& Friends

MIDTERM
SUBSTITUTION OF HEIRS

Substitution is the appointment of another heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of the heir originally
instituted. (A.857)

T(testator) H(heir) S(substitution)

Purpose of the Law for Substitution:

1. law wants to prevent intestate succession
2. to prevent the property from falling into the ownership of people not desired by the testator.

3. to allow the testator greater freedom to help or reward those who by reason of services rendered to the testator, are more
worthy of his affection and deserving of his bounty than intestate heirs.

Art. 858. Substitution of heirs may be: (BRFS)

(1) Simple or common;
(2) Brief or compendious;
(3) Reciprocal; or
(4) Fideicommissary.

Brief or Compendious Substitution

If H will be substituted by S & Y. what do you call that kind of substitution?

Brief two persons in replace of one.
A is an instituted heir, and B and C are his sub- stitutes.
Compendious one person in replace of two.
A and B are instituted heirs, and C is the substitute.

Art. 859. The testator may designate one or more persons to substitute the heir or heirs instituted in case such heir or heirs
should die before him, or should not wish, or should be incapacitated to accept the inheritance.

A simple substitution, without a statement of the cases to which it refers, shall comprise the three mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, unless the testator has otherwise provided.

What are grounds for substitution? (RIP)

1) predecease
2) renunciation or repudiation
3) incapacity

1st ground: H dies so S substitutes because of predeceasing H

2nd ground: H is still alive & capacitated BUT does not accept of the inheritance so S substitutes. Inheritance is not obligation. So he
cannot be compelled to accept.
3rd ground: H is still alive BUT the law sees him to incapacitated so S subsitutes

What will be the ground if no reason stated for substitution?

- 2nd par. shall comprise the three mentioned in the preceding paragraph, unless the testator has otherwise. Any of
the three instances. So ex. Mu ana sya S shall subtitutes expect by way of predecease so he can substitute by way of
renunciation or incapacity.

Art. 861. If heirs instituted in unequal shares should be reciprocally substituted, the substitute shall acquire the share of the
heir who dies, renounces, or is incapacitated, unless it clearly appears that the intention of the testator was otherwise.

If there are more than one substitute, they shall have the same share in the substitution as in the institution.

RECIPROCAL Substitution

If 2 Heirs:
A is given 1/3 then B 2/3. In this kind of substitution the heirs are the substitute of each other. So kung patay s B the 2/3 of B will go to A
and vice versa.

If 3 Heirs:
A 1/2, 60K; B 1/4, 30K ; C 1/4, 30K. suppose B dies. What will of Bs share? How do you apportion the 30k?
in proportion to the institution. 60k: 30k is 2:1

therefore by proportion the 30k should be 20k to A & 10k to C

As total share: 60K (by way of institution) + 20k (by way of substitution) = 80K
Bs total share: 30K (by way of institution) + 10k (by way of substitution) = 40K
1
 & Friends
A 1/2, 60K; B 1/4, 30K ; C 1/4, 30K.

suppose A dies. What will of As share? How do you apportion the 60k?
in proportion to the institution. 30k: 30k is 1:1
therefore by proportion the 60k should be 30k to B & 30k to C
Bs total share: 30K (by way of institution) + 30k (by way of substitution) = 60K
Cs total share: 30K (by way of institution) + 30k (by way of substitution) = 60K

FIDEICOMMISSARY: (863 868)

Art. 863. A fideicommissary substitution by virtue of which the fiduciary or first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation
to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part of the inheritance, shall be valid and shall take effect, provided
such substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir originally instituted, and provided further, that the fiduciary or
first heir and the second heir are living at the time of the death of the testator.

General Kind of Fideicommissary

Parties:
T (Testator; Fideicomitente) H (1st Heir; Fiduciary) S (2nd Heir; Fideicommissary)

Example:

T executed a will, designated the fiduciary as H and incase of predecease, renunciation or incapacity of the 1st heir then the
fideicommissary or 2nd heir shall be the substitute.

T died in 2010. How many heirs are there upon the death of T?

- Two. Upon the death of T. both H & S inherit from T.

- Legal Basis: Art. 866. The second heir shall acquire a right to the succession from the time of the testators death,
even though he should die before the fiduciary. The right of the second heir shall pass to his heirs.

But who shall have the preferential right to enjoy (use & fruits) the property?

- both inherit simultaneously BUT the right to enjoy is successively.

What if S died of waiting for H. died after the testator but before the 1 st heir. may the son or daughter of S have a right over the
property?

- Yes. The right of the second heir has already been acquired by reason of the death of the testator and the right of S is
transferred to his heirs. The heris of S acquired their right from their father S who acquired his right as early as the death
of the testator. Art. 866. The second heir shall acquire a right to the succession from the time of the testators death, even
though he should die before the fiduciary. The right of the second heir shall pass to his heirs.
- OBSERVATION NI SIR: ang Definition sa substitution ba kay appointment of another heir so that he may enter into
the inheritance in default of the heir originally instituted this presupposes na there is only one heir who will inherit.
Kung mamatay ang original heir puli ang substitute nya kung di dili mupuli ang substitute. So lahi sya sa fideicommissary
na automatic na ang heir ug gang substitute ang dayon makakuha sa inheritance. So DEFINITION dapat jud kay
Designation of an heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of OR AFTER of the heir originally
instituted mao ni ang dapat definition!!! This is so that ma accommodate ang fideicommisary which cannot be found in
the original definition.
- Substitution is Designation of an heir so that he may enter into the inheritance in default of OR AFTER of the
heir originally instituted

REQUISITES TO MAKE THE FIDEICOMMISSARY VALID:

1. There must be a FIRST HEIR called primarily or preferentially to the enjoyment of the property. (F)

2. There must also be a second heir. (S)

3. There must be an clear express obligation imposed upon the First Heir to preserve and transmit to a third person the whole or
part of the inheritance.

To preserve and transmit, therefore the first heir cannot sell the property or dispose it.

F may have acquired the property by succession but he does not no right to dispose the property because he is
obliged to PRESERVE & TRANSMIT.

Can he lease the property? YES. How about the fruits of the property? Yes. His is liken to a usufructuary.
2
 & Friends
So take note that upon arrival of the time specified. If it says the F will enjoy for 10 yrs then after that S will own the
property. But if silent, upon death of F. the property shall automatically transfer to the substitute. NOTE THE
SUBSTITUTE BECAM THE OWNER UPON DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. Rather upon transfer from F, S now
ENJOYS WHAT HE OWN EARLIER.

4. The 1st and the 2nd heirs must be only one degree apart.
Therefore, you can imagine here that F(Father) nyah si S (Son).
a. You can imagine here that F & S kay father and son. Mao jud ni ang usual.
5. Both the First and the Second Heirs Must Be Alive (or at Least Conceived) at the Time of the Testators Death
a. Ex. T died 2010, F died 2008. The first heir therefore predecease the testator. Therefore there is no fideicommisary
substitution. THUS, S acquires it by SIMPLE SUBSTITUTION.
b. Ex. Now if F & S predecease T. the property will go to Ts legal heirs through intestate succession.

REVIEW: Requisites
1. There must be a FIRST HEIR or FIDUCIARY called primarily or preferentially to the enjoyment of the property
2. There must be an obligation clearly imposed upon him to preserve and transmit to a third person the whole or part of the
inheritance (part only if the substitution refers merely to that part)
3. A SECOND HEIR or FIDEICOMISSARY
4. The 1st and 2nd heirs must be only one degree apart
Examples: Father-son, Mother-son, son-mother, son-father
But in natural order, parents die before their children. The point is that it is only one degree apart
5. Both 1st and 2nd heirs are alive at time of the testators death

So if T died 2010, A and B must be alive at the same time. However, the order is successive; the 1 st heir inherits first then the 2nd
Within what time does 2nd heir inherit? That in the will. If there is no time frame, then upon the death of the first heir
Possibilities: in case A predeceases the testator whos still living, what is the result? Shall there be fideicomissary substitution? NO
But is there a substitution? YES. So A cannot anymore receive it because he predeceased but the substitute is B who will receive it
On the other hand, in case B dies ahead than the testator, it does not affect the 1 st heir instituted. Simply, fideicomissary substitution is
inoperative. Therefore the final destination is to A only
Example. T died 2007. Subsequently, A and B inherited the property. So ayaw ingon isa lang ni inherit. NO! Both of them inherited at the
time of death of the testator. Only the enjoyment of the property is successive
So now, it is in the hands of A, the 1st heir. Preferential right is on him. Is there a chance that A might transfer it to another person by
way of SALE, for example H the buyer? Possible? Because A is now the owner? He says as an absolute owner, I exercise my right to
dispose.
ANSWER: NO WAY, if you are vigilant of your right. What you will have to do is to ANNOTATE the reservation on the title. The right of
the buyer is subordinated to the right of the substitute.
o Why? Its binding to the whole world. If there is no annotation, and the buyer is a purchaser in good faith and for value, then
you cannot prevent the transfer. That is the principle
o What will happen to B (there is annotation)? Property is already with H. The property of A shall be answerable to B,
commensurate to the value of the property alienated by him, because it was him who caused the denial. But if you look at your
land titles, what can you resort to? The assurance fund. But lain mana kay sa libro rana. Its only in theory. Therefore it is A who
is responsible. You hold that trust
o What then is the capacity of A? He cannot dispose right? Not agent, trustee. At most he is a usufructuary. By the time time A
shall have died or perhaps there is a period fixed by the testator, then it will be transferred to the substitute or B
But then in 2008, B predeceases the fiduciary A, dili kay ni-predecease sa testator because di na jud ka maka sunod ana. Why? Its
required! Both 1st and 2nd heirs must be living at the time of the testators death. Ang ingon nako, B predeceases the 1st heir A. So patay
na si B, and survived by a son and a daughter S and D. One year later, A also died in 2009. He has a son Y.

3
 & Friends

o Kani ra ba si Y, he is claiming ownership by virtue of succession, his father being the owner. But then, the same argument coming
from the children of B. Who shall have right to the property? So who? Which is which? Kinsa man ang ungo? S and D shall inherit.
Why answer is last paragraph Art 866

Article 866. The second heir shall acquire a right to the succession from the time of the testators death, even though he
should die before the fiduciary. The right of the second heir shall pass to his heirs.

o Therefore, nakuha na ni B ang katungod as early as 2007 (year T died). Nagdungan sila ug inherit ni A as early as 2007.
Therefore, when B died, his right is also transmissible to S and D. Therefore, when A also died, S and D who acquired the right
of their father will now inherit the property. The claim of Y is incorrect. Therefore, final destination is the children of B

Article 864. A fideicommissary substitution can never burden the legitime.

Article 872. The testator cannot impose any charge, condition, or substitution whatsoever upon the legitimes
prescribed in this Code. Should he do so, the same shall be considered as not imposed.

Article 904. The testator cannot deprive his compulsory heirs of their legitime, except in cases expressly specified by
law.
Neither can he impose upon the same any burden, encumbrance, condition, or substitution of any kind
whatsoever.

These are considered safeguards on the legitime. Never can T impose any burden, whatso-evah
Legitime emanates from law. He cannot interfere. Succession to the legitime is succession by operation of law
So the fideicomissary substitution can never apply to the legitime
There is only one chance you can be deprived of your legitime: only in valid disinheritace

Article 869. A provision whereby the testator leaves to a person the whole or part of the inheritance, and to another
the usufruct, shall be valid. If he gives the usufruct to various persons, not simultaneously, but successively, the
provisions of 863 shall apply.

Ownership and usufruct are different things. Pwede na adto ni A ang naked ownership, adto ni B ang usufruct.
Article 870. The dispositions of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years
are void.

