes of acquiring
ownership, and partition is not one of them. You always need a mode
to acquire ownership. If the beneficiaries are at least legal heirs, they
would have a mode of acquiring ownership that is succession.
Effects of Partition
Upon partition, there is mutual reciprocal warranty among
the heirs with respect to title and quality of the portions allocated to
them under the partition.
Page 87
Page 88