FINALS TRANSCRIPT FOR SUCCESSION

SECTION 3. - ACCEPTANCE AND REPUDIATION OF THE INHERITANCE

Art. 1041. The acceptance or repudiation of the inheritance is an act which is purely voluntary and free.

 Only one person can do that: HEIR (can accept or repudiate the inheritance)
 To succeed is not an obligation
 HOW should it (acceptance and repudiation) be done? VOLUNTARY AND FREE (way namugos nimo)

Art. 1042. The effects of the acceptance or repudiation shall always retroact to the moment of the death of the decedent.

 Retroactive  mao niy makapalipay

 Example: Juan dela Cruz died on February 14 (died in a very embarrassing position  this is getting old :/). Accepted the
inheritance on September 6. So what is the date of the acceptance? It will take effect on February 14. It is as if the acceptance or
repudiation was made at the time of death of the decedent.
o REASON: the Law does not like to have any gaps or hiatus or vacuum in the succession of property.
o Time succession opens  death of the decedent

 Thus, ACCEPTANCE/REPUDIATION SHOULD BE:

1. FREE
2. VOLUNTARY
3. RETROACTIVE AS TO ITS EFFECT

Art. 1043. No person may accept or repudiate an inheritance unless he is certain of the death of the person from whom he is to inherit,
and of his right to the inheritance

 Sigurado-a usa ang iyang kamatayon UG na ikaw ang makapanunod

 REQUIREMENTS BEFORE YOU CAN ACCEPT OR REJECT:
1. “Certain of the DEATH of the person from whom he is to inherit”  unsaon nimo pagkahibaw ug patay na? Daghan ug
tubag wa jud ingna kung unsay sakto... (Di maglihok, bugnaw ug tanan parte sa lawas kay gahi)
2. “Certain of his RIGHT” That you are one of those designated as beneficiaries or otherwise siguro na nakabasa sa will na
naay ihatag sa iya

Art. 1044. Any person having the free disposal of his property may accept or repudiate an inheritance.

Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons may be accepted by their parents or guardians. Parents or guardians may
repudiate the inheritance left to their wards only by judicial authorization.

The right to accept an inheritance left to the poor shall belong to the persons designated by the testator to determine the beneficiaries
and distribute the property, or in their default, to those mentioned in Article 1030.

 If you are incapacitated and a minor, it goes to GUARDIANSHIP. You cannot manage effectively your own properties, even your
own person, thus there is a need for a guardian. In your behalf, the guardian will act for you, can accept in your behalf. Pero
magsugod na deperensya diha, ngano man?
o ACCEPTANCE: can the guardian alone do that? He can do it “Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons
may be accepted by their parents or guardians”
o REPUDIATION: can the guardian alone do that? He can provided there is approval from the court “Parents or guardians
may repudiate the inheritance left to their wards only by judicial authorization.”
o It is easy to ACCEPT but difficult to REJECT/REPUDIATE
o WHY THE DIFFERENCE?
 Mu.accept gani ka, wala may kasakit
 Pero if mu.repudiate, something is taken or not given to you, that is why the court will interfere because the
court will presume to take actions in the interest of the ward. “Protection of the interest of the person
concerning the property of the supposed owner”

 WHO are the ENTITIES?

Art. 1045. The lawful representatives of corporations, associations, institutions and entities qualified to acquire property may accept
any inheritance left to the latter, but in order to repudiate it, the approval of the court shall be necessary. (993a)

 In ACCEPTANCE, the act of the legal representative is enough HOWEVER, in REPUDIATION, not only the act of the legal
representative but also the concurrence of the approval of the court is necessary.

1
 ---oOo---

Art. 1047. A married woman of age may repudiate an inheritance without the consent of her husband

 Nganu wala man nanginahanglan ug consent sa imong husband? It concerns property- and remember that the rule is Absolute
Community- so why is there no need? Absolute community is community property baya kung hunahunaon nimo. (Arfel: Because it
benefits the community property)If it benefits the community property, with more reason that it needs consent of husband kay
part man siya, diba? But ni ingon man ka (referring to Arfel) that there is no need.
 Ikaw maoy legatee/devisee- can you accept? Muana imong husband na “Ayaw kay tingalig ma-alienated imong feelings, mubalhin
naka niya”. Kapugngan ka? (Naldo’s opinion: Yes sir, I will follow my husband.)
 Kabaw ka class why walay kailangan na consent? The Reason-Because according to Article 92 of the Family Code, it is an exclusive
property- you can accept or reject.
 Article 92. The following be excluded from these community property:
1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income
thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the
community property;
2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse; however, jewelry shall form part of the community
property;
3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage,
and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property
 Mao walay kelangan ug consent sa bana. Ari tas deaf-mute.

Art. 1048. Deaf-mutes who can read and write may accept or repudiate the inheritance personally or through an agent. Should they
not be able to read and write, the inheritance shall be accepted by their guardians. These guardians may repudiate the same with
judicial approval.
 Ang deaf-mute mahimong makabasa ug makasuwat, read and write. Butang ta lang ang deaf-mute kabaw mubasa, kabaw
musuwat, who will accept? Who will renounce? Who will decide for himself? Nara niya- personally or through his agent man.
 Kung siya mudecide para niya-well and good. Makasuwat man. Kung muana siya “Makabasa, makasuwat ko, pero ang agent lang
padecide-un nako”- pwede sad gihapon.
 Unsay significance sa 1st sentence? Deaf-mutes who can read and write may accept or repudiate the inheritance personally
or through an agent - If he knows to read and write, he can accept and literally renounce also- walay kelangan na judicial
approval. Nganu man? He can decide for his own.
 But pananglitan- he doesn’t know how to read and write- so a guardian is appointed. The guardian can accept, alright. But that
guardian cannot renounce without judicial approval.
 It makes a difference if he knows how to read and write.

Article 1049. Acceptance may be express or tacit.

An express acceptance must be made in a public or private document.
A tacit acceptance is one resulting from acts by which the intention to accept is necessarily implied, or which one would have no right to
do except in the capacity of an heir.
Acts of mere preservation or provisional administration do not imply an acceptance of the inheritance if, through such acts, the title or
capacity of an heir has not been assumed.
 2 man ang acceptance:
 “I hereby accept”- that is 1. express.
 Naa sad 2. implied- If dili muguwa sa iyang baba, dili isuwat pero sa iyang mga lihok nagpasabot na siya dugay nang
nakasuod.
 Kung express how is it manifested?
 express acceptance must be made in a public or private document.
 Kung isyagit diay nimo? Ang syagit class dili man na documento.
 Kung implied,
 Inferrable from the acts which can be done by the heir or perhaps, the owner.
 Sabtunon ba.
 Naay wala nabutang diha, ikatulo- 3. presumed acceptance
 If within 30 days of the order of distribution, you have not signified your acceptance of the provision, you are deemed to
have accepted presumably. Layo ang reference ana class- Art. 1057.
Art. 1057. Within thirty days after the court has issued an order for the distribution of the estate in accordance
with the Rules of Court, the heirs, devisees and legatees shall signify to the court having jurisdiction whether they
accept or repudiate the inheritance. If they do not do so within that time, they are deemed to
have accepted the inheritance.
 Naa na gani order of distribution- musignify ka whether or not you will renounce or reject. If you will neither renounce or
accept- you are presumed to have accepted after the lapse of 30 days from the order of distribution of the court.
 Mao nay presumed- sabtunon.

Specifically, how is acceptance impliedly manifested? Art. 1050.

2
Article 1050. An inheritance is deemed accepted:
(1) If the heirs sells, donates, or assigns his right to a stranger, or to his co-heirs, or to any of them;
(2) If the heir renounces the same, even though gratuitously, for the benefit of one or more of his co-heirs;
(3) If he renounces it for a price in favor of all his co-heirs indiscriminately; but if this renunciation should be gratuitous, and the co-heirs
in whose favor it is made are those upon whom the portion renounced should devolve by virtue of accretion, the inheritance shall not
be deemed as accepted.

(1) If the heirs sells, donates, or assigns his right to a stranger, or to his co-heirs, or to any of them;
 Gibaligya nimo ang lugar sa gihatag sa imo, therefore, unsaon nimo paghatag kung wala pa naimo, diba? – therefore acceptance
can be impliedly inferred from the act of selling or disposing the property. How can you dispose if you are not the owner?
Therefore, necessary that you can imply acceptance in the part of the seller. Or donate- the same. Common denominator is both
are modes of transferring ownership. Unsaon pagbalhin king dili na imo? There must have been a time na naimo na- impliedly.
Sabtunon na gidawat nimo. Selling, donating or assigning the same.
(2) If the heir renounces the same, even though gratuitously, for the benefit of one or more of his co-heirs;
 Gi-renounce. Sige, renounce in favour of the co-heir, then you accepted? BATI kaayo ni ui. Nganu gud tawn implied acceptance
nga nirenounce ka? Nya according to:
 Article 533.One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same.
 Opposite man na, unsaon mna pagimplied acceptance when the act itself is exactly opposite-renounce? Wala mu nabuang?!
 Kay kuno it’s an act of disposition, pero unsaon mna na pagdispose na wala mana naimo?
 Atty Mayol: Anyway iapil lang gihapon na sa implied acceptance. Pero kung ako lang discretion, it shouldn’t be applied as such.
(3) If he renounces it for a price in favor of all his co-heirs indiscriminately; but if this renunciation should be gratuitous, and the co-heirs
in whose favor it is made are those upon whom the portion renounced should devolve by virtue of accretion, the inheritance shall not
be deemed as accepted.
 Klaro ni implied kay nganu man? They are receiving something.

