Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Due to an illness, Mariano was survived by her sister Primitiva and the three
children of his brother Martin.
illegitimate children) who may inherit by virtue of the right of representation may
Two parcels of land are in dispute in this case: a parcel of land in Barrio Iba in Taal be legitimate or illegitimate. In whatever manner, one should not overlook the
Batangas (Iba property) and a parcel of sugar land in Carsuche (Carsuche fact that the persons to be represented are themselves illegitimate.
property). The petitioners assert that the Iba property were sold to Maria
Mariano. Defendant, on the other hand, claimed that the money used in buying
said land pertained to the spouses. Article 992 of the New Civil Code provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it
prohibits absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and
The Carsuche property brought a conflict of evidence between petitioners and the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said illegitimate
respondent. Petitioners assert that the sale of the property was made in a public child. They may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for
instrument in favor of Maria Mariano. The defendants for their part assert that it the purpose of Article 992. Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate
was made in writing by Biscocho who is the original owner of the property. family there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility.
The illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family;
The CFI declared Maria Mariano the owner of the two parcels of land. Defendants
appeal to the CA but it affirmed the decision of the trial court. Their motion for and the family is in turn, hated by the illegitimate child; the latter considers the
reconsideration was likewise denied which led to this petition. privileged condition of the former, and the resources of which it is thereby
deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the
Issue: product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law does no
more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further ground of resentment.
Whether or not Maria Mariano is entitled to both Iba and Carsuche property
It is therefore clear from Article 992 of the New Civil Code that the phrase
Held:
"legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother" includes Simona Pamuti
If the money used by Mariano in purchasing the property was given by Banawa Vda. de Santero as the word "relative" is broad enough to comprehend all the
and Mendoza, then the money had to belong to her. The contract entered into by kindred of the person spoken of. (Comment, p. 139 Rollo citing p. 2862 Bouvier's
the vendor with Mariano is not a simulated contract because of the absence of Law Dictionary vol. 11, Third Revision, Eight Edition) The record reveals that from
fraud, concealment or deception. The intention of the spouses to make Maria the commencement of this case the only parties who claimed to be the legitimate
Mariano the owner of the parcel of land was clearly shown by their conduct at the
heirs of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero are Felisa Pamuti Jardin and the
time of the execution of the deed of sale.
six minor natural or illegitimate children of Pablo Santero. Since petitioners herein
Art. 1448 of the NCC is not applicable in this case because the deed of sale was are barred by the provisions of Article 992, the respondent Intermediate
executed before its effectivity. Acquisitive prescription may not likewise be Appellate Court did not commit any error in holding Felisa Pamuti Jardin to be the
invoked because petitioners were not able to secure a title. sole legitimate heir to the intestate estate of the late Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero.
Sec. 5 of Rule 100 of the Old Rules of Court provides that "in case of death of the
child, his parents and relatives by nature, and not by adoption, shall be his legal
The word "relatives" is a general term and when used in a statute it embraces not
heirs, except as to property received or inherited by the adopted child from either
of his parents by adoption, which shall become property of the latter or their only collateral relatives but also all the kindred of the person spoken of, unless
legitime relatives who shall participate in the order established by the Civil Code the context indicates that it was used in a more restrictive or limited sense —
for intestate estates" which as already discussed earlier, is not so in the case at bar.
When the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to In the light of the foregoing, We conclude that until Article 992 is suppressed or at
mean exactly what it says.
least amended to clarify the term "relatives" there is no other alternative but to
Wherefore, the decision of the CA is affirmed as to the Iba property but reversed apply the law literally. Thus, We hereby reiterate the decision of June 17, 1987
as to the Carsuche property which was acquired by Banawa and Mendoza. and declare Felisa Pamuti-Jardin to be the sole heir to the intestate estate of
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero, to the exclusion of petitioners.
CASE #82: LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION; RE: IRON CURTAIN RULE DIAZ V.S. CASE #83: LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION; RE: BARRIER RULE G.R. No. L-
IAC (SANTOS, J.) 51263 | February 28, 1983 Cresenciano Leonardo vs. Court of Appeals, Maria
Cailles, James Bracewell and Rural Bank of Parañaque, Inc. Ponente: De Castro,
Facts: J.
