1

Intestate Estate of Petra V. Rosales. The testatrix Agripina Valdez was survived by seven
Irenea C. Rosales v. Fortunato Rosales, et. al. compulsory heirs, to wit, six
G.R. No. L-40789, February 27, 1987 legitimate children and a legitimate granddaughter,
who is the only legitimate child and
FACTS: heir of her son who predeceased her. She left a last
will naming the abovementioned
On February 26, 1971, Mrs. Petra Rosales died compulsory heirs together with seven other legitimate
intestate. She was survived by her husband Fortunato grandchildren. In her will, she
Rosales and their two children Magna Rosales Acebes distributed and disposed of all her properties among
and AntonioRosales. Another child, Carterio Rosario, the heirs. The said will was allowed
predeceased her, leaving behind a child, probate. In her will, the testatrix “commanded that
Macikequerox Rosales, and his widow Irenea C. her property be divided” in
Rosales, the herein petitioner. Magna Rosales Acebes accordance with her testamentary disposition,
instituted the proceedings for the settlement of whereby she devised and bequeathed
the estate of the deceased. The trial courtordered specific real properties comprising practically the
that Fortunato, Magna, Macikequerox entire bulkof her estate among her six
and Antonio be entitled each to ¼ share in children and eight grandchildren.
the estate of decedent. Irenea, on the other hand,
insisted in getting a share of the estate in her capacity Marina Dizon, the proponent and executrix, filed her
as the surviving spouse of the late Carterio Rosales, project of partition adjudicating the estate as follows:
son of the deceased, claiming that she is a (1) with the figure of P129,254.96
compulsory heir of her mother-in-law. as legitime for a basis Marina and Tomas are
admittedly considered to have received in
ISSUE: the will more than their respective legitime, while the
rest of the other compulsory heirs
received less than their respective legitime; (2) thus,
Whether or not Irenea is entitled to inherit from her
to each of the latter are
mother-in-law.
adjudicated the properties respectively given them in
the will, plus cash and/or
RULING:
properties, to complete their respective legitimes to
P129,254.96; (3) on the other hand,
No. Under the law, intestate or legal heirs are Marina and Tomas are adjudicated the properties that
classified into two groups, namely, those who inherit they received in the will less the
by their own right, and those who inherit by the right cash and/or properties necessary to complete the
of representation. There is no provision in the Civil prejudiced legitime mentioned in
Code which states that a widow (surviving spouse) number 2 above; (4) the adjudications made in the will
is an intestate heir of her mother-in-law. The law has in favor of the grandchildren
already meticulously enumerated the intestate heirs remain untouched.
of a decedent. The Court held that Irenea
misinterpreted the provision of Article 887 because
On the other hand, oppositors submitted their own
the provision refers to the estate of
counter-project of partition, proposing that the
the deceased spouse in which case the surviving
testamentary disposition made by the testatrix should
spouse is a compulsory heir. It does not apply to
be reduced to the amounts set forth after the names
the estate of a parent-in-law. Therefore, the surviving
of the respective heirs and devisees totalling one-half
spouse is considered a third person as
thereof while the other half of the estate would be
regards the estate of the parent-in-law.
deemed as
constituting the legitime.

The lower court sustained and approved the

Dizon v. Dizon executrix’ project of partition, ruling
G.R. No. L-24561 June 30, 1970 that “(A)rticles 906 and 907 of the New Civil Code
specifically provide that when the