So, how do renounce the inheritance? Naa may form. Dili man muana raka na “I will renounce”

Article 1051. The repudiation of an inheritance shall be made in a public or authentic instrument, or by petition presented to the court
having jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate proceedings.
 Public or authentic. Nganu gipun-an man ug authentic?
1. Public- a document duly notarized by a person duly authorized to administer an oath
2. Authentic- must be genuine, duly proved or admitted. Or genuineness cannot be disputed. Klaro jud ang document ba.
3. Petition presented to the court- wa tay problema ani
 “Or” man nakabutang. So it’s alternative.
 Ex: Private document but then authentic- bisag way notary. Authentic man therefore, sigurado ang document.
 Mas reliable pa nang authentic.
 Formal kaayo ang pag-renounce. Nganu man? Because something is taken away from your patrimony.
 Nganu ang acceptance sayon man kaayo? Walay kelangan na judicial approval? Because benefit is presumed in receiving.
Favorable man gud. Walay nawala nimo. If repudiation, naay nawala that is why you have to protect.

Article 1052. If the heir repudiates the inheritance to the prejudice of his own creditors, the latter may petition the court to authorize
them to accept it in the name of the heir.

The acceptance shall benefit the creditors only to an extent sufficient to cover the amount of their credits. The excess, should there be
any, shall in no case pertain to the renouncer, but shall be adjudicated to the persons to whom, in accordance with the rules established
in this Code, it may belong.

 But then, nay tao iya girenounce ang inheritance - the amount of 1 Million. Pero class, utangan siyag otso sentos mil, nay creditor
ana “Debtor, nganu imo man girenounce? You still owe me 800,000php, still outstanding debt. Duna na tay ikabayad”. So what
right does the creditor have? Remember that renunciation here is defective. That is prejudicial.
 I will fill a petition in court. Purpose: I be permitted to accept in the name of the heir (dili in his own name). If granted, ang
pagrenounce sa heir-wala nato. Pilay ihatag? Only to the extent of the credit- 800k. What about the 200k? To the legal heirs.
 But if you’re a creditor AFTER it was renounced, dili ka protected. Nganu man? That is your fault nganu nagpautang. It should be
that it was a credit already at the time of renunciation.
 Further condition- it should be insolvent siya. When his liabilities are greater than his assets.
 D the decedent died. Survived by A&B - children. Nya sila A & B wala man ka decide, died year 2000- namatay nalang sila
wala pa kadecide. F, G, K, L, & M are grandchildren. Can the grandchildren decide for their respective parents? “Buhi
paman ganis papa, ready naman gani ko, ever-ready “andam sa makanunayon”. Can they decide? Yes.

Art. 1053. If the heir should die without having accepted or repudiated the inheritance his right shall be transmitted to his heirs.

 Sa ato pa, transmitted. DILI ni representation atong gihisgutan diri ha-sa ato pa wala nang incapacity, disinheritance. DILI ni
representation.
 What is transmitted to the heirs of the heir? Dili property- kay unsaon man na na wala pa man gani gi accept. Therefore, a

3
 right is transmitted. So what is the right that is transmitted? The Choice of acceptance or repudiation.

Art. 1054. Should there be several heirs called to the inheritance, some of them may accept and the others may repudiate it.

 Kelangan bana tanan mu accept? Dili kailangan unanimous ui. Others may accept, others may reject. They have the right to
decide.
 Atty: Para nako walay katungod mudecide, mupredecease gani ka- there can be no right to decide. You lose your right- voluntary
heir baya mu. A voluntary heir transmits nothing to the heir. Nya nganu naa man niy right to choose run?

Article 1055. If a person, who is called to the same inheritance as an heir by will and ab intestato, repudiates the inheritance in his
capacity as a testamentary heir, he is understood to have repudiated it in both capacities.

Should he repudiate it as an intestate heir, without knowledge of his being a testamentary heir, he may still accept it in the latter
capacity

 So si Testator iyang kwarta 1Million. Nya usa ra iyang anak si C. Iya free disposable portion- 500k. Ana daun siya, “I will give 300k
to my only son”. So sa ato pa, kaning 300k sa free disposable portion ni kay dili mahilabtan ang legitime man. Unya ang remainder
na 200k- the will is silent. Later on, T died. So:
 C is a testamentary/voluntary heir for that 300k
 C is a Legal heir of 200k (subject to legal succession)
 Situation 1: What transpired later on? C: “I will renounce my capacity as testamentary heir. I am not going to receive the 300k.” He
did it in due form (in accordance with law. Art. 1051.) therefore what would happen to the 200k? Is he permitted by law? NO.
Automatic. If he renounces his capacity as testamentary heir, automatically he renounces too, his capacity as legal heir. You won’t
be receiving any except your legitime.
 Reason (Repudiation as Testamentary heir): A testamentary heir who repudiates does not seem to appreciate the
generosity of the testator; therefore he is not worthy to receive his intestate share –by 7 Manresa 469 (p.591, Paras,
17th ed., 2013)
 You renounce what is expressly given, then you are automatically renouncing what is given to you by law (presumed
will).
 Murag matawag na accessory follows the principal rule
 Situation 2: Balihun nato. “Dili ko gnahan anang 200k, gamay ana. Dawat ko anang 300k kay DAKO kaayo.” Therefore, mahimo
dawaton ang 300k and dili ang 200k.
 Russel’s query: If ang legitime ang girepudiate sir, maapil ang testamentary ug legal share,sir?
 What is legitime? It is based by operation of law. What is given to you expressly cannot be defeated by the
legitime, operation of law- presumed mani. Ang legitime imo gyud gihapon bisag dili nimo dawaton.
 Dili ka madawat sa legitime, unsay implication?
 Kung dili ka mudawat- kanang imong 300k by will it is still outstanding including your capacity as legal
heir. Wala to implication- no provision to that effect.
 Pareha ra gud na sa accretion- by operation by law. If ang testator muana na dili siya musugot na nay accretion,
kinsay masunod, ang balaod ba? Dili. Ang testator ang masunod. Therefore, accretion will not apply. Nganu man?
Ang kanang sa accretion, presumed will ra na siya.

 without knowledge of his being a testamentary heir, he may still accept it in the latter capacity
 Supposing naa kay knowledge, dili diay ka makadawat?
 Ug wala ko kabaw na testamentary heir ko- pwede nako dawaton

Back to Situation 2-

 Reason (Repudiation as Intestate heir): It is always possible that the heir may respect the express will of the testator
and would not desire to see the wishes of the testator unfulfilled –by 7 Manresa 469 (p.592, Paras, 17th ed., 2013)
 So mahimo na imong irenounce your capacity as a legal heir, then pwede madawat ang testamentary provision-
respeto sa kububut-on sa namatay.
 If nahibaw kong testamentary heir ko, tugtan pa ba ko? Same reason. Even if I have knowledge that I’m a
testamentary heir, I may still repudiate my capacity as legal heir and madawat gihapon ang share of being a
testamentary heir. There is no reason why I should be denied my being a testamentary heir.
 Russel’s query: What if that happens sir, but the opposing party would say “But the law says so”..? How will you
defend?
 Atty Mayol: Gibase man nakos logic. Literally, dili mahimo unta. The heir has prior knowledge, so dili
mahimo. But then I look at the reason of the law (see p.592, Paras, 17th ed., 2013). Because there’s always
a likelihood that they will respect wishes of the testator/ honor his wishes/ not frustrate the wishes of the
testator. Maintain that kind of reasoning.
 Therefore, knowledge is not significant. Kay unsa may bug-at- knowledge nimo or respecting the testator’s
wishes? Respecting gyud. Besides, what is our policy? It is on favour of testamentary succession.

4
  So dili ka mutan-aw sa qualification- kung with knowledge or w/o knowledge ba, since tanawn nimo ang
reason.
 Ang uban authors muana na estoppel daw- well, unsaon pagkaestoppel ana na wala paman ko nibalibad? If
I have knowledge that I am also a testamentary heir, and girenounce nako ang akong pagka-intestate heir,
that doesn’t mean na estopped nako for being a testamentary kay naa koy knowledge. Unsaon
pagkaestopped ana ba wala paman ko nibalibad sa testamentary.
 So connect the principles:
1. Reason- respect wishes of testator
2. Policy- in favor testamentary succession

Article 1056. The acceptance or repudiation of an inheritance, once made, is irrevocable, and cannot be impugned, except when it was
made through any of the causes that vitiate consent, or when an unknown will appears

 Pwede ba na “I will renounce” nya pagkaugma ana, “Uy! Ayaw diay uy!” Pwede na iusab nimo? Dili mahimo class, dapat smart kas
imo decision. Nganu man? To avoid instability. Property ownership. GR: Therefore mudecide na gani ka, then it is irrevocable.
Except when:
 your decision is characterized by vitiated consent,
 violence is incurred against you or
 there’s undue influence,

-in this case you will be permitted to vacate your first decision.

Article 1057. Within thirty days after the court has issued an order for the distribution of the estate in accordance with the Rules of
Court, the heirs, devisees and legatees shall signify to the court having jurisdiction whether they accept or repudiate the inheritance.

If they do not do so within that time, they are deemed to have accepted the inheritance.

 Mao ni katong presumed acceptance (refer to discussion under Art. 1049)

 Kanang magpadala kag letter nya dili bawsan, unsay buhaton atty. para replyan jud ko?
 Butangi sa ubos ug P.S. If you will not answer this letter within 3 days, you are deemed to have overwhelmingly accepted
the undersigned. –bawsan jud ka ana

---oOo---

SECTION 5. – Collation

Atty M: sa succession, the element is equality and fairness is very important, that is why the purpose is equality cause you
might receive something during the lifetime of the donor, so to avoid undue advantage it is subject to collation unless ang
gusto sa donor is preference then di ka makasupak.

GR: equality
EXC: preference if ever desired by testator

Art. 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate
any property or right which he may have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of
donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each
heir, and in the account of the partition. (1035a)

Everything you receive gratuitously from your father and mother, you have to collate that.

Ako ron, duha (2) ka anak, ang usa pinangga, ang isa pinangga pd pero di kaau. Taga-an nako akong anak mao tunga-on nako
akong kwarta nabilin pero what you have given ealier sa favored mas dako na. so kuyaw na! mao na-ay topic on collation.

Grupo ni class, if you have received something from the decedent, it should be collated.

Question: so what are to be collated? What items?

