Wills and Succession: A Comparative Analysis

Cases:
1. Calalang-Parulan vs Garcia
2. Hacbang vs Alo
Special law:
Republic Act No. 7170 otherwise known as An Act Authorizing the Legacy or Donation of All
or Part of a Human Body After Death for Specified Purposes

Digests:
1. Calalang-Parulan vs Garcia
Facts:
Pedro Calalang contracted two marriages during his lifetime. The first one was with
Encarnacion Silverio. The first marriage bore children who are the respondents in this case. The
second marriage was contracted between Pedro Calalang and Elvira Calalang after the first
marriage was dissolved.
During the first marriage as argued by the respondents, their father and mother, Pedro
Encarnacion acquired a property whom they inherited from their maternal grandmother, Francisca.
According to the respondents, the property was never registered despite the fact that their parents
have been in a continuous and actual possession of the said property. Their mother and the
marriage of their parents was dissolved.
It was only during the second marriage that Pedro registered the said property. In his
marriage with Elvira, they bore two children namely Rolando and Nora. Before Pedro died, he
sold the disputed property to Nora, his child in the second marriage. Soon there after a TCT was
issued in favor of Nora.
The respondents or the children of the first marriage now comes to the court to assail the
validity of such sale and as a consequence thereof the validity of the TCT issued to Nora. They
argue that as heirs of Encarnacion Silverio they are co-owners of the disputed property and as co-
owners Pedro should have asked their consent before he sold the property to Nora.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents, as co-owners, were deprive of their share of their
inheritance by reason of the sale made by Pedro to Nora.
Ruling:
No, they were not deprived of their share in the inheritance. The respondents, in the first
place have no vested successional rights to the disputed property because as rule it is only at the
time of death that successional rights are vested to the heirs.
As provided by the New Civil Code, article 777 says that rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent and further, article 1034 of the same
Code states that the capacity of an heir is determined at the time of the death of the decedent. Thus
it can be concluded that it is only upon the death of Pedro that his heirs, the respondents in this
case, will acquire rights as to their inheritance.
At the time the sale was made by Pedro to Nora, the respondents did not have yet any
successional rights to the said property as these rights were not yet transmitted to them. Therefore,
the respondents do not have any standing to question the sale on the ground that Pedro deprive
them of their shares of their inheritance.
As to the issue of fraud, as alleged by the respondent that the plaintiff committed the same,
the respondents were not able to prove by clear and convincing evidence as to the existence of
ground. Thus the complaint filed by respondents is dismissed
 2. Hacbang vs. Alo
Facts:
Sofronio Hacbang, a bishop died and was survived by his parents and siblings. Before
Sofronio died he left several properties behind and made a will which stated how his properties
will be distributed.
According to his will, one half of his properties will be given to his parents, will the other
half will be given to one of his sibling Dolores. The will was accepted for probate by the court,
however it was archived and thus the proceedings was not completed.
Basilio inherited a property from his mother, Dolores, who inherited the said property from
Sofronio. A TCT was issued in the name of Basilio. The petitioners in this case now questions the
validity of the of the TCT issued in favor of Basilio and argues that the will made by Sofronio did
not validly transfer the property to Dolores and that only a final decree of distribution will vest
title on the properties from the estate on the distributes. In essence, the petitioners argue that
because the probate proceedings was not finished the will did not vest any title to Dolores and as
a result Basilio could not have inherited the said property from Dolores as all the property would
have become part the estate of Sofronios parents as compulsory heirs.
Issue:
Whether or not the will made by Sofronio validly transferred his property to his parents
and to Dolores Hacbang Alo.
Ruling:
The laws that will govern in the settlement of the estate of the deceased in the present case
will be the 1889 Spanish Civil Code and the1901 Code of Civil Procedure because the law in force
at the time of the decedent's death determines the applicable law over the settlement of his estate.
In the Spanish Civil Code and our own Civil Code, it is provided that, ownership over the
inheritance passes to the heirs at the precise moment of death - not at the time the heirs are declared,
nor at the time of the partition, nor at the distribution of the properties.
As a result of the above mentioned principle, legatees and devisees granted specific
properties acquire ownership over the legacies and devises at that immediate moment without
prejudice to the legitimes of compulsory heirs. Thus the property was validly transferred to the
said heirs mentioned in the will at precise moment of Sofronio died.
Even if the probate proceeding was archived, it does not matter because as provided by the
Spanish code and later on adapted by the our Civil Code, a person without compulsory heirs may
dispose of his estate, either in part or in its entirety, in favor of anyone capacitated to succeed him;
if the testator has compulsory heirs, he can dispose of his property provided he does not impair
their legitimes.
Aside from that there no need for a final adjudication to be made by the court, because in
this case the will was very specific as to what property will be given to whom. Thus, from the very
moment of the testator's death, title over these particular properties have been vested on the heir,
legatee, or devisee.
In conclusion, Sofronio, through the last will and testament he made, validly transferred
his properties to his parents and dolores. As to the portion given to Dolores and later on to Basilio,
the plaintiff does not have standing to question such transfer as they do not have any interest in the
said property.
Comparative Analysis:
Calalang-Parulan vs Garcia case vis--vis Hacbang vs Alo case
As to their similarity, the main issue in both cases tackles about when do successional rights
transfer and are vested to heirs. In both cases it was held that successional rights are vested at the
precise moment the decedent dies.
These cases mentioned differ because in the first case there was no will made by the
decedent, while in the other case the decedent was able to make a will.
The first case refers to a situation where decedent was not able to make a will. The manner
of transferring his properties to his heirs is through intestate proceedings. Thus the court is needed
to settle the estate of the decedent At the precise moment of death, the heirs become owners of the
estate pro-indiviso. They become absolute owners of their undivided aliquot share but with respect
to the individual properties of the estate, they become co-owners. This co-ownership remains until
partition and distribution. Until then, the individual heirs cannot claim any rights over a specific
property from the estate. This is because the heirs do not know which properties will be adjudicated
to them yet. Hence, there is a need for a partition before title over particular properties vest in the
distributee-heirs.
On the other hand, in the second case, the decedent was able to make a will. The properties
of the decedent in this case be transferred through testate succession. Thus, there is no need for the
court to adjudicate the estate of the deceased to the heirs because in his will the decedent already
specified what properties will be inherited by the heirs.
Lastly, both differ on the standing of the parties. These cases illustrated who can question
or has legal standing to question the validity of a will or the transfer of the property of a decedent
to a person. Compulsory heirs are the one who can question a will or has legal standing such as
the parties in the first case. While, in the second case the parties questioning the validity of the will
and the subsequent transfer of the property of the decedent has no legal standing because they are
not compulsory heirs but mere representing the compulsory heirs.

