Succession, July 1, 2017 (2nd Hour)

Student: In the Civil Code, right by accession is being categorized into three—natural, industrial,
and civil (e.g. interest, leasehold rights). Avulsion, being an example of a natural fruit.Based on
Paras, avulsion is an accrual. The law is specific that the “right by accession” is consists of the
natural, industrial, and civil fruits. For purposes of Succession, can industrial and civil fruits be
classified as accruals? When you say accrual, does it only involve an action of nature?
Atty. Gujilde: When you say accruals, it only mention of action by nature. I think, this connects
with the previous question. This can be a legal basis in saying that natural fruits (e.g. avulsion)
are accruals. The reason when I said, accrual is by action of nature because, in Succession, the
intent of testator is the supreme law. When you say accrual, you limit that to actions of nature,
it means that you cannot separate the property itself. How do you separate the soil/land that
was added to the property? But when you talk about an interest, you can separate that; and
because we go to the intent of the testator, walanamansiyay choice kay that’s an action by
nature. Nature gives it for him. That is my point, but if you can also argue another one, it’s
alright.
Hence, interest (civil fruits) are after-acquired properties, not accruals. He might have said,
“okay, kanilangang principal, but ang 10 % interest akoni.” The intention there remains.

Student:Regarding, inheritance…how can something accrued, by an act of nature, to rights and

obligations?
Atty. Gujilde: Article 781 of Civil Code. It made a lot of sense. How could an act of nature
accrued to rights and obligations. But my stand remains: the intent of testator prevails; being
the supreme law in Succession. He cannot anymore separate the property (being an act of
nature) as distinguished from that of industrial and civil fruits, testator can still separate the
properties.

Student: Clarification on the nature of after-acquired properties and accruals, Atty.

Atty. Gujilde: When a person dies, there is no such thing as “after-acquired properties” since
these properties are acquired at the precise moment of making a will, at the time when
testator is still alive.
After you die, but before distribution, any increment in the property is an accrual regardless of
the action of nature. This situation is within a different context. It pertains to time. Accrual in a
sense that a property increases its value not only by nature, but also through industry, even
including those that increase the value of property by mere passage of time. It all boils down to
this: can you separate the property in such as there might have been a different intention for
that increment of the property. Mao ngakung accrual, part nagyudnasiyasa property (that
which cannot be separated like alluvium).

Student: Abandonment of a child, is there an extent of time when abandonment happens? Let’s
say he is a minor when he received abandonment from his father, during that short of time, he
became well-off. Then he died. Does abandonment has to be in a considerable amount of time?
Atty. Gujilde: It’s a question of fact on how you prove abandonment. For instance,
kadalirakaayo to, like isolated cases of abandonment—as much as possible, uphold the family,
you should learn to forgive. Not isolated cases – long period of time, it depends actually on the
Court.

Student: When a compulsory heir became unworthy, could you condone him partially? That
you want to give her propertiesbut not his compulsory share.
Atty. Gujilde: No, because legitime --- you cannot touch that unless you disinherit. If you’re
unworthy, you are not entitled to both legitime and free portion. If it’s disinheritance, it’s the
testator who says, dili pwedemaka-inherit; if it’s unworthiness, it’s the other heir who says dili
ka pwede maka-inherit. Lahi kinsa ang ni-ingon na dili siya maka-inherit. Kay kanang
unworthiness namatay naman ang testator ana; or di gani, it’s the law which says an heir is not
entitled to the legitime. It’s different kung disinheritance, kay ang testator is still alive when he
made the decision to disinherit an heir.

Student: For instance, the heir is active in facebook, in social media. Due to activation, the
people of the Philippines initiated a case against your father. Kay you posted something in
facebook, nga ingon ani sya na pagka-amahan. Then a case is filed against your father. You
don’t have a hand on it, but you sparked the case.
Atty. Gujilde:In so far as capacity is concerned, construed strictly. Rule in favor of capacity. That
being said, it will not qualify, since the law says that that you have to file a case or witness ka in
the case.
Student: With regards to the ground which says “any person who has been convicted of an
attempt against the life of the testator…” it doesn’t mean that acquittal there is based on pure
innocence?
Atty. Gujilde:In that particular ground, if you were acquitted, it doesn’t matter if you were
acquitted based on reasonable doubt or pure innocence. It doesn’t matter.