Purpose: to determine the legitime of the estate; to produce equality to the estate.
 Art. 1061 defines what is COLLATION
 Art. 1062 is exception to the rule
 Art. 1063 enumeration of what is NOT to be collated (negative- NOT)

Art. 1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs if the donor should have so expressly provided, or if
the donee should repudiate the inheritance, unless the donation should be reduced as inofficious. (1036)

5
Art. 1063. Property left by will is not deemed subject to collation, if the testator has not otherwise provided, but the
legitime shall in any case remain unimpaired.(1037)

Q: so asa ang positive na ipa-collate?

A: Art. 911 (donation inter vivos)

Art. 911. After the legitime has been determined in accordance with the three preceding articles, the reduction shall
be made as follows:

(1) Donations shall be respected as long as the legitime can be covered, reducing or annulling, if necessary,
the devises or legacies made in the will;

(2) The reduction of the devises or legacies shall be pro rata, without any distinction whatever.

If the testator has directed that a certain devise or legacy be paid in preference to others, it shall not suffer
any reduction until the latter have been applied in full to the payment of the legitime.

(3) If the devise or legacy consists of a usufruct or life annuity, whose value may be considered greater than
that of the disposable portion, the compulsory heirs may choose between complying with the testamentary
provision and delivering to the devisee or legatee the part of the inheritance of which the testator could
freely dispose. (820a)

Anything received during the life time of the testator or decedent by way of donation must be collated always, unless if the
donor provides in the deed of donation that it cannot be the subject of collation, so ayaw i-collate kay maoy kabubut-on sa
testator.

But for the GR, i-collate jud!

Gross Estate
- Allowed Deduction
Net Estate
+ Collation
Net Distributable Estate

So first item to be collated is donation inter vivos. ALL donations, even if given not to compulsory heirs; meaning even those
given to strangers.

To: 1) determine individual legitime

2) determine that it is not inofficious

“by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title,”

Two classes of donation:

1. DIRECT DONATION (donation inter vivos)
2. INDIRECT DONATION (may not be called donation but it is called indirect donation specified by law  e.g. Art. 1069)

Art. 1069. Any sums paid by a parent in satisfaction of the debts of his children, election expenses, fines, and similar
expenses shall be brought to collation. (1043a)

“paid by parents in the debts of his children”

e.g. imung anak nay utang nga P200,000; you paid the amount as a father from your personal pocket for the indebtedness of
the child.

So kadtong P200,000 that was paid by the father, when he dies, ang iyang gibayad imu to i-collate, because that amount is
an INDIRECT DONATION, because you are richer by P200k having been paid by your father. Without him paying, then you
would have been poorer by P200k.

“Election expenses”

If you will run for mayor, so kay dili man madaog diri sa Philippines kung wlay kwarta, so your father gave you “funding” of
P500k for the election. Even if it is for a legitimate purpose, it is an indirect donation subject to collation because it is an
advance legitime.

6
So if your legatime is 1M, because of the advance legitime by way of election expenses, hatagan nalang ka ug P500k.

“fines”

e.g. multahan ka kay musud jud bisag “no entry”, so you are fined 300k, your father paid for you, so that amount will be
collated because it is an advance legitime.

Art. 1070. Wedding gifts by parents and ascendants consisting of jewelry, clothing, and outfit, shall not be reduced as
inofficious except insofar as they may exceed one-tenth of the sum which is disposable by will. (1044)

What are the things permitted by law to be subject to collation?

 Clothing
 Jewelry
 Outfit

*money-not included; maoy labing importante pero wa gi-butang (Atty. M)

Atty: money is not included in the provision but that is included, kanang money. dili makita ang word nga money dha but that
is nevertheless, ang substance, mao nay number 1.

Advance legitime? Uncertain because you have to compute, the first 10% or one-tenth is exempt. In excess of one-tenth,
kana, mao nay advance legitime. (in excess of one-tenth of the sum disposable by will—free portion)

Art. 1063. Property left by will is not deemed subject to collation, if the testator has not otherwise provided, but the
legitime shall in any case remain unimpaired.(1037)

*NOT TO BE COLLATED

Property left by will – these are the items you received by virtue of a will; thing that was left for you based on the last will of
the testator.

Nganung dli ipa-apil sa collation or addition (collation is to add)? Because you are not yet receiving it. What is to be returned
if you haven’t received anything?

If nadawat na, “just the same, by express provision” (caveat: not really clear), they are not to be collated unless the testator
provides that what has been given shall be subject to collation.

Property left by will are not collationable generally because you are not yet receiving it. If sa buhi pa siya, wa ma-imu. Inag
kamatay na, dili man sad madiritsog kahatag nimu because the will needs to be probated. So what if left for you to add.

Art. 1067. Expenses for support, education, medical attendance, even in extraordinary illness, apprenticeship,
ordinary equipment, or customary gifts are not subject to collation. (1041)

*NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATION

“EDUCATION”- means up to high school only

Items (education, medical attendance, etc.) listed under art. 1067 are items absorbed/included under the term “support”.
Therefore, that is not a donation but the social, legal and moral obligation of the parents to their children. They are not
considered gratuitous tradition susceptible to collation, rather moral, social and legal obligation.

But if mulapas na ug high school, i.e. college of law? They are not really collationable because it will be charged to the free
portion.

Art. 1068. Expenses incurred by the parents in giving their children a professional, vocational or other career shall
not be brought to collation unless the parents so provide, or unless they impair the legitime; but when their collation

7
is required, the sum which the child would have spent if he had lived in the house and company of his parents shall be
deducted therefrom. (1042a)

*NOT COLLATIONABLE unless it can impair the legitime.

It will not be charged to their legitime but will be charged to the free portion.

Art. 1065. Parents are not obliged to bring to collation in the inheritance of their ascendants any property which may
have been donated by the latter to their children. (1039)

GF
GF – donor

D – donee
F
By the time GF dies, does F have the obligation to collate?

F has no obligation to collate the donation of GF to D because he is not the person

D W receiving the donation, it is his child D.

Art. 1066. Neither shall donations to the spouse of the child be brought to collation; but if they have been given by
the parent to the spouses jointly, the child shall be obliged to bring to collation one-half of the thing donated. (1040)

GF *NOT COLLATIONABLE

If F dies, D will not collate because he is not the person receiving the money/property, it is
his wife W.

F 100,000

D W

*no article daw:

Situation 1: Son has a house. The house needs repair, so the father shouldered the expenses for the repair and improvements
of the house. The amount spent by the father is collationable by the son because it is a direct donation. The son benefited
the said repair.

Situation 2: Purchase of real properties registered under the name of his child. Labi na! This is collationable.

Situation 3:

F M F (father) and M (mother) jointly donated to their son, D. ½ is collationable to F, and the
other half is collationable to M.

If it was donated only by the father, the whole is collationable only to the father.

(This sample is from the book daw according to sir so that we can verify if we want to.So that we can also review when we study. Sorry I
don’t know what page and which book/author. Haha)

3 Siblings. A B C. C (kaslonon) is about to get married. The father of C gave C P40,000 as wedding gift.
F, Father died with an estate of P200,000.
C has the obligation to collate because a portion of the gift is treated as advance legitime.
How do we compute for that portion considered as advance legitime to C.

8
First Step: Compute the Net Distributable Estate.
Gross Estate 200,000
Less: debts / charges of the estate 000,000
Net Estate: 200,000
Add: Collationable Items
Wedding Gift: 40,000
Net Distributable estate: 240,000

Second Step: Determine the Free Disposable Portion

Legitime of ABC (1/2 of the estate): 120,000 or 40,000 each
Free Disposable portion: 120,000

Third Step: Compute for the advance legitime of C through the wedding gift.
Ques: How much is the advance legitime of C from the Wedding Gift he received from his father?
Ans : Art. 1070 Wedding Gifts by parents or ascendants consisting of jewelry, clothing and outfit, shall not be reduced as inofficious except
insofar as they may exceed one-tenth of the sum which is disposable by will.

Wedding gift 40,000

Less: 12,000 (1/10 of 120,000 the free disposable portion)
Excess of 1/10 28,000This is the amount considered as advance legitime
received by C through the wedding gift.

Supposedly, C will receive 40,000 as his legtime. Because C already received 28,000 as advance legitime, he will only receive 12,000. Total
of 40,000.

Fourth Step: Distribute the Balance Remaining Free Portion.

The 12,000 (1/10 of the free disposable portion) will be taken from the free portion
Free Disposable Portion 120,000
Less: Wedding Gift 12,000
Balance 108,000 Distribute equally to ABC (36,000 each)
This is now subject to legal succession. ABC are the
only legal heirs.
Distribution:
Advance Distribution Free Total
Legitime for Legitime Portion
A 0 + 40,000 + 36,000 = 76,000
B 0 + 40,000 + 36,000 = 76,000
C 28,000 + 12,000 + 36,000 = 48,000
Total 200,000

Before, C was so happy because he received in advance his advance legitime. Now, he is sad because he receives smaller than his siblings A
and B. (PuliPulira man ningkalbotanan.)

Art. 1064. When the grandchildren, who survive with their uncles, aunts, or cousins, inherit from their grandparents in
representation of their father or mother, they shall bring to collation all that their parents, if alive, would have been
obliged to bring, even though such grandchildren have not inherited the property.

They shall also bring to collation all that they may have received from the decedent during his lifetime, unless the
testator has provided otherwise, in which case his wishes must be respected, if the legitime of the co-heirs is not
prejudiced.(1038)

Art. 1071. The same things donated are not to be brought to collation and partition, but only their value at the time
of the donation, even though their just value may not then have been assessed.

Their subsequent increase or deterioration and even their total loss or destruction, be it accidental or culpable, shall
be for the benefit or account and risk of the donee. (1045a)

Art. 1072. In the collation of a donation made by both parents, one-half shall be brought to the inheritance of the
father, and the other half, to that of the mother. That given by one alone shall be brought to collation in his or her

9
inheritance.(1046a)

Art. 1073. The donee's share of the estate shall be reduced by an amount equal to that already received by him; and
his co-heirs shall receive an equivalent, as much as possible, in property of the same nature, class and quality. (1047)

Art. 1074. Should the provisions of the preceding article be impracticable, if the property donated was immovable,
the co-heirs shall be entitled to receive its equivalent in cash or securities, at the rate of quotation; and should there
be neither cash or marketable securities in the estate, so much of the other property as may be necessary shall be
sold at public auction.

