Sucession Exam 2018

WILLS & SUCCESSION TSN
From the lectures of Atty. Lielanie Yangyang-Espejo, CPA

Ateneo de Davao College of Law | 3 Manresa 2018
OCTOBER 1, 2018 first, the will must be extrinsically valid. There must
Transcribed by: VALLENTE be a valid will, whether notarial or holographic, or a
codicil.
SECTION 6 2. It must be made expressly.

Disinheritance
So you cannot just disinherit by implication.
Example, you did not mention him in your will. That
The law merely protects the legitime of the compulsory heir. is not disinheritance. That would be preterition.
In fact, there are several provisions in the New Civil Code Remember lahi ang effect sa disinheritance which is
intended to protect the legitime. We have discussed some of valid, disinheritance not valid and preterition.
them:
3. There must be a legal cause for the
1. PRETERITION disinheritance
So in preterition, if a compulsory heir is omitted, the So the law provides as for the causes, found in
institution of heirs is annulled. In that case, the estate Article 919, 920 and 921, the grounds to disinherit
shall be distributed by intestacy, and the compulsory heir children and descendants, parents or ascendants
that is omitted, will still receive his legitime. and the surviving spouse. So it has to be for a legal
cause. If you remember kadtong teleserye, kadtong
2. COLLATION sila Claudine Barretto. Kung halimbawa, nay dili
magustuhan ang parents, “sige pagminyo pero wala
Donations made to strangers are considered charges to naka’y manahon”, dili na siya valid. So pagminyo
the free portion and donations made to compulsory heirs dira maski dili sila ganahan kay it’s not a valid
are considered as advances to their legitime. So all ground to disinherit. Wala na siya sa 919 to 921. So
donations, if there are compulsory heirs, are subject to dili siya for any cause, must be for a legal cause.
collation. The purpose here is again, to protect the
legitime. This is because if all properties of the testator is 4. It must be made for true cause
donated, nothing will be left to his compulsory heirs upon
his death. So that would be a circumvention to the law of Diba there are grounds mentioned, example, under
legitime. Article 919, number 6:
3. No imposition of burden, charge, or condition “Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by

upon the legitime. the child or descendant”
Halimbawa, gibutang sa testator sa will, “I hereby

So the legitime must go to the compulsory heirs without
disinherit my daughter because she maltreated me.”
any of those mentioned. This is because the testator can
But it does not follow na once it is mentioned in the
easily circumvent the law by imposing a very difficult will and the will is proven to be valid, disinherited na
condition upon the compulsory heirs. So this is still for siya. It has to be for a true cause. So if the daughter
the purpose of protecting the legitime. denies that she did tht to her father, then it has to
be proven that there was really a maltreatment. It is
So as of now, we learned three safeguards provided for by law not enough that it is stated in the will. It must be
to protect the legitime of the compulsory heirs. And then we proven because it has to be true.
have the law on Disinheritance. So under disinheritance, the
testator may actually deprive his compulsory heirs of his 5. It must be for an existing cause.
legitime but not for any reason. There are certain requisites
that must be observed. So dili sya basta basta. “Existing” meaning, at the time of the execution of
the will, the cause already exists. You cannot write
Article 915. A compulsory heir may, in consequence of in your will “If this daughter, when she grows older,
disinheritance, be deprived of his legitime, for causes and she will live a dishonorable or disgraceful life, I
expressly stated by law. will disinherit her. And then tuod, pag-18 nag igat-
igat na imong anak. So is she considered
So this is the process by which a compulsory heir may be disinherited? No. It has to be for an existing cause.
deprived of his legitime. It is by disinheritance.
6. The disinheritance must be total or complete
ARTICLE 916. Disinheritance can be effected only through a
So you cannot just say “I disinherit my child ¼ of his
will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified
legitime” or give to the child only the free portion
and not the legitime. Pag disinherited, tanan. You
This is very important.
must disinherit him for the legitime and everything.
Wala juy mahatag sa iya. It must be total and
Requisites for valid disinheritance:
complete.
1. It can only be effected through a will
7. The cause must be stated in the will
This is the one mentioned in Article 916. The
disinheritance must be made in a will. So you cannot
just orally disinherit a person or through a letter. It So if you use as grounds of disinheritance those
has to be in a form of a will. Even if there is a will, provided by the law, you must mention them. It is
but it is not valid, the disinheritance will cannot be not enough that it is expressed “I hereby disinherit
given effect. For a disinheritance to be given effect, my child”, pero wala nimo gisulat ang reason kay
3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 1 of 68