Student: Sir, regarding witnesses to the will, katong “surplus” can still inheret. Say, there were
four of us as witnesses, two are claiming that they are surplus. For instance, I assail, I’m the one
who is surplus, and also, Jassey shall assail that she is a surplus. How do you determine then?
Atty. Gujilde:You construe it strictly. It must be that “nitung-tung” sakasa three witnesses
before you became a surplus but if satulo, na-ay surplus pud, dilipwede kay wala pa man
katung-tungsatulo. Dapatna-a kay three disinterested witnesses, mao pa na-ay surplus. So in
your example, wala pa naka-comply kay wala pa man naka-reach ug three disinterested
witnesses, duhaangni-assail na surplus. If five na, so maka-comply nasa three disinterested
witnesses, angduhanila kay surplus na.There has got to be the minimum compliance first.

Student: With regards to statutory construction Sir, we construe only when there is doubt. In
the ground that only the priest or minister of gospel is disqualified, and it is expressly
mentioned in the law. How about, in my religion Sir, considering the imam (being the religious
leader)?
Atty. Gujilde:The point there is the intent of the law. Consider those people who might unduly
influenced because of moral ascendancy. If you go be strict letter of the law, daghanangdili ma-
apil. Same analogy sa cult leader.

Student: For Muslims, do they follow the Shari’a Law in succession?

Another Student: As far as I know, the Shari’a Law can be applied suppletorily with the Civil
Code. But the governing law when it comes to Succession is still the Civil Code. Except if in case
it’s marriage. If the couple is both Muslims, so if they decided that way—Shari’a Law then can
exclude Civil Code in terms of marriage, it depends on the consent of the couple.
Student:Public officers are prohibited to receive donation Atty. During his incumbency or even
after? Like the officer will say, “taga-e ko gift, after my term”.
Atty. Gujilde:It will still circumvent the reason behind the law. So in that case,
diligihaponpwede.

Student:With regards to the incapacity of the heir who kills a testator’s spouse for example, a
day after the death of the decedent.
Atty. Gujilde: Regarding that instance where the heir kills the testator’s spouse or ascendant or
descendant, a day after the death of the decedent, still capacitated ang heir kay during the time
that the testator makes a will, he is still capacitated man. There is no pending case against the
heir for killing the testator’s spouse. It cannot result to suspended capacity because the
requirement there is that there should be a pending case, then in your example, wala pa man
ug pending case. Time of death should be the reckoning point.
Student: May an unborn child, becomes a compulsory heir?
Atty. Gujilde:A conceived child, unborn pa, he/she can be voluntary or compulsory heir,
depends on who is the testator. If the testator is the father of the child, then even if unborn pa,
the child is a compulsory heir. Then if the testator is just the friend of the father, then the child
is a voluntary heir.

Student: Should we not consider the possible incapacity of the child, Atty. For instance, the
child later becomes abortive, kay walasiyanaka-comply atong Article 40 or 41?
Atty. Gujilde:Abortive gani, absolute nasiyanga incapacity. But considering that period of time
that the child has to survive, then we can say that suspensive capacity applies here (it seems
nga pending pa ang capacity sa child within the period ngadili pa siya deemed born:
intrauterine life of seven months).

Student: With regards to Article 40 Atty., I think the specific article provides us two ideas. For
article 40, aside from the second condition that it must comply with the requirements set forth
in Article 41 for a child to be considered “born”, first condition is that the child shall be
considered born for purposes that are “favorable to him”. So it only implies beneficial donation,
does it exclude onerous donation? For example, if the donation is onerous towards the
child…can we say that it failed to comply with the first condition? For example, if the donation
has certain conditions before the conceived child can acquire such right, there is no way to
speak of donation because the condition/s might be prejudicial to the interest of the child.
Should this first condition be complied with before we can say that there is really donation to
the child?
Atty. Gujilde: Remember that in succession, testamentary disposition, it does not only refer to
donation that benefits you. There might be a burden, there might be duty. So you cannot be so
happy to be named as heir, because pwederamanngagisugoraka.

Student: In that case Sir, if voluntary heir raka, are you forced to accept the disposition of
property if there are burdens on it?
Atty. Gujilde: I don’t think you are forced to accept, since voluntary heir man ka.

Student:Pwederamanna Sir, kung compulsory heir kaunya you are entitled not only to the
legitime but also to the free portion?
Atty. Gujilde: Yes, nothing prohibits a compulsory heir to receive both the legitime and the free
portion.