11/12/2018
• QUESTION:
IMPORTANT AREAS
IN
SUCCESSION
• ANSWER:
• No. The heirs are not personally liable with
their own individual properties for the
monetary obligations/debts left by the
decedent.
• An heir’s liability for his predecessor’s
obligations is limited by the amount of
inheritance he receives.
• B cannot be made liable for A’s unpaid
obligation because B did not inherit anything
from A.
• No inheritance, no obligation.
• ANSWER:
• The children cannot be substituted in an
action for legal separation upon the death of
their mother who filed the case.
• An action for legal separation which involves
nothing more than bed-and-board separation
of the spouses is purely personal.
• Being personal in character, it follows that
the death of one party to the action causes
the death of the action itself — actio
personalis moritur cum persona. (Lapuz vs.
Eufemio, G.R. No. L-30977. January 31, 1972).
• Before his death, A borrowed from X P1, 000 as
evidenced by a promissory note. A died without
paying the debt.
• A left no property but he is survived by his son, B,
who is making good in the buy and sell business.
• Subsequently, X brought an action against B for
the collection of P1,000 plus legal interest
thereon on the ground that, since B is the only
heir of A, he inherited from the latter not only the
latter’s property, but also all his rights and
obligations.
• Will the action prosper? Reason.
• QUESTION:
• The wife died while the action for
legal separation was pending.
• Her children, however, wanted to
continue the action.
• They ask that they be allowed to
substitute their deceased mother,
arguing that the action should be
allowed to continue. Decide.
• QUESTION:
• Clara, thinking of her mortality, drafted a will
and asked Roberta, Hannah, Luisa and
Benjamin to be witnesses.
• During the day of the signing of the will, Clara
fell down the stairs and broke both her arms.
• Coming from the hospital, Clara, insisted on
signing her will by thumbmark. Later Clara was
run over by a drunk driver while crossing the
street in Greenbelt.
• May the will of Clara be admitted to probate?
Give your reason briefly.
1

• ANSWER:
• Yes. Clara’s thumbmark in this
case has all the hallmarks of a valid
signature.
• Clara clearly intended to use her
thumbmark as her signature and
the circumstances justified her use
of her thumbmark (Garcia v. La
Cuesta, GR. No. L-4067).
• ANSWER:
• a. Yes. Stevie may make a notarial will. A
blind man is not expressly prohibited from
executing a will.
• In fact, Art. 808 of NCC provides for an
additional formality when the testator is
blind. Stevie however, may not make a
holographic will in Braille because the writing
in Braille is not handwriting.
• A holographic will to be valid must be
entirely written, signed and dated by the
testator in his own handwriting.
• QUESTION:
• John and Paula, British citizens at birth, acquired
Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their
marriage.
• During their marriage the couple acquired
substantial landholdings in London and in Makati.
Paula bore John three children, Peter, Paul and
Mary.
• In one of their trips to London, the couple executed
a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and
providing that upon the death of the survivor
between them the entire estate would go to Peter
and Paul only but the two could not dispose of nor
divide the London estate as long as they live.
11/12/2018
• QUESTION:
• Stevie was born blind. He went to
school for the blind, and learned to
read in Braille language.
• He speaks English fluently. Can he:
• a. Make a will?
• b. Act as a witness to a will?
• c. In either of the instances, must
the will be read to him?
• ANSWER:
• b. No. A blind man is disqualified by
law to be a witness to a notarial will.
• c. In case Stevie executes a
notarial will, it has to be read to him
twice. First by one of the
instrumental witnesses and second
by the notary public before whom
the will was acknowledged (Art.
808, NCC).
• QUESTION:
• John and Paula died tragically in the
London Subway terrorist attack in 2005.
Peter and Paul filed a petition for probate
of their parents’ will before a Makati
Regional Trial Court.
• a. Should the will be admitted to probate?
• b. Are the testamentary dispositions
valid?
• c. Is the testamentary prohibition against
the division of the London estate valid?
2