If the property donated was movable, the co-heirs shall only have a right to select an equivalent of other personal
property of the inheritance at its just price. (1048)

Art. 1075. The fruits and interest of the property subject to collation shall not pertain to the estate except from the
day on which the succession is opened.

For the purpose of ascertaining their amount, the fruits and interest of the property of the estate of the same kind
and quality as that subject to collation shall be made the standard of assessment. (1049)

Art. 1076. The co-heirs are bound to reimburse to the donee the necessary expenses which he has incurred for the
preservation of the property donated to him, though they may not have augmented its value.

The donee who collates in kind an immovable which has been given to him must be reimbursed by his co-heirs for the
improvements which have increased the value of the property, and which exist at the time the partition if effected.

As to works made on the estate for the mere pleasure of the donee, no reimbursement is due him for them; he has,
however, the right to remove them, if he can do so without injuring the estate. (n)

Art. 1077. Should any question arise among the co-heirs upon the obligation to bring to collation or as to the things
which are subject to collation, the distribution of the estate shall not be interrupted for this reason, provided
adequate security is given. (1050)

---oOo---

COLLATION

Art. 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate any property
or right which he may have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other
gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the
partition.

Estate: 90,000 Formula:

Outstanding obligation: 60k Gross estate 90K
Donation to: - Debts and charges - 60K
X – 30k (2008) ___________________ ___________________
F – 20k (2009) Net estate 40K (+10k from W still part of estate)
A – 60k (2011) + Collationable donation + 110K
[ W – 10k ] void because of Art. 87 ___________________ ___________________
Net distributable estate 150K
Distribution Excess
A – (15k) 60K 45K
B – 15K
C – 15K
D – 15K Excess to be imputed in free portion
E – 15K

10
X – (7,500) 30K 22,500
Y – 7,500 F- 20,000
___________
87,500
- W died after the donation kay nalipay man kaayo
- Free portion is only 75K after payment to the legitimate children, then minus legitime of illegitimate children, what is left is 60K
- 87,500 – 60K = 27,500 which is lacking

Art. 773. If, there being two or more donations, the disposable portion is not sufficient to cover all of them; those of more recent
dates shall be suppressed or reduced.

- A must return 27,500 because his is the most recent donation. If made at the same time, all donations will be reduced in proportion
- What if gipalit na tnan ni A iyang kwarta ug marshmallow? The property will be sold at auction sale so that the value can be returned
- F has no obligation to collate because he has no legitime; he is not a compulsory heir. Person who must collate is the compulsory heir.
Donations made to strangers are directly imputed to the free portion
- So that the available assets will now be 67,500. Compare this with actual payment
Actual payment
B – 15K
C – 15K
D – 15K Total: 67,500
E – 15k
Y – 7,500

Art. 1071. The same things donated are not to be brought to collation and partition, but only their value at the time of the
donation, even though their just value may not then have been assessed.
xxxxx

- So ang value ra imo return. If yuta gihatag, di na nimo lukdohon nya ipacollate ang yuta

PARTITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE

Art. 1078. Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such
heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased.

Art. 1079. Partition in general is the separation, division, and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may
belong. The thing itself may be divided, or its value.

- When the testator dies, the succession opens. His children are co-heirs. They are also co-owners. Principle then is CO-HEIRS AND CO-
OWNERS. If 5 mo, you are owner of 1/5 of the estate
- If you are co-owner, you can sell your hereditary rights to the extent of 1/5. This is not future property anymore because your father is
now dead. The thing itself can be divided or the proceeds thereof

---oOo---

SUBSECTION 2. - Effects of Partition

Art. 1091. A partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to
him. (1068)

 First effect, of partition is it confers exclusive ownership over property adjudged.

 No co-owners but owner.
 As long as partition is made in accordance to law (partition legally made).

Art. 1092. After the partition has been made, the co-heirs shall be reciprocally bound to warrant the title to, and the
quality of, each property adjudicated. (1069a)

 The second (twin) effect, each co-heirs mutually, reciprocally and proportionately warrant:
o Against eviction- referring to the title.
o Against hidden defects- referring to the quality.
11
  The warranty is the same as found in art.1548 on Sales and art.1786 on Partnership.
 Problem1:
o Estate: 100k
o 5 heirs: A,B,C,D,E; all should receive 20k each equally
o E does not receive his 20k share due to eviction.
 Eviction-deprive of ownership, its possession and as well as enjoyment. In partition, deprive means it is enough that
your peaceful enjoyment is impede or naminusan.
 The law imposes on the co-heirs- panaan (warranty) mga walay usa sa ato na na imbargohan. Kung kinsa
maimbargohan, kita tanan responsible.
 The obligation of each heirs is reciprocally, proportionately and mutually.
o Answer t the problem2:
 There is breach of warranty due to eviction.
 The other co-heirs will contribute 5k each, equals 20k.

Art. 1093. The reciprocal obligation of warranty referred to in the preceding article shall be proportionate to the
respective hereditary shares of the co-heirs, but if any one of them should be insolvent, the other co-heirs shall be
liable for his part in the same proportion, deducting the part corresponding to the one who should be indemnified.

Those who pay for the insolvent heir shall have a right of action against him for reimbursement, should his financial condition
improve. (1071)

o Problem2:
 Same facts in Problem1 but now, D is insolvent.
 A, B, C will have to contribute 1,666.66 for D’s share of 5k.

A B C D E
20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 X
(5,000) (5,000) (5,000) INSOLVENT X Proportionale share by reason of E’s eviction.
(1,666) (1,666) (1,666) INSOLVENT X Proportionate liability occasioned by the insolvency of D.

REFRESH:
1091 – Confers exclusive ownership.
1092 – Give rise to warranty against eviction as well as hidden defects.
1093 – Proportionate distribution of liability in case of or by reason of the warranty.
1094 – period/time to enforce the right in case of breach of warranty within 10years from date the right of action
accrues.

Art. 1094. An action to enforce the warranty among heirs must be brought within ten years from the date the right of
action accrues. (n)

 Reckoning point:
o Eviction: from final judgment of eviction was rendered.
o Hidden defects: cases to case basis – at the time of the discovery of the hidden defect.
 Basis: nature of the property, etc.

Art. 1095. If a credit should be assigned as collectible, the co-heirs shall not be liable for the subsequent insolvency of the
debtor of the estate, but only for his insolvency at the time the partition is made.

The warranty of the solvency of the debtor can only be enforced during the five years following the partition.

Co-heirs do not warrant bad debts, if so known to, and accepted by, the distributee. But if such debts are not assigned to a
co-heir, and should be collected, in whole or in part, the amount collected shall be distributed proportionately among the
heirs. (1072a)

 Credit – ex. Promissory notes – receivable – capacity to pay.

 Collectible amount – warranty regarding the solvency of the debtor.
 “DURING the five years following the partition”
o Within(during), not AFTER partition.
o Reckoning point: date of partition
 QUESTION: what if the promissory note matures on the 6th year from partition?
o It is already considered subsequent to the partition. Therefore not covered by the warranty against
insolvency.
o Option: refuse to accept unless there is specific undertaking.
 Problem3:
o Continuation of poblem2: A,B, C can ask reimbursement from D until his financial capacity improves.

Art. 1096. The obligation of warranty among co-heirs shall cease in the following cases:

12
 (1) When the testator himself has made the partition, unless it appears, or it may be reasonably presumed, that his
intention was otherwise, but the legitime shall always remain unimpaired;

(2) When it has been so expressly stipulated in the agreement of partition, unless there has been bad faith;

(3) When the eviction is due to a cause subsequent to the partition, or has been caused by the fault of the
distributee of the property. (1070a)

 GR: warranty will not operate against co-owners, except:

o EXC (warranty does not apply in the following cases):
 Testator made the partition as long as no impairment of the legitime.
 Co-owners have agreed; waiver embodied in the contract.
 That the warranty against hidden defects and eviction shall be waived by all the
signatories.
 Due to the fault of the distributee(fault of the heir).
 Partition may be effected by :
o Testator;
o Parties;
o 3rd persons designated by the testator (mandatory);
o Any person interested—legatee, devisee.

SUBSECTION 3. - Rescission and Nullity of Partition

Art. 1097. A partition may be rescinded or annulled for the same causes as contracts. (1073a)

 Defective contracts, particularly: voidable contracts and rescissible contracts.

 Partition is a CONTRACT.

Art. 1098. A partition, judicial or extra-judicial, may also be rescinded on account of lesion, when any one of the co-
heirs received things whose value is less, by at least one-fourth, than the share to which he is entitled, considering the
value of the things at the time they were adjudicated. (1074a)

 In art.1381 in rescissible contracts, laison arise if the share is reduces by MORE THAN 1/4 VALUE OF THE SHARE.
 IN PARTITION, LAISON arise when the share is reduced by AT LEAST ¼ VALUE OF THE SHARE.
 Problem4:
o Estae: 100k; 5 heirs.
o One of the heirs was only given15k while all other got 21,250 each.
o THERE IS LAISON, the partition contract can be nullified or rescinded.

Art. 1099. The partition made by the testator cannot be impugned on the ground of lesion, except when the legitime
of the compulsory heirs is thereby prejudiced, or when it appears or may reasonably be presumed, that the intention
of the testator was otherwise. (1075)

 This is an EXCEPTION to laison in 1098.

 EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: legitime must not be prejudiced or lessen.

Art. 1100. The action for rescission on account of lesion shall prescribe after four years from the time the partition
was made. (1076)

 PRESCRIPTION PERIOD: 4year – action for rescission.

 RECKONNING POINT: from the time the partition was made.

Art. 1101. The heir who is sued shall have the option of indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss, or consenting to a new
partition.

Indemnity may be made by payment in cash or by the delivery of a thing of the same kind and quality as that awarded
to the plaintiff.

If a new partition is made, it shall affect neither those who have not been prejudiced nor those have not received
more than their just share. (1077a)

 OPTION by the heir defendant:

o Pay or indemnify plaintiff heir; or
o Consent to new contract of partition.