Mahimo ba na mu-ingon si Testator na you cannot alienate or partition for 25 years from my death? Dili, void na
By implication, 20 exactly is valid. What is prohibited is more than 20 years. When testator says 25 years, it is valid as to first 20, void as
to the excess. Maximum is only 20
This is to guarantee that you can make use of the property well. Para mapahimuslan

TESTAMENTRY CONDITIONS
Kinds of Succession:
1. Testamentary
2. Legal or intestate
3. Mixed
Kinds of institution (concept is just like in obligations)
1. Conditional institution
2. Institution with a period
4
 & Friends
3. Modal institution
4. Pure institution

Article 871. The institution of an heir may be made conditionally or for a certain purpose or cause.

Article 872. The testator cannot impose any charge, condition, or substitution whatsoever upon the legitimes prescribed in
this Code. Should he do so, the same shall be considered as not imposed.

Article 873. Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good customs shall be considered as not imposed and shall
in no manner prejudice the heir, even if the testator should otherwise provide.

In 873, the condition is considered a not imposed. Consequently, it is as if there is no condition. What kind? Impossible, contrary to law
or good customs
Example T says, I institute Juan to receive from my estate 10 M provided he can draw a square circle!
o Testing daw ug makahimo ba ka? Pud pod na tudlo nimo. Lol
o So this is impossible. What happens to the 10 M? Law says it is considered as not imposed. So it is as if, it is written like I
institute Juan to receive from my estate 10 M.
o Kaning bala-od ngano kaha muconclude jud. Considered as not written pero nasuwat man jud na diha! Written naman na. Beh?
o Therefore, condition is VOID. Ayaw ingon considered as not written; nasuwat na nuon na diha sa will, ka-klaro ana! IT is as if it
does not appear as a condition
o What is in obligations, sa 1183? Mao jud na oy. Lain lang ang tenor shall annul the obligation.. not only the condition that is
nullified, but including the obligation dependent on it. The difference is that in obligations, it is totally nullified including the
obligation. In succession, it is as if the condition does not exist, gitagaan ug epekto ang institution.

Article 874. An absolute condition not to contract a first or subsequent marriage shall be considered as not written unless
such condition has been imposed on the widow or widower by the deceased spouse, or by the latters ascendants or
descendants.
Nevertheless, the right of usufruct, or an allowance or some personal prestation may be devised or bequeathed to
any person for the time during which he or she should remain unmarried or in widowhood.

There are two kinds of absolute prohibition or conditions regarding marriage:

1. first marriage
o Example: Dalaga ka, hatagan ka ni T ug 50 M pero di jud ka paminyo-on. Void na uy kung di jud ka paminyu-on
2. subsequent marriage
o diri, absolute gihapon pero na biyuda naka pero di ka pwede mag minyo usab.
Ngano void man? Sa libro, contrary to morals, public policy.. Class, ang one of the inalienable rights of the Filipinos is the freedom to
choose our own status. Therefore, this will deprive you to choose your own status. And for this reason, it is void. Naa bala-od
nagpugong maminyo? Wala
So kung single ka, void jud na. wa nai exception. Pero ug na byudo/byuda naka, ingnon kang ihatag ko ni pero ayaw na jud pagminyo ug
usab, never contract another marriage hangtod sa hangtod. Kaning second absolute prohibition, void gihapon na
Ang difference kay generally void na sila. There is an exception in the 2nd instance.

Exceptions (to 2nd instance)

1. If the prohibition to contract a second marriage is imposed by the deceased spouse
o Just before H died, he executed a will giving his exclusive property to W. Liquidate sa nato nah, separate ang iya property ug
W kay community property i-tunga mana. So ang iya exclusive property iya ihatag on the condition that do not contract a 2 nd
marriage.
o What is the status of that? Absolute prohibition na. Generally void, unless imposed by the deceased spouse. So pwede ni diri
2. If imposed by the ascendant of the deceased spouse

5
 & Friends
o Example H died, leaving F (father) and M (mother). So F says, daughter-in-law W, I will give you this property which I own
provided you do not contract a 2nd marriage.
o The ascendant imposed that, so it is allowed. So either deceased spouse, ascendant, or even descendant
3. If imposed by the descendant of the deceased spouse

These conditions are imposed on their (the 3 people above) own property given to the widow, therefore maka-impose jud sila. Your right
emanates from them therefore they also have the prerogative.
Ang 1st instance, WALA jud na exceptions. VOID jud na kung di jud ka pwede mag contract a first marriage

Answers sa mga panguts: (wa na nasubay kaayo pero mao ni ang essence sa answers ni sir)
If namatay na ang ascendant/descendant na nag-impose sa condition and you violated the condition not to contract subsequent marriage,
there is a violation and you have to return the property, and you should return it to the HEIRS of the person (since patay na ang nag-
impose)
Example: If na-annul ang marriage, you are not a legal spouse so you are not entitled to inherit at all. Mahimo manpud maka-inherit ka
pero you cannot inherit by way of this exception (since you are not a legal spouse anymore). You can inherit as a stranger. But this is not
the situation contemplated here. Marriage here means legal marriage!
Ang relative prohibition valid. Example, you are not allowed to marry a certain girl, not allowed to marry in a certain place, certain time

Article 875. Any disposition made upon the condition that the heir shall make some provision in his will in favor
of the testator or of any other person shall be void.

This is also known as DISPOSITION CAPTATORIA

Kana ba maghimo ug will nya mu-ingon I will institute D as an heir pero maghimo gani kag will ako pud ang instituted heir or a person I
recommend
Di na mahimo class (Disposition itself and not merely the condition is void, Paras)
I will intistute my heir, pero nay condisyon, maghimu gani kag will, ako sad imung instituted heir, or a person whom you recommend. Dili
na mahimu. Daghan nag basis na class:
1. First, making of the will is personal- it is void since it becomes contractual
It is no longer personal because somebody is dictating to whom the property shall be given. Di mahimo, niapil na gud ka
unsaon pagdispose kay nihangyo naman ka.
Pero ang words ana class, VOID na. Kay nganu man? The testamentary disposition becomes contractual in nature. Diba
nagsabot naman mo. Ikaw ang akong tagaan, ug ako sad tagai sa imong will. (Article 784. The making of a will is a strictly
personal act; it cannot be left in whole or in part to the discretion of a third person, or accomplished through the
instrumentality of an agent or attorney.) Personal pa na nga nagsabot naman mo??!
Disposition Captatoria- sa ngan lang daan ui, Cap? Ta? Toria? Sa ngan palang daan, BATI !! Ngan na lang daan VOID NA! KABATI
ANA!!
2. Gawas sa contractual, that is interference in the part of the testator how to dispose of his property, that supposedly is, strictly
personal.

Article 876. Any purely potestative condition imposed upon an heir must be fulfilled by him as soon as he learns of the testator's
death.
This rule shall not apply when the condition, already complied with, cannot be fulfilled again.

If you recall, Potestative- is one whose fulfilment is dependent upon the will of the heir (kay succession mani). Kay kung Obligation pa,
one whose fulfilment depends upon the will of the party.
Ikaw ra juy makatuman ani, wala juy lain tao makatuman para nimo.
I will give you 50,000php if you know how to drive. Class, nara na nimo, magtuon pakag drive, para maimo ang 50 or dili. Therefore, it
is fully addressed to the heir. Nganu man? Because the fulfilment of how to drive, rest on the person of the heir. Ikaw ra gyud ana. Imong
prerogative.
Article 1182. When the fulfillment of the condition depends upon the sole will of the debtor, the conditional obligation shall be void
Sa obligation na- lain man ni atong succession.
When the condition is potestative, wala koy ginullify dira. Kay condition mana. Dili taka pugson.

6
 & Friends
Query: Sir what if kabaw na mudrive nya wala kabaw ang testator na kabaw na diay ka? Then let it be complied. Mana.
Compliance nato.
Query: Pananglitan, kabaw na ang Testator sir, na kabaw na ka mudrive? Then this is different. I have knowledge that you
know how to drive. I am making this condition- because I want you to improve your skill in driving sa ato pa, this time,
improve naka, kay nganu man? Wla may lain reason. Kabaw ang testator ato ka mudrive. Sa ato pa, ug maninguha siya,
kadawat siya. Heredero, magtuon jud ka.
Ang highlight ana, nara jd nimo kung imong tumanon- imo ba buhaton, o dili ba.
Query: Sir, Kanusa ka muperform with the condition? The moment you learn about the death of the testator. Inig kabaw
nimo na patay na siya.
Query: Sir nganu diay kung tumanon nako na kung buhi pa? Sus, wala ka kabaw that the will is revocable at anytime. May
naa kaayo ka mudrive, gani magpiyong naka nuh? Wala kay maligsan bsag hulmigas! - nya ang testator girevoke. May nang
testator patay na daan kay unsaon mana pagrevoke kung patay na? He can always revoke during his lifetime.

Article 877. If the condition is casual or mixed, it shall be sufficient if it happen or be fulfilled at any time before or after the death
of the testator, unless he has provided otherwise.
Should it have existed or should it have been fulfilled at the time the will was executed and the testator was unaware thereof, it
shall be deemed as complied with.
If he had knowledge thereof, the condition shall be considered fulfilled only when it is of such a nature that it can no longer exist or
be complied with again.

In Obligation, Casual- the fulfilment of the condition depends upon chance or will of a third person.
Example: Tagaan kag 100K, provided you will win jackpot sa lotto.
What factors affect the winning? Wala gyuy tao class, wala nay trick, wala nay intervention anang lotto. Ang
imo ra gyud ana swerte, fortune of luck. Therefore casual.
Therefore, wala nato(us), wala sa lain tao. Ang labaw na makagagahum ra gyud.
Query: When? Before or after the death of the testator. Nganu diri, pwede man before? Because there is
no intervention on the part of the heir. Wla kay labot. Dili pareha sa potestative.
Mixed- dependent partly on the heir or partly by chance or will of a third person.
Nota Bene: Skip Article 878. 878 kay institution of a term. Gisagol mana nila gud. Kani sang article sa condition para ma organize- Article
879.

Article 879. If the potestative condition imposed upon the heir is negative, or consists in not doing or not giving something, he shall
comply by giving a security that he will not do or give that which has been prohibited by the testator, and that in case of
contravention he will return whatever he may have received, together with its fruits and interests.

This time Article 879- potestative negative. In Article 876, potestative positive.
You are refrained from doing an act or giving something.
Example: I hereby institute Juan dela Cruz as my heir to receive a half million, if he will NOT smoke (awa negative ha)
within one year from my death.
Restriction- that you will NOT smoke within 1 year.
Query: Class, namatay ang testator, can you demand outright what has been given to you? Basta dili ka
manabako(musmoke) within one year. Pangutana, Abi akong half million bi! or mupaabot pa kag one year?
NO, that is resolutory, pagkamatay ana demand dayon! Therefore, you are receiving the money. But because
there is always a chance for a violation, you put up a BOND or SECURITY. Point is, that is immediately
demandable, but if you will violate the restriction-say in the 3rd (or 10th) month nanabako ka, i-uli what has
been received plus interest. Ug dili ka makauli-precisely mao na ang reason for the bond or security to answer
for any liability in case of violation. In caso dli ka makailis, ang imo bond or security forfeited. Kay dili man to
ipakuha nimo ang kwarta (the one given by the testator-half million) kung dili ka makahatag ug bond or
security.
If dili ka kahatag ug bond or security, then that will be under administrationship.