• ANSWER:
• a. No, the will cannot be admitted to probate. Joint wills
are void under the New Civil Code. Even if the joint will
executed by Filipinos abroad were valid where it was
executed, the joint will is still not valid in the
Philippines.
• b. If a will is void, all testamentary dispositions
contained therein are also void. Hence, all
testamentary provisions contained in the void joint will
are also void.
• c. No, the testamentary prohibition against the division
by Peter and Paul of the London estate for as long as
they live, is not valid. Art. 494 of NCC provides that a
donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period
which shall not exceed twenty (20) years.
• ANSWER:
• Yes, the Doctrine of Presumed Revocation
applies, which provides that: where a will
which cannot be found, is shown to have been
in the possession of the testator when last
seen, the presumption is, in the absence of
other competent evidence, that the same was
cancelled or destroyed.
• The same presumption arises where it is
shown that the testator had ready access to
the will and it cannot be found after his death
(Gago v. Mamuyac G.R. No. 26317, Jan. 29,
1927).
• ANSWER:
• a) When an obligation to preserve and
transmit the property to Scarlet was
imposed on Ruffa, the testator
Raymond intended to create a
fideicommissary substitution where
Ruffa is the fiduciary and Scarlet is the
fideicommissary.
• Having complied with the requirements
of Art. 863 and 869 (NCC), the
fideicommissary substitution is valid.
11/12/2018
• QUESTION:
• In 1919, Miguel executed a will.
• In the post mortem probate,
there was a testimony to the
effect that the will was in the
testator’s possession in 1919,
but it can no longer be found.
• Is the will revoked?
• QUESTION:
• Raymond, single, named his sister Ruffa in his will as
a devisee of a parcel of land which he owned. The will
imposed upon Ruffa the obligation of preserving the
land and transferring it, upon her death, to her
illegitimate daughter Scarlet who was then only one
year old. Raymond later died, leaving behind his
widowed mother, Ruffa and Scarlet.
• a. Is the condition imposed upon Ruffa to preserve the
property and to transmit it upon her death to Scarlet,
valid?
• b. If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, who inherits the
property?
• c. If Ruffa predeceases Raymond, can Scarlet inherit
the property directly from Raymond?
• ANSWER:
• b) If Scarlet predeceases Ruffa, the latter as
the former’s heir, will be entitled to the
property. But since it is also Ruffa’s death
which will trigger the fideicommissary
substitution, the practical effect of her death
would be to allow her (Ruffa’s) mother to
inherit the property as Ruffa’s heir.
• The transfer of the property from Scarlet to
Ruffa (as Scarlet’s heir) is what allows
Ruffa’s mother to inherit the property which
she would otherwise be disqualified to inherit
under Article 992.
3

• ANSWER:
• c) One requirement of a valid fideicommissary
substitution is that both heirs should be alive at
the time of the testator’s death. Ruffa
predeceasing Raymond means that the
fideicommissary substitution is no longer valid.
• In this regard, the only way by which Scarlet
can inherit the property directly from Raymond
is by legal succession.
• Her right to do so, however, is negated by (1)
the presence of Raymond and Ruffa’s mother
who necessarily excludes her; and (2) the
provisions of Art. 992.
• Q: Who are compulsory heirs?
• A: Article 887
• (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.
• Q: Can the testator institute as an heir a class or
group of persons?
• A: Yes. (See Art. 845)
• A disposition in favor of a definite class or
group of persons is allowed by law.
• Example: “I bequeath One Million Pesos to
all honor graduates of the Faculty of Civil
Law, University of Santo Tomas from 1995
to year 2000.”
• The institution is valid provided the graduates
are not incapacitated at the death of the
testator.
11/12/2018
• Q. May An Unborn Child Be Instituted As An
Heir?
• A: It depends. A child already conceived at the time of
death of the decedent is capable of succeeding,
provided, it be born later under the condition prescribed
in Article 41 of the Code. Otherwise, the institution is
void because the fetus did not become a person.
• Art. 41. For civil purposes, the fetus is considered
born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered
from the mother’s womb. However, if the fetus had an
intra-uterine life of less than seven months, it is not
deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its
complete delivery from the maternal womb. (New Civil
Code)
• Q: Can the testator institute as an heir an unknown
person?
• A: No.
• Art. 845. Every disposition in favor of an unknown
person shall be void, unless by some event or
circumstance his identity becomes certain. However, a
disposition in favor of a definite class or group of
persons shall be valid.
• Example: A testator provided in his will—“I bequeath
my property (identified) to the Bar topnotcher of the
year immediately following my death.”
• Here, the heir is unknown but he will be identified later
when the results of the Bar Examinations for the year
indicated are released.
• Q: What is the rule when the shares are
not designated for each heir?
• A:
• Art. 846. Heirs instituted without
designation of shares shall inherit in
equal parts.
• The heirs instituted without designation of shares
inherit in equal parts—if they belong to the sense
class or juridical station or condition.
• The law merely states the presumed intention of the
testator, for had he desired otherwise, he should
have been more precise by the designation of the
shares (6 Manresa 92).
4