Art. 1102. An heir who has alienated the whole or a considerable part of the real property adjudicated to him cannot
maintain an action for rescission on the ground of lesion, but he shall have a right to be indemnified in cash. (1078a)

13
  ANOTHER INSATANCE where action for rescission will NOT lie.
 Restitution is not possible therefore, rescission cannot be effected.

Art. 1103. The omission of one or more objects or securities of the inheritance shall not cause the rescission of the
partition on the ground of lesion, but the partition shall be completed by the distribution of the objects or securities
which have been omitted. (1079a)

 Will NOT INVALIDATE the contract of partition; remains valid.

 MIXED SUCCESSION arises:
o Testamentary- mentioned in the will.
o Intestate/legal – not mentioned in the will.

Art. 1104. A partition made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded, unless it be proved
that there was bad faith or fraud on the part of the other persons interested; but the latter shall be proportionately
obliged to pay to the person omitted the share which belongs to him. (1080)

 This is PRETERITION IN PARTITON.

o Compulsory heir – could be from the direct or indirect or collateral line. Spouse or wife is included in the
term.
o There must be BAD FAITH and FRAUD for rescission to take place.
 If no badfaith or fraud, no rescission. Tagaan ra sa mga co-heirs sa iya share.
 INTRUSION – VOID; as to the part of the included person who is not an heir. (gituyo kay giapil ang walay apil)

Art. 1105. A partition which includes a person believed to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect to
such person. (1081a)

---oOo---

SECTION 7. - Legacies and Devises

Art. 924: All things and rights which are within the commerce of man be bequeathed or devised.

The nature of the thing given dictates the terminology.

Legacy: Personal property
Devise: Real property.

The thing must be within the commerce of man:

1.) It can be appropriated by a person, natural or personal

2.) It can be subject of conveyance, sale, barter or exchange.

What cannot be given:

1.) Things which are without owners

2.) Properties of public dominion since they are for public purpose (parks, plaza)
3.) Common things (start, sea)
4.) Objects which are illegal and contrary to law (Shabu)

Art. 925: A testator may charge with legacies and devises not only his compulsory heirs but also the legatees and
devisees.
The latter shall be liable for the charge only to the extent of the value of the legacy or the devise received by them.
The compulsory heirs shall not be liable for the charge beyond the amount of the free portion given them

If the testator would specify a person who could be a compulsory heir, legatee or devisee, he has the burden of giving. This is
called sub-legacy or sub-devise.

Example: Testator will give a parcel of land worth 1M by way of legacy, in return, the legatee is obliged to give 200k to F, a friend
of the testator. What the legatee receives is the legacy proper, while his obligation to give to F is called sub-legacy. Just like in a lease, if
there is no prohibition in the contract, you can also lease the property and that is called sub-lease.

If A, a compulsory heir, is given 1M and he is in charge to give legacy to somebody else or a devise, there is a limit. If there are five
of them who are compulsory heirs, A is entitled to a legitime of 100k. The maximum amount he can give as legacy shall in no case exceed
900k. The 100k as his legitime cannot be impaired.

14
 But if you are not a compulsory heir, you are not entitled to a legitime. So if you are given 1M as legacy and you are also required
to give 1M to F who is a friend of tetstor, you are obliged to give the entire amount by virtue of sub-legacy. A legatee, devisee or a
compulsory heir can be charged by the testator to give the legacy or devise. If no one has been charged, the estate of the testator shall be
liable as represented by the executor or administrator. So the funds of the estate will satisfy the legacy or devise through the executor or
administrator.

If you charge or oblige someone to give, who can be a lagatee, devisee or compulsory heir, he can be charged in full because when
you convey a right, it carries with it an obligation if there be any.

Art. 926. When the testator charges one of the heirs with a legacy or devise, he alone shall be bound.
Should he not charge anyone in particular, all shall be liable in the same proportion in which they may inherit.

Art. 927. If two or more heirs take possession of the estate, they shall be solidarily liable for the loss or destruction of a
thing devised or bequeathed, even though only one of them should have been negligent.

Testator dies, and you are using the thing meant to be given. He executed a will to give a car to F his friend. His three children
used the car, one was driving it, the other two were mere passengers. Due to the negligence of the son who was driving the car, it figured a
collision. The car was totally destroyed, the proximate cause being the negligence of one of the children. In this case, any one among the
three of them may be held liable , the obligation being solidary. The act of one is the act of all. However, the person made to pay may seek
reimbursement from the person ultimately negligent.

Art. 928: The heir who is bound to deliver the legacy or devise shall be liable in case of eviction, if the thing is
indeterminate and is indicated only by its kind.

If the object is indeterminate, in case of eviction, the estate is liable.

Example: You are given 1M as legacy, and you are charged by the testator to give a car out of that 1M by sub-legacy, so you gave
the car to the sub-lagatee. One week after, the legatee was deprived of ownership. The car was actually “carnapped” and so the lawful
owner made a claim and a filed case in court. By reason of final judgment, the sub-legatee was evicted; he was deprived of the car. Having
been evicted, it is as if he never became a sub-legatee.

Is there a warranty for the replacement of the car on the part of testator or the giver? YES. Article 1263: In an obligation to deliver
a generic thing, the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguish the obligations. When the thing lost is generic, you
are to replace it. For example, a book was lost, you can still give another book. However if the thing is specific, it can no longer be replaced.
If generic, the person charged must make good the replacement because of his warranty. Therefore, the sub-legatee can demand for
another thing.

Art. 929: If the testator, heir, or legatee owns only a part of, or an interest in the thing bequeathed, the legacy or
devise shall be understood limited to such part or interest, unless the testator expressly declares that he gives the thing
in its entirety

A thing is owned by two owners, A and B, and this thing is the subject of A’s legacy to Juan dela Cruz. The subject of the legacy is
only up to the extent of A’s share because he cannot give what he does not own. It excludes the other half. Truly, A can pass the other half
belonging to him, but not the other half belonging to B. The testator can only transfer so much of his interest on the thing or object, which
is the subject matter of the legacy.

EXAMPLE: There are five co-owners of a building. One made a will giving a devise from a portion belonging to him. He can do so,
so long as he does not give the entire property.

Art. 930: The legacy or devise of a thing belonging to another person is void, if the testator erroneously believed that
the thing pertained to him. But if the thing bequeathed, though not belonging to the testator when he made the will,
afterwards becomes his, by whatever title, the disposition shall take effect.

First scenario:

1.The testator erroneously believes that the object is his.

2.Somebody else continuously owns it.

The legacy is VOID.

Reason: You cannot give what is not yours.

15
 Example: The testator made an honest mistake, he erroneously believed that the car he gave to F by way of legacy was his, when
in fact it was owned by O, and the latter continuously owns it. The legacy is void.

Second scenario:

1. The testator erroneously believes that the object is his.

2. Subsequent to the making of the will he became the owner and he owned it until he died.

The disposition is VALID.

Reason: The will is effective upon death. It is immaterial if who owns the object at the time of the execution of the will. What is
important is the fact that the testator is the owner at the time of his death.

Example: The testator gave a car by legacy thinking it was his. After making the will, the testator acquired ownership of the car by
purchase or donation. Then the testator died. He became the owner of the car until his death. The legacy is valid

Art. 931: If the testator orders that a thing belonging to another be acquired in order that it be given to a legatee or
devisee, the heir upon whom the obligation is imposed or the estate must acquire it and give the same to the legatee or
devisee; but if the owner of the thing refuses to alienate the same, or demands an excessive price therefor, the heir or
the estate shall only be obliged to give the just value of the thing

First scenario

1.) The testator had full knowledge that the object is not his,
2.) There was an order for its acquisition, which was successful, and the testator owned it until he died.
The legacy given is valid.
Reason: The testator became the owner at the time of his death, when the will shall take effect.
TN: Order for acquisition may be expressed or implied.

Second scenario

1.) The testator had full knowledge that the object is not his,
2.) Acquisition was not successful (owner refused to sell or the price is excessive or exorbitant)
Give the just value of the thing intended to be given.

Art. 932: The legacy or devise of a thing which at the time of the execution of the will already belonged to the legatee
or devisee shall be ineffective, even though another person may have some interest therein.
If the testator expressly orders that the thing be freed from such interest or encumbrance, the legacy or devise shall be
valid to that extent.

If the object is given to a person who owns the same at the time of the execution of the will, it is void because you cannot give
what you do not own.

Art. 933: If the thing bequeathed belonged to the legatee or devisee at the time of the execution of the will, the legacy
or devise shall be without effect, even though it may have subsequently alienated by him.
If the legatee or devisee acquires it gratuitously after such time, he can claim nothing by virtue of the legacy or
devise; but if it has been acquired by onerous title he can demand reimbursement from the heir or the estate.

If the object is given to a legatee or devisee who is not the owner of the same but subsequent to the making of the will he
acquires the object by:

a.) Onerous title (bought by the legatee or devisee): he is entitled to reimbursement of the acquisition price from the
heir or the estate. Due to said reimbursement, the thing is deemed given as legacy or devise.

b.) Gratuitous title (without consideration): He receives nothing from the testator. He cannot claim for reimbursement
there being no consideration.

---oOo---

Article 930: The legacy or devise of a thing belonging to another person is void, if the testator erroneously believed that the thing
pertained to him. But if the thing bequeathed, though not belonging to the testator when he made the will, afterwards becomes his, by
whatever title, the disposition shall take effect.
16
Art. 931. If the testator orders that a thing belonging to another be acquired in order that it be given to a legatee or devisee, the heir
upon whom the obligation is imposed or the estate must acquire it and give the same to the legatee or devisee; but if the owner of the
thing refuses to alienate the same, or demands an excessive price therefor, the heir or the estate shall only be obliged to give the just
value of the thing. (861a)

 Legacy or devise of a thing BELONGING TO ANOTHER which FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS NOT HIS  VOID
 BUT if it is subsequently acquired by the testator  VALID
 BUT if owner of the thing REFUSES TO ALIENATE or demands an EXCESSIVE PRICE  only give the JUST VALUE of the thing

Art. 932. The legacy or devise of a thing which at the time of the execution of the will already belonged to the legatee or devisee shall be
ineffective, even though another person may have some interest therein.