maulaw ka sa reason. It has to be mentioned in the ARTICLE 918. Disinheritance without a specification of the
will. The reason here is to give the heir the chance cause, or for a cause the truth of which, if contradicted, is not
to refute the allegation of the ground. Because diba, proved, or which is not one of those set forth in this Code,
it has to be for a true cause. shall annul the institution of heirs insofar as it may prejudice
the person disinherited; but the devises and legacies and
8. The heir disinherited must also be identified. other testamentary dispositions shall be valid to such extent
as will not impair the legitime.
This is to know who the disinherited person is,
ofcourse.
Some of the requisites for a valid disinheritance were also
9. The will should not have been revoked. mentioned here. The cause must be specified and it must be
true. Now what is important here is the effect of
Because, if the will has been revoked, then disinheritance.
everything in the will cannot be given effect,
including the disinheritance. If the disinheritance is valid, what is the effect?
CHING vs. RODRIGUEZ The heir disinherited shall be excluded. He cannot receive by
G.R. No. 192828 testate or intestate succession. In fact, a will can contain only
November 28, 2011 a disinheritance. In that case, the estate shall be distributed
by intestacy. But here because of the disinheritance, the
disinherited heir shall not participate in the distribution of the
So we discussed this in probate. estate.
Here, it was captioned as “Disinheritance, nullity of a waiver, Now what if there is preterition and there is also a valid
affidavit of extrajudicial settlement, deed of absolute sale, disinheritance?
transfer certificate of title with prayer of the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary
injunction.” It was filed before the regular courts. It was EFFECT OF PRETERITION PLUS A VALID
argued by the oppositors that the regular court has no DISINHERITANCE
jurisdiction over the case because this pertains to a special
proceeding which should be filed in the testate or intestate SITUATION 1:
court, because this was for disinheritance.
Entire estate is 24M
The SC said that even if there was a prayer for disinheritance,
a disinheritance can only be made in a will. And there is no The testator left his 3 legitimate children, A, B, and C. And his
will offered here. So therefore, this cannot be a special best friend, D. He made a will where:
proceeding.
 A is preterited,
Now the question here among others is that should this case  B is validly disinherited
be filed within the regular court because it was alleged that by  C and D are instituted heirs for the entire estate
reason of the prayer for disinheritance, this is a special
What is the effect of disinheritance? The heir shall be
proceeding so this should have been file in the testate or
excluded.
intestate court and should not be a regular court. The
Supreme Court said that an action, this essentially is an action What is the effect of preterition? The institution of heir shall
for reconveyance of title which is a civil action. And the SC be annulled. The legacies and devises which are not inofficious
distinguished here, a civil action from a special proceeding. shall be respected.
Here the SC said under article 916 of the Civil Code Will the preterition affect the disinheritance? Is disinheritance
disinheritance can be effected only through a will an institution? No. Diba lahi ang concept sa institution of
wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. heirs, lahi pod sa devise and legacy, lahi pod and
Here, while the respondents in their complaint sought the disinheritance. Disinheritance is not an institution of heirs.
disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument supposedly Therefore, disinheritance will not be affected by preterition.
effecting the disposition of Antonio’s estate was ever
mentioned hence, despite the prayer for Ramon’s So in this case, there is an annulment of the institution, i-
disinheritance this case does not partake the nature of a exlclude nato si D. Because there is preterition, we go to
special proceeding and does not call for the probate court’s legal succession. Now in legal succession, who will participate?
exercise of its limited jurisdiction because again there was no
1. A, precisely, he is the one preterited, he has to be
will presented, the disinheritance was just mentioned. Unless
given his share.
there is a will, it can never be a special proceeding. 2. How about B? No, because he is disinherited.
3. How about C? Yes.
4. How about the friend? No, because he is not a legal
ARTICLE 917. The burden of proving the truth of the cause heir, so he cannot participate in legal succession.
for disinheritance shall rest upon the other heirs of the
testator, if the disinherited heir should deny it. So the 24M shall be divided equally between A and C, 12M
each. This is if there is valid disinheritance.
So this is the one I discussed na the ground must be one
which is of true cause. So ofcourse, walay problema kung Now, what if there is an invalid disinheritance?
giangkon ni heir na binuhatan jud nako na. But if he or she
denies, then it has to be proved by the proponents of the will.