• Q: Will the entire estate be divided
equally?
• A: NO.
• The institution refers only to the free portion of the
inheritance. There is no equality of shares if there
are compulsory and voluntary heirs instituted.
• If a compulsory heir was instituted, together with
voluntary heirs (without designation of shares) the
sharing of the inheritance is not equal.
• The legitime of the compulsory heir must first be
deducted. The remainder—which is the free
portion—will be divided equally among all the
designated heirs.
• Q: What is the Rule When Testator
Gives Specific Properties To Some
Heirs Only But Made No Designation
Of Shares?
• A:
• If the testator provided that specific
things be given to some heirs but made
no designation of shares, the value of
the things will be considered as parts of
the shares of said heirs.
• Q: What is the effect if the institution of heir is based on
a false cause?
• EXAMPLE:
• 1) ”I give to Juan who is my favorite nephew P50,000.00
for having graduated ‘Summa Cum Laude’ at the UP College
of Law.”
• The truth is, Juan did not graduate with such honors. There
is a false cause in his institution.
• Is the institution valid?
• If the testator would not have made the institution, had he
known of the falsity of the cause or reason (which must
appear in the will), the institution is void. Otherwise, the false
cause will be considered as not written because the real
cause is generosity of the testator.
• The mere incidental statement of a false cause shall not
impair the institution.
11/12/2018
• Illustration:
• “A” instituted “B,” “C” and “D” in his will.
• “B” legitimate son of A is a compulsory heir while “C” and “D”
(friends) are not. The estate is P3,000,000.00.
• “B” will get his legitime equivalent to one-half
(P1,500,000.00).
• The free portion (P1,500,000.00) will now be divided equally
among “B,” “C,” and “D,” that is, P500, 000.00 for each.
• In sum, “B” (son) gets P2,000,000.00 while “C” and “D” get
P500,000.00 each.
• Note, however, that “B” will not participate in the free
portion (P1,500,000.00) if it was made clear that he would
get only his legitime.
• In such case, “C” and “D” whose shares had not been
designated, will divide the free portion equally and each will
get P750,000.00.
• Illustration:
• A testator died leaving cash money in the amount of P11,000,000.00; a
car worth P500,000.00, and a house worth P500,000.00.
• He instituted “B”, “C” and “D” as testamentary heirs.
• However, he specifically provided that the car should go to “B” and the
house to “C”.
• How much will each get from the cash amount?
• The rule is everything must be computed to complete the entirety of the
estate which in turn must be divided equally into 3 parts. Collating the
properties, the estate is worth P12,000,000.00.
• As there is no designation of shares, this amount will be divided into
three equal parts, that is, P4,000,000.00 for each heir.
• The heirs will divide the estate as follows—
• 1. “B” will get P3,500,000.00 in cash plus the car worth P500,000.00.
• 2. “C” will get P3,500,000.00 in cash plus the house worth
P500,000.00.
• 3. “D” will get P4,000,000.00 in cash.
• Q: What is the effect if the institution of heir is based on
a false cause?
• EXAMPLE:
• 2) A testatrix provided in her will, “I give to “A,” “B,” “C”,
“D” and “E” who are my adopted children the following
properties x x x.”
• It turned out that the children were not legally adopted.
• The statement of the false cause shall not impair the
institution because the real cause of the institution is the
generosity of the testatrix.
• There is nothing in the will which indicates that had the
testator known of the falsity of the cause, she would not have
made the institution (See Austria vs. Reyes, 31 SCRA 754).
5