Felisa Pamuti Jardin is a niece of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who together FACTS: v July 12, 1942: Francisca Reyes died intestate and was survived by 2
with Felisa's mother Juliana were the only legitimate children of the spouses daughters, Maria and Silvestra Cailles, and a grandson, Sotero Leonardo, the son
Felipe Pamuti and Petronila Asuncion; that Juliana married Simon Jardin and out of her daughter, Pascuala Cailles who predeceased her. v 1944: Sotero Leonardo
of their union were born Felisa Pamuti and another child who died during infancy; died. v 1949: Silvestra Cailles died without any issue. v September 1963:
that Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero is the widow of Pascual Santero and the Defendant/private respondent Maria Cailles mortgaged the disputed properties in
mother of Pablo Santero; that Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of his this case to respondent Rural Bank of Parañaque, Inc. v Court of First Instance of
parents Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero; that Pascual Santero Rizal
died in 1970; Pablo Santero in 1973 and Simona Santero in 1976; that Pablo
Santero, at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona Santero and Ø October 29, 1964: Claiming to be the son of the late Sotero Leonardo,
his six minor natural children to wit: four minor children with Anselma Diaz and plaintiff/petitioner Cresenciano Leonardo filed a complaint for ownership of
two minor children with Felixberta Pacursa. properties, sum of money and accounting in the CFI of Rizal seeking judgment: 1)
to be declared one of the lawful heirs of the deceased Francisca Reyes and
Issue: who are the legal heirs of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero — her niece entitled to one-half share in the estate of said deceased jointly with Maria Cailles;
Felisa Pamuti-Jardin or her grandchildren (the natural children of Pablo Santero)? 2) to have the properties left by Francisca Reyes partitioned between him and
Maria Cailles; and 3) to have an accounting of all the income derived from said
Ruling: properties from the time defendants took possession thereof until said
accounting shall have been made, delivering to him his share therein with legal
Petitioners claim that the amendment of Articles 941 and 943 of the old Civil interest. Ø In her Answer, Maria Cailles asserted exclusive ownership over the
Code (Civil Code of Spain) by Articles 990 and 992 of the new Civil Code (Civil subject properties and alleged that petitioner was an illegitimate child who could
Code of the Philippines) constitute a substantial and not merely a formal change, not succeed by right of representation. Defendant/private respondent James
which grants illegitimate children certain successional rights. A careful evaluation Bracewell claimed that said properties were already his by virtue of a valid and
of the New Civil Code provisions, especially Articles 902, 982, 989, and 990, legal deed of sale which Maria Cailles had subsequently executed in his favor. Ø
claimed by petitioners to have conferred illegitimate children the right to The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner. It made the following
represent their parents in the inheritance of their legitimate grandparents, would pronouncements in its ruling: 1) Leonardo was deceased Francisca Reyes’ great
in point of fact reveal that such right to this time does not exist. grandson and heir and was entitled to one-half share in the said deceased’s
estate, jointly with Maria Cailles. 2) The disputed properties were properties of
Article 982 is inapplicable to instant case because Article 992 prohibits absolutely deceased Francisca Reyes and not of Maria Cailles and James Bracewell. 3) Any
a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the legitimate sale of these properties by Maria Cailles (insofar as Leonardo’s share was
children and relatives of the father or mother. It may not be amiss to state that affected) was null and void. 4) Within 30 days from the finality of the CFI’s
Article 982 is the general rule and Article 992 the exception. Articles 902, 989, and decision, the properties should be partitioned between Maria Cailles and
990 clearly speak of successional rights of illegitimate children, which rights are Cresenciano Leonardo, share and share alike. 5) Within 30 days from the finality
transmitted to their descendants upon their death. The descendants (of these of the CFI’s decision, Maria Cailles and James Bracewell should render an
accounting of the properties’ fruits and, 30 days thereafter, pay to Leonardo his He submitted in evidence his alleged birth certificate showing that his father is
one-half share thereof with interest of 6% per annum. 6) Maria Cailles and James Sotero Leonardo, married to Socorro Timbol, his alleged mother. The name of the
Bracewell should jointly and severally pay Leonardo P2,000.00 as attorney's fees. child described in the birth certificate was not that of the petitioner but of a
7) Defendants should pay the costs. 8) Defendants’ counterclaim was dismissed. v certain “Alfredo Leonardo” who was born on September 13, 1938. Petitioner did
Private respondents appealed to the CA. v Court of Appeals Ø February 21, 1979: not submit any durable evidence showing that he was “Alfredo Leonardo.”
The CFI’s decision was reversed, and Leonardo’s complaint was dismissed. Ø The
CA denied private respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration. v Supreme Court
Private respondents filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the CA’s decision.
v HELD #3: NO. Ø According to Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, an
illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children
and relatives of his parent. Even if it were true that petitioner was Sotero
ISSUES: 1) WON the disputed properties are private respondents’ exclusive Leonardo’s son, he still cannot inherit by right of representation, because he was
properties – YES born outside wedlock. When he was born, his alleged putative father and mother
were not yet married, and his alleged father's first marriage was still subsisting.
2) WON petitioner has established his filiation -- NO CA’s decision affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.
YES. Ø The CFI decided the case in favor of Leonardo principally because Teodoro R. Yangco was the son of Luis Rafael Yangco and Ramona Arguelles, the
defendants' evidence did not sufficiently show that the 2 properties, which they widow of Tomas Corpus. Before her union with Luis Rafael Yangco, Ramona had
bought in 1908 and 1917, were the same as the properties sought by the plaintiff. begotten 5 children with Tomas Corpus, 2 of whom were Pablo Corpus and Jose
However, the CA found that the trial judge misinterpreted the evidence as to the Corpus. v April 20, 1939: Teodoro R. Yangco died in Manila at the age of 77 years.
identification of the lands in question. Yangco had no forced heirs. At the time of his death, his nearest relatives were: 1)
his half brother, Luis R. Yangco, 2) his half sister, Paz Yangco, the wife of Miguel
• The first property was bought by Maria Cailles under a deed of sale in 1908. Ossorio, 3) the children of his half brother, Pablo Corpus, namely Amalia Corpus,
After declaring it in her name, Maria Cailles paid the realty taxes from 1914 to Jose A. V. Corpus, and Ramon L. Corpus, and 4) the daughter of his half brother
1948. Thereafter, as she and her son, Narciso Bracewell, left for Nueva Ecija, Jose Corpus, namely Juana (Juanita) Corpus. v His will dated August 29, 1934 was
Francisca Reyes managed the property and paid the land’s realty tax. However, probated in the Court of First Instance of Manila in Special Proceeding No. 54863.
for unexplained reasons, Francisca paid and declared the same in her own name. v 1941: The decree of probate was affirmed in the SC’s decision in Corpus vs.