EFFECT OF PRETERITION VS EFFECT OF INVALID (2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a
DISINHERITANCE crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years
or more, if the accusation has been found groundless;
SITUATION 2: Entire estate is 24M
(3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery
The testator left his 3 legitimate children, A, B, and C. And his or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
best friend, D. He made a will where:
(4) When a child or descendant by fraud, violence,
 A was preterited intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to make a
 The entire estate was given to B,C,D will or to change one already made;
How do we divide? The institution of the heir shall be
annulled. So here 24M divided by A,B,C as shares, 8M each. (5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent or
D will not get anything because his institution is annulled. ascendant who disinherits such child or descendant;
What if A was not preterited but instead, disinherited? (6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the child
or descendant;
 A was invalidly disinherited (testator disinherited A
because he was ugly) (7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or
 The entire estate was given to B,C,D disgraceful life;
First, we know that the ground is invalid. So what is the (8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of
effect? The institution of the heir shall also be annulled but civil interdiction.
only in so far as the legitime of the invalidly disinherited heir
is affected. In short, in invalid disinheritance, we give the
These are the grounds to disinherit a child or a descendant.
legitime of the invalidly disinherited heir and then we can give
effect to all other provisions, institutions, legacies, devises.
1. When a child or descendant has been found guilty of
an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
Ang sa preterition, only legacy and devise, if not inofficious
spouse, descendants, or ascendants
shall be respected. But in invalid disinheritance, ma-anull
gihapon ang institution of heirs but only in so far as the
The word “found guilty” here, presupposes that the
legitime of the invalidly disinherited heir is affected.
disinherited heir has been convicted. And it should be by
final judgment. Although the finality of the judgment has
In this case, how do we distribute? We will give first the
not yet come at the time of the execution of the will. But
legitime of the invalidly disinherited heir.
actually, there has to be an eventual conviction by final
judgment.
1. First, we get the Legitime: 24M/2= 12M
Thus, the legitime of the legitimate children is 12M.
The law says “attempt against the life of the testator”. So
when you say attempt, wala namatay. Diba daghay stages
2. We divide the legitime to the legitimate children, A,
of execution. Naay attempted, frustrated, consummated.
B, and C.
So what if consummated or frustrated? So the more
12M/3=4M
reason. So it includes all stages of the execution.
Thus, each will get 4M.
How about the degree of participation? You have the
3. Distribute the free portion: 12M
principal, accomplice or accessory. Authorities would say
Only B, C, D will participate.
na principal and accessory, yes. Pero accessory, because it
12M/3=4M
was only after the act, dili daw sya apil. So Principal and
Thus, each will get 4M.
accomplice.
Wala nay apil si A sa free portion kay wala man siya gi-
institute. In fact, gi disinherit pa gani siya. Pero invalid man
2. When a child or descendant has accused the testator
ang disinheritance. Ang remedy lang kay ihatag ang iyang
of a crime for which the law prescribes
legitime. Therefore, in an invalid disinheritance, ihatag lang
imprisonment for six years or more, if the
nato ang legitime sa invalidly disinherited, after that, we can
accusation has been found groundless
give effect to all other testamentary dispositions.
So this is the difference between the effect of preterition and