legitime is impaired or prejudiced, the same shall be
completed and satisfied. The
proposition of the oppositors, if upheld, will
substantially result in a distribution of
intestacy, which is in controversion of Article 791 of
the New Civil Code” adding that
“the testatrix has chosen to favor certain heirs in her
will for reasons of her own, cannot
be doubted. This is legally permissible within the
limitation of the law, as aforecited.”
With reference to the payment in cash principally by
the executrix to be paid to her five
co-heirs to complete their impaired legitimes, the
lower courtruled that “(T)he payment in cash so as to
make the proper adjustment to meet with
the requirements of the law in respect to legitimes
which have been impaired is, in our opinion, a practical
and valid solution in order to give effect to the last
wishes of the testatrix.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in
approving the executrix’ project of
partition
NO. In this case, the testatrix’ testamentary
disposition was in the nature of a partition of her
estate by will. Thus, in the third paragraph of her will,
after commanding that upon her death all her
obligations as well as the expenses of her last illness
and funeral and the expenses for probate of her last
will and for the administration of her property
in accordance with law, be paid, she expressly
provided that “it is my wish and I command that my
property be divided” in accordance with the
dispositions immediately thereafter following,
whereby she specified each real property in her estate
and designated the particular heir among her seven
compulsory heirs and seven other grandchildren to
whom she bequeathed the same.
This was a valid partition of her estate, as
contemplated and authorized in the first paragraph of
Article 1080 of the Civil Code, providing that “(S)hould
a person make a partition of his estate by an act inter
vivos or by will, such partition shall be respected,
insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the
compulsory heirs.”
This right of a testator to partition his estate is subject
only to the right of compulsory heirs to their legitime.
This was properly complied with in the executrix-
appellee’s project of partition, wherein the five
2
oppositors-appellants namely Estela,
Bernardita, Angelina, Josefina and Lilia, were
adjudicated the properties respectively distributed
and assigned to them by the testatrix in her will, and
the differential to complete their respective legitimes
of P129,362.11 each were taken from the cash and/or
properties of the executrix-appellee, Marina, and their
co-oppositor-appellant, Tomas, who admittedly were
favored by the testatrix and received in the partition
by will more than their respective legitimes.
Thus, the right of the oppositors in this case was
merely to demand completion of their legitime under
Article 906 of the Civil Code and this has been
complied with in the approved project of partition,
and they can no longer demand a further share from
the remaining portion of the estate, as bequeathed
and partitioned by the testatrix principally to the
executrix-appellee. Neither may they legally insist on
their legitime being completed with real properties of
the estate instead of being paid in cash, per the
approved project of partition.
The properties are not available for the purpose, as
the testatrix had specifically partitioned and
distributed them to her heirs, and the heirs are called
upon, as far as feasible to comply with and give effect
to the intention of the testatrix as solemnized in her
will, by implementing her manifest wish of
transmitting the real properties intact to her
named beneficiaries, principally the executrix-
appellee.
Orders appealed from were affirmed.
De Roma v CA
GR L-46903 July 23, 1987
FACTS – Both parties are two legally adopted
daughters of decedent Candelaria de Roma. She died
intestate and private respondent Rosalinda´s guardian
instituted proceedings for the administration of the
property left.
Guardian Felicidad filed an inventory of the estate,
which was opposed by petitioner claiming that certain
properties earlier donated by Candelaria to Buhay,
and the fruits thereof, were not included. These
properties in question were seven parcels of coonut
land.

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, which
ruled that decedent expressly prohibited collation in
her deed of donation. But the CA reversed the decision
holding there was no such express prohibition, and
ordered collation and equally divided the net estate of
the decedent.
ISSUE – Whether or not the CA is correct in ruling that
there is no express prohibition of collation with regard
to the properties in question
RULING – YES. Rule is tht the intention to exempt from
collation should be expressed plainly and
unequivocally as an exception to the general rule in
Art. 1062. Absent such clear intention, collation shall
be ordered.
Here, nothing in the provisions of the deed of donation
expressly prohibited the collation of the said donation.
The phrase ¨sa pamamagitab ng pagbibigay na di na
mababawing muli¨merely described the donation as
irrevocable and shall not be construed as an express
prohibition against collation.
Order of CA affirmed in toto.
LOCSIN V JAUCIAN
GR 89783 , Feb 19, 1992
FACTS – The late Don Mariano Locsin executed a last
will and testament, instituting his wife Catalina as the
sole and universal heir of all his properties, as
unfortunately the spouses were childless. They agreed
that their properties, after both of them shall have
died, shall revert to their respective sides of the family
(Locsin relatives and Jaucian relatives).
After Don Mariano´s death, Dona Catalina began
transferring, by sale and donation, their properties to
their respective nephews and nieces, where those
who really benefitted are those closest to them.
6 years after Donya Catalina´s death, some of the
Jaucian relatives, who had already received some
properties from the spouses, but excluding Jaucian
relatives who were close to the spouses, filed action in
the RTC to recover some properties from the Locsins,
alleging that the transfers were inofficious and
without consideration, and was only intended to
3
circumvent the law. Both the RTC and CA was in favor
of the Jaucian relatives. Hence the petition.
ISSUE – Whether or not the CA is correct in anulling
the transfers of Donya Catalina to the Locsin relatives
due to being inofficious.
HELD – NO. The properties in question herein did not
form part of her hereditary estate, as in accordance
with law, these are properties not existing at the time
of the decedent´s death.
The rights to a person´s succession are only
transmitted from the moment of his death, and do not
vest in his heirs until such time. Here, the properties
were already transferred or conveyed to other
persons during her lifetime, and thus did not form part
of her estate.
Even of those transfers were donations, a collation
and a reduction of inofficious donations is not
appropriate as there are no compulsory heirs in this
case.
Decision of CA reversed and set aside. Petition for
review on certiorari granted.
Milagros Manongsong v. FelomenaJumaquio Estimo
G. R. No. 136773. June 25, 2003
FACTS:
Allegedly, AgatonaGuevarra (“Guevarra”) inherited a
property from Justina Navarro, which is now under
possession of the heirs of Guevarra. Guevarra had
six children, one of them is Vicente Lopez, the father
of petitioner Milagros Lopez Manongsong
(“Manongsong”). The respondents, the Jumaquio
sisters and Leoncia Lopez claimed that the property
was actually sold to them by Justina Navarro prior
to her death. The respondents presented deed of sale
dated October 11, 1957.
Milagros and CarlitoManongsong (“petitioners”) filed
a Complaint on June 19, 1992 praying for the partition
and award to them of an area equivalent to one-fifth
(1/5), by right of representation.

