Francisco

vs Alfonso

Facts:

Respondent herein, Aida Francisco-Alfonso is the legitimate daughter of decedent
Gregorio Francisco. While petitioners, Regina and Zenaida are two of the illegitimate
children of decedent with Julia.
While Gregorio is in the hospital, he confided to Aida that the Certificate Title of his only
property is in the possession of Regina and Zenaida. When Aida confronted the two,
they told her that their father sold the land to them for P25, 000.00. Thus, Aida filed a
complaint for annulment of sale. The RTC ruled that the sale was valid but the CA
decided that it was null and void.

Issue:

May a legitimate daughter be deprived of her share in the estate of her deceased father
by a simulated contract?

Held:

No. Note that the prevailing law during the time of death of Gregorio is the Civil Code
and not the Family Code. Gregorio did not own any other property. If indeed the parcels
of land involved were the only property left by their father, the sale in fact would
deprive respondent of her share in her father’s estate. His compulsory heir, Aida, cannot
be deprived of her share. Also, the Supreme Court noted that there was really a plan on
the part of Gregorio to deprive his daughter Aida of her share but he had a change of
heart and confided to Aida the certificate of title. Petition is denied.

Tumbakan vs Magtanum

Facts: Grandmother (decedent) died intestate. She left as compulsory and
intestate heirs her daughter and her grandson (son of predeceased daughter).
Widower or son- in-law (husband of predeceased daughter) claimed to be
decedent’s compulsory heir.

Held: That son-in-law (widower of decedent’s predeceased daughter) not a

compulsory heir of decedent.

A decedent’s compulsory heirs in whose favor the law reserves a part of the decedent’s
estate are exclusively the persons enumerated in Article 887, Civil Code, viz:

Article 887. The following are compulsory heirs:
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and
ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their
legitimate children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in article 287.
Compulsory heirs mentioned in Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not excluded by those in Nos. 1 and
2; neither do they exclude one another.

In all cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. The father or
mother of illegitimate children of the three classes mentioned, shall inherit from them
in the manner and to the extent established by this Code.

Only two forced heirs survived Alejandra upon her death, namely: respondent Apolonia,
her daughter, and Crisanto Miralles, her grandson. The latter succeeded Alejandra by
right of representation because his mother, Ciriaca, had predeceased Alejandra.

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 she were living or if she could have inherited.8 Herein,
the representative (Crisanto Miralles) was called to the succession by law and not by
the person represented (Ciriaca); he thus succeeded Alejandra, not Ciriaca.


Florentino vs Florentino

Facts:
Apolonio Isabelo Florentino II married twice—the first with Antonia Faz de Leon and
the second with Severina Faz de Leon. During the first marriage, he begot nine children
(the petitioners in this case). And, during the second marriage, he begot two children—
Mercedes, and Apolonio III who was born after Apolonio II died. During his lifetime,
Apolonio executed a will before the notary public, instituting as his universal heirs his
aforementioned 10 children, the posthumous Apolonio III and his widow Severina.
Apolonio III died and his mother, Severina succeeded. Severina died and instituted as
her universal heiress, Mercedes. Mercedes took possession of the properties including
the reservable property of Apolonio that was inherited by Apolonio III. Petitioners
claimed that such property inherited by Apolonio III from Apolonio was a reservable
property and Mercedes in inheriting it from Severina, who inherited it from Apolonio III
was duty bound to respect its reservable character and therefore entitles Encarnacion,
et. al. also to share in the said property.

Issue: Whether or not the property left at the death of Apolonio III was invested with
the character of reservable property when it was received by his mother, Severina.

Held:

Yes, Ascendants do not inherit the reservable property, but its enjoyment, use or trust,
merely for the reason that said law imposes the obligation to reserve and preserve
same for certain designated persons who, on the death of the said ascendants
reservists, acquire the ownership of said property in fact and by operation of law in the
same manner as forced heirs, said property reverts to said line as long as the
aforementioned persons who, from the death of the ascendant-reservists, acquire in
fact the right of reservatarios and are relatives, within the 3rd degree, of the descendant
from whom the reservable property came.