If the testator expressly orders that the thing be freed from such interest or encumbrance, the legacy or devise shall be valid to that
extent. (866a)

 You cannot give again what you have already owned

LEGACY OF SECURITY
 Taas ra kaayo ang “Legacy of pledge or mortgage”

Art. 934. If the testator should bequeath or devise something pledged or mortgaged to secure a recoverable debt before the execution
of the will, the estate is obliged to pay the debt, unless the contrary intention appears.

The same rule applies when the thing is pledged or mortgaged after the execution of the will.

Any other charge, perpetual or temporary, with which the thing bequeathed is burdened, passes with it to the legatee or devisee. (867a)

 The OBJECT of the legacy or device is a thing or object  with encumbrance (pledge or chattel mortgage)
 Atong klarohon na ang pledge og mortgage kay puro ra baya na PRENDA sa bisaya

MORTGAGE AND PLEDGE

 Similarity: (1) they are both accessory obligations;

(2) both given to secure payment for principal obligation

 Difference: it is the POSSESSION that makes the difference

 Pledge: To secure payment of my P10,000 loan obligation, I pledge my cellphone. Thing given for
security is in the possession of the creditor.
o Debtor – Mortgagor; Pledgee - Creditor
 Chattel Mortgage: To secure debt of P5,000, I mortgaged my wristwatch. It (watch) is still in the
possession of the debtor.

 2 contracts there: Principal contract of loan and accessory contract of pledge or mortgage

In succession, the object of the legacy or device which the testator will give is the thing pledged or mortgaged.

FIRST SENTENCE: “IF THE TESTATOR SHOULD BEQUEATH OR DEVISE SOMETHING PLEDGED OR MORTGAGED TO SECURE A RECOVERABLE
DEBT BEFORE THE EXECUTION OF THE WILL, THE ESTATE IS OBLIGED TO PAY THE DEBT, UNLESS THE CONTRARY INTENTION APPEARS.”

SITUATION:
 T, Testator makes a testamentary disposition. He gave to Carmela Tamayo a CAR  PERSONAL property for PLEDGE (If object was
a REAL property – ANTICHRESIS).
o Ato klarohon ang ngalan ni TAM kay mahulog nya ug unknown kay kulang, way AYO  If UNKNOWN PERSON (one who
cannot be identified from the context of the will)  VOID
 The problem is ang auto kay g.prenda. (You should have given a thing not encumbered para way hasul  nanghatag naman lang
jud ka, g.hasul2x pa jud nimo).
o The law provides that if the thing given is encumbered, it should be FREED first. That means bayaron usa para ma.release
na. Testator will pay the encumbrance from his estate.

SECOND SENTENCE: “THE SAME RULE APPLIES WHEN THE THING IS PLEDGED OR MORTGAGED AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE WILL” 
way klaro atong balaod!
17
  Make it “before or after” or DURING THE LIFETIME of the will  mas klaro pa daw ni!
 Same rule applies before or after  object should be free from encumbrance

THIRD SENTENCE: “ANY OTHER CHARGE, PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY, WITH WHICH THE THING BEQUEATHED IS BURDENED, PASSES WITH
IT TO THE LEGATEE OR DEVISEE.”

 Other than the payment of the encumbrance, all of the INCIDENTAL EXPENSES will fall on the legatee or devisee who was favored.

BUT REMEMBER: “OBJECT THERE SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR SECURITY OF A RECOVERABLE DEBT.”

 Di gani na ang katuyuan sa paghatag sa object, then the estate has no financial obligation to free the encumbrance

 Example: Naay auto gipalit ang testator nya gpabuhat ug Performance Bond para dili ka makahuna2x ug sibat/abscond. Another is
if you are a government treasurer, you must put up a Public Official Bond (hehe gikuha nako sa insurance kay bond ray g.ingon ni
atty. :P)
o In which case, if this was given to you, di trabaho sa testator ang pag.release sa kanang adto didto BECAUSE it is not used
for security of a recoverable debt. Way labot ang estate ana.
o This is not for security.

 Another case: Ang auto nahatag sa laing tao but NOT to secure an obligation. Rather it is for USUFRUCTUARY. Pananglitan, that
car was an object of legacy, does the estate have an obligation to effect its release from the usufructuary? NO OBLIGATION
o In usufruct, you are entitled to USE but it is not yours. It is NOT security for a recoverable debt but for the enjoyment of
the usufruct
o This is a REAL RIGHT and should be respected by the legatee.
o Legatee can only get the car after the expiration of the period of usufructuary or upon its termination.

LEGACY OF CREDIT AND LEGACY OF REMISSION

Art. 935. The legacy of a credit against a third person or of the remission or release of a debt of the legatee shall be effective only as
regards that part of the credit or debt existing at the time of the death of the testator.

In the first case, the estate shall comply with the legacy by assigning to the legatee all rights of action it may have against the debtor. In
the second case, by giving the legatee an acquittance, should he request one.

In both cases, the legacy shall comprise all interests on the credit or debt which may be due the testator at the time of his death. (870a)

LEGACY OF CREDIT (against a 3rd person)

 To be given  what you give is an instrument convertible to money

 3 persons involved

SITUATION: D (DEBTOR) ---- P 50,000  C (CREDITOR)

 C, through a testamentary disposition, gives the credit (P50,000) to Burdeos.

o Assignor (C); Assignee (Burdeos)
o In assignment, all the rights of the creditor is transferred (in succession, “inherited”) by the assignee (in succession,
“legatee”)
 Legacy of Credit: Assignee Burdeos  inherits all the right of the creditor C (assignor). In effect, there is a novation. D will now pay
to Burdeos. Changing the person of the creditor.
 Ang promissory note, bayran man jud na ug kwarta kay legal tender. Ug ang ibayad kay Kaimito ug Lubi, Dacion en Pago na,
payment in kind.

“THE LEGACY OF A CREDIT AGAINST A THIRD PERSON OR OF THE REMISSION OR RELEASE OF A DEBT OF THE LEGATEE SHALL BE EFFECTIVE
ONLY AS REGARDS THAT PART OF THE CREDIT OR DEBT EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR.”

SITUATION: D utangan ni C – assigned to  R

18
 Debts Maturity

D 10
20
Date
Jan 30
Feb 28
C
30 Mar 30
40 Apr 30

 IF the TESTATOR DIED: March 1, 2014

 Hain man sa upat ka credit ang g.assign ni C kay R? When is the determining point?
o All of the credit existing at the time of the death of the testator
o So only the first 2 obligations (Jan 30 and February 28) are assigned to R

 If testator died on May 1, 2014, all of the debts were not yet paid, what is the object of legacy?
o All the obligations existing at the time of death, so all of the 4 debts

 But if, let’s say, testator was paid the first 2 obligations, legatee may only get the last 2 obligations which are still outstanding
credit. Only OUTSTANDING CREDIT existing at the time of the death of the testator.

 Should there be one or more credit, only those OUTSTANDING OR EXISTING OR UNPAID credit can be the object of legacy.

PARTIAL PAYMENT OF DEBT

SITUATION: 10,000 Debt of D to C. The credit was assigned to you. C died, so you can get the 10,000. However if the credit was partially
paid, example paid 3,000, you can only get the remaining balance which is P7,000. So, you can only get the outstanding credits at the time
of the death of the testator and if paid partially, only the part not paid.

SUMMARY: In case of Legacy of Credit, only the outstanding credits at the time of the testator’s death are deemed given or deemed as
objects of the legacy.

“IN BOTH CASES, THE LEGACY SHALL COMPRISE ALL INTERESTS ON THE CREDIT OR DEBT WHICH MAY BE DUE THE TESTATOR AT THE TIME
OF HIS DEATH.”

o All the credit outstanding are to be given including the fruits or interests
o Interest is a fruit. Accessory rights accompanying the principal.

LEGACY OF REMISSION  di naka makadawat

o REMISSION = RELEASE = CONDONATION  it is the gratuitous abandonment of one’s right to collect

o Ang legatee kay nangutang nimo. The person of the debtor is the person of the legatee.

SITUATION: D (debtor) – 10,000  C (creditor)

 Creditor, C (testator) releases D (debtor-legatee)

o Creditor is the ONLY person who can release
o Only 2 persons involved: Creditor-Testator; Debtor-Legatee

 I am condoning, remitting, releasing the debt  di na pabayron si debtor-legatee, makalipay ni kay ang imo unta i.bayad kay di na
kelangan i.bayad.

 Object: All existing debts at the time of the death of the testator
 This includes the interests as well: “IN BOTH CASES, THE LEGACY SHALL COMPRISE ALL INTERESTS ON THE CREDIT OR DEBT WHICH
MAY BE DUE THE TESTATOR AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.”

o How do you distinguish remission from condonation? There is NO distinction.

o Confusion and merger? NO distinction, ang paggamit ra sa sentence maoy nakalahi.

ACCEPTANCE

 ACCEPTANCE is needed because condonation is an INDIRECT donation.

Article 725. Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, WHO ACCEPTS
19
IT.

SITUATION: Obligation is P10,000.

 Testator: I hereby release D from his debt of P10,000.

 D: I hereby accept.
o How much is the obligation of D? Wala na kay g.condone naman  Technically, this is WRONG. Wala jud na
ma.condone actually, obligation still subsists. Condonation is void. Why?
 Need formalities of donation. When you condone an obligation which is more than P5,000, it should be in
writing.

1270. xxx Express condonation, shall, furthermore, comply with the forms of donation.

FORMALITIES OF DONATION:

Art. 748. The donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing.

An oral donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or of the document representing the right donated.

If the value of the personal property donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing,
otherwise, the donation shall be void. (632a)

Art. 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the
property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.

The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is
done during the lifetime of the donor.

If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be
noted in both instruments.