We call this as false accusation. It should be a crime for
invalid disinheritance. Again, didto sila mag matter sa
which the law prescribes imprisonment of 6 years or more.
instituted heir. Sa preterition, if instituted heir ka, wala kay
So kung pasanginlan si testator na ikaw ang nagpusil or
mareceive at all. Pero sa invalid disinheritance, as long as
nag-ihaw sa iro sa akong silingan, malicious mischief lang
nasatisfy ang legitime ni invalidly disinherited heir, naa
na siya. So kung dili kaabot og six years. dili na sya
gihapon kay madawat.
ground to disinherit, even if false. And it has found to be
groundless.
Article 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for the
disinheritance of children and descendants, legitimate as well
as illegitimate: What would be the form of the false accusation?
 It could in a form of filing a case against the
(1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an testator; or
attempt against the life of the testator, his or her spouse,  It could be acting as a witness against the
descendants, or ascendants; testator; or
 It could be refusal to be a witness for the testator
if the testimony is material to the acquittal of the

testator. Authorities say that this is an indirect disobedience was made against the testator. And that was the
accusation. cause of the disinheritance. Based on the records also, very
soon after the said event, Rosario lost the use of her mental
faculties.
3. When a child or descendant has been convicted of
adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the The SC said, considering her tender years and the fact that
testator she lost her sanity, the act of raising a hand against his
grandfather counld not have been done voluntarily. She was
The law here says “convicted”. There has to be a probably not responsible for the disrespect and disobedience
conviction. Unlike in legal separation na preponderance of shown to his grandfather in the year 1894. Even if she did
evidence, here conviction by final judgment. So ang anak that, the SC looked into the voluntariness and use of
nimo, ka affair imong asawa or bana. intelligence in such conduct. So, because she lost her mental
faculties afterwards, then maybe it was not really voluntary.
4. When a child or descendant by fraud, violence, So the SC here struck down the disinheritance. It was not
intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator considered as valid.
to make a will or to change one already made
The act would have been considered a maltreatment as when
So this is self-explanatory. you slapped your grandfather- but because of the attending
circumstance here, the SC said the act was not voluntary or
5. A refusal without justifiable cause to support the intelligent.
parent or ascendant who disinherits such child or
descendant
OCTOBER 5, 2018
Here, the refusal must be of just cause. How do you know Transcribed by: BORBE
if the refusal is unjustifiable? It would actually depend on
the means of the person obliged to give support and the
necessity of the recipient. So kung halimbawa ang testator Continuation of Article 919:
kay dako kaauo pag kinahanglan. Ang gusto niya ang
support niya kay 2M unya ang iyang anak na gipangayuan (6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by
kay ang sweldo kay P5000 oer month. So kung mu-refuse the child or descendant;
siya, that is not unjustifiable.
So now, we go to the case of:

6. Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the
child or descendant
Seangio vs. Reyes
So we are referring hereto the descendant or child who
maltreats the testator. If you notice, when we go to There are actually several principles also which apply to this
disinheritance of parents or ascendants, walay nakabutang case in relation to Succession. So here, the testator executed
na maltreatment of the parents to the testator. Why? a holographic will and then it was entitled as, “Kasulatan sa
Because okay raman na bunalan imong anak diba? Labaw Pag-aalis ng Mana.”
na tong wala pay Child Abuse. Pero kung bunalan nimo
imong parents, kana dili okay. Alangan idisinherit nimo So, this is the provision of the will:
ang parent kay kadtong 2 years old pa ko, gibunalan ko.
Dili na pwede. “Ako si Segundo Seangio Filipino may asawa naninirahan sa
465-A Flores St., Ermita, Manila at nagtatalay ng maiwanag
na pag-iisip at disposisyon ay tahasan at hayagang inaalisan
What would be an example of maltreatment? Example ko ng lahat at anumang mana ang paganay kong anak na si
would be the case of PECSON vs. MEDIAVILLO Alfredo Seangio dahil siya ay naging lapastangan sa akin at
isan beses siya ng sasalita ng masama harapan ko at mga
kapatid niya na si Virginia Seangio labis kong kinasama ng
PECSON vs. MEDIAVILLO loob ko at sasabe rin ni Alfredo sa akin na ako nasa ibabaw
gayon gunit daratin ang araw na ako nasa ilalim siya at siya
G.R. No. 7890 nasa ibabaw.
September 29, 1914
Labis kong ikinasama ng loob ko ang gamit ni Alfredo ng akin
Here the grandfather disinherited his granddaughter, Rosario. pagalan para makapagutang na kuarta siya at kanya asawa
The will states: na si Merna de los Reyes sa China Bangking Corporation na
millon pesos at hindi ng babayad at hindi ng babayad ito ay
”I declare that one of my daughters named Teresa, now nagdulot sa aking ng malaking kahihiya sa mga may-ari at
deceased left a legitimate daughter named Rosario, I also stockholders ng China Banking.
declare that I disinherit my granddaughter Rosario because
she was disrespectful to me and because in one occasion she At ikinagalit ko pa rin ang pagkuha ni Alfredo at ng kanyang
raised her hand against me therefore it is my will that she asawa na mga custome[r] ng Travel Center of the Philippines
shall have no share in my property.” na pinagasiwaan ko at ng anak ko si Virginia.
So this ground was denied by Rosario during the probate. Dito ako nagalit din kaya gayon ayoko na bilanin si Alfredo ng
Based on records, this happened when Rosario was about 14 anak ko at hayanan kong inaalisan ng lahat at anoman mana
years of age and she had received some attentions from a na si Alfredo at si Alfredo Seangio ay hindi ko siya anak at
young man and received a letter from him. Her grandfather hindi siya makoha mana.”
took steps to sever the relations between her and the young
man. It was on that occasion that the alleged disrespect and The questions here are –