7
 & Friends
Pareha rag resolutory condition-negative lang. So manunod ka dayon, paninguha na makaagwanta kag 1yr,
nganu man? kay paglapse sa one year, wla nay restriction. Perfected naman nimo imong katungod sa property.
Subsequent year, wla naman na siyang ginadili nimo.
Article 876 in contrast, positive personal. Ang Article 879 negative potestative.
In Article 870 (To wit: The disposition of the testator declaring all or part of the estate inalienable for more than twenty years are
void). Testator cannot provide for more than 20years.
Difference in Article 870- barred from alienating. Ownership sa Article 879-you acquire a property, put up a bond, but then you are
the owner- kung wala kay violation imoha nana. Perfect na ang ownership, I can do what I want. Ownership is vested man daun,
dili mahimong prohibited.
Moreover, lahi pud nang forever pud ang restriction- dili jud ka-smoke provided wlay period-there will be no bond. That is forevah!

Article 880. If the heir be instituted under a suspensive condition or term, the estate shall be placed under administration until the
condition is fulfilled, or until it becomes certain that it cannot be fulfilled, or until the arrival of the term.
The same shall be done if the heir does not give the security required in the preceding article.

Kinsa may placed under administration? You appoint administrator. Nganu man? Wala paman ka nakatag-iya, wala pa man
natuman ang condition.
Namatay naman- mao naa nay administrator. In the meantime, its under administration.
N.B.: Never mind Article 881
Last nlang na condition :

Article 883. When without the fault of the heir, an institution referred to in the preceding article cannot take effect in the exact
manner stated by the testator, it shall be complied with in a manner most analogous to and in conformity with his wishes.
If the person interested in the condition should prevent its fulfillment, without the fault of the heir, the condition shall be deemed
to have been complied with.

In analogous manner- kanang duol ra kaayo ba..

For example: BMW 2014model- not available. So the next model 2013 will do. Nganu man? Analogous performance of act
will do. (Unsay meaning sa BMW? By Means of Walking! Pwede pud- Baktas Mintras Wala!)
Or all new Honda Civic- maoy pagawas, maoy ipahatag. For the meantime, out of stock nya naabot ang panahon na
patagaon na ka, pasar na- so therefore kanang pareha nlang- the immediately preceding model, kana lang 2009- most
analogous/pareha ba if dili matuman literally.
But then, 2nd paragraph class:
If the person interested in the condition should prevent its fulfillment, without the fault of the heir, the condition shall be
deemed to have been complied with.
For example, sa inyong libro, I will just adopt that (I think Atty is referring to page 294 Paras, 2013): Si Testator, given to
H- instituted heir siya. Unsay condition?
Provided he will pass the bar exam this year. Si T naay B na brother. Wala nay lain legal heir-B ra gyud. Nya wala mani
compulsory heir, One who has no compulsory heir may dispose of the entire estate, diba?

Dili man na compulsory heir ang brother- wala man nas lista. Kani si H is a stranger-mao magpatuyang lang siya mao na
Si H tagaan nakog yuta pero kelangan makapasar siyas bar karong tuiga. Class,kani si B, if H cannot pass, naturally it
favors B- B is still the recipient what otherwise is given to H.
Si H run, dili man makapasar dili maiya-condition not having been fulfilled. Ug dili siya kapasar- kinsa may benefited ana?
Si B. Kung makapasar siya kinsa man benefited? Si H. Because he owns what has been given by will, he is richer by the
property given.

8
 & Friends
Which person is interested in fulfilling the condition? Si H. Because he is richer by the value of the property given to
him. Si B, interesado ba na makapasar si H? Unsa may maiyaha na wla man?! He will receive nothing. He is not interested
in the fulfilment. If at all theres interest of B, he is interested in the non-fulfillment because if the condition is not
fulfilled it benefits him. He becomes the sole owner as a legal heir.
The person interested in the condition- fulfilment of the condition is H. Madawat man niya. Pero si B, interesado siya na
dili matuman. So gidefine na nato:
The person interested in the FULFILLMENT of the condition- H.
The person interested in the NON-FULFILLEMTN of the condition- B.
Now,read the law. Sa ako nana ha, If the person interested in the condition should prevent its fulfillment, without the fault of
the heir, the condition shall be deemed
Ang example nila sa libro (I think Atty is referring to page 294 Paras, 2013):
B inflicted physical injuries to H so that H cannot take the bar exam by then hes suffering injury that will prevent him
from taking the bar, and if he has not taken the bar exam, he cannot pass. Para dili matuman ang condition. Unsa may
maiyaha?Siya may Legal heir,dili mana kadawat- nonfulfilment man. Paras balaod.
Now, ig basa nako.. gidefine sa nako:
1. Kinsa nang person interested in the fulfilment of the condition-H
2. The person interested in the NON-fulfilment of the condition- B
But then If the person interested in the condition should prevent its fulfillment, Why should the person
interested would prevent its fulfilment that is favourable to him? Pugngan nimo na maabogado ka, nga kaayohan
mana nimo?? Therefore, dili mahitabo na ui! Kinsa may person interested? Si H! Dili gyud na muprevent sa
fulfimment, that is contrary to huma nature! Ang imong buhaton you will always see to it na mafulfill ang condition.
Para nako class, ang tenor unta anang first sentence : If a person NOT interested in the fulfilment (like B) will
prevent the fulfilment, then the doctrine of constructive fulfillment shall apply Nganu man? It is as if it is fulfilled
not actually but constructively. So therefore, makainherit gihapon si H kay inflicted physical injuries man. Kinsay
author anang physical injuries? The person NOT interested. So therefore, nganung ifulfill man nato? It is as if fulfilled
man? To penalize bad faith in the part of B. Therefore the doer of the act that prevented should have been B.
Atty: Unsaon man na? Para nako If a person NOT interested in the fulfilment (like B) will prevent the fulfilment, it is
deemed fulfilled constructively. Nganu man? To penalize bad faith in the person doing the act. Walay actual-but
constructive fulfilment. Well, ako rana. Mahimong sayop ko. Let it be ang balaod. Akoa rana.
Manang conditions. Wla namay lain. Article 885- period man na. So what conditions are considered deemed not imposed?
1. Conditions referring to the legitime (Article 872)
2. Impossible condition- contrary to good customs or law
3. Absolute condition to prevent contracting a subsequent marriage
Atty: Ang message ana always nuh: na pirmi kang makasunod. Idisregard the condition. Pero ako, ingon ko- Nganu cge man mag
considered not imposed? Why not? Unsay reason nimo? Ultimate answer: Because that is VOID. Diretso nalang! Ayaw nang considered
not imposed- IT IS VOID. Mas dali pa. Usa rana considered as not written, nya na written naman?? Therefore, inopereative-it is void.
Pauli gihapon kag void.

Article 885. The designation of the day or time when the effects of the institution of an heir shall commence or cease shall be valid.
In both cases, the legal heir shall be considered as called to the succession until the arrival of the period or its expiration. But in the
first case he shall not enter into possession of the property until after having given sufficient security, with the intervention of the
instituted heir.

The designation of the day or time when the effects of the institution of an heir shall commence or cease shall be valid
Ibutang diha class kanusa ka manunod o dba kanusa magtapos imong pagpanunod - gitugon kas balaod
Ari tas commence Ex: I institute Juan dela Cruz as my heir. Effective 2 years after my death.
Therefore, pagkamatay dili daun ka kasunod. Nganu man? 2 years after his death man. Therefore, palabyi sag 2
years. Valid man na.
Unsa man ta ron? 2014. Namatay siya karon, wala kay labot. Namatay siya- 2014. Wala kay labot sa 2015, 2016.
Pero pagtapos sa 2016, 2017 ari ka magsugod.

9
 & Friends

Query: Who will take care of the property? Who shall be in the possession? Before the arrival of the period- who
should be in possession of the property? Legal heir
Article 880 If the heir be instituted under a suspensive condition or term, the estate shall be placed under
administration until the condition is fulfilled, or until it becomes certain that it cannot be fulfilled, or until the
arrival of the term
So you will notice in Article 880 na: conditional or term gani- before the arrival of the fulfilment of the
condition, before the arrival of the period, ang administrator ang magbuot. Ang tinuod ana class, mu
apply rana ang administrator in conditional obligation. DILI na tinuod under suspensive term na
covered- again, dili na tinuod. Nganu dili man tinuod? Second paragraph..
2nd paragraph (Article 885)- In both cases, the legal heir shall be considered as called to the succession
until the arrival of the period or its expiration. But in the first case he shall not enter into possession of the
property until after having given sufficient security, with the intervention of the instituted heir
In both cases, kinsay magkupot ani? DILI administrator. Legal heir of the testator until the arrival of
the period. Sa ato pa
1. Article 880- condition
2. Article 885-period
Ari tas tapos-cease Ex: I institute Juan dela Cruz as my heir. Only 14 years counted from my death.
Therefore, namatay inherit dayon ka good for 14 years. Pagtapos sa 14th year- wala na. Ceased na imong
katungod. Nganu man? Mao rmay gibutang. Valid man na.
Another example: I institute Juan dela Cruz as my heir effective upon death of testator, until 10years thereafter

Natapos ang 10year, asa iturn-over? Sa legal heirs.

In BOTH cases (commence & cease situations)- put up a BOND or SECURITY. Reason? Suppose there are damages or
liabilities- answerable ang legal heir. It will prejudice the legal heir.
What then is the object of administration? Kato rang conditional obligation with a suspensive. Ang mucover sa period ang
legal heir. If no legal heir- kinsa may legal heir sa law? Brothers, sisters, ascendants, descendants, kinsa may katapusan?
Collateral relatives up to the 5th degree.
And the last ultimate legal heir- State. So there cannot be an instance na walay legal heir because the State is the last
based on the Regalian doctrine.
Legal heir- anak na igagaw kausa, pwede pa na
Article 1010- the right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend beyond the fifth degree of relationship in the collateral line
5th degree- anak sa imong igagaw tagsa
Bear in mind: Ang labing duol-pakabihan or the nearer excludes the farther

Article 878. A disposition with a suspensive term does not prevent the instituted heir from acquiring his rights and transmitting
them to his heirs even before the arrival of the term.

Even before arrival of the period- dili kapugngan ang instituted heir na makapanunod.
Example: Ang iyang instituted heir si H. Namatay si T 2010. Supposedly, heredero ni H- si S and D (son and daughter).

10
 & Friends

Ang term with which H can inherit, butang ta lang- 2011. Class, this is the term or period which he is to commence the exercise his right
as instituted heir. He died with legitime. Asa man nang property karon na magsugod si H 2011 paman? Bago lang gi-lecture nato nuh-
legal heir.

Just before 2011, December 31, 2010- si H namatay. Sa ato pa, he died before commencement sa right. So what does the law say? Does
not prevent the transmission of his rights to his heirs. Therefore, by 2011 class who will enjoy the property? The heirs of the instituted
heir for a period. Nganu man? Even if he dies before the commencement or arrival of his right, that doesnt prevent the transmission of
his right to his children. Nganu mana class? Remember, si H class nakakuha nag gud anang katungod gud. Therefore, S & D will acquire
the property. Estate naman na as early as 2009. Sa ato pa, tag-iya na si H minus enjoyment.
Atty: Ang institution para nako, dili unta buhatan ug condition. Nganu man? Black and white. By all means hatag, kung dili ayaw.