The RTC ruled that the conveyance made by Justina
Navarro is subject to nullity because the property
conveyed had a conjugal character and
that AgatonaGuevarra as her compulsory heir should
have the legal right to participate with the distribution
of the estate under question to the exclusion of
others. The Deed of Sale did not at all provide for the
reserved legitime or the heirs, and, therefore it has
no force and effect against AgatonaGuevarra and
should be declared a nullity ab initio.
But the CA reversed the said decision, ruling that trial
court erred in applying the presumption in Art. 160,
since there was no evidence presented by plaintiff
Milagros that the property was acquired during
marriage. Ruled that this cannot defeat the kasulatan
presented by Jumaquio sisters which is ruled to be
authentic and genuine.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the rights of the compulsory heirs
were impaired by the alleged sale of the property by
Justina.
RULING:
No. The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged
before a notary public, is a public document and prima
facie evidence of its authenticity and due execution.
There is no basis for the trial court’s declaration that
the sale embodied in the Kasulatan deprived the
compulsory heirs of Guevarra of their legitimes.
As opposed to a disposition inter vivos by lucrative or
gratuitous title, a valid sale for valuable consideration
does not diminish the estate of the seller. When
the disposition is for valuable consideration, there is
no diminution of the estate but merely a substitution
of values, that is, the property sold is replaced by
the equivalent monetary consideration. The Property
was sold in 1957 for P250.00.
The trial court’s conclusion that the Property
was conjugal, hence the sale is void ab initio was not
based on evidence, but rather on a misapprehension
of Article 160 of the Civil Code, which provides: “All
property of the marriage is presumed
to belong to the conjugalpartnership; unless it be
proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to
the wife.” The presumption under Article 160 of the
Civil Code appliesonly when there is proof that the
4
property was acquired during the marriage. Proof of
acquisition during the marriage is an essential
condition for the operation of the presumption
in favor of the conjugal partnership. There was no
evidence presented to establish that Navarro acquired
the Property during her marriage.
Order appealed is affirmed.
Spouses Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 126376. November 20, 2003
FACTS:
Defendant spouses Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana
Landrito are the parents of plaintiffs Consolacion,
Nora, Emma and Natividad as well as
of defendantsFidel, Tomas, Artemio, Clarita, Felicitas,
Fe, and Gavino, all surnamed JOAQUIN. The married
Joaquin childrenare joined in this action by their
respective spouses. Sought to be declared null and
void ab initio are certain deeds of sale covering 6
parcels of land executed by defendant parents
Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito in favor
of their co-defendant children and the corresponding
certificates of title issued in their names. In seeking
the declaration of nullity of the aforesaid deeds of sale
and certificates of title, plaintiffs, in their
complaint, aver that the purported sale of
the properties in litis was the result of a deliberate
conspiracy designed to unjustly deprive the rest of the
compulsory heirs (plaintiffs herein) of their legitime.
ISSUE:
Whether Petitioners have a legal interest over the
properties subject of the Deeds of Sale
RULING:
Petitioners do not have any legal interest over the
properties subject of the Deeds of Sale. As
the appellatecourt stated, petitioners’ right to their
parents’ properties is merely inchoate and vests only
upon their parents’ death. While still living, the
parents of petitioners are free to dispose of their
properties. In their overzealousness to safeguard their
 5

