ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0 Tweet Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > March 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-9315. March 24,
1956.] EUGENIA MORALES, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. PROCESO YAÑEZ, Defendant-Appellee.:

Search

FIRST DIVISION
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review [G.R. No. L-9315. March 24, 1956.]
EUGENIA MORALES, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. PROCESO YAÑEZ, Defendant-
Appellee.

DECISION
BENGZON, J.:
Appeal from an order of the Hon. Jose P. Veluz, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Oriental dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint dated July 17, 1950 for the recovery of three parcels of
land in the City of Cagayan de Oro.
There is no question that said lands belonged to Eugeniano Saarenas who died intestate in 1937,
leaving no ascendants nor descendants; that as his surviving nephews (by a sister) Defendant
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Proceso Yañez (and his sisters) took possession of said lots; and that Plaintiffs are illegitimate
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

(adulterous) children of Eugeniano, born between 1910 and 1927.

Plaintiffs’ action is founded on arts. 287 and 988 of the New Civil Code, giving illegitimate
children the right to succeed, where decedent leaves no ascendants nor descendants.
Defendant Yañez (and his sisters) claim the right to inherit under the Civil Code articles 946,
947, and 948 — the law in force at the time of Eugeniano’s death.
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
Applying the Civil Code, the trial judge absolved the Defendant. He refused to apply the New
Civil Code that grants for the first time successional rights to illegitimate children, in accordance
with this Court’s decision in Uson vs. Del Rosario, (92 Phil., 530) promulgated January 29,
1953, the pertinent portions of which are: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“But Defendants contend that, while it is true that the four minor Defendants are illegitimate
children of the late Faustino Nebrada and under the old Civil Code are not entitled to any
successional rights, however, under the new Civil Code which became in force in June 1950,
they are given the status and rights which the law accords to the latter (Article 2264 and Article
278, new Civil Code), and because these successional rights were declared for the first time in
the new code, they shall be given retroactive effect even though the event which gave rise to
them may have occurred under the prior legislation (Art. 2253, new Civil Code).
“There is no merit in this claim. Article 2253 provides that if a right should be declared for the
cralaw

first time in this Code, it shall be effective at once, even though the act or event which gives rise
ChanRobles Intellectual Property thereto may have been done or may have occurred under the prior legislation, provided said new
Division right does not prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right, of the same origin. As already
stated in the early part of this decision, the right of ownership of Maria Uson over the lands in
question became vested in 1945 upon the death of her late husband and this is so because of the
imperative provision of the law which commands that the rights to succession are transmitted
from the moment of death (Article 657, old Civil Code). The new right recognized by the new
Civil Code in favor of the illegitimate children of the deceased cannot, therefore, be asserted to

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956marchdecisions.php?id=89 25/11/2015, 8:29 PM

Page 1 of 4
 the impairment of the vested right of Maria Uson over the lands in dispute.”
It is clear that His Honor read the law correctly. Appellants contend, however, that for Defendant
to acquire a vested right to Eugeniano’s property, he must first commence proceedings to settle
Eugeniano’s estate — which he had not done. There is no merit to the contention. This Court has
repeatedly held that the right of heirs to the property of the deceased is vested from the moment
of death. 1 Of course the formal declaration or recognition or enforcement of such right needs
judicial confirmation in proper proceedings. But we have often enforced or protected such rights
from encroachments made or attempted before the judicial declaration. 2 Which can only mean
that the heir acquired hereditary rights even before judicial declaration in testate or intestate
proceedings.
However, a more conclusive consideration barring Plaintiffs’ demand is to be found in Article
2263 of the New Civil Code which read: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“ART. 2263. Rights to the inheritance of a person who died, with or without a will, before the
effectivity of this Code, shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1889, by other previous laws,
and by the Rules of Court. The inheritance of those who, with or without a will, die after the
Facebook® beginning of the effectivity of this Code, shall be adjudicated and distributed in accordance with
this new body of laws and by the Rules of Court; but the testamentary provisions shall be chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Account Sign Up carried out insofar as they may be permitted by this Code. Therefore, legitimes, betterments,
legacies and bequests shall be respected; however, their amount shall be reduced if in no other chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

manner can every compulsory heir be given his full share according to this Code.”
World's Largest Online
According to the above italicized portion the rights of the herein litigants to the property of
Community. Join for Free & Eugeniano must be determined in accordance with the Civil Code, because he died in 1937, i. e,
Enjoy the BeneFts! before the enactment of the New Civil Code in 1949.
The appealed order is therefore affirmed with cost against Appellants.
Paras, C.J., Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and
Endencia, JJ., concur.

Endnotes: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1. Art. 657 Civil Code, Mijares vs. Neri, 3 Phil. 195; Velasco vs. Vizmanos, 45 Phil., 675; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary chan

Ilustre vs. Frondosa, 17 Phil., 321; Bondad vs. Bondad, 34 Phil., 232; Inocencio vs.
roblesvirtualawlibrary chan roblesvirtualawlibrary chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Gatpandan, 14 Phil., 491; Fule vs. Fule, 46 Phil., 317. chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

2. See Coronel vs. Ona, 33 Phil., 456; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary Nable Jose vs. Nable Jose, 41 Phil., 713; Velasco vs.
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Vizmanos, supra.