Article 882. The statement of the object of the institution, or the application of the property left by the testator, or the charge
imposed by him, shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention.
That which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give security for
compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he or they may receive, together with its fruits and
interests, if he or they should disregard this obligation.
The application of the thing statement as the object of institution.
Example: I institute Juan dela Cruz to the amount of 100,00 in my estate so that he can use it, expenses for the college of
law-as tuition fee for the College of Law. There is a statement or as to the object- nganu giinstuitute nako siya-to help him
(object).
Modal- dili condition, ma-imo dayon. Pero dili nimo na gamiton for the purpose intended- then Iuli if dili gamiton nimo.
Condition- suspends the right but doesnt obligate
Modal -obligates but it doesnt suspend (pagkamatay sa testator- dritso makatag-iya. But you dont comply- ibalik.)
Example: I institute Juan dela Cruz to the amount of 200,00 in my estate provided you will use half of the amount to put up
the barangay hall. Dili bana condition? Which imposes application- dunay gipakuyog na imong buhaton. Doesnt suspend
but obligate you, if you will not apply, balik sa estate plus interest.

Article 882. The statement of the object of the institution, or the application of the property left by the testator, or the charge
imposed by him, shall not be considered as a condition unless it appears that such was his intention.
That which has been left in this manner may be claimed at once provided that the instituted heir or his heirs give security for
compliance with the wishes of the testator and for the return of anything he or they may receive, together with its fruits and
interests, if he or they should disregard this obligation.

882 is MODAL in about modal institution. It is not a condition, almost a condition but not amounting to a condition. Because:
in a CONDITION you are not obliged to perform the condition but is suspends your right. (DOES NOT OBLIGATE BUT
SUSPENDS)
In MODAL it does not suspend your right. But it obligated the heir. (DOES NOT SUSPEND BUT OBLIGATE) 2nd paragraph:
o If you cannot comply, for the return of anything he or they may receive, together with its fruits and interests,
if he or they should disregard this obligation
o It does not suspend your right compared sa conditional suspended pa imo right.

3 MODAL INSTITUTION situations inside 882:

1. Statement of the object of the institution

a. Ex. J instituted 100k in order for you to use it for tuition fee for the college of law. So state dri unsaon ang 100k.
11
 & Friends
2. Application of the property left by the testator
a. Ex. J instituted 100k, but half of the amount shall be used for the construction of the barangay hall. Sa ato pa nay
application ang kwarta gi hatag nimu so tumanon nimu.
3. Imposed to the heir by the testator
a. Ex. Tagaan ka ug 100k. pero you are to give the 70k to your neighbor. So imo madawat na 30k.

So sa example. Kitah mo na wala jud tagaan taka bsta wala. Hatag dayon sa imo. Pero naa lay application kung unsaon
nimu pagdawat. Nimu.
Kung DUDA mo kung modal or conditional I pabor ninu sa MODAL. Dili ninu lisod2xron.

Principal Systems of Distribution of Hereditary Property

1. System of absolute freedom of disposition

o The testators property is disposable to any person he pleases provided the person has the capacity to succeed. But this
capacity requirement is generally applicable in the Phils only
o In the USA, they give a million dollars sa iring, iro. Buhata kuno na sa Pilipinas kung pwede ba na. Sa ila, there is no
legitime. Libre bisag kinsa.
o Countries practicing this: USA, England, Canada, Central America, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Mexico City
o In case you are not familiar with the country, remember the capital city
2. Total reservation
o all the estate of the testator is reserved in favor of the heirs of that testator
o only instance you can dispose to somebody else is when the testator has no heirs
o sa ato diri, it will go to the state (regalia doctrine)
3. System of partial reservation
o Here there is a free part, and there is also a legitime
o Apparently, Phils practices this
Kinds of heirs
1. Testamentary (voluntary)
o They are those heirs whose rights come from the provisions of the will
o If there is no will, they do not inherit at all. Examples: legatees, devisees
2. Legal (or intestate)
o If at all, there is no will then the property shall be distributed in accordance with law
3. Compulsory (or forced) object of discussion in the succeeding pages
o Ngano tawgon man compulsory? Wala man taw pugson na mudawat ug butang. To inherit is not an obligation but a
right
o It is compulsory because testator cannot disregard them. These heirs inherit with or without a will whether testator likes
it or not
o They are entitled to legitime. All other heirs, not legitime
o They are subdivided also:
a. Primary compulsory heirs
They take precedence over other heirs
Legitimate children and their descendants; only instance they cannot inherit is during valid disinheritance
b. Secondary compulsory heirs
They inherit only in the absence of primary heirs
Legitimate parents and ascendants
c. Concurring compulsory heirs
Regardless of who inherits, these heirs are always there. Nobody can exclude them
Surviving spouse, illegitimate children and their descendants

Article 886. Legitime is that part of the testators property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for
certain heirs who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs.

Testator cannot deprive compulsory heirs of their legitime. Neither can he impose any burden, encumbrance
It does not emanate from the will but from the law
Purpose:
1. To protect you successional right, because sometimes the testator out of unjustified anger might deprive you of your legitime. Ayaw
kaguol ka yang bala-od naghatag nimo ani
2. Thoughtlessness of the testator. This is when testator does not care about you.

12
 & Friends
3. Can you dispose the legitime? You cannot though you are owner. So legitime actually is a limitation to your right as owner. But if buhi
pa ka, wala jud magbuot nimo unsaon na nimo. Bisag worth billions pa na, imo na ibaligya bisag kinsa walai magbuot, or ipalit ba kaha
nimo na ug chupa chups
Meaning, this applies only to properties left by the decedent. Namatay na siya. Buhi pa ka, you are at liberty to dispose. But once the
person shall have died, the properties left- naa diha. Kuhaa ang legitime. It is part of testators property which cannot be disposed
because they are reserved for compulsory heirs.

Art. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:

1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants

So T is the testator, he has one child C. The only child C when T dies is the only compulsory heir
Or assuming all compulsory heirs are present, si C jud ang unahon over all others, bisag present pa na tanan
Or if duha, legitimate children unahon

2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and descendants.

Pananglitan wala jud anak, legitimate or illegitimate, pero iya parents surviving, ang parents ang mudawat sa legitime

3. The widow or widower

If there is nobody down, or up, mu-spread na.
Ig drawing nako class, broken line ang illegitimate. Straight line ang legitimate

4. Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction

5. Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287
For number 4 and 5, usaha nalang na sila. Wala na nang number 4 na classification
Duha nalang ang classification karon, wan a jud lain. Only legitimate and illegitimate children; born during wedlock, born outside of
wedlock
Therefore ang 4 and 5 i-fuse nimo na, call them illegitimate children
So there are only 4 compulsory heirs all in all. They are the only ones who are entitled to legitimes

Based on Atty. Mayols illustration

One compulsory heir
1. Legitimate children 1/2 of hereditary estate
2. Legitimate parents 1/2 (899, 890)
3. Surviving spouse
a. Only survivor - 1/2 (900)
b. Marriage was solemnized in articulo mortis & testator died 3 months from marriage 1/3, except if living as husband and wife
for more than 5 years, then 1/2

2 concurring compulsory heirs

1. Art. 892
a. Surviving spouse + 1 legitimate child
1/4 + 1/2
b. Surviving spouse + 2/more legitimate children
portion equal to legitime of each legitimate child + 1/2

2. Art 893: Legitimate parents/ascendants + surviving spouse

1/2 + 1/4

3. Art 894: Illegitimate children + surviving spouse

1/3 + 1/3
13
 & Friends

4. Art 896: Legitimate parents/ascendants + illegitimate children

1/2 + 1/4

3 concurring compulsory heirs

1. Art. 897-898: surviving spouse + legitimate children + illegitimate children
portion equal to legitime of each legitimate child + 1/2 + 1/2 of each legitimate childs share

2. Art. 899: surviving spouse + legitimate parents/ascendants + illegitimate children

1/8 + 1/2 + 1/4

Let us now consider how much the compulsory heirs are entitled

Net estate is 120,000. At time of death of T, he was survived by only child C.

Gross estate minus debts and charges is the net estate. Mao ni ang limpyo. Kung duna pa utang si T, dili pa na mahatag nimo kay dapat
pangbayran sa ang mga utang
So how much madawat ni C?

Art. 888. The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and
of the mother.
The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half, subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving
spouse as hereinafter provided.

So 1/2 of estate is 60,000. Mao na ang legitime ni C. Di jud na mausab, 1/2 jud na. Kana 60T, ka C n jud na
What about the oher half? It is the FREE DISPOSABLE PORTION
Atty: Ang libro gud nay problema. Because after giving the legitime of the compulsory heirs, he will call it FREE PORTION. Up to this point,
di pa ka maglibog. Ako na giusab, FREE DISPOSABLE PORTION. Ngano man? FREE DISPOSABLE PORTION is the portion of the estate
after all the legitimes are satisfied.
For the sake of discussion, pun-an nato (REFER STILL TO DIAGRAM ABOVE). T at the time of his death is survived by C his only son, and
W, his surviving spouse. We go to 60T. The second 60T, the other half, can we call it free portion in accordance with the discussion sa
libro? NO! because there is still a legitime to be satisfied, that of W. So mao na gi-usab na nako- FREE DISPOSABLE PORTION. You cannot
deny them of legitime. Legitime of W is 1/4 of 120T. Therefore, the FDP (FREE DISPOSABLE PORTION) is only 30T. It is error to say 60T,
then the free portion, not yet! There is still another legitime to satisfy. Unfree disposable portion na. Pero malibog nata.
Balik nata, C is the sole heir, he receives 60T, the other half is the FDP. Why FDP? Wala naman legitime na i-satisfy.
Pananglitan, duha ang anak, C and B. 60T gihapon ang legitime, but duha man sila, divide nila, 30T each sila. Meaning, 1/2 of the estate
divided by how many children. Nagkagamay ang ila share while nagkadako ang FDP. Ang surviving spouse ma-among pud ani. Kung
upat pa to sila, 15T nalang.. and so on
We also consider legally adopted children. Unsa status niya? Example si S, legally adopted ni T. Wa jud ni siya relasyon. Nakit-an ra
ngadto sa Plaza Independencia. Kanang legally adopted, if you look at the Family Code sec 189.. By fiction of law, they are treated as
legitimate children. By virtue of adoption, it creates the relationship between parent and child, even when not related by blood. But by
fiction of law, ilhon na anak. That is why, legally adopted shares the same right with the legitimate child. Wai kala-inan na diha. So
compulsory heir pud siya
Kana legitimated children.. sa inyo libro, family code, duha lang ang children: legitimate and illegitimate. Naa lain pud, legitimated
children. Obligado jud ka mu-acknowledge ana. Kana natural child diay, children who at the time of their conception their alleged parents
were not suffering from any legal impediment to marry. Pede jud unta sila magminyo, wa lang. Pero unsa man classification sa bata,
illegitimate. Born of outside of wedlock man.
Pero unsa advantage, he can be legitimated by subsequent marriage of the parents. 3 years after na-ta siya, nagminyo man iya parents. SO
unsa resulta? Legitimation by virtue of subsequent marriage. Mas duol pani sa adopted, kay relationship by blood gud ni. Lain lang ang
tawag, pun-I lang ug D, legitimateD! Among the illegitimate, mas pabor ni sila, and natural, kay they are susceptible to legitimation
14
 & Friends
Unsa naman status nila? Labaw pas adopted. SO legitimated occupy the same position as legitimate child. Under NCC, Legitimated
children shall enjoy all the rights of legitimate children
Now, and second sentence. Sa ato pa, other half of 60T can be disposed by the testator because there is no more legitime to be satisfied
As beneficiary, naa sa 60T imo share. In no case can you get more than 60T
So ang primero jud compulsory heir ka yang legitimate children. Pero ngano and their descendant man?