future legitime, petitioners forget that Collation takes place when there are
theoretically, the sale of the lots to their siblings does compulsory heirs, one of its purposes being
not affect the value of their parents’ estate. While the to determine the legitime and the free
sale of the lots reduced the estate, cash portion. If there is no compulsory heir, there is no
of equivalent value replaced the lots taken from the legitime to be safeguarded.
estate.
The records do not show that the decedent left any
primary, secondary, or concurring
compulsory heirs. He was only survived by his siblings,
who are his collateral relatives
and, therefore, are not entitled to any legitime – that
ARELLANO v. PASCUAL part of the testator’s property which he cannot
G.R. No. 189776 December 15, 2010 dispose of because the law has reserved it for
compulsory heirs.The decedent not having left any
compulsory heir who is entitled to any legitime, he was
Angel N. Pascual Jr. died intestate on January 2, 1999
at liberty to donate all his properties, even if nothing
leaving as heirs his
was left for his siblings-collateral relatives to inherit.
siblings, namely: petitioner Amelia P. Arellano who is
represented by her daughters
Agnes P. Arellano (Agnes) and Nona P. Arellano, and His donation to petitioner, assuming that it was valid,
respondents Francisco Pascual is deemed as donation made to a “stranger,”
and Miguel N. Pascual. chargeable against the free portion of the estate.
There being no compulsory heir, however, the
donated property is not subject to collation
In a petition for “Judicial Settlement of Intestate Estate
and Issuance of Letters of Administration” filed by
respondents on April 28, 2000, respondents alleged, Assailed order reversed and set aside.
inter alia, that a parcel of land (the donated property)
located in Teresa Village, Makati, which was,
by Deed of Donation, transferred by the decedent to
petitioner the validity of which donation respondents ROLANDO SANTOS vs. CONSTANCIA SANTOS ALANA
assailed, “may be considered as an advance legitime”
of petitioner. Respecting the donated property, now FACTS: Rolando Santos and Constancia Santos Alana
covered in the name of petitioner by are half-blood siblings both asserting their claim over
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 181889 of a 39-square meter lot in Manila. It was registered in
the Register of Deeds of Makati, which respondents the name of their father who died intestate in 1986.
assailed but which they, in any event, posited that it
“may be considered as an advance legitime” to During his lifetime, Gregorio donated the lot to
petitioner Rolando which the latter accepted. By virtue of the
deed of donation annotated on Gregorio's title, a
the trial court, acting as probate court, held that it was transfer certificate of title was issued in Rolando's
precluded from determining the validity of the name.
donation. CA sustained this ruling
In 1991 Constancia Santos filed with the RTC of Manila
ISSUE: WON the property is subject of collation. a complaint for partition and reconveyance against
Rolando alleging that during the lifetime of their
father, he denied having sold the subject lot to
NO. The purposes of collation are to secure equality
petitioner; that she learned of the donation in 1978;
among the compulsory heirs
and that the donation is inofficious as she was
in so far as is possible, and to determine the free
deprived of her legitime.
portion, after finding the legitime, so
that inofficious donations may be reduced.
Rolando countered that respondent's suit is barred by
prescription considering that she is aware of his
possession of the lot as owner for more than ten (10)
 6