• Q: What is the effect if there is a will but
the testator did not institute any heir?
• A:
• Art. 960. Legal or intestate succession
takes place: x x x
(2) When the will does not institute an heir
to, or dispose of all the property belonging
to the testator. In such case, legal
succession shall take place only with
respect to the property of which the testator
has not disposed” (Art. 960, par. 2, New
Civil Code).
• SAMPLE ILLUSTRATION:
• The testator instituted her children “A,”
“B” and “C” as sole heirs to her estate of
P1,200,000.00 by fixing their shares as
follows—
• •
• “A”—1/4 of P1,200,000.00
• “B”—1/4 of P1,200,000.00
• “C”—1/3 of P1,200,000.00
• How was it computed?
• (A) Arithmetical Computation:
• From the above, it is clear that the proportion of the shares
of “A,” “B” and “C” is 3:3:4 respectively.
• The balance of P200,000.00 shall be divided as follows—
• “A” — 3/10 x P200,000.00 = P60,000.00
• “B” — 3/10 x P200,000.00 = P60,000.00
• “C” — 4/10 x P200,000.00 = P80,000.00
• Therefore,
• “A” will get P300,000.00 + P60,000.00 = P360,000.00
• “B” will get P300,000.00 + P60,000.00 = P360,000.00
• “C” will get P400,000.00 + P80,000.00 = P480,000.00
11/12/2018
• SAMPLE ILLUSTRATION:
• The testator instituted his children “A,” “B,” “C” and
“D” as his sole heirs to his inheritance worth
P1,000,000.00—giving each of them one-fifth (1/5)
of his inheritance.
• The equivalent of 1/5 is P200,000.00.
• What was disposed of is P800,000.00.
• The undistributed P200,000.00 should be divided by
four to equally increase the share of each heir by
P50,000.00. The whole inheritance is now covered.
• If the shares of the heirs are not the same, the
increase shall be done proportionately, that is, in
proportion to the amount of their respective shares.
• How much will the children receive?
• Following this institution, purportedly they will receive as
follows—
•
• “A”—P300,000.00
• “B”—P300,000.00
• “C”—P400,000.00
P1,000,000.00
• The total amount is less by P200,000.00 than the
amount available for actual distribution to the heirs.
Consequently, as the testator intended to make “A,” “B”
and “C” as sole heirs, the uncovered P200,000.00 shall
be distributed to them proportionally.
• How was it computed?
• (B) Algebraic Computation:
• Share of “A” = P1,200,000.00 x P300,000.00 = P360,000.00
P1,000.000.00
• Share of “B” = P1,200,000.00 x P300,000.00 = P360,000.00
P1,000,000.00
• Share of “C” = P1,200,000.00 x P400,000.00 = P480,000.00
P1,000,000.00
• Note: The aggregate amount of the estate (P1,200,000.00)
is multiplied by the share given to the concerned heir, and
the result is devided by the total amunt (P1,000,000.00)
given to all.
6

Q. What are the three (3) kinds of
preterition?
• A: (1) Preterition or omission of a
compulsory heir in the direct line covered by
Article 854;
• (2) Preterition or omission of a property,
objects or securities in the project of partition
covered by Article 1103;
• (3) Preterition or omission of an heir in the
Project of Partition submitted to the court for
approval covered by Article 1104.
• Preterition Distinguished From
Disinheritance.—
• 4. In preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct
line, the omitted heir gets both his legitime and
his share in the free portion not disposed of by
devises or legacies. In a valid disinheritance, the
heir is totally excluded from the hereditary estate.
If the disinheritance is defective, that is,
ineffective, the heir is given merely his legitime.
• 5. In preterition, nullity of institution of heir is
total; in defective disinheritance, nullity of
institution of heir is only partial.
• SAMPLE PROBLEM:
• Q: Suppose, Mr. Cruz instituted his two
children, A and B as his heirs in the will, but
gave a legacy of P100,000 to his friend, F.
How should the estate of Mr. Cruz be divided
upon his death? Explain.
• A: On the same assumption as letter (a), there
was preterition of C. Therefore, the institution of
A and B is annulled but the legacy of P100,000
to F shall be respected for not being inofficious.
• Therefore, the remainder of P900.000 will be
divided equally among A, B and C.
11/12/2018
• Preterition Distinguished From
Disinheritance.—
• 1. In preterition, the compulsory heir is
deprived of his legitime by omission; thus, the
deprivation is tacit; in disinheritance, the
deprivation is express.
• 2. Preterition may be voluntary or
involuntary; disinheritance is always voluntary.
• 3. In preterition, the law presumes there is
an oversight or mistake committed by the
testator; in disinheritance there is some legal
cause.
• SAMPLE PROBLEM:
• Q: Mr. Cruz, widower, has three legitimate children,
A, B, and C. He executed a Will instituting as his
heirs to his estate of One Million Pesos, his two
children, A and B, and his friend, F. Upon his death,
how should Mr. Cruz’s estate be divided? Explain.
• A: Assuming that the institution of A, B and F were to
the entire estate, there was preterition of C, since C is a
compulsory heir in the direct line. The preterition will
result in the total annulment of the institution of heirs.
• Therefore, the institution of A, B, and F will be set aside
and Mr. Cruz’s estate will be divided, as in intestacy,
equally among A, B and C, as follows:
• A = P333,333.33; B = P333,333.33; C = P333,333.33
• SAMPLE PROBLEM:
• Q: Maria, to spite her husband Jorge, whom she
suspected was having an affair with another woman,
executed a will, unknown to him, bequeathing all the
properties she inherited from her parents, to her sister
Miguela.
• Upon her death, the will was presented for probate.
Jorge opposed probate of the will on the ground that
the will was executed by his wife without his
knowledge, much less consent, and that it deprived him
of his legitime.
• After all, he had given her no cause for disinheritance,
added Jorge in his opposition. How will you rule on
Jorge's opposition to the probate of Maria's will. If you
were the Judge?
7