Example, when T dies he is survived by legitimate children C and A. B predeceased T. There are also grandchildren S and D. How do you
distribute now? B does not receive because he predeceased. SO 120T divided by 3, 20T ila share. Ang 20T ni B, asa man? Ni S and D. This is
representation. SO law says legitimate children and their descendant. But Igor a sila mudawat what otherwise the predeceased person
could have inherited.
Another example kung incapacitated. Sa will ni T, si B usa sa instrumental witnesses so incapacitated siya. Adto na sa iya mga anak, in
cases applicable. Why man?
Example si B murenounce. Ana siya, ah di ko mudawat! He deprives himself to receive. Living siya, not incapacitated, asa na padung? Mao
na in cases of applicable. In case of renounciation, the renouncer can never be represented. So si S and D ma zero pud. Wa gud ka mudawat
nya mapasa na nuon? Resulta, 2 nalang mag bahin, si C and A nalang. So 30T each sila, on account of renunciation. Ang predecease
mangud, din a binuhatan niya. Pagbuot nas lain. Kato incapacity, pwede pud na negligence. Kana jud renunciation, din a jud nap de kay wa
nimo gidawat imo right. Di tanan makadawat pwede ma-represent sa anak

Art. 889. The legitime of legitimate parents or ascendants consist of one half of the hereditary estates of their children and
descendants.

So class pareha ra 1/2 gihapon. Pasabot ani sila ra jud compulsory heirs present. Wa na jud lain.

So 1/2 gihapon, therefore 60T. Gipahibaw ra ta pila ang legitime, unya duha mana sila karon, kinsa makadawat sa 60T? Buhi pa ang duha.
Naa lain article ana.

Art. 890. The legitime reserved for the legitimate parents shall be divided between them equally; if one of the parents
should have died, the whole shall pass to the survivor.

Therefore, 60T divide between them, 30T each si F ug M.

Pero d man malikayan, mangamatay jud ta. So example ang survivor nalang kay si F kay patay na si M. What happens? The whole shall
pass to the survivor. Bingo! The whole 60T adto ni F lang, d jud na maguol. Ig sud sa kwarto sigi lang na tingsi
Pananglitan ang parents ni M, si GF ug GM buhi pa sila duha. Can we not apply representation also? Class, there is no representation in
the ascending line. No exception. Wa silay madawat. It only applies in the direct descending line. For how long? Unli na
Other half, the 60T, it is disposable by will.
Assume sah ta na human na ang probate ani. SO tan awon nato who are favored in the will. Maximum amount T can give is the FDP.
Pero example, namatay si M, nagpakamatay nalang pud si F. Ang amahan ni F, si AL. Iya mama si AB. Ngano AL man? Amahan nga Laki. In
relation to T, Apohan na Laki. Si AB? Apohan na Baye
Asa mana ang 60T run? Nangamatay na iya parents, but grandparents both sets are alive.

Art. 890 (2nd par). If the testator leaves neither father nor mother, but is survived by ascendants of equal degree of the
paternal and maternal lines, the legitime shall be divided equally between both lines. If the ascendants should be of different
degrees, it shall pertain entirely to the ones nearest in degree of either line
15
 & Friends

Query: So unsaon pagdivide ?

Answer:
So therefore equal. 15 each. Ang total 60. (See figure 1)
Divided among the ascendants with equal degree. Three degrees away from T.
Query: Butang ta lang, patay na si GM. Paternal line- AL & AB surviving at the time of death of T. But then sa maternal line, si GF ra
maoy buhi. How to go about 60,000? Unsaon pagdivide?

Answer:
Apply the rules sa parents (See Figure 2). If anyone of the parents shall have died, the whole shall pass to the
survivor. Therefore ang madawat ni GF- 30.
Ayaw ispread na (ayaw ni AL & AB) kay lain manang pamilya. Mao ra gihapon if one of the parents have died, it shall pass
to the survivor.
Kung ikaw si AL, nya naibog gyud kas 30, ikaw nay mahibaw unsaon nimo, kana imong asawa na si AB- mupalit ba ka run ug
Buriring (poisonous fish).

So far, 2 na:
ONE COMPULSORY HEIR
1. Legitimate Child (pursuant to Art.888)
2. Legitimate Parent/Ascendants (Art. 889, 890)

ARTICLE 892.If only one legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives, the widow or widower shall be entitled to one-
fourth of the hereditary estate. In case of a legal separation, the surviving spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had
given cause for the same.
If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the
legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants.
In both cases, the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be taken from the portion that can be freely disposed of by the testator.
In 892, it is all about the surviving spouse. Ang share sa surviving spouse-mao nay problema kay dili magparehas, mausab2x depende kinsa
ang concurring.
Query: Whole estate is worth 120,000. These are the survivors at the time of Ts death. Legitimate spouse-W & 1 child- C.

Answer :
Usa ra gani ang anak, C gets 60,000.
If only one legitimate child or descendant of the deceased survives, the widow or widower shall be entitled to
one-fourth of the hereditary estate.
Usa ra gani ang anak, fixed quota- . So W gets one fourth- = 30,000.
The remaining 30,000 is the free disposable portion.
So ang 1/4th ma fixed quota rani if 1 ra jud ang anak.

16
 & Friends
In case of a legal separation, the surviving spouse may inherit if it was the deceased who had given cause for the same.
In case of legal separation, ikaw gani ang offending spouse remember- you cannot inherit. Offending spouse meaning the guilty
spouse, the person who committed an act which constitute a ground for legal separation. There are 10 causes, ikaw gani nihatag ug
hinungdan para ma legally separated- dili ka makapanunod. If the guilty spouse is the deceased, no problem- ang imong katungod
nagpadayon kay dili man ikaw maoy nihatag ug higayon. Importante to identify offending spouse-guilty spouse (kay offended
spouse-innocent spouse).

2nd paragraph: If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion
equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants.
Query: Two children B & C. Surviving spouse/widow/widower- W. Pila ang legitime class?

Answer :
So 60 divided by 2 = 30 - for the children.
So the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to that of each of the legitimate
children or descendants. Pila man each sa children? 30, so automatic 30 to the surviving spouse as well. Ayaw pag-
ingon ug kay numerically, 30 ra gihapon but wrong imong reason. Ang kanang 1/4th kung 1 child ra. Kung 2 gani, usab
imo rason- equal to the legitime of each of the children.
Query: Three children A, B & C. Surviving spouse/widow/widower- W. Pila ang legitime class?

Answer :
Equal to the legitime of each. Automatic 20 imo.

Query: Four legitimate children A, B, C & D. Surviving spouse/widow/widower- W. Pila ang legitime class?

Mao na class, kung 2 ang anak- magtapis pa-paso2x sa tv, kung 3 na magmalong na-kay mugamay man iya (Ws share if 2 anak-
30, 3 anak-20).
Magkadaghan ang anak, magkagamay ang share sa spouse- kay equal to the legitime of each child man. Asa man nadungag?
Ang free portion mudako ana.
Kanang kung usa ra ang anak. Kung daghan na ug anaksss- equal to the legitime of each na(Sige balik2x ni Atty)
So ang 892 class, talks about concurring compulsory heirs.
Ff
So Now :
ONE COMPULSORY HEIR TWO CONCURRING HEIRS
1. Legitimate Child (pursuant to 1. Widow or Surviving spouse &
Art.888) Legitimate Child/children
(Art.892)
2. Legitimate Parent/Ascendants (Art.
889, 890)

ARTICLE 893. If the testator leaves no legitimate descendants, but leaves legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse shall have a
right to one-fourth of the hereditary estate.
This fourth shall be taken from the free portion of the estate.
Two: Legitimate parents or ascendants and Surviving spouse. Therefore there are two concurring compulsory heirs:

17
 & Friends

Answer: The book gives you W(surviving spouse) - 1/4. But diba ang children ? So therefore, apply nimo: is 30, and is 60.
Although wala ma-stated siya (kung pila sa ascendants), na- assuming there are two concurring compulsory heirs.

ARTICLE 894. If the testator leaves illegitimate children, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-third of the hereditary estate
of the deceased and the illegitimate children to another third. The remaining third shall be at free disposal of the testator.
Concurring compulsory heirs: Surviving spouse (W) and Illegitimate child (X).

Answer: In equal footing ang surviving and illegitimate. What about free disposable portion? 40.
(Atty: Para nako, walay hustisya na, dili makiangayon. Naay illegitimate wala kakita sa iyang amahan-wala gani na kahatag ug usa
ka marshmallow. Therefore, nganu i-equal footing man kompara sa asawa? Ang asawa- maglaba, magluto. Not equitable. But mao
man naas balaod.)
So now:
ONE COMPULSORY HEIR TWO CONCURRING HEIRS
1. Legitimate Child (pursuant to 1. Widow or Surviving spouse &
Art.888) Legitimate Child/children
(Art.892)
2. Legitimate Parent/Ascendants (Art. 2. Legitimate Parent/Ascendants &
889, 890) Wife or Surviving spouse
(Art. 893)
3. Illegitimate Child &
Wife or Surviving spouse
(Art. 894)

ARTICLE 895 is an old provision replaced. Besides, wala namay acknowledged natural children. Wala nana class ui. BUT TAKE NOTE OF
THE LAST HALF OF THE LAST SENTENCE:
in no case shall the total legitime of such illegitimate children exceed that free portion, and that the legitime of the surviving
spouse must first be fully satisfied.
Kuwang gani, ikaw illegitimate you will suffer!
Ang madawat sa illegitimate-half ra sa legitimate.
T-testator. W-surviving spouse. C- Legitimate child. X-illegitimate child:

Answer: 1. First, 60, 000 or - legitimate child

2. Then second, usa raman ang legitimate so fixed quota of - surviving spouse.
3. Then 30 thousand for the illegitimate.

Query: If there are two illegitimate children?

18
 & Friends

Answer: 1. First, 60, 000 or - legitimate child

2. Then second, usa raman ang legitimate so fixed quota of = 30 - surviving spouse.
3. Then 30 thousand divided by 2(number of illegitimate) = 15 thousand for the illegitimate.
Background of the law: Before the new civil code, the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitime but
then with the enactment on August 15, 1950 of the new civil code- they modified, hatagan nalang ang
illegitimate (See Art. 176). But if the estate is kuwang, they will suffer a reduction. Thats why from 30 on Figure
9, to 15 on Figure 10. So if there are three illegitimate, X,Y & Z.

ARTICLE 896. Illegitimate children who may survive with legitimate parents or ascendants of the deceased shall be entitled to one-
fourth of the hereditary estate to be taken from the portion at the free disposal of the testator.
Query: T is survived by legitimate parents or ascendants and a illegitimate child:

Answer: F& M gets 60. One fourth for the illegitimate.

So:
ONE COMPULSORY HEIR TWO CONCURRING HEIRS THREE CONCURRING
1. Legitimate Child 1. Widow/ Surviving spouse 1. Legitimate Child
(pursuant to &Legitimate Child/ren (Art.892) Surviving Spouse (equal to
Art.888) legitime of each legitimate
children) &
Illegitimate Child of each
legitimate childs share
(Art. 897 & 898)
2. Legitimate Parent 2. LegitimateParent/Ascendants &
or Ascendants Wife or Surviving spouse
(Art. 889, 890) (Art. 893)
3. Illegitimate Child &
Wife or Surviving spouse
(Art. 894)
4. Legitimate Parent/Ascendants
Illegitimate Child (Art. 896)

ARTICLE 897. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or descendants, and acknowledged natural children,
or natural children by legal fiction, such surviving spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the
legitimate children which must be taken from that part of the estate which the testator can freely dispose of.

ARTICLE 898. If the widow or widower survives with legitimate children or descendants, and with illegitimate children other than
acknowledged natural, or natural children by legal fiction, the share of the surviving spouse shall be the same as that provided in
the preceding article

19
 & Friends
Article 897 & 898 i-fuse rana sila.
Query: Testator, Surviving spouse (W), Illegitimate child (X) and Legitimate child (C). Whats the result? Three concurring
compulsory heirs.