The deed of sale of 1908 clearly stated that the land sold to Maria Cailles is “en la Yangco, 73 Phil. 527. v October 1944: Juanita Corpus died at Palauig, Zambales. v
calle Desposorio” in Las Piñas, Rizal which was bounded by adjoining lands owned November 26, 1945: A project of partition was submitted by the administrator
by persons living at the time, including the Manila Railroad Co.’s railroad track. and the legatees named in the will. That project of partition was opposed by the
With the exception of the area which was not disclosed in the deed, the estate of Luis R. Yangco whose counsel contended that an intestacy should be
description fit the land sought by Leonardo, as this property was also located in declared because the will does not contain an institution of heir. It was also
Desposorio St. and was bounded by the M.R.R. Co. With these natural boundaries, opposed by Atty. Roman A. Cruz, who represented Juanita Corpus, Pedro
there was indeed an assurance that the property described in the deed and in the Martinez and Juliana de Castro. Juanita Corpus was already dead when Atty. Cruz
tax declaration is one and the same property. The change of owners of the appeared as her counsel. Atty. Cruz alleged that the proposed partition was not in
adjoining lands was immaterial since several decades had already passed between conformity with the will, because the testator intended that the estate should be
the deed and the declaration, and during that period, many changes of abode "conserved" and not physically partitioned. v December 26, 1946: The probate
would likely have occurred. Besides, defendants had only one property in court held that a perpetual prohibition against alienation is prohibited, and that
Desposorio St., and they had paid this property’s realty taxes from May 29, 1914 condition in the will was deemed non-existent. It approved the project of
up to May 28, 1948. Hence, the property was the same, if not identical to the partition.
property in Desposorio St. sought after by Leonardo. • The second parcel was
purchased by Maria Cailles from Tranquilino Mateo under a deed of sale in 1917. v G.R. No. L-1476 Ø From that order, Pedro Martinez, Juliana de Castro, Juanita
After declaring it in her name, Maria Cailles likewise paid the realty tax from 1917 Corpus (deceased) and the estate of Luis R. Yangco appealed to the SC. Ø October
to 1948. Thereafter, when she and her son, Narciso Bracewell, established their 10 and 31, 1947: The appeals were dismissed after the legatees and the
residence in Nueva Ecija, Francisca Reyes administered the property and declared appellants entered into compromise agreements. In the compromise dated
the property in her own name in 1949. Thinking that the property is Francisca’s October 7, 1947, the legatees agreed to pay P35,000 to Pedro Martinez, the heirs
property, Leonardo filed the instant complaint, claiming a portion thereof as the of Pio V. Corpus, the heirs of Isabel Corpus and the heir of Juanita Corpus. Herein
same allegedly represents his father’s share. There were no similar boundaries to appellant Tomas Corpus signed that compromise settlement as Juanita Corpus’
be relied upon. However, it was undeniable that after declaring it in her name, sole heir. The estate of Luis R. Yangco entered into a similar compromise
Maria Cailles began paying the realty taxes thereon from July 24, 1917 until 1948. agreement. Ø October 14 and November 4, 1947: As the resolutions dismissing
Ø Petitioner took issue with the appellate court on the above findings of fact. the appeals became final and executory, entries of judgment were made. Ø
However, the petition in the SC was one for review on certiorari. Hence, only October 24, 1947: Tomas Corpus signed a receipt wherein he acknowledge that
questions of law may be raised. Generally, the CA’s findings of fact are final and he received P2,000 from the Yangco estate as settlement in full of his share of the
conclusive upon the SC. The exceptions are: 1) when the conclusion is a finding compromise agreement. v September 20, 1949: The legatees executed an
grounded entirely on speculation; 2) when the inference made is manifestly agreement for the settlement and physical partition of the Yangco estate. The
mistaken, absurd or impossible; 3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; 4) probate court approved that agreement and noted that the 1945 project of
when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; and 5) when the CA, partition was pro tanto modified. v Court of First Instance of Manila Ø October 5,
in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are 1951: Tomas Corpus filed an action to recover his supposed share in Yangco
contrary to the submission of both appellant and appellee. None of the above intestate estate. He alleged that the dispositions in Yangco's will imposing
exceptions existed in the case at bar. perpetual prohibitions upon alienation rendered it void under article 785 of the
old Civil Code. Therefore, the 1949 partition was invalid, and the decedent's
estate should be distributed according to the rules on intestacy. Ø July 2, 1956:
The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds of res judicata and laches. It
HELD #2: NO. Ø Petitioner claimed that he was the son of Sotero Leonardo, who held that the intrinsic validity of Yangco's will was passed upon in its order dated
was the son of Pascuala (Francisca Reyes’ daughter). He further alleged that since December 26, 1946. v Tomas Corpus appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Pascuala predeceased Francisca Reyes and his father, Sotero, (who subsequently
died in 1944) survived Francisca Reyes, he could consequently succeed to ISSUE: WON Tomas Corpus has a right of action to recover his mother’s supposed
Francisca’s estate by right of representation. intestate share in Yangco’s estate
HELD/RULING: (Barredo, [Actg. Chairman], Antonio, Concepcion Jr. and Santos, complaint because the petitioners not being heirs ab intestato of their illegitimate
JJ., concur.) NO. v The trial court held that Teodoro R. Yangco was an brother Juan Manuel, were not the real partiesin-interest to institute the suit.
acknowledged natural child. This was based on the statement in the will of his Petitioners were also ordered to jointly and severally (solidarily) pay (a)
father, Luis Rafael Yangco, dated June 14, 1907, that Teodoro and his 3 other respondent Modesta Manuel-Baltazar the sum of P5,000.00 for moral damages,
children were his acknowledged natural children. Ø Appellant assailed the P5,000.00 for exemplary damages, P5,000.00 for attorney's fees and P500.00 for
probative value of Luis R. Yangco’s will, which he said was a mere copy of Exhibit litigation expenses and (b) Estanislaoa Manuel the sum of P5,000.00 for moral
20, as found in the record on appeal in Special Proceeding No. 54863. He damages, P5,000.00 for exemplary damages and P500.00 for attorney's fees.