• ANSWER:
• As Judge, I shall rule as follows: Jorge's
opposition should be sustained in part and
denied in part. Jorge's omission as spouse of
Maria is not preterition of a compulsory heir
in the direct line.
• Hence, Art. 854 of the Civil Code does not
apply, and the institution of Miguela as heir is
valid, but only to the extent of the free portion
of one-half.
• Jorge is still entitled to one-half of the estate
as his legitime. (Art. 1001, Civil Code)
• Q: Is an adopted child considered a compulsory heir?
• A: YES.
• A legally adopted child is raised by law to the level of a
legitimate child and acquires the reciprocal rights and
obligations arising from the relation-ship of parent and child.
• An extrajudicial adoption is not valid and legal (Santos-Yñigo
vs. Republic, 95 Phil. 244; Cabatbat-Lim vs. IAC, 166 SCRA
451 cited in Manuel vs. Ferrer, 247 SCRA 482).
• An adopted child is considered a legitimate child of the
adopting parent or parents with all the rights appurtenant to
one legitimate child. Thus, he succeeds as a legitimate child.
• If an adopted child is preterited in a will, the institution of
heirs is void (Art. 854, NCC; See also Art. 979, NCC and Art.
189, Family Code; Acain vs. IAC, 155 SCRA 100).
• SAMPLE PROBLEM:
• Estate of Testator (“A”) is P1,000,000.00.
• Survivors are:
• (1) “B” and “C” (legitimate children);
• (2) “S” (Spouse);
• (3) “D” and “E” (illegitimate children).
• Division of Estate:
• 1. “B” and “C” will get P500,000.00 to be divided equally between
them. So, “B” will get P250,000.00 and “C”, P250,000.00;
• 2. “S”, the spouse, will get a legitime equal to one share of a
legitimate child—P250,000.00 (Art. 898, NCC);
• 3. “D” will get P125,000.00 equivalent to one-half of the legitime of
one legitimate child (Art. 176, Family Code);
• 4. “E” will get the same share (P125,000.00) as “D” for same
reason.
• In the illustration, nothing is left of the free portion.
11/12/2018
• Q: Are siblings (brother / sister)
compulsory heirs?
• A: NO.
• Brothers and sisters are not compulsory
heirs (Manahan vs. Manahan, 58 Phil. 448;
Del Ocampo vs. Varela, 59 Phil. 631).
• However, they can become intestate heirs
under certain conditions such as when
they survive alone or they survive with
nephews and nieces (See Articles 1004
and 1005).
• Q: Are illegitimate children automatically
considered compulsory heirs?
• A: NO.
• The mere fact of being the illegitimate child of
somebody does not automatically make one a
compulsory heir under Art. 887. The existing blood
relationship is not enough.
• What is more important is the recognition of the
illegitimate relationship. If the parent freely recognized
the relationship, that is voluntary recognition. If the child
has to go court to compel his father or mother to
recognize him, that is compulsory recognition.
• Art. 172 and Art. 175 of the Family Code provide the
rules on the establishment of filiation.
• Extended Illustration:
• Under the same facts, if we add another illegitimate
child (“F”), there will be a re-adjustment.
• The remaining free portion of P250,000.00 (after
deducting the legitime of the spouse) will be divided
into three to accommodate all the illegitimate children in
such a way that they get equal shares without
disturbing the legitimes of the legitimate children and
the spouse.
• This is the only fair and equitable way of dividing the
free portion. Therefore, “D,” “E,” “F” will each get only
P83,333.33 as legitimes.
• NOTE: “Art. 176. xxx The legitime of each
illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the
legitime of a legitimate child” (Family Code).
8