Answer: Legitimate child C gets

Surviving spouse gets fixed quota or since only 1 legitimate child, so = 30
Illegitimate gets half of what was given to the legitimate = 30
Note: NO FREE PORTION
Pero ang napakasakit diha, napakasakit kuya eddie, ang Article 899..
ARTICLE 899. When the widow or widower survives with legitimate parents or ascendants and with illegitimate children, such
surviving spouse shall be entitled to one-eighth of the hereditary estate of the deceased which must be taken from the free portion,
and the illegitimate children shall be entitled to one-fourth of the estate which shall be taken also from the disposable portion. The
testator may freely dispose of the remaining one-eighth of the estate.
Query: Three concurring compulsory heirs- The Surviving spouse (W), the Legitimate ascendants (F&M) and the Illegitimate child
(X)

Answer: We start with legitimate parents so = 60

Then illegitimate = 30
Surviving spouse 1/8 = 15
Atty: Unsay basis nganung 1/8? Nganu man na class? Nisikripisyo ang surviving spouse. Para unta nako, balihon ni ui ang 60 ug 15.
Para nako lang nuh. Unsaon mani class? Pila man diay ang lugaw (para palit sa mga tiguwang F& M)?

Answer to Russel G.s query: See Figure 15. X- illegitimate will get half divided by number of legitimate children (60-total due to all
legitimate children divided by 4- number of legitimate children).To simplify: If 15 is given each for the legitimate child, then half of that
is 7.5 which is due to the illegitimate. Theres NEVER an instance that the illegitimates share is greater than that of the legitimate
child.

ARTICLE 900. If the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to one-half of the hereditary estate of the
deceased spouse, and the testator may freely dispose of the other half.

If the marriage between the surviving spouse and the testator was solemnized in articulo mortis, and the testator died within three
months from the time of the marriage, the legitime of the surviving spouse as the sole heir shall be one-third of the hereditary
estate, except when they have been living as husband and wife for more than five years. In the latter case, the legitime of the
surviving spouse shall be that specified in the preceding paragraph.

Usa ra gani ka compulsory heir- gyud na madawat. Pirmi one-half. Although nay adjustment- because of the 2nd paragraph
If the marriage between the surviving spouse and the testator was solemnized in articulo mortis
Articulo mortis- when one or both of the contracting parties are at the point of death.

20
 & Friends
So here, in Article 900- the party who is at the point of death in a marriage solemnized in articulo mortis eventually
died within 3 months.
Nganu 1/3 man? Ai, basin nagpakasal ra ka para makapanunod ka anim*** ka! Shahdap!

When will the one half be restored?

except when they have been living as husband and wife for more than five years. In the latter case, the legitime
of the surviving spouse shall be that specified in the preceding paragraph
Bisan pa nag-ipon mu sir and wala makasal? Yes, cohabit for at least 5 years.
Naa ba na sa intestate or legal? Wala, sa testamentary ra. Sa intestate- imo tanan.

So in other words:
ONE COMPULSORY HEIR TWO CONCURRING HEIRS THREE CONCURRING
1. Legitimate Child 1. A.) Widow/ Surviving spouse & 2. Legitimate Child
(pursuant to Art.888) 1 Legitimate Child Surviving Spouse (equal to
legitime of each legitimate
B.) Widow/ Surviving spouse children) &
(equal to legitime of each Illegitimate Child of each
legitimate child) & legitimate childs share
2 or more than Legitimate Child (Art. 897 & 898)
(Art.892)
2. Legitimate Parent or 2. LegitimateParent/Ascendants & 2. Surviving spouse 1/8
Ascendants (Art. Surviving spouse Legitimate parents/ascendants
889, 890) (Art. 893) Illegitimate children
(Art. 899)
3. Surviving spouse 3. Illegitimate Child 1/3 &
a.) only survivor Surviving spouse 1/3
(Art. 894)
b.) articulo mortis &
died w/in 3mos.
1/3

c.) except when living

as h&w for more than
5yrs
(Art. 900)
4. Legitimate Parent/Ascendants
Illegitimate Child (Art. 896)

ONLY COMPULSORY HEIR IS THE WIDOW/WIDOWER:

Art. 900. If the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to one-half of the hereditary
estate of the deceased spouse, and the testator may freely dispose of the other half. (837a)

If the marriage between the surviving spouse and the testator was solemnized in articulo mortis, and the
testator died within three months from the time of the marriage, the legitime of the surviving spouse as the
sole heir shall be one-third of the hereditary estate, except when they have been living as husband and wife
for more than five years. In the latter case, the legitime of the surviving spouse shall be that specified in the
preceding paragraph.

The legitime of the surviving spouse assume he/she alone is the compulsory heir is subject to qualification in law.
- If the marriage is in articulo mortis and the spouse was at the point of death at the time of marriage, dies by reason of the
same injury he was suffering within 3 months, that means reduction of your legitime to 1/3. May be restored to but he must
have cohabited for at least five years. Even without the benefit of marriage but as long as you cohabit as husband and wife for
at least five years, the suspicion is erased true and genuine love (naks)
- Article 899 was copied from the Civil Code of Argentina

21
 & Friends
ONLY COMPULSORY LEFT ARE THE ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN:
Article 901. When the testator dies leaving illegitimate children and no other compulsory heirs, such
illegitimate children shall have a right to one-half of the hereditary estate of the deceased.

The other half shall be at the free disposal of the testator.

Estate: 120,000 of T

Proportionate distribution to the children of X

Only legitimate child has the right to representation for X
o Basis: Article 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)

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.

ONLY ARTICLE WHERE TESTATOR IS ILLEGITIMATE:

Art. 903. The legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate child, when such child leaves neither legitimate
descendants, nor a surviving spouse, nor illegitimate children, is one-half of the hereditary estate of such
illegitimate child. If only legitimate or illegitimate children are left, the parents are not entitled to any legitime
whatsoever. If only the widow or widower survives with parents of the illegitimate child, the legitime of the
parents is one-fourth of the hereditary estate of the child, and that of the surviving spouse also one-fourth of
the estate. (n)

3 SITUATIONS FOR AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD AS TESTATOR:

1. Illegitimate testator leaves legitimate or illegitimate, PARENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED.

T executed a will. Survived by his only child C.

B and S (biological or putative or natural parents) cannot inherit, but if B and S
marry before the death of T, they can inherit.

Just the same, the illegitimate parents are excluded by the illegitimate child of an
illegitimate child.

PRINCIPLE: illegitimate parents can be excluded by both legitimate or illegitimate children of the testator who is an illegitimate
also.
While if the testator is legitimate, the presence of illegitimate children cannot exclude the legitime of the parents.

2. Illegitimate child, when such child leaves neither legitimate descendants, nor a surviving spouse, nor illegitimate
children, PARENTS ARE ENTITLED TO ONE-HALF OF THE HEREDITARY ESTATE.

Ts estate is 120,000. The legitime of the parents who have an illegitimate child,
when such child leaves neither legitimate descendants, nor a surviving spouse,
nor illegitimate children, is one-half of the hereditary estate of such illegitimate
child.

3. If only the widow or widower survives with parents of the illegitimate child, the legitime of the PARENTS IS ONE-
FOURTH of the hereditary estate of the child, and that of the SURVIVING SPOUSE ALSO ONE-FOURTH of the estate.

If legitimate pa toh, and but since the testator is illegitimate, both parents
and spouse are given

22
 & Friends
We will not discuss 904, 905 and 906 YET, because we will first discuss Article 891 (Reserva troncal) kay taas kaayo.

RESERVA TRONCAL

Art. 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired
by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he
may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who
belong to the line from which said property came.

4 PERSONAL CHARACTERS INVOLVED:

1. Origin
2. Propositus
3. Reservor
4. Reservees Beneficiary

2 TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY here (double transfer)

Origin G as in grandfather of P
Reservor F as in father of P

ORIGIN, G
The transfer from the origin to the propositus should be by gratuitous or lucrative title, one where there is no consideration given.
Therefore exemplified by donation.
Being a donation, the formalities should be complied with Article 7491
o Public instrument
Who can be an ORIGIN? An ascendant or brother or sister of the propositus
Origin must have absolute ownership of the property

PROPOSITUS, P the highlight, starting point of reserva troncal

Is he (P) an owner being the donee?
o YES, donation is a mode of acquiring ownership.
Can (P) being the donee do anything to the property as an owner?
o YES, he has the right to dispose, use, to the fruits, etc., as the owner
Is there a reserva troncal Up to this point?
o NO, not yet.
P died without an issue, or without a descendant, legitimate or illegitimate. Nobody will receive it from him. The property will go
to his parents, F.

RESERVOR/RESERVISTA, F
Did F acquire ownership?
o YES, succession is also a mode of acquiring ownership
Is it absolute? WHY?
o NO, only conditional (temporary ownership). Only for the benefit of the reservees.
F will be similar to a usufruct who has the right to use and to the fruits.
What if F disposes of the property by selling it to B, buyer?
o If purchaser in good faith (B is not aware that the property is subject to reservation) and for value (valuable
consideration is given to the buyer), protected by law. Its rights (good faith buyer) cannot be defeated by any other
right because you are not required to look beyond what is in the title.

1
Art. 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of
the charges which the donee must satisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the
lifetime of the donor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both
instruments. (633)
23
 & Friends
o Because the reservees cannot get the property back from the buyer, Fs liability is that his properties are answerable
to the reservees to the same extent or value at the time of the reservation.
What should the reservees do to secure their right to the property?
o They must annotate in the title regarding the reservable character so that your right as a reserve will be superior to
that of the right of the buyer.
For how long should the reservor reserve the property?
o You look at the term or duration given by the testator
o Or if there is no term, until death or reservoir
Second transfer: Transfer by operation of law intestate succession

RESERVEE Ultimate beneficiaries

The reservees should be legitimately related from the line where it came from (that means parente jud ka ni.ining ni hatag)
It must be within the third degree from the Propositus because the reservees inherited from the Propositus and not from the
Origin or Reservor

ENUMERATION OF THE PERSONS IN THE LINE FROM THE PROPOSITUS: PROSPECTIVE RESERVEES
1. FIRST DEGREE: Father, Mother
2. SECOND DEGREE: Grandparents, Brother, Sister
3. THIRD DEGREE: Great grandparents, Uncles and Aunts, Nephew and Nieces

Which line? You look at the Origin (comes from the Paternal Line)
o Purpose of the law: To maintain absolutely as possible, the separation between the maternal and paternal line so that
the property does not pass to the other
o Pugngan nimo kung mabalhin

Situation: H and W are husband and wife with three children, A, B and C. H is the only son. H died. W and the three children
become co-owners of Hs property. The three children are still minors (under the bunal of W). All of the parente of H (in his
side) were barred from entering the property by W. Only the parente of W were allowed which made Hs parente hostile to W.
The children would be sandwiched between Hs parente and Ws parente with whom they are all parente.
The point is the property was supposed to be from the paternal line, H. By some streak of fortune, it went to W. The parente of
H then would be kutob tan-aw nalang. Which is why the purpose of the law is to maintain absolutely as possible the separation
of the maternal and paternal lines.

Reservees should be relative of the origin as well as the relative of the propositus within the third degree.
It is called RESERVA TRONCAL OR RESERVA LINEAL because it will follow only the line of the origin.
It is called RESERVA EXTRAORDINARIO because it will not follow the usual system of legitime. It is by operation of law.
Extraordinary procedure.