contended that it should not prevail over the presumption of legitimacy found in Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the Trial Court denied by the
section 69, Rule 123 of the old Rules of Court and over the Samuel W. Stagg’s trial court. Petitioners, not being the real "parties-in-interest" in the case, had
statement in his biography of Teodoro R. Yangco (i.e. that Luis Rafael Yangco neither the standing nor the cause of action to initiate the complaint. Hence, the
made a second marital venture with Victoria Obin, implying that he had a first appeal.
marital venture with Ramona Arguelles, Teodoro’s mother). These contentions
have no merit. The authenticity of the will of Luis Rafael Yangco, as reproduced in ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners have the right to claim
the present case’s Exhibit 1 and as copied from the proceeding for the probate of
Teodoro R. Yangco's will’s Exhibit 20, is incontestable. The said will had become HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court and
part of a public or official judicial record. v On the other hand, the children of deleted the portion for the award of moral and exemplary damages as well
Ramona Arguelles and Tomas Corpus were presumed to be legitimate. A marriage attorney’s fees and litigation expenses in favor of private respondents. Article
is presumed to have taken place between Ramona and Tomas. Semper 992 of the Civil Code, a basic postulate, enunciates what is so commonly referred
praesumitur pro matrimonio. It is disputably presumed: 1) "That a man and a to in the rules on succession as the "principle of absolute separation between the
woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful legitimate family and the illegitimate family." The doctrine rejects succession ab
contract of marriage"; 2) "that a child born in lawful wedlock, there being no intestato in the collateral line between legitimate relatives, on the one hand, and
divorce, absolute or from bed and board, is legitimate", and 3) "that things have illegitimate relatives, on other hand, although it does not totally disavow such
happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of succession in the direct line. Since the rule is predicated on the presumed will of
life" (Sec. 5[z], [bb] and [cc], Rule 131, Rules of Court). v Under Articles 944 and the decedent, it has no application, however, on testamentary dispositions. This
945 of the spanish Civil Code, "if an acknowledged natural or legitimated child "barrier" between the members of the legitimate and illegitimate family in
should die without issue, either legitimate or acknowledged, the father or mother intestacy is explained by a noted civilist. His thesis: "What is meant by the law
who acknowledged such child shall succeed to its entire estate; and if both when it speaks of brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, as legal or intestate
acknowledged it and are alive, they shall inherit from it share and share alike. In heirs of an illegitimate child? It must be noted that under Art. 992 of the Code,
default of natural ascendants, natural and legitimated children shall be succeeded there is a barrier dividing members of the illegitimate family from members of the
by their natural brothers and sisters in accordance with the rules established for legitimate family. It is clear that by virtue of this barrier, the legitimate brothers
legitimate brothers and sisters." Hence, Teodoro R. Yangco's half brothers on the and sisters as well as the children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of such
Corpus side, who were legitimate, had no right to succeed to his estate under the brothers and sisters, cannot inherit from the illegitimate child. Consequently,
rules of intestacy. v Article 943 of the old Civil Code prohibits all successory when the law speaks of 'brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces' as legal heirs
reciprocity mortis causa between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. Article 992 of an illegitimate child, it refers to illegitimate brothers and sisters as well as to
of the New Civil Code provides that "an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab the children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of such brothers and sisters."
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor (Emphasis supplied) The Court, too, has had occasions to explain this "iron
shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate curtain," firstly, in the early case of Grey v. Fabie 3 and, then, in the relatively
child". Following the rule in Article 992 of the New Civil Code, it was also held in recent cases of Diaz v. Intermediate Appellate Court 4 and De la Puerta v. Court of
Cacho vs. Udan (L-19996, April 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 693) that the legitimate Appeals. 5 In Diaz, we have said: "Article 992 of the New Civil Code . . . prohibits
relatives of the mother cannot succeed her illegitimate child. Since Teodoro R. absolutely a succession ab intestato between the illegitimate child and the
Yangco was an acknowledged natural child or was illegitimate and since Juanita legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child.
Corpus was the legitimate child of Jose Corpus, himself a legitimate child, They may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the
appellant Tomas Corpus had no cause of action for the recovery of the supposed purposes of Article 992. Between the legitimate family and the illegitimate family
hereditary share of his mother, Juanita Corpus, as a legal heir, in Yangco's estate. there is presumed to be an intervening antagonism and incompatibility. The
Juanita Corpus was not Yangco’s legal heir, because there is no reciprocal illegitimate child is disgracefully looked down upon by the legitimate family; the
succession between legitimate and illegitimate relatives. CFI’s judgment affirmed. legitimate family is, in turn, hated by the illegitimate child; the latter considers the
No costs. privileged condition of the former, and the resources of which it is thereby
deprived; the former, in turn, sees in the illegitimate child nothing but the
product of sin, palpable evidence of a blemish broken in life; the law does no
more than recognize this truth, by avoiding further grounds of resentment."The
CASE #85: LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION; PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE Court in several other cases has consistently applied the rule in Article 992. Thus,
SEPARATION BETWEEN THE LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE FAMILY MANUEL vs it has ruled that where the illegitimate child had halfbrothers who were
FERRER GR No. 117246, August 21, 1995 Vitug, J. legitimate, the latter had no right to the former's inheritance; that the legitimate
collateral relatives of the mother cannot succeed from her illegitimate child; that
FACTS: Petitioners, the legitimate children of spouses Antonio Manuel and a natural child cannot represent his natural father in the succession to the estate
Beatriz Guiling, initiated this suit. During his marriage with Beatriz, Antonio had an of the legitimate grandparent; that the natural daughter cannot succeed to the
extra-marital affair with one Ursula Bautista. From this relationship, Juan Manuel estate of her deceased uncle who is a legitimate brother of her natural father; and
was born. Several years passed before Antonio Manuel, his wife Beatriz, and his that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
mistress Ursula finally crossed the bar. Juan Manuel, the illegitimate son of children and relatives of his father. Indeed, the law on succession is animated by a
Antonio, married Esperanza Gamba. In consideration of the marriage, a donation uniform general intent, and thus no part should be rendered inoperative by, but
propter nuptias over a parcel of land, with an area of 2,700 square meters, was must always be construed in relation to, any other part as to produce a
executed in favor of Juan Manuel by Laurenciana Manuel. Two other parcels of harmonious whole.