• Sequel Illustration:
• On the premise that there is only one illegitimate child,
there will be a free portion of P125,000.00.
• Who is entitled to get this if no one has been designated
as voluntary heir with specific shares?
• In the absence of any designated heirs with specific
shares, the fair distribution of the free portion is to divide it
equally among the surviving compulsory heirs (Art. 846).
• To give it entirely to the legitimate children to the
exclusion of the spouse and illegitimate child will not be
fair.
• If there are voluntary heirs instituted in the free portion
without designation of shares, they will inherit equally with
the compulsory heirs.
Q. What is reserva troncal?
• A: Reserva troncal- The ascendant who inherits from his
descendant any property which the latter may have
acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a
brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he
may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of
relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to
the line from which said property came. (Art. 891)
• Purpose: To prevent persons who are outsiders to the
family from acquiring, by chance or accident, property
which otherwise would have remained with the said family.
In short, to put back the property to the line from which it
originally came.
• SAMPLE PROBLEM:
• “A” (FATHER) died leaving a will. “C” (SON)
received P1,000,000.00 from “A” by virtue of the
latter’s will. “C” in his own right, acquired properties
worth P2,000,000.00. “C” died without issue.
• In his will, he gave the entirety of his estate
(P3,000,000.00) to “B” (MOTHER). One half of this
P3 million was received by “B” by operation of law
(i.e. legitime) and the other half by will as voluntary
heir.
• When “B” died, there is a surviving relative who
qualifies as a reservee (“D” – BROTHER OF C).
• Is the entire property (P3,000,000.00) received by
“B” reservable?
11/12/2018
• Q: Are parents considered compulsory heirs?
• A: NO.
• Parents are secondary compulsory heirs (Art. 886). They come in
as compulsory heirs only if their deceased child or descendant
had no legitimate child or children, otherwise, the latter will
exclude them.
• Article 889 of the Civil Code pre-supposes not only the absence of
legitimate children or descendants, but also other compulsory
heirs. In other words, for the parents to get the legitime of one-half
of the estate, they must survive alone.
• If there are other compulsory heirs like the surviving spouse
and/or illegitimate children, the present Article will not apply but
other Articles (Arts. 899, 896 and 903).
• If the legitimate parents survive alone, they get all (Art. 985).
• If they survive with the spouse and illegitimate children, they get
one-half of the estate. The spouse gets one-fourth and the
illegitimate children get the other one-fourth (Art. 1000).
• Q: What are the requisites of reserva
troncal?
• A: Requisites of Reserva Troncal:
• The property was acquired by a person from an
ascendant of from a brother or sister by
gratuitous title.
• Said person died without legitimate issue.
• The property is inherited by another ascendant
by operation of law.
• There are relatives within the third degree
belonging to the line from which said property
came.
• ANSWER:
• The reservable property refers only to the P1 million received by
“C” from “A” and not the entire P3,000,000.00.
• (1) Out of this P1 million, how much is the reservable portion?
• (a) Based on the principle of reserva maxima, the reservable
portion of the estate of “C” shall include all properties or money
which can be comprised within the one-half of the inheritance
constituting the legitime of the reservor (“B”). Since the legitime of
“B” in the entire estate of “C” is P1,500,000.00, it is clear that the
P1,000,000.00 received by “C” gratuitously from “A” can be
contained within that legitime. Hence, this P1,000,000.00 is totally
reservable.
• (b) Based on the principle of reserva minima, the reservable
property is only P500,000.00. This is premised on the fact that
only one half (1/2) of the P1,000,000.00 was received by “B”
(reservor) as legitime which is by operation of law, because the
other half (P500,000.00) was received by will by “B” as voluntary
heir.
9