RULES
If the same degree, the DIRECT LINE is favoured over the collateral line.
If same direct line, the DESCENDING is favoured over the ascending.

WHO IS THE LAST PERSON WHO CAN INHERIT? (KATAPUSANG MANUNUNOD)

Child of your first cousin

How much is the reservable amount?

o If the value of one hectare is five million, the amount reservable is five million.

Legend: red : Comment ni sir

Ang feature sa reserva troncal are two transfers, GRATUITOUS ang first, then by OPERATION OF LAW. The origin is necessarily an
ascendant or a brother/sister. The death of the propositus is the highlight, it is the substantive point of reserva troncal.
Reservor though owner, he cannot alienate.
If alienate, then dili na makuha nato, ang imong property shall be answerable to the premise what has been parted away
Reservees/Ultimate beneficiaries Those that will inherit from the propositus. Must be within the third degree from the propositus. Who
will become full owners of the property, the moment the reservor dies.
Sa ato pa, resolutory condition. The reservor, by the time he shall have died, and duna gany reservees living and existing,
class i-turn over jud na nimo. Siya may katapusang tag-iya. Inig abot ana nila, wala nay discussion, final destination na man.
xxx xxxx - xxx - xxxx
Class i-assume ta, Supposing P executed a will, ang iyang nadawat na yuta by donation ihurot niyag hatag sa iyang papa, by
virtue of a will this time. Is it by operation of law? There is a will. Pangutan.on ka ra ba, Is it reservable property? If yes, to what
amount?
24
 & Friends
It is not by operation of law, it is by will. Ngano man, naa may last will and testament. So, Fs legitime is 500,000 (If estate of
the propositus is 1,000,000), he still acquires the whole 1,000,000. Therefore, the first half is subject to reserva troncal
(legitime), because it has to be transferred by operation of law. The other half, that coming from the free portion, the father
owns it by virtue of the will. Therefore, not by operation of law. So only half of the amount representing the legitime, shall be
subject to Reserva troncal.
xxx xxxx - xxx - xxxx
From russells inquiry:
The right of the reservees, shall accrue once the reservors shall have died. Therefore, if buhi pa ang reservor, even if iya na
ibaligya ang property, ang reservees walay mabuhat, because any action therein is considered premature.

From mel:
If nahurot na, wala nay ikahatag, dili naman jud na nato mapuga, ug wala na juy duga.

From Anonymous: Kanang half-brother sir, makadawat na?

Sa uban author, Ascendant brother or sister, sa kang Paras necessarily half-brother or sister. Dili pa na siya class, kay wala man mo
Qualify ang balaod. Pero anyway, if dili gud half brother or sister, there is no transfer if there is no line.

Illustration:
Y M F
H P(Propositor)
- H is the half brother of the Propositur (Anak sa iyang inahan M by a previous marriage from Y, nagminyo siya usab
pagkabyoda)
- He is entitled to reserva troncal. Because

1
2
Y M F
H P(Propositor)
2
2
From hazel: Sir what if adopted?
You are only related by Affinity, you are not related by blood. The adopted is not the ascendant.
From ron: Sir, ang property na madawat sa reservor, maapil ba siya sa estate sa reservor?
Class can you include the subject property in his estate, those properties subject to reserva troncal? No. That does not belong
to the reservor. The creditors of the reservor . Because when the reservees inherit the property not from the reservor, but from
the propositur. Sa ato pa, ang imong right ana mura rag Usufructuary. Pagkamatay sa reservor, ang property kay resolutory
condition man, pagkamatay sa reservor, naa ganey reservees, ilaha jud na.

Q: What is the legitime of the adopter with respect to the property of the adoptee?
A: You (adopter) have no legitime. There is no such thing as legitime of the adopter. It will go the natural parents and you are
still an heir to your natural parents. Adopter is a legal heir but not a compulsory heir (FC Article 190)
The adopted child is a compulsory heir both of the natural parents and adopter parents.

Q&A: Intrinsic Validity Law in force at the time of death If natural parents of an illegitimate child marries before death of said child,
the parents can inherent from the child
LEGITIMATED if both parents have no legal impediment to marry during the conception of the child, and said parents married
thereafter
If a parent has a legal impediment (married to another), then married the other parent after the death of the previous spouse, there
is still no legitimation.

ANSWERS TO THE PRE-MID EXAMINATION:

CASE 1: Age is 76, needs only 5 years. From July 10, 1991, that is July 10, 1996 (5 years only); Age 67, 2001 is 10 years

CASE 2: Joint will Foreigners are not prohibited; for Filipinos, ayaw ingna nga prohibited, it is VOID kay gibuhat naman

CASE 3: Grandfather wants to revoke the will but grandchild knows that he is an heir. Apo hid the will. Only a blank envelope was
burned, no revocation of will. But the apo cannot be an heir on the ground of unworthiness.

CASE 4: Three witnesses to a holographic will. One of the witnesses was instituted as heir. He is still valid as an heir because
holographic wills dont need witnesses.

CASE 5: Republication. Defect as to form can never be republished by a codicil.

25
 & Friends
CASE 6: 2004 will, nausab iya hunahuna. Made another will on 2010. 2010 will was denied by probate because it is defective as to
form. Presented 2004 can be presented for probate. Can an invalid will revoke a valid will? NO, the revoking will must be itself valid.

CASE 7: One, signature was forged. Second, testator was only 16. Discovered one year after probate proceedings. Pwede pa
ipa.invalidate? NO. What is the effect of probate? Conclusive as to its due execution. Meaning it was executed strictly in accordance to
law. Moot and academic

DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE

Seven steps

Art. 908.
To determine the legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the testator shall be considered, deducting all debts and
charges, which shall not include those imposed in the will.
To the net value of the hereditary estate, shall be added the value of all donations by the testator that are subject to collation, at the
time he made them. (818a)

What is the gross estate?

If a person dies with property, you are to distribute the valuation of the property; the parcel of land, shares of stock, money in the bank, add
alltheir value, that is the gross estate.

For example, 120,000 gross estate minus allowable deductions, let us say, 20, 000, that will give you now a net estate of 100, 000 of the
person, from the net estate you add collationable donations, donations inter vivos which are donations during the lifetime of the
testator:40,000 in favor of A, a legitimate son and 20,000 in favor of F, a friend,

EXAMPLE 1:
Gross Estate: 120,000
MINUS: Allowable Deduction: (20,000)
NET ESTATE: 100,000

ADD: Collationable Donations:

(Donation Inter Vivos)
1. In favor of legal son A 40,000
2. In favor of a friend F 20,000
NET DISTIBUTABLE ESTATE 160,000

The net distributable estate is the object of apportionment. If there is an administration proceeding, the administrator can provide for the
value of the property, if there be non, you can resort to valuation from administrator or barangay day care (?), not just the declared value at
the assesors office, you can ask for topography or zonal valuation. On allowable deductions during the lifetime of the testator, they are
permissive, they may include obligations.

Just in case during the lifetime of the testator, there are donations. He has two sons, A and B. He gives donation in favor of A worth 40, 000
and donation in favor of F, a friend, worth 20,000. What is given to A is an advance legitime. The donation given to F will form part of the
estate that the testator could freely dispose of. These donations will be collated to the present assets. This is to maintain equality in the
distribution of legitime. Testator cannot deprive the legal heirs of their legitime.

The 160,000 is the net distributable estate. We are now to know who shall be the recipients of the money and what is the order of
preference. The net distributable estate is now the object of distribution.

Persons of the recipient:

A-Legal heir, 40,000 (donation inter vivos)
B- Legal heir
F- friend, 20,000 (donation inter vivos)
P- 40,000 (preferred legacy)
K- Legacy of 10,000
L- Legacy of 5,000
M- Legacy of 5,000

ART. 909:
Donations given to children shall be charged to their legitime.
Donations made to strangers shall be charged to that part of the estate of which the testator could have disposed by his last will.
Insofar as they may be inofficious or may exceed the disposable portion, they shall be reduced according to the rules established
by this Code. (819a)

Donations in favor of the compulsory heir shall be charged to his legitime.

Donations in favor of strangers shall be charged to the part of the estate which the testator can freely dispose of.

ART. 911:
After the legitime has been determined in ac- cordance with the three preceding articles, the reduction shall be made as follows:
26
 & Friends
(1) Donations shall be respected as long as the legitime can be covered, reducing or annulling, if necessary, the de- vises or
legacies made in the will;
(2) The reduction of the devises or legacies shall be pro rata without any distinction whatever.
If the testator has directed that a certain devise or legacy be paid in preference to others, it shall not suffer any reduction until the
latter have been applied in full to the payment of the legitime.
(3) If the devise or legacy consists of a usufruct or life annuity, whose value may be considered greater than that of the
disposable portion, the compulsory heirs may choose between complying with the testamentary provision and de- livering to the
devisee or legatee the part of the inheritance of which the testator could freely dispose. (820a)

Order of payment:
1.) Legitime
2.) Donation inter vivos
3.) Preferred Legacy-
4.) All others, PRO RATA
SO:
A: 40,000 (the earlier donation treated as legitime)
B: 40,000 (share from the legitime)
F: 20,000 (Donation inter vivos)
P: 40,000 (Preferred)
K: 10, 000
L: 5,000
M: 5,000

LEGITIME.The legitime must first be satisfied. Who are entitled to legitime? A and B. Their legitime is half of 160,000, therefore, 80,000
which is to be divided between A and B, so 40,000 each. However, A is a recipient of a donation. A donation inter vivos is an advance
legitime. I do not need to give A the legitime because by law the donation is treated as part of the legitime. It was presumed that the testator
was merely advancing the legitime when he made the donation.

DONATION INTER VIVOS. The second preference is the donation inter vivos in favor of F. The donation in favor of a friend is to be charged
from the free portion. If the free portion is 80,000, minus 20, 000, which is the donation in favor of F, 60,000 is left.

PREFERRED LEGACIES. In legacies, if any has been declared preferred, he shall not suffer a reduction. If there are four legacies, the
preferred legacy must be the priority. Preferred legacy is to be charged from the free portion. Thus, the remaining 60,000 shall be deducted
by 40,000, the preferred legacy in favor of P.

OTHERS. There remains 20,000 which shall be distributed pro rata to K, L, M. So K- 10,000, L- 5,000, M-5,000.

If there are no donations, the net estate is the object of distribution.

EXAMPLE 2:
Gross Estate: 120,000
MINUS: Allowable Deductions: (40,000)
NET ESTATE: 80,000

ADD: Collationable Donations

1.) in favor of legal son A 40,000
2.) infavor of friend F 20,000
NET DISTRIBUTABLE ESTATE 140,000

Persons of the recipient:

A- Legal heir, 40,000 (donation inter vivos)
B- Legal heir
F- friend, 20,000 (donation inter vivos)
P- 40,000 (preferred legacy)
K- Legacy of 10,000
L- Legacy of 5,000
M- Legacy of 5,000

First, determine the legitime of A and B. One half of the estate of the testator is 70,000, divided by 2, so 35,000 each. Donation inter vivos in
favor of A exceeds 5,000. The excess of 5,000 shall be treated as a donation to a stranger. So, it is to be charged from the free portion
whichthe testator can freely dispose of. The free portion of 70,000 is to be deducted by 5,000, so the free portion is now only 65,000. A holds
the 40,000 in two capacities, as a legitime (35,000) and a donee (5,000).

SO:
A:40,000 (35,000) (excess of 5,000 shall be charged from the free portion of 70,000)
B: 35,000
F:20,000 (deducted from the free portion of 65,000. So free portion now is 45,000)
P: 40,000 ( deducted from the free portion of 45,000. As long as there is enough free portion, preferred legacy must not suffer reduction.
Free portion now is 5,000)
27
 & Friends
K: 2,500
L: 1,250
M: 1,250

The legacies shall share the free portion pro-rata. Each of them may suffer a reduction. RULE: You cannot give more than the free portion.