land, were later bought by Juan and registered in his name. The couple were not
blessed with a child of their own. Their desire to have one impelled the spouses to
take private respondent Modesta Manuel-Baltazar into their fold and so raised
her as their own "daughter." Juan Manuel executed in favor of Estanislaoa CASE #86: LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION; SURVIVING LEGITIMATE WIFE
Manuel a Deed of Sale Con Pacto de Retro (with a 10-year period of redemption) AND BIGAMOUS WIFE
over a one-half (1/2) portion of his land. Juan Manuel died intestate on 21
February 1990. Two years later, Esperanza Gamba also passed away. A month TOLENTINO vs PARAS G.R. No. L-43905. May 30, 1983 Melencio-Herrera, J.
after the death of Esperanza, Modesta executed an Affidavit of SelfAdjudication
claiming for herself the three parcels of land. Following the registration of the FACTS: While marriage was still subsisting with first wife, Amado Tolentino
document of adjudication with the Office of the Register of Deeds, the three titles contracted another marriage with Ma. Clemente on Nov. 1, 1948. He was
in the name of Juan Manuel were canceled and new titles, were issued in the convicted with bigamy. After serving his sentence, he continued living with
name of Modesta Manuel-Baltazar. Modesta executed in favor of her co- Clemente until he died. Ma. Clemente was the surviving spouse indicated in his
respondent Estanislaoa Manuel a Deed of Renunciation and Quitclaim over the death certificate. Amelita Tolentino, the first wife, claims that she is the rightful
unredeemed one-half (1/2) portion of the land that was sold to the latter by Juan surviving spouse and petitions for correction of the death certificate. The lower
Manuel under the 1980 Deed of Sale Con Pacto de Retro. These acts of Modesta court dismissed petition for “lack of proper requisites under law”. To comply with
apparently did not sit well with petitioners. In a complaint filed before the the requisites the petitioner filed another case against private respondent and the
Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, the petitioners sought the Local Civil Registrar of Paombong, Bulacan, for her declaration as the lawful
declaration of nullity of the aforesaid instruments. The RTC dismissed the surviving spouse, and the correction of the death certificate of Amado. Again it
was dismissed due to: 1) the correction of the entry in the Office of the Local Civil On July 10, 1973, petitioner filed a notice of appeal
Registrar is not the proper remedy because the issue involved is marital
relationship; 2) the Court has not acquired proper jurisdiction because as Issue:
prescribed under Art. 108, read together with Art. 412 of the Civil Code —
publication is needed in a case like this, and up to now, there has been no such
Which of the following articles of the New Civil Code will apply, Article 343 or
publication; and 3) in a sense, the subject matter of this case has been aptly
Articles 341, 978 and 979?
discussed in Special Proceeding No. 1587-M, which this Court has already
dismissed, also for lack of the proper requisites under the law.
Held:
ISSUE: Whether or not Tolentino is the rightful surviving spouse.
The governing provision is article 343 of the New Civil Code, in relation to Articles
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Order of the respondent court be 893 and 1000 of said law, which directs that:
set aside and the petitioner, Serafia Toletino be declared the surviving spouse of
of the deceased Amado Tolentino. Considering that Amado, upon his own plea, Art. 343. If the adopter is survived by legitimate parents
was convicted of bigamy, that sentence furnishes the necessary proof of the or ascendants and by an adopted person. the latter shall
marital status of the petitioner and the deceased. The second marriage he not have more successional rights than an
contracted was void from the beginning and thus has no force and effect. No acknowledged natural child.
judicial decree is necessary to establish invalidity of a void marriage. While
documents, such as death and birth certificates, are public and entries therein are It is most unfair to accord more successional rights to the adopted, who is only
presumed to be correct, such presumption is merely disputable and will have to related artificially by fiction of law to the deceased, than those who are naturally
yield to more positive evidence establishing their inaccuracy. Therefore, it should related to him by blood in the direct ascending line. The applicability of Article
be the petitioner’s name on the death certificate and not the respondent. 343 does not exclude the surviving parent of the deceased adopter, not only
because a contrary view would defeat the intent of the framers of the law, but
also because in intestate succession, where legitimate parents or ascendants
concur with the surviving spouse of the deceased, the latter does not necessarily
exclude the former from the inheritance. This is affirmed by Article 893 of the
CASE #87: LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION; RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE New Civil Code which states:
WHERE THE ESTATE IS LEFT TO A SURVIVING SPOUSE, LEGITIMATE SON, AND
TWO RECOGNIZED ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN HEIRS OF THE LATE MARIO VS. If the testator leaves no legitimate descendants, but leaves legitimate ascendants,
CHANGLIONCO ADM. (MODESTO) the surviving spouse shall have a right to one fourth (only) of the hereditary
estate.
Article 343 does not require that the concurring heirs should be the adopted child
CASE #88: LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION; RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE and the legitimate parents or ascendants only. The language of the law is clear,
WHERE THE DECESASED LEAVES A SURVIVING SPOUSE, LEGITIMATE MOTHER, and a contrary view cannot be presumed.
AND AN ADOPTED DAUGHTER DEL ROSARIO VS. CONANAN (MODESTO)
Under Article 343, an adopted child surviving with legitimate parents of the
Facts: deceased adopter, has the same successional rights as an acknowledged natural
child, which is comprehended in the term "illegitimate children". Consequently ,
the respective shares of the surviving spouse, ascendant and adopted child should
The late FELIX L. DEL ROSARIO died last September 12, 1969 at Antipolo, Rizal in a be determined by Article 1000 of the New Civil Code, which reads:
plane crash. Petitioner is the legitimate mother of the late FELIX L. DEL ROSARIO.