 Donation in excess of P5,000 must be in writing

 Donation P5,000 or below need not be in writing
 If condonation is expressly stated in the WILL, requirement of “in writing” is already complied with.
o IF, “I hereby give P10,000” to D  not condonation, wa g.specify na condonation ni
o IF, “I hereby condone the obligation of P10,000 of D”  OK, pwede ni na ibutang sa WILL.
o Pero ayaw kalimti ang ACCEPTANCE!!! Pwede ra ug IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE
o REMEMBER: CONDONATION is an INDIRECT DONATION.

CREDITOR-TESTATOR FILES A SUIT AGAINST DEBTOR

Art. 936. The legacy referred to in the preceding article shall lapse if the testator, after having made it, should bring an action against the
debtor for the payment of his debt, even if such payment should not have been effected at the time of his death.

The legacy to the debtor of the thing pledged by him is understood to discharge only the right of pledge.

SITUATION 1: Humana ang will. Naay Legacy of Credit to A.

D (debtor) – 10,000  C (creditor)  (gave credit to A, legatee)

C vs D  subsequent to the legacy of credit, C filed a suit against D

 Change of mind by the creditor. Legacy is revoked or lapsed. It is the bringing of action which revokes the legacy of credit. Mukiha
gani ka, pasabot na imong collectahon. Ug imong collectahon, nagpasabot na wa na nimo gihatag.
 Revoked by operation of law. No other positive action needed.

SITUATION 2: Extrajudicial demand by C, will that revoke the legacy of A? NO, it is a mere demand and not an action filed in court. What
the law emphasizes is the bringing of action in court. All other acts will not revoke the legacy. Legacy is continuing.

SITUATION 3: Legacy of Remission: C condones the obligation of D. If after the legacy, C (creditor-testator) filed a case against D (debtor-
legatee) for the payment of his debt, the legacy of remission is REVOKED. Same provision applies (Article 936).

20
  No estoppel because the Creditor-Testator is STILL ALIVE at time of the revocation. The legacy of remission is still not effective
considering that the testator is still alive.

GENERIC LEGACY OF RELEASE

Art. 937. A generic legacy of release or remission of debts comprises those existing AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE WILL, but
not subsequent ones.

“AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE WILL” Article 937 but in Article 935: at the time of the death of the testator. WHY? In 937, it is
the GENERIC legacy of release

 Generic  Wholesale. Walay specification unsay g.release niya. Tingub tanan na pagkarelease. There is no particularization which
credit was remitted.

SITUATION:

Date Contracted Due Date

1 10 Jan 5 Jan 30

D 2
3
4
20
30
40
Feb 5
Mar 5
April 5
Feb 28
Mar 30
April 30
C
 Making of the will: March 3, 2014
 Death of the testator: May 1, 2014

 GENERIC: “Gi.release tika sa tanan nimong bayaronon”

 SPECIFIC: “ I hereby release you from your debt of P10,000 which was to be due on Jan. 30”
 IF Generic release ni: Sa upat ka utangs, hain man ang na.release? OBLIGATIONS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF
THE WILL.
o So, ang first two lang, kay contracted on Jan 5 and Feb 5, unya March 3 man ang making of the will.
o The last two were not yet existing during the making/execution of the will

QUESTIONS:

 Even if not yet Matured Sir? Article 937: Existing credits lang, NOT needed ang maturity.
 When does it exist? The moment the contract is perfected
 When is the contract of loan perfected?  when there is a meeting of the minds.

Alternative obligations: Matters which are not covered on the provisions of legacy, provisions of Obligations in the Civil code will apply.

LEGACY TO A CREDITOR

Art. 938. A legacy or devise made to a creditor shall not be applied to his credit, unless the testator so expressly declares.

In the latter case, the creditor shall have the right to collect the excess, if any, of the credit or of the legacy or devise. (837a)

 Legatee is the creditor. (Lain paminawon nga ikaw utangan nya nanghatag ka sa imo creditor pero wala pa gani ka kabayad sa
imo utang)
 Ang debtor is the one who made the Will.

SITUATION: D, Debtor-Testator – 100,000  C, Creditor-Legatee

D gave legacy 150,000 to C.

SIR: Misplaced generosity ni. How can you give to your creditor when you haven’t even paid your debt. Bayaran nalang unta sa niya ang
P100,000 nya P50,000 iyang i.himo ug legacy.

---oOo---

Article 939. If the testator orders the payment of what he believes he owes but does not in fact owe, the disposition shall be
considered as not written. If as regards a specified debt more than the amount thereof is ordered paid, the excess is not due, unless
a contrary intention appears.

The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the fulfillment of natural obligations. (n) 21
  1st sentence- There is no debt but there is payment. Partakes of SOLUTIO INDEBITI- the person who received payment
is obligated to return because he is not entitled to it.
 2nd sentence- There is indeed an obligation but you overpaid. You return the excess, UNLESS there is an intention to
give it as a legacy.

Article 940. In alternative legacies or devises, the choice is presumed to be left to the heir upon whom the obligation to give the
legacy or devise may be imposed, or the executor or administrator of the estate if no particular heir is so obliged.

If the heir, legatee or devisee, who may have been given the choice, dies before making it, this right shall pass to the respective
heirs.

Once made, the choice is irrevocable.

In the alternative legacies or devises, except as herein provided, the provisions of this Code regulating obligations of the same kind
shall be observed, save such modifications as may appear from the intention expressed by the testator. (874a)

Example: To give either a refrigerator or an airconditioner. There are 2 options, either you give the refrigerator OR the
airconditioner. If its refrigerator

 Q: In alternative obligations, who is given the right to choose which property is deliverable?
o A: The right of choice is given to the debtor unless it has been expressly given to the creditor.
 Q: Applied to succession, here, who is the debtor? The testator or the heir, legatee or devisee?
o A: The debtor is the person obliged to give or deliver so in succession the debtor is the testator. Therefore the
right to choose is given to the person obliged to give the legacy and devise, i.e., the estate through the
executor or administrator or the person ( compulsory heir, legatee, devisee) charged with the burden of
delivering.
 Q: Can you give the right to choose to the legatee?
o A: Yes. Any deficiency in the provision is supplied by the provisions on alternative obligations. So the legatee
may have the right to choose and if he dies, this right shall pass to his heirs. But remember ha, his death must
NOT precede that of the testator, otherwise, your right cannot be vested. There has got to be first the death of
the testator so that the right may be bequeathed. A voluntary heir who dies before the testator transmits
nothing to his heirs.

Once you have made that choice, that choice is IRREVOCABLE. Why? To avoid instability of the right.

Article 941. A legacy of generic personal property shall be valid even if there be no things of the same kind in the estate.

A devise of indeterminate real property shall be valid only if there be immovable property of its kind in the estate.

The right of choice shall belong to the executor or administrator who shall comply with the legacy by the delivery of a thing which
is neither of inferior nor of superior quality. (875a)

 A legacy of generic personal property shall be valid even if there be no things of the same kind in the estate.The
testator gave you a car, but there is none in the estate. When you went to the administrator/ executor, he said that there
is no car, just the total estate of 100M. So how do we construct this? The procedure will be to EARMARK money so that
you can buy the car. Here, the estate is called upon to purchase one.

COMPARE to real property, if there be none, is it VALID?

 A devise of indeterminate real property shall be valid only if there be immovable property of its kind in the estate. If
there is none, then it is INOPERATIVE. It is valid only SHOULD there be one in the estate. Unlike in the legacy of
personal property, even if there be none of the same kind in the estate, the estate shall purchase it.

Article 942. Whenever the testator expressly leaves the right of choice to the heir, or to the legatee or devisee, the former may
give or the latter may choose whichever he may prefer.

22
  Continuation of Art 940. This article confirms that the right to choose can be given to the legatee.

Article 943. If the heir, legatee or devisee cannot make the choice, in case it has been granted him, his right shall pass to his heirs;
but a choice once made shall be irrevocable. (877a)

 Sus class, namatay nalang syag huna huna unsa iyang pillion mao na iyang katungod muadto sa iyang anak.

Article 944. A legacy for education lasts until the legatee is of age, or beyond the age of majority in order that the legatee may finish
some professional, vocational or general course, provided he pursues his course diligently.
A legacy for support lasts during the lifetime of the legatee, if the testator has not otherwise provided.
If the testator has not fixed the amount of such legacies, it shall be fixed in accordance with the social standing and the circumstances of
the legatee and the value of the estate.
If the testator or during his lifetime used to give the legatee a certain sum of money or other things by way of support, the same amount
shall be deemed bequeathed, unless it be markedly disproportionate to the value of the estate.

 A legacy for education lasts until the legatee is of age, or beyond the age of majority in order that the legatee may finish some
professional, vocational or general course, provided he pursues his course diligently.
 Wala nay limit sa age ha. Nganu man? Ang duration ana ari na kung makacomplete naka sa professional, vocational, or
general. So dili factor ang age nimo, legacy of education hantod mamatay provided it is pursued diligently.
 Kutob mahuman ka actually.

 A legacy for support lasts during the lifetime of the legatee, if the testator has not otherwise provided.
 During the lifetime- gawas lang kung gicertain sa testator.
 Atong concern, how much? Tagpila na karon? So Last paragraph- If the testator or during his lifetime used to give the
legatee a certain sum of money or other things by way of support, the same amount shall be deemed bequeathed, unless
it be markedly disproportionate to the value of the estate.
 Okay, so the same amount. Sa buhi pa ang testator, tanan gihatag hantod karon maoy ihatag. But class, duna
may kausaban. Pananglitan, tagaan kag piso kadabuwan sauna. Hantod karon, piso gihapon, nya mabuhi ka ana
karon? Matay ka.
 Muingon gani kag support, one which is: according to Article 290. Support is everything that is indispensable for
sustenance, dwelling, clothing and medical attendance, according to the social position of the family.

 Pero unsa man juy basehan? Ang kanang sa 3rd paragraph jd- the needs (panginahanglan) & resources (ang
pondo) niya- If the testator has not fixed the amount of such legacies, it shall be fixed in accordance with the
social standing and the circumstances of the legatee and the value of the estate.