years; and that the lot was sold to him by Gregorio. be determined. Since Gregorio died in 1986,
Hence, respondent can no longer claim her legitime. respondent had until 1996 within which to file the
action. She filed her suit in 1992, well within the
Affirmed on appeal are the findings of the trial court prescriptive period.
which declared as invalid contract the Deed of
Absolute Sale since it was not signed by the parties nor
registered in the Registry of Deeds and sustained as
valid the deed of donation as it was duly executed by
the parties and registered. Lauro Vizconde v. CA
G.R. No. 118449, February 11, 1998
ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the donation is inofficious
(2) Whether or not action of respondent is FACTS:
barred by prescription
Spouses Rafael and Salud Nicolas have five children,
RULING: (1) Yes. Pursuant to Article 752 of the Civil
namely: Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde (wife of herein
Code, a donation is inofficious if it exceeds this
petitioner LauroVizconde); Antonio Nicolas; Ramon
limitation - no person may give or receive, by way of
Nicolas; Teresita Nicolas de Leon; and Ricardo Nicolas,
donation, more than he may give or receive by will.
an incompetent. On June 30, 1991, Estrellita and her
two daughters were killed. In an Extra-Judicial
Gregorio could not donate more than he may give by
Settlement of the Estate of Deceased Estrellita, Rafael
will. At the time of his death, he left no property other
and Salud, together with petitioner Vizconde,
than the entire lot he donated to petitioner and that
inherited from Estrellita’s estate.
the deceased made no reservation for the legitimeof
respondent, his daughter and compulsory heir. The
Subsequently, when Rafael died in 1992, an
donation is therefore inofficious as it impairs
intestate estate proceeding was instituted by one of
respondent's legitime which, under Article 888 of the
the heirs of Rafael. Private respondent Ramon, among
Civil Code, consists of one-half (1/2) of the hereditary
other things, averred that petitioner should be
estate of the father and the mother. Since the parents
impleaded as one of Rafael’s children “by right of
of both parties are already dead, they will inherit the
representation as the widower of deceased legitimate
entire lot, each being entitled to one-half (1/2)
daughter Estrellita.” Pursuant to the order of the
thereof.
probate court, petitioner filed a Manifestation
contending that he was neither a compulsory heir nor
an intestate heir of Rafael and he has no interest to
(2) No. "Donations, the reduction of which hinges
participate in the proceedings. The
upon the allegation of impairment of legitime (as in
trial court granted Ramon’s motion. The Court of
this case), are not controlled by a particular
Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
prescriptive period,” as held in Imperial vs. Court of
Appeals but by ordinary rules of prescription.
ISSUE:
Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, actions upon an
obligation created by law must be brought within ten Whether or not the inclusion of petitioner Vizconde in
years from the time the right of action accrues. Thus, the intestate estate proceeding regarding
the ten-year prescriptive period applies to the Rafael’s estate is proper.
obligation to reduce inofficious donations, required
under Article 771 of the Civil Code, to the extent that RULING:
they impair the legitime of compulsory heirs.
No. The enumeration of compulsory heirs in Article
The case of Mateo vs. Lagua, which involved the 887 of the Civil Code is exclusive, which negates the
reduction for inofficiousness of a donation propter rulings of the RTC and CA that Lauro shall be included
nuptias, recognized that the cause of action to enforce in the proceeding as a compulsory heir for he is only a
a legitime accrues upon the death of the donor- son-in-law of decedent Rafael.
decedent, since it is only then that the net estate may
be ascertained and on which basis, the legitimes may
 7

Thus, petitioner who was not even shown to be Order of CA reversed and set aside.
a creditor of decedent is considered a third person or
stranger. Petitioner may not be dragged into the
proceeding herein instituted; neither may he be
permitted to intervene as he has no personality or
interest in the said proceeding. Thus, petition
is granted.

Order of CA reversed and set aside.

SUAREZ v CA
GR 94918, Sept 2, 1992

FACTS – Petitioners herein are legitimate children of

deceased Marcelo Suarez, whose estate was not
partitioned. The subject property herein are five
valuable parcels of land in Pasig City which were levied
and sold to private respondents herein to satisfy the
personal judgement debt of widow Teofista Suarez,
who lost in a cse for rescission of contract and for
damages and was ordered to pay.

Petitioners opposed the sale to private respondents,

claiming that the subject lands were co-owned by
them with their mom Teofista, and they cannot be
prejudiced as they are stranger to the suit against their
mother. Trial court first in favor of private
respondents, but reversed when petitioners filed an
MR, but CA reversed the said order.

ISSUE – Whether or not private respondents validly

acquired the subject lots which are co-owned by
petitioners and registered in the name of the
petitioner´s deceased father.

RULING – The petitioners has a right to institute the

action to annul the sale.

The legitime of the surviving spouse is equal to the

legitime of each childin accordance to Art. 892 para 2
of the Old Civil Code. The proprietary interest of
petitioners in the property is different from and
adverse to that of their mother.

Petitioners became co-owners of the property not

because of their mother but through their own right
as children of the decedent.