Calalang-Parulan vs Garcia case and Hacbang vs Alo case vis--vis Republic Act No. 7170
otherwise known as An Act Authorizing the Legacy or Donation of All or Part of a Human
Body After Death for Specified Purposes

The Civil Code provides what are those which can be inherited based on the law on
succession. According to a provision in the Civil Code particularly article 777 those can be
transferred are property, rights, and obligations. Property is defined as as things which is capable
of ownership and is qualified further as either immovable or movable. The said definition did not
include human organs or body parts as property, thus it could be inferred that huan organs cannot
be subject of succession.

However, congress has passed a law that will allow human organs to be subject of
succession. The law which permits such is Republic Act No. 7170 otherwise known as An Act
Authorizing the Legacy or Donation of All or Part of a Human Body After Death for Specified
Purposes. With the advent of this new law, this make human body part just like any other property
that cn be subject to succession and can be inherited and donated.
Nothing in the Civil Code that tackles about the human organs about being capable of being
inherited or donated, R.A. No. 7170 effectively fills in the gap and supplements the Civil Code in
that specific area of the law.

The cases that were presented earlier illustrates how can properties and rights be transferred
through succession. As was cited earlier it can either be through intestate succession as was
explained by the case of Calalang where the decedent was not able to make any will. Or through
testate succession as in the case Hacbang where the decedent made a last will and testament before
he died and specified what properties are to be given to the heirs.
 Republic Act No. 7170 provides how shall a person proceed if he or she wants to donate
his organs after he dies. This law specifically provides that there must be a will or any other written
document. Thus, it can be concluded that unlike in the earlier case presented, that succession can
happen even without a will, in donating a body organ, as a rule, there must be a will or any other
written document for such purpose.
Another difference would be the person as to who will inherit. In succession, it is the
compulsory heir or those named in the will who are the only persons who can inherit, but in R.A.
No. 7170 even a third person who does not have any relationship with the decedent can inherit the
body organs of the decedent such as the physician or surgeon, subject to certain conditions.
Both the cases presented and R.A 7170 allows that a legacy can be made to a specific
person like in testate succession or without specifying any person such as in intestate succession.
All in all, the special law tackled in this report helps fills in the gray areas or certain gaps in our
Civil Code regarding the subject matter of donating body organs. Not only that, this law gives hope to
those persons in need of donation of human organs to save their life or their love ones which makes
our society better in the long run.
Wills and Succession: A Comparative Analysis

Submitted to: Atty. Brenda Tangarorang

Submitted by: Mark L. Abragan