Oppositor DOROTEA OTERA DEL ROSARIO is the legitimate surviving wife of the
deceased. MARILOU DEL ROSARIO, is the legally adopted child of the late FELIX Art. 1000. If legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse
and DOROTEA DEL ROSARIO CONANAN. and illegitimate children are left, the ascendants shall be
entitled to onehalf of the inheritance, and the other half
shall be divided between the surviving spouse and the
The Parties prayed that the Court declare who are the heirs of the deceased. illegitimate children so that such widow or widower shall
have one-fourth of the estate, the illegitimate children
the other fourth.
Ruling of RTC:
The law on intestate succession is clear that an adopted child concurring with the HELD: First. That Manuel Sarita, the principal plaintiff, in whose house, according
surviving spouse of the adopter excludes the legitimate ascendants from to Exhibit D, there was drawn up at his request the engagement of all the
succession. The contention of the petitioner that Article 343 is applicable in the plaintiffs to confide the suit to the attorney who has conducted it, has absolutely
instant case finds no basis for 'the said article is applicable in cases where there no such right, because he cannot represent his grandfather Domingo, since, as
are no other concurring intestate heirs of the adopted child.
aforesaid, in the collateral line the right of representation can only take place in and half-sister of her father, Anacleto Ferraris; and by Gaudencia, Catalina,
favor of the children of brothers or sisters, but not in favor of the grandson of a Conchita, and Juanito, all surnamed Ferraris, her nieces and nephew, who
brother, such as is the said Manuel Sarita, the son of Sofia Cedeño who, in turn, were the children of Melodia's only brother of full blood, Arturo, who pre-
deceased her. These two classes of heirs claim to be the nearest intestate
was the daughter of Domingo Cedeño.
heirs and seek to participate in her estate.
CFI Cebu: in favor of the nieces and nephew. They are nearer in degree
Second. That, on the hypothesis that such hereditary right derived from the (two degrees) than Filomena since nieces and nephews succeed by right of
intestate succession of Apolinario Cedeño, does exist, it could only be exercised representation, while Filomena is three degrees distant from Melodia, and
by Cristeta Cedeño, the children of Macario Cedeño, and those of Domingo that other collateral relatives are excluded by brothers or sisters or children
Cedeño, but not by Manuel Sarita, because in inheritances the nearer relative of brothers or sisters of the decedent in accordance with Art. 1009 of the
excludes the more remote, excepting the right of representation in proper cases NCC.
Melodia’s contention: Under Art. 9751 of the NCC, no right of
(Civil Code, art 921); from which it is inferred that, in pushing forward Cristeta
representation could take place when the nieces and nephew of the
Cedeño, the children of Macario Cedeño and those of Domingo Cedeño, to
decedent do not concur with an uncle or aunt, but rather the former
exercise such a hereditary right, it should have been noticed that the personality succeed in their own right.
of these parties as the nearest relatives excluded that of Manuel Sarita, the son of
Sofia Cedeño, of a more remote degree. Third. That, on the same hypothesis, in ISSUE: WON the aunt concur with the children of the decedent's brother in the
the eyes of the law no meaning whatever could be given to the document, Exhibit inheritance. – NO. The aunt will be excluded.
H of the plaintiffs, wherein it is made to appear that the widow of Apolinario
RATIO
Cedeño, Roberta Montesa implored of the heirs of her deceased husband that she
Filomena is correct in her contention that nephews and nieces alone do not
be allowed to continue in her possession of the land and the house of the family;
inherit by right of representation (i.e., per stripes) unless concurring with
inasmuch as, as coowner of such property, she was entitled to one-half of it and, brothers or sisters of the deceased, as provided expressly by Article 975.
besides, had a right of usufruct to one-half of the other half of the same, pursuant Nevertheless, in case of intestacy, nephews and nieces of the de cujus
to the provisions of articles 837 and 953 of the Civil Code, and until she was exclude all other collaterals (aunts and uncles, first cousins, etc.) from the
satisfied for her part of usufruct, this half of the other half remained liable for the succession. This is readily apparent from articles 1001, 1004, 1005, and
payment of such part of usufruct. (Civil Code, art. 838.) Fourth. The hypothesis 1009 of the Civil Code.
o ART. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with
disappears from the moment that it is proved that at the death of such alleged
the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the
predecessor in interest in the inheritance, the land in question was not owned by inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other
him, it having been transferred in 1881, according to a conclusion established by half.
the trial judge. Therefore, the action for the recovery of possession, derived from o ART. 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and sisters of the
such alleged inheritance, cannot exist. full blood, they shall inherit in equal shares.
o ART. 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together with
nephews and nieces, who are the children of the decedent's brothers
CASE #90: LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION; RE: COLLATERAL HEIRS AND
and sisters of the full blood, the former shall inherit per capita, and
INSTITUTION OF THE WIDOW AS SOLE HEIR FUENTES V.S. CRUZ (CADIZ)
the latter per stripes.
o ART. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sister nor children of
CASE #91: LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION; RE: AUNT VS. NEPHEWS AND brothers or sisters, the other collateral relatives shall succeed to the
NIECES FILOMENA ABELLANA DE BACAYO VS. GAUDENCIO FERRARIS DE estate. The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or
BORROMEO (YERRO) preference among them by reason of relationship by the whole
blood.
Note that under Art. 1009, the absence of brothers, sisters, nephews and
Bacayo v. Borromeo
nieces of the decedent is a precondition to the other collaterals (uncles,
G.R. No. L-19382 | August 31, 1965 | J. JBL Reyes
cousins, etc.) being called to the succession.