Article 945. If a periodical pension, or a certain annual, monthly, or weekly amount is bequeathed, the legatee may petition the court for
the first installment upon the death of the testator, and for the following ones which shall be due at the beginning of each period; such
payment shall not be returned, even though the legatee should die before the expiration of the period which has commenced.

 Pensionan ka karong buwan or weekly, basta periodic. Muana ka “Testator, karong buwan”, so ingon ana? Dili, you have to
petition the court.

Article 946. If the thing bequeathed should be subject to a usufruct, the legatee or devisee shall respect such right until it is legally
extinguished.

 Gihatagan kag devise- devisee ang tawag nimo kay real property man. Pero, that property is held in usufruct- nay usufructuary na
14years, nya ikaw man gihatagan. Butang ta lang, namatay ang testator run, muana ka didto “Hoy usufructuary, sibat diha kay
akoy gihatagan. Vacate, vacate! Pahawa!” Imo lang ingnan ana, class? Remember that usufructuary- it is a real right. Maingon ana
ra nimo? High and above ka niya? Dili. It must be respected.
 Rights of usufruct- to the use and fruits. Unsay tawag nimos tag-iya?
 Naked owner (tag-iyang naghubo)- of all the rights, ang labing importante is the right to use. You own the property, but you are
denied of its use.

Article 947. The legatee or devisee acquires a right to the pure and simple legacies or devises from the death of the testator, and
transmits it to his heirs.

 Kanusa man ma acquire? Death of testator. Simple kaau class. Remember Article 777- The rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
 Kung buhi pa na(testator), damgo pana imo.

Article 948. If the legacy or devise is of a specific and determinate thing pertaining to the testator, the legatee or devisee acquires the
ownership thereof upon the death of the testator, as well as any growing fruits, or unborn offspring of animals, or uncollected income;
but not the income which was due and unpaid before the latter's death.

23
From the moment of the testator's death, the thing bequeathed shall be at the risk of the legatee or devisee, who shall, therefore, bear
its loss or deterioration, and shall be benefited by its increase or improvement, without prejudice to the responsibility of the executor or
administrator.

 What are the other things other than the property which was given? Fruits accruing. Pananglitan- offspring sa animal or mabdus
dayon nanganak na- ang anak sa animal is for the legatee. Or Diba rentals- belongs to the legatee or devisee.

Article 950. If the estate should not be sufficient to cover all the legacies or devises, their payment shall be made in the following order:
(1) Remuneratory legacies or devises;
(2) Legacies or devises declared by the testator to be preferential;
(3) Legacies for support;
(4) Legacies for education;
(5) Legacies or devises of a specific, determinate thing which forms a part of the estate;
(6) All others pro rata.
 Order of preference in the manner of payment of the legacies and devises combined. Sa ato pa, asa may unahon kung nay legacy
for support, education, etc?
 So, hain man unahon? Ang estate 120k, nya ang total legacy kay 100k, hain man unahon, sir?
 Preference ni, remunerative una.
 You recall 911-
 Article 911. After the legitime has been determined in accordance with the three preceding articles, the reduction shall be
made as follows:

1. Donations shall be respected as long as the legitime can be covered, reducing or annulling, if necessary, the devises or
legacies made in the will;
2. The reduction of the devises or legacies shall be pro rata, without any distinction whatever. If the testator has directed
that a certain devise or legacy be paid in preference to others, it shall not suffer any reduction until the latter have been
applied in full to the payment of the legitime.
3. If the devise or legacy consists of a usufruct or life annuity, whose value may be considered greater than that of the
disposable portion, the compulsory heirs may choose between complying with the testamentary provision and delivering
to the devisee or legatee the part of the inheritance of which the testator could freely dispose

 Therefore, maglibog ka kay lahi ang order sa Art.911(mag-una ang legitime, then donation, etc.) compared sa Art.950 na
remunerative una. Ang common denominator- estate is not enough. Sa ato pa, nanghatag ang testator ug sobra. So naa jud
musacrifice ani. Naay dili mahatagan. Is it 911? 950?
 Use Article 911 - if ever there is a legitime to be satisfied or if there no legitime but there is a donation inter vivos.
Therefore, if the legitime & donation inter vivos concurs with the legacy/devise, 911 is the proper article to use.
 Use Article 950- if there’s no legitime to be satisfied, neither is there an inter vivos donation. And there is just the
legacy/devise, then 950 exclusively. If purely legacy/devise lang ang naa.
 Bsta tnawa lang ang problem kung unsay naa-legitime, donation, legacy or devise ba.
 Sa 911, nay chance kamo tanan makadawat. In 950, murag layo pa kaayo ka.
 If ang testator muhatag ug 150k legacy/devise, unya estate is 100k. Nya una remunerative- nya 50k na daan, sunod preferred
another 50k, aw wala na. Kutob ra diha. Pait kayos tanan. Mao nang paibabaw jud ta dapat.

Article 949. If the bequest should not be of a specific and determinate thing, but is generic or of quantity, its fruits and interests from the
time of the death of the testator shall pertain to the legatee or devisee if the testator has expressly so ordered.

Article 951. The thing bequeathed shall be delivered with all its accessories and accessories and in the condition in which it may be upon
the death of the testator.

 Ang period of time of the death of the testator, unsay provision ana sa butang na ihatag? Mao gihapon- accessions, accessories
found at the time of the death of the testator.
 Unsaon ipadala? Kani tanan butanga maoy ipadala nimo.
 Accessories- dependent of the principal, accessory follows the principal. Ang jack mufollow sa auto. Dili ka kita ang auto mufollow
sa jack. Asa ang auto, tua ang jack.

Article 957. The legacy or devise shall be without effect:

(1) If the testator transforms the thing bequeathed in such a manner that it does not retain either the form or the denomination it had;

(2) If the testator by any title or for any cause alienates the thing bequeathed or any part thereof, it being understood that in the latter
case the legacy or devise shall be without effect only with respect to the part thus alienated. If after the alienation the thing should
again belong to the testator, even if it be by reason of nullity of the contract, the legacy or devise shall not thereafter be valid, unless the
reacquisition shall have been effected by virtue of the exercise of the right of repurchase;

24
(3) If the thing bequeathed is totally lost during the lifetime of the testator, or after his death without the heir's fault. Nevertheless, the
person obliged to pay the legacy or devise shall be liable for eviction if the thing bequeathed should not have been determinate as to its
kind, in accordance with the provisions of article 928.

 When legacy/devise impliedly revoked. Unsay binuhatan sa testator nga makapaingon nimo na dili na niya ipadayon ang paghatag.
Impliedly revoked- sabtunon.
(1) If the testator transforms the thing bequeathed in such a manner that it does not retain either the form or the denomination it
had

Article 957. The legacy or devise shall be without effect:

(1) If the testator transforms the thing bequeathed in such a manner that it does not retain either the form or the
denomination it had;

(2) If the testator by any title or for any cause alienates the thing bequeathed or any part thereof, it being understood that in
the latter case the legacy or devise shall be without effect only with respect to the part thus alienated. If after the alienation
the thing should again belong to the testator, even if it be by reason of nullity of the contract, the legacy or devise shall not
thereafter be valid, unless the reacquisition shall have been effected by virtue of the exercise of the right of repurchase;

(3) If the thing bequeathed is totally lost during the lifetime of the testator, or after his death without the heir's fault.
Nevertheless, the person obliged to pay the legacy or devise shall be liable for eviction if the thing bequeathed should not
have been determinate as to its kind, in accordance with the provisions of article 928. (869a)

On (1)- Transformation.

Ex: Warehouse to Apartment

In the last will and testament, gi tagaan ka og warehouse. Unya after execution, the testator modify that warehouse into an apartment.

Form is the external and outward, the physical appearance of the thing.

Denomination is the name given to it by the public.

Ang iyang form karon kay dili na warehouse kay kwarto-kwarto naman. Ang iyang pangan, dili na warehouse, apartment na. Kung gihatag
na nimu before transformation, kanang paghatag nimu has been impliedly revoked. There was transformation.

Ex: Flour to Pandesal

Unya human hatag, gi himu man og pandesal. So there is transformation. So the transformation ana implies that the testator is no longer
interested in giving you the thing.

Ex: Tela to Amerikana

Nalipay ka kadiyot, naguol ka kadugay.

It means that he had reconsidered his previous decision. So it has been impliedly revoked.

On (2) –Alienation

Ex: Sold the Car

Imu na ning auto. Pero basa pa gani ang ballpen pagsuwat sa will, gibaligya naman sa lain. So wa na. It is an implied revocation of what has
been given in the will.

BUT in a Pacto a Retro. Sale with a right of repurchase. Within 3 years. Ikaw ra ba gitaan ato, in case thereafter, the testator repurchase.
Ang imu legacy effective pa. Dili man na siya transfer of ownership absolutely. Kinahanglan absolute transfer of ownership.

On (3) –Lost

Ex: Earthquake

Naguba ang firewall and it totally destroyed the car. You cannot deliver the car. Loss without fault of the heir in-charged to give the legacy.
Either before or after death, “lost during the lifetime of the testator, or after his death”. So anytime that the loss occurred.

Lost- when it perishes, or goes out of commerce, or disappears in such a way that its existence is unknown or cannot be recovered.

Not only material or physical loss. Also, legal or juridical loss.

Ex: Land expropriation – the thing is still existing but has been expropriated by the State. So kung gihatag gani na nimu. That is deemed
revoked.
25
 Article 956. If the legatee or devisee cannot or is unwilling to accept the legacy or devise, or if the legacy or devise for any
reason should become ineffective, it shall be merged into the mass of the estate, except in cases of substitution and of the right
of accretion. (888a)

“Merge into the mass of the estate” - You will not part anything to that person. That thing is part of the estate. So kung ang gihatag sa imu
na legacy is void, that still forms part of the estate.

Article 949. If the bequest should not be of a specific and determinate thing, but is generic or of quantity, its fruits and interests
from the time of the death of the testator shall pertain to the legatee or devisee if the testator has expressly so ordered. (884a)

Not only the property itself but all the fruits and interest shall pass.

---oOo---

NOTHING FOLLOWS

SEE YOU SA SECOND SEM.... 

26