March-1956 Jurisprudence
Ads by Google ► Law GR ► Estate Law ► GR GR L ► No GR
[G.R. No. L-6732. March 6, 1956.] INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION OF THE
Ads by Google ► Case GR ► Court GR ► VS Children ► Court Cases
PHILIPPINES (formerly Watson Business Machines Ads by Google ► Court Cases ► Law Cases ► Civil Law ► Will Law
Corporation of the Philippines) Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant-
Appellee. Back to Home | Back to Main

[G.R. No. L-9609. March 9, 1956.] OTILLO R.

GOROSPE and VITALIANO GOROSPE, Petitioners, vs.
MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, as Judge of the Court of First QUICK SEARCH
Instance of Manila, CEFERINA SAMU, FRANCISCO DE LA
FUENTE, ET AL., Respondents

[G.R. No. L-6401. March 14, 1956.] CLARO B. 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
LIZARDO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. AQUILINO 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
HERRERA, LUCIA L. HERRERA, and ADELAIDA ORETA
DE UNSON, Respondents-Appellees. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
[G.R. No. L-7615. March 14, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIA FONG
alias AH SAM, Defendant-Appellant. Honorato 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
Hermosisimo for Appellant.
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
[G.R. No. L-8588. March 14, 1956.] LEODEGARIO 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
ORTEGA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. DOMINADOR 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
PACHO, Defendant-Appellee.
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
[G.R. No. L-6786. March 21, 1956.] SUSANA C. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
CORPUZ, in her capacity as Guardian of the persons
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
and properties of the minors, RENATO, VICENTE and
ERLINDA, all surnamed CORPUZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
vs. DOMINGO GERONIMO, Defendant-Appellee.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956marchdecisions.php?id=89 25/11/2015, 8:29 PM

Page 2 of 4
 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
[G.R. No. L-6884. March 21, 1956.] CAMPOS RUEDA
2013 2014 2015
CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. STA. CRUZ
TIMBER CO., INC., and ALFONSO F. FELIX, Defendants-
Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-7152. March 21, 1956.] CALTEX

(PHILIPPINES) INC., STANDARD VACUUM OIL
COMPANY, and THE SHELL COMPANY OF THE Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
PHILIPPINES, LTD., Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE
AURELIO QUITORIANO, in his capacity as Acting
Secretary of Labor, Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-8720. March 21, 1956.] JOSEFA LOPEZ

REYES, assisted by her husband, MARTIN P. REYES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. FELIPE NEBRIJA, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-7449. March 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NICANOR
ACOSTA Y PALA alias MATA, ET AL., Defendants
NICANOR ACOSTA Y PALA alias MATA, Defendant-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-7712. March 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BERNARDO
REYES, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-7945. March 23, 1956.] NATIONAL LABOR

UNION, Petitioner, vs. BENEDICTO DINGLASAN,
Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-8195. March 23, 1956.] THE MUNICIPAL

GOVERNMENT OF PAGSANJAN, LAGUNA, Plaintiff-
Appellee, vs. ANGEL E. REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8314. March 23, 1956.] LORENZO B.

FAJARDO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE FROILAN
BAYONA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
and ESTER TOLOSA DE FAJARDO, Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-8570. March 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DALMACIO
SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-8639. March 23, 1956.] In the Matter of

the Adoption of the Minors Pablo Vasquez Ernesto
Vasquez, Maria Lourdes Vasquez and Elizabeth Prasnik.
LEOPOLDO PRASNIK, Petitioner-Appellee, vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-8755. March 23, 1956.] COLLECTOR OF

INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. MANILA JOCKEY
CLUB, INC., Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-9315. March 24, 1956.] EUGENIA

MORALES, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. PROCESO
YAÑEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-6704. March 26, 1956.] In the matter of

the testate estate of Margarita David. CARLOS MORAN
SISON, Judicial Administrator, Petitioner-Appellee.
NATIVIDAD SIDECO, ET AL., Claimants-Appellees, vs.
NARCISA F. DE TEODORO, heiress, Oppositor-
Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-6812. March 26, 1956.] MARIA L.

HERNANDEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. HILARION
CLAPIS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-6932. March 26, 1956.] ROSARIO NERI

EDWARDS and T. E. EDWARDS, Petitioners, vs. JOSE
ARCE and FE CATALINA ARCE, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-7253. March 26, 1956.] INTESTADO DE

DON VALENTIN DESCALS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
ADMINISTRADOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS, Defendant-
Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-7987. March 26, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PLACIDO
OPEMIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-8080. March 26, 1956.] MARIANO

BELLEZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANICETO ZANDAGA
and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LA UNION,
Defendants-Appellees.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956marchdecisions.php?id=89 25/11/2015, 8:29 PM

Page 3 of 4
 [G.R. No. L-8321. March 26, 1956.] BRAULIO
QUIMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ROMAN OZAETA, ET
AL., Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-7231. March 28, 1956.] BENGUET

CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., Petitioner, vs. MARIANO
PINEDA, in his capacity as Securities and Exchange
Commissioner, Respondent. CONSOLIDATED MINES,
INC., Intervenor.

[G.R. No. L-8666. March 28, 1956.] NATALIO P.

AMARGA, provincial fiscal of Sulu, Petitioner, vs.
HONORABLE MACAPANTON ABBAS, as Judge, of the
Court of First Instance of Sulu, Respondent.

Pipe Making
Machine
Pipe-Diameter Between 35-
130mm ISO CE SGS
Quality Assurance.

Copyright © 1998 - 2015 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956marchdecisions.php?id=89 25/11/2015, 8:29 PM

Page 4 of 4