Moreover, Tolentino's commentaries to Article 1009 expressly states that:
Petitioner: Filomena Abellana De Bacayo
Respondents: Gaudencia Ferraris De Borromeo, Catalina Feraris De Villegas, o The last of the relatives of the decedent to succeed in intestate
succession are the collaterals other than brothers or sisters or
Juanito Ferraris & Conchita Ferraris
children of brothers or sisters. They are, however, limited to relatives
within the fifth degree… Article 1009 does not state any order of
Summary:
Melodia Ferraris left properties in Cebu City consisting of 1/3 share in the estate preference. However, this article should be understood in connection
with the general rule that the nearest relatives exclude the farther.
of her aunt Rosa Ferraris. Ten years have elapsed since the last time she was
Collaterals of the same degree inherit in equal parts, there being no
known to be alive, she was declared presumptively dead for purposes of opening
right of representation. They succeed without distinction of lines or
her succession and distribute her estate among heirs. Hence, a petition for the
preference among them on account of the whole blood relationship.
summary settlement of her estate was filed. Melodia left no surviving
descendant, ascendant or spouse, but was survived only by collateral relatives: 1)
Filomena, an aunt and half-sister of her father; and 2) her nieces and nephews
who were children of her only brother of full blood who predeceased her. In the CASE #92: LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION RE: NEPHEWS AND NIECES
settlement proceeding, Filomena was excluded as an heir pursuant to a resolution INHERIT IN THEIR OWN RIGHT GAUDENCIO BICOMONG, et al., plaintiffs-
issued by the CFI of Cebu. MR was also denied hence this action. appellees, vs. GERONIMO ALMANZA, et al., defendant. FLORENTINO CARTENA,
defendant-appellant.
The SC held that the trial court was correct in ruling that under articles 1001,
1004, 1005, and 1009 of the Civil Code, in case of intestacy, nephews and nieces
exclude all other collaterals (aunts and uncles, first cousins, etc.) from the Facts: Simeon Bagsic was married to Sisenanda Barcenas. Of this marriage there
succession. Thus, it is the nieces and nephews of Melodia, not Filomena, who were born three children namely: Perpetua Bagsic, Igmedia Bagsic, and Ignacio
should inherit the intestate estate of Melodia. Bagsic. Sisenanda Barcenas died ahead of her husband Simeon Bagsic. On June 3,
1885, Simeon Bagsic remarried Silvestra Glorioso. Of this second marriage were
FACTS: born two children, Felipa Bagsic and Maura Bagsic. Simeon Bagsic died sometime
Refer to the family tree:
in 1901. Silvestra Glorioso also died. Ignacio Bagsic died on April 18, 1939 leaving
Gaudenci the plaintiff Francisca Bagsic as his only heir. Igmedia Bagsic also died on August
Melodia a 19, 1944 survived by the plaintiffs Dionisio Tolentino, Maria Tolentino and Petra
Anacleto Ferraris Tolentino. Perpetua Bagsic died on July 1, 1945. Surviving her are her heirs, the
Catalina plaintiffs Gaudencio Bicomong, Felicidad Bicomong, Salome Bicomong, and
Ferraris Arturo
Grandfath Ferraris Gervacio Bicomong. Of the children of the second marriage, Maura Bagsic died
er/Grand Rosa Ferraris Conchita also on April 14, 1952 leaving no heir as her husband died ahead of her. Felipa
mother Bagsic, the other daughter of the second Geronimo Almanza and her daughter
Filomena
Abellana de Juanito Cristeta Almanza. But five (5) months before the present suit was filed or on July
Bacayo
23, 1959, Cristeta Almanza died leaving behind her husband, the defendant
Melodia Ferraris was a resident of Cebu City until 1937 when she herein Engracio Manese (Exhibit 1-Manese) and her father Geronimo Almanza.
transferred to Intramuros, Manila. She was known to have resided there The subject matter of the complaint in Civil Case No. SP-265 concerns the one-half
continuously until 1944. Up to the filing on December 22, 1960 of the
undivided share of Maura Bagsic in the following described five (5) parcels of land
petition for the summary settlement of her estate, she has not been heard
of and her whereabouts are still unknown. More than ten (10) years having which she inherited from her deceased mother, Silvestra Glorioso .Three sets of
elapsed since the last time she was known to be alive, she was declared plaintiffs filed the complaint on December 1, 1959, namely: (a) the Bicomongs,
presumptively dead for purposes of opening her succession and distributing
her estate among her heirs.
Melodia left properties in Cebu City, consisting of 1/3 share in the estate of 1
ART. 975. When children of one or more brothers or sisters of
her aunt, Rosa, valued at P6,000. the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by
Melodia left no surviving direct descendant, ascendant, or spouse, but was representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. But if
survived only by collateral relatives, Filomena Abellana de Bacayo, an aunt they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal portions.
children of Perpetua Bagsic; (b) the Tolentinos, children of Igmedia Bagsic; and (c) To break it down: Co-heir gets the share by accretion.