EXAMPLE 3:
Gross Estate: 120,000
MINUS: Allowable Deductions: (60,000)
NET ESTATE: 60,000

ADD: Collationable Donations

1.) in favor of legal son A 40,000
2.) in favor of friend F 20,000
NET DISTRIBUTABLE ESTATE 120,000

Persons of the recipient:

A- Legal heir, 40,000 (donation inter vivos)
B- Legal heir
F- friend, 20,000 (donation inter vivos)
P- 40,000 (preferred legacy)
K- Legacy of 10,000
L- Legacy of 5,000
M- Legacy of 5,000

The legitime for the compulsory heirs is now 60,000. Divide by 2,each receives 30,000. However, the donation in favor of A must not suffer
any reduction. Donation inter vivos is effective during lifetime, while disposition mortis cause is effective upon death of the testator.
PRIORITY IN TIME, PRIORITY IN RIGHT. Donation inter vivos, being effective during lifetime, is given priority. More so, in donation, there is
bilateral contract between the donor and the donee, which requires acceptance.

ART 765:
The donation may also be revoked at the instance of the donor, by reason of ingratitude in the following cases:
(1) If the done should commit some offense against the person, the honor or the property of the donor, or his wife or
children under his parental authority;
(2)If the done imputes to the donor any criminal offense, or any act involving moral turpitude, even though he should
prove it, unless the crime or the act has been committed against the done himself, his wife or children under his authority;
(3) If he unduly refuses him support when the done is legally or morally bound to give support to the donor

If there is no acceptance, there is no donation. You cannot compel anyone to accept your generosity. Disposition Mortis Cause is not a
contract.
The excess of 10,00 in the share of A shall be treated as donation to a stanger.

SO:
A: 40,000 (30,000) (the excess of 10,000 shall be charged from the free portion)
B: 30,000 (share from the legitime)
F: 20,000 (deducted from the free portion of 50,000. So free portion now is 30,000)
P: 30,000 (40000) (deducted from the free portion of 30,000. The preferred legacy suffered a reduction of 10,000 because the free portion
is not enough to cover the entire amount. THERE IS NO MORE FREE PORTION)
K: NONE
L: NONE
M:NONE

K, L, and M have nothing to receive because there is no enough free portion which the testator can freely dispose of.
Donation shall be respected as long as the legitime can be covered, reducing or annulling, if necessary, the devises or legacies made in a will.

REITERATION: Donations to the compulsory heirs shall be charged to the legitime.It shall be part of the legitime.From the same example, I
donate 110,000, so there remain 10,000. We divide this to the compulsory heirs,5,000 each. So one has 115,000, while the other receives
only 5,000. There is no equality. The law protects equality. The compulsory heir must not be deprived of his legitime. In case donation inter
vivos is used as a scheme to defeat the purpose of thelaw not to deprive the compulsory heirs of their legitime, let it be considered as part of
the legitime already and credited to them as the recipient.
Prescribed form: Amount exceeds 5,000, it has to be in writing, public or private, If it is a real property, always in public document. If does
not follow prescribed form, void.

DISINHERITANCE

Art. 915. A compulsory heir may, in consequence of disinheritance, be deprived of his legitime, for causes expressly stated by
law.

28
 & Friends
DISINHERITANCE is an act by virtue of which the testator can deprive the compulsory heirs their legitime for causes specified
by law through his testamentary disposition.
First, through testamentary disposition- there has to be a will.
Second, the persons who are objects of disinheritance are those entitled to their legitime. IOW, only compulsory
heirs are object of disinheritance.
Third, the cause must be one stated by law:

o Art. 919. Children

o Art 920. Parent or Ascendant
o Art 921. Spouse

Q: Suppose I am disinherited, which part of the estate am I being denied? The legitime or the free portion?

A: Legitime and free portion. You are totally excluded. You cannot say that as a compulsory heir you are only being
excluded to the legitime and claim the free portion. This is because if you can be excluded from the part which is
reserved for you, with more reason can you be excluded from the free portion which is not reserved to you and which
in fact can be disposed by the testator to somebody else.

Art. 916. Disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. (849)

Requisites for a VALID Disinheritance

(1) There has to be a valid and unrevoked will.
(2) The cause must be legal, true, existing and must be proved, if ever denied.
Legal- meaning the cause must be one specified by law.
True- because there are fabricated causes.
Exisiting- at the time you made the disinheritance, the ground has already occurred. Ex. If my son will refuse to give
me support, he is thereby disinherited.- not existing at the time of disinheritance.
Proved, if ever denied, by the heir disinherited.

(3) The heir sought to be disinherited must be identified with certainty.

(4) Disinheritance must be total and unconditional.
Cannot be partial since (1) the offense is only one and cannot be separated into component parts and (2) the injury to
the feelings is only one also, it cannot be erased in one part and continued in another part of the heart. Its either total
disinheritance or total pardon.

Art. 917. The burden of proving the truth of the cause for disinheritance shall rest upon the other heirs of the testator, if the
disinherited heir should deny it. (850)
The person interested are the other heirs.

Art. 918. Disinheritance without a specification of the cause, or for a cause the truth of which, if contradicted, is not proved, or
which is not one of those set forth in this Code, shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may prejudice the person
disinherited; but the devises and legacies and other testamentary dispositions shall be valid to such extent as will not impair
the legitime. (851a)
IMPERFECT/ INVALID DISNINHERITANCE- disinheritance which is not in accordance with the law. Ex. When you put a cause that is
not specified by law.
If there was imperfect disinheritance, it is as if there was no disinheritance. Consequently, the compulsory heir is
entitled to get all that is owing to him.
If there was valid disinheritance, you cannot inherit the legitime and all other parts of the inheritance.

PRETERITION DISINHERITANCE
Similarities
Contemplates compulsory heir
The legacies and devises are not affected
You do not receive anything from the inheritance
Differences
Compulsory heir must be of the direct line As long as you are a compulsory heir (need not be in the
direct line
With or without cause Always WITH cause (919. 929, 921)
May or may not be deliberate Deliberate
Implied ALWAYS express
At least you will receive your legitime Totally excluded from the inheritance

Art. 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and descendants, legitimate as well as
illegitimate:
(1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her spouse,
descendants, or ascendants;
Extends not only to the testator but also against spouse, descendants, or ascendants
Includes attempted, frustrated and consummated.
There must be malice or intent.
29
 & Friends
If you shared/ participated in the idea of attempt against his life- you can be disinherited.
If it was through negligence or mere recklessness- you cannot be disinherited.
If principal- may be by inducement, direct participation or indispensable cooperation
If you are an accomplice (participation in the crime is either simultaneous or previous to the act), you can be disinherited. You
participated in the idea to inflict injury on the testator because your intervention was either previous or simultaneous to the act.
f you are an accessory after the fact, you cannot be disinherited. Why? There was no knowledge at the time of the commission
of the act. Thus, you did not share in the idea of causing harm to the testator. The act was performed by somebody else. Your
participation was AFTER the commission.
Conviction is NECESSARY.
o How about if there is pardon? Pardon presupposes conviction. Therefore, that operates as a ground for
disinheritance. (I think the pardon he is referring to here is that granted by the President, do not confuse pardon with
reconciliation (infra.))

(2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or
more, if the accusation has been found groundless;
Imputing unto the testator the commission of a crime that carries a penalty of imprisonment of six years or more.
Sign of ingratitude
o This ground is similar to donation in that you convey something to another person.

(3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
For example, mother (spouse of the testator) and son (compulsory heir) commits adultery

Q: Can the mother disinherit the son with whom she committed the act?
A: No. It is the husband- testator who can disinherit the son. The mother cannot because the law does not provide for such
situation. The law on disinheritance must be strictly construed because it is in derogation of the natural right to inherit.
Q: May the testator husband disinherit the wife?
A: No. You cannot base the disinheritance on this ground because the law only provides for child or descendant. What the
law does not include, it excludes. However, you can base it on Art. 921(4)- When the spouse has given cause for legal
separation. Art 55 (8) provides sexual infidelity or perversion as ground for legal separation.

(4) When a child or descendant by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to make a will or to
change one already made;

(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent or ascendant who disinherits such child or descendant;
For being ungrateful.

(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the child or descendant;

For example: gravely abusive language committed by the descendant against the testator.
Also, if it cannot fall in attempt against the life of the testator, it may be considered as maltreatment.

(7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life;

(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil interdiction. (756, 853, 674a)

Art. 920. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of parents or ascendants, whether legitimate or
illegitimate:
(1) When the parents have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life, or
attempted against their virtue;
(2) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her spouse,
descendants, or ascendants;
(3) When the parent or ascendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for
six years or more, if the accusation has been found to be false;
(4) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
(5) When the parent or ascendant by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to make a
will or to change one already made;
(6) The loss of parental authority for causes specified in this Code;
(7) The refusal to support the children or descendants without justifiable cause;
(8) An attempt by one of the parents against the life of the other, unless there has been a reconciliation between
them. (756, 854, 674a)

Art. 921. The following shall be sufficient causes for disinheriting a spouse:
(1) When the spouse has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her descendants, or
ascendants;
(2) When the spouse has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment of six years or
more, and the accusation has been found to be false;
(3) When the spouse by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence cause the testator to make a will or to
change one already made;
(4) When the spouse has given cause for legal separation;
(5) When the spouse has given grounds for the loss of parental authority;
(6) Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or the other spouse. (756, 855, 674a)
30
 & Friends

Art. 922. A subsequent reconciliation between the offender and the offended person deprives the latter of the right to
disinherit, and renders ineffectual any disinheritance that may have been made. (856)

RECONCILIATION is the mutual restoration of feelings to the status quo. It is the resumption of friendly relations.
Effects of reconciliation:
1. The disinheritance will already be set aside
2. If you have not been disinherited yet, it will erase the ground for disinheritance.
Once erased, you cannot avail of the ground anymore. If you are to be disinherited, it must be based on a NEW ground
occurring after reconciliation.

Art. 923. 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. (857)

Na.disinherit nako, akong mga anak is subrogated to my right of the legitime. That is what you call REPRESENTATION.
o 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. (942a)
It would be unfair if your children will also be disinherited by the acts you (compulsory heir) had done to be disinherited.
WHAT ARE THE WAYS THAT A PERSON CAN BE REPRESENTED BY HIS CHILDREN OR DESCENDANT:
1. In case of predecease (mamatay)
2. If you are incapacitated
You are a witness you cannot receive but your child can
3. Disinheritance

Art. 920. The following shall be sufficient causes for the DISINHERITANCE OF PARENTS OR ASCENDANTS,
whether legitimate or illegitimate:

(1) When the parents have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral
life, or attempted against their virtue;

(2) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
spouse, descendants, or ascendants;

(3) When the parent or ascendant has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes
imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation has been found to be false;

(4) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the
testator;

(5) When the parent or ascendant by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to
make a will or to change one already made;

(6) The loss of parental authority for causes specified in this Code;

(7) The refusal to support the children or descendants without justifiable cause;

(8) An attempt by one of the parents against the life of the other, unless there has been a reconciliation
between them. (756, 854, 674a)

(1) When the parents have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life, or attempted against
their virtue;
What if not daughters but sons? That (provision) embraces both genders

Q & A PORTION:
Testator was intentionally killed by heir. Wala ma.disinherit because hes dead. What you cannot do will be done by the law based on
the presumed will of the testator on the ground of unworthiness (Article 1032).

31