• SAMPLE PROBLEM:
• (a) “A” inherits a property from his son “B” who died without
issue, which property was donated to “B” by a brother “C”.
• Is “A” bound to reserve said property? If so, in whose favor?
• 1) Yes, the property being a reservable property. “A” is bound to
reserve it for the relatives of “B” who are within the third degree
and who belong to the line where the property came from (Art.
891). The reservees inherit the property not from the reservor but
from the propositus.
• Hence, the requirement above. All the elements of reserva troncal
are present, to wit: (a) “A” the reservor who is an ascendant of “B”
(propositus) acquired the property from the latter by operation of
law (inheritance) who died without any issue in the direct
descending line; (b) “B” (propositus) previously acquired the
property from his brother “C” (origin) by gratuitous title (donation).
• Illustration:
• Testator died leaving an estate worth P1,000,-
000.00. He is survived by “A” and “B,” his legitimate
parents, and by “C” and “D,” his illegitimate children.
• Division of Estate:
• 1. “A” and “B” will receive P500,000.00 to be
equally divided between them. Each will get
P250,000.00.
• 2. “C” and “D” will receive P250,000.00 (one-
fourth) to be equally divided between them. Each
will get P125,000.00.
• 3. Available free portion is P250,000.00.
• Q: Why is this called an “Unholy Article”?
• A:
• It is an unholy article in the law on succession. It
honors more illegitimacy than legitimate espousal
relationship. It is an insult to the status and dignity of a
good spouse who receives less inheritance than the
illegitimate children who are off-springs of immoral
relationships.
• It is obvious, the Article is a stab in the heart of the
surviving spouse—who helped build the communal or
conjugal fortune materially and morally only to find out
upon the death of his or her spouse, that the legitime
of illegitimate children who contributed nothing to the
estate is much more than his or her own legitime.
11/12/2018
• SAMPLE PROBLEM:
• “A” sold the property mentioned in (a) to “D”, “B’s” sister.
Is the sale valid? Explain your answer.
• Answer:
• Yes, the sale to “D” is valid. The reservor being
considered an owner may alienate the same subject to
the condition that the buyer will receive a limited and
revocable title. The ownership of the reservor is subject
to the resolutory condition that if upon his death, there
are qualified living reservees, the property becomes the
property of the said reservees who have the right to
rescind the alienation (See: Edroso vs. Sablan, 25 Phil.
255; Lungsod vs. Ortega, 46 Phil. 664).
• If there are no living reservees, the sale to “D” becomes
an unquestionable transaction.
• Q: What is the so-called “Unholy Article”?
• A:
• Art. 899. When the widow or widower survives
with legitimate parents or ascendants and with
illegitimate children, such surviving spouse
shall be entitled to one-eighth of the hereditary
estate of the deceased which must be taken
from the free portion, and the illegitimate
children shall be entitled to one-fourth of the
estate which shall be taken also from the
disposable portion. The testator may freely
dispose of the remaining one-eighth of the
estate.
• Q: Can An Adopted Child Be Disinherited By
The Adopting Parent?
• A: YES.
• Under the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA No.
8552 approved February 25, 1998), adopted
children can be disinherited by the adopting parents
(Section 19, RA No. 8552).
• The reason for this is that, the right of the adopting
parent to rescind the adoption authorized under
Article 192 of the Family Code had been abrogated
by the new law. Instead of rescission, the new law
simply authorized the adopting parents to disinherit
the adopted if any of the causes for disinheritance
under Art. 919 exists.
10
 11/12/2018

• Q: What is the iron- curtain rule? • Illustration:

• A: Art. 992 provides that illegitimate children • Testator died leaving an estate worth
cannot inherit ab intestato from the legitimate P1,000,000.00. He is survived by “A,” a legitimate
children and relatives of his mother or father. son and “B” and “C”, illegitimate children.
Legitimate children and relatives cannot inherit in • Division of Estate:
the same way from the illegitimate child. • 1. “A” will get P500,000.00 as legitime which is
• Note: The iron curtain rule only applies in intestate one-half of the estate (Art. 888);
succession. • 2. “B” will get P250,000.00 as legitime which is
• There is barrier recognized by law between the one-half of the share of the legitimate child;
legitimate relatives and the illegitimate child so that • 3. “C” will get also P250,000.00 as legitime under
one cannot inherit from the other and vice versa. the same principle.
• Rationale: The law presumes the existence of • 4. There is no more available free portion because
antagonism between the illegitimate child and the it is exhausted.
legitimate relatives of his parents.

• Illustration:
• Testator died leaving an estate worth
P1,000,000.00. He is survived by “A”, his legitimate
son; “B”, his spouse; and “C”, “D,” “E,” “F” and “G,”
his illegitimate children.
• Division of Estate:
• 1. “A” will get P500,000.00 as legitime.
• 2. “B” will get P250,000.00 which is one-fourth of
the estate (Art. 842).
• 3. “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G” supposedly should get
one-half of the share of a legitimate child, that is,
P250,000.00 each or a total of P1,250,000.00 for all
of them.

11