Francisco Bagsic, daughter of Ignacio Bagsic, in the Court of First Instance of
Laguna and San Pablo City against the defendants Geronimo Almanza and CASE #95: ACRRETION; CONCUBINAGE NEPOMUCENO V. COURT OF APPEALS
Engracio Menese for the recovery of their lawful shares in the properties left by
Maura Bagsic. After the death of Maura Bagsic, the above-described properties FACTS: Martin Hugo died on 1974 and he left a will wherein he instituted Sofia
passed on to Cristela Almanza who took charge of the administration of the same. Nepomuceno as the sole and only executor. It was also provided therein that he
Thereupon, the plaintiffs approached her and requested for the partition of their was married to Rufina Gomez with whom he had 3 children. Petitioner (Sofia)
aunt's properties. However, they were prevailed upon by Cristeta Almanza not to filed for the probate of the will but the legal wife and her children opposed
divide the properties yet as the expenses for the last illness and burial of Maura alleging that the will was procured through improper and undue influence and
Bagsic had not yet been paid. Having agreed to defer the partition of the same, that there was an admission of concubinage with the petitioner. The lower court
the plaintiffs brought out the subject again sometime in 1959 only. This time denied the probate on the ground of the testator's admission of cohabitation,
Cristeta Almanza acceded to the request as the debts, accordingly, had already hence making the will invalid on its face. The Court of Appeals reversed and held
been paid. Unfortunately, she died without the division of the properties having that the will is valid except the devise in favor of the petitioner which is null and
been effected, thereby leaving the possession and administration of the same to void in violation of Art. 739 and 1028.
the defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs and declared them to be
entitled to 10/24 share of the five parcels of land On appeal, defendant-appellant ISSUE: Whether or not the court can pass on the intrinsic validity of a will
Cartena contends that the provisions of Arts. 995, 1006 and 1008 of the New Civil
Code, applied by the trial court in allowing plaintiffs-appellees to succeed to the RULING: Yes, as an exception. But the general rule is that the court's area of
properties left by Maura Bagsic were not the applicable provisions. He asserts inquiry is limited to the an examination and resolution of the extrinsic validity of
that in the course of the trial of the case in the lower court, plaintiffs requested the will. This general rule is however not inflexible and absolute. Given
defendants to admit that Felipa Bagsic, the sole sister of full blood of Maura exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the
Bagsic, died on May 9. 1955. Since Maura Bagsic died on April 14, 1952, Felipa situation constrains it to do and may pass upon certain provisions of the will. The
succeeded to Maura's estate. In support thereof, he cites Art. 1004 of the New will itself admitted on its face the relationship between the testator and the
Civil Code which provides that "should the only survivors be brothers and sisters petitioner. The will was validly executed in accordance with law but the court
of the full blood, they shall inherit in equal shares," and he concludes with the didn't find it to serve a practical purpose to remand the nullified provision in a
rule that the relatives nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones. On the separate action for that purpose only since in the probate of a will, the court does
other hand, plaintiffs-appellees claim that the date of death of Felipa Bagsic was not ordinarily look into the intrinsic validity of its provisions.
not raised as an issue in the trial court. It was even the subject of stipulation of
the parties as clearly shown in the transcript of the stenographic notes that Felipa The devisee is invalid by virtue of Art. 739 which voids a donation made between
Bagsic died on May 9. 1945. The Court of Appeals ruled that the facts of the case persons guilty of adultery/concubinage at the time of the donations. Under Art,
have been duly established in the trial court and that the only issue left for 1028 it is also prohibited. To break it down: GR: EXTRINSIC VALIDITY LANG ANG
determination is a purely legal question involving the correct application of the PAG PROBATE OR ALLOWANCE OF WILL. EXP: PAG INVALID ON THE FACE OF THE
law and jurisprudence on the matter, hence the appellate court certified this case WILL. Ang nangyari kasi, sa will mismo ni testator ay umamin s’ya na may kabit
to the Supreme Court. In the absence of defendants, ascendants, illegitimate sya. Imagine, nilagay niya sa will, in effect napaka blatant or obvious na violation
children, or a surviving spouse, Article 1003 of the New Civil Code provides that of the law na iyon alangan naman magbulagbulagan ang probate court. So moral
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. It appearing lesson huwag aamin sa will na may kabit, upang maging valid ang will.
that Maura Bagsic died intestate without an issue, and her husband and all her
ascendants had died ahead of her, she is succeeded by the surviving collateral
relatives, namely the daughter of her sister of full blood and the ten (10) children
of her brother and two (2) sisters of half blood in accordance with the provision of
Art. 975 of the New Civil Code. By virtue of said provision, the aforementioned
nephews and nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right. The contention of
the appellant that Maura Bagsic should be succeeded by Felipa Bagsic, her sister
of full blood, to the exclusion of the nephews and nieces of half blood citing Art.
1004, NCC is unmeritorious and erroneous for it is based on an erroneous factual
assumption, that is, that Felipa Bagsic died in 1955, which as indicated here
before, is not true as she died on May 9, 1945, thus she predeceased her sister
Maura Bagsic. SC: We find the judgment of the trial court to be in consonance
with law and jurisprudence.
Facts:. On January 3, 1924, Tomas Rodriguez executed his last will and testament,
in the second clause of which he declared: " I institute as the only and universal
heirs to all my property, my cousin Vicente F. Lopez and his daughter Luz Lopez de
Bueno. Tapos si Vicente Lopez predeceased Rodriguez Sabi ng petitioner: no
testamentary provision shall be valid when made by award in favor of his
guardian before the final accounts of the latter have been approved. This
provision is ofundoubted application to the situation before us; and the provision
made in the will of Tomas Rodriguez in favor of Vicente F. Lopez must be
considered invalid, owing to the incapacity of the latter. So it follows that there
has supervened a partial intestacy with respect to the half of the estate which was
intended for Vicente F. Lopez and that this half has descended to the appellant,
Margarita Lopez, as next of kin and sole heir at law of the decedent. Sabi ni
respondent: Teka lang dapat mag accrue sakin yung mana.
Ruling: WILLS; JOINT HEIRS UNDER WILL; ACCRETION. — When one of two joint
heirs called by will to an inheritance without special designation of shares dies
before the testator, the part pertaining to such heir will, upon the subsequent
death of the testator, go by accretion to the coheir; and the additional
circumstance that the predeceasing heir was, at the time of the making of the
will, disqualified to take, by reason of his being then the legal guardian of the
testator with accounts unsettled, does not make a case for intestate succession as
to his part of the estate.