(1) Is this a will? The Supreme Court said that taking into (3) When the parent or ascendant has accused the testator of
account the provisions, it’s actually a will, although it contains a crime for which the law prescribes imprisonment for six
only a provision of disinheritance. As early as in our years or more, if the accusation has been found to be false;
discussions before, in the essential elements of the
characteristics of a will, we already discussed that even if a (4) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of
document contains only a disinheritance, it is considered a adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
will. It is an indirect disposition.
(5) When the parent or ascendant by fraud, violence,
And then, with respect to the interpretation, the Supreme intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to make a
Court said that this is a holographic will because it was will or to change one already made;
entirely written, dated and signed in the hands of the testator.
Holographic wills, therefore, being usually prepared by one (6) The loss of parental authority for causes specified in this
who is not learned in the law, as illustrated in the present Code;
case, should be construed more liberally than the ones drawn
by an expert, taking into account the circumstances (7) The refusal to support the children or descendants without
surrounding the execution of the instrument and the intention justifiable cause;
of the testator.
(8) An attempt by one of the parents against the life of the
So here, the Court is convinced that the document, even if other, unless there has been a reconciliation between them.
captioned as Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, was intended
by Segundo to be his last testamentary act and was executed
by him in accordance with law in the form of a holographic
will. So here, who is disinherited is the parent or ascendant by the
child or descendant.
(2) How about the disinheritance – was it valid? What is the (1) When the parents have abandoned their children or
ground here for the disinheritance? With regard to the reasons induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral
for the disinheritance that were stated by Segundo in his life, or attempted against their virtue;
document, the Court believes that the incidents, taken as a
whole, can be considered a form of maltreatment of Segundo Abandonment: So here, the abandonment does not really
by his son, Alfredo, and that the matter presents a sufficient have to amount to a crime, as long as the parent has
cause for the disinheritance of a child or descendant under abandoned the child - meaning, deprived the child of the basic
Article 919 of the Civil Code. necessities in life. So what are the basic necessities in life? He
does not send the child to school, wala na niya gipapuyo sa
balay, wala na niya gipakaon, walay any emotional support.
(7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or So these could be considered as grounds to disinherit a
disgraceful life; parent.
Induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral

The other ground - when a child or descendant leads a life, or attempted against their virtue: So, imuhang gipa-
dishonorable or disgraceful life. So what do we mean by prostitute imuhang anak, or imuhang gi-attempt ug rape
dishonorable or disgraceful? This is very relative because it imuhang anak or acts of lasciviousness. The law says,
depends. What might be dishonorable in this particular culture “daughters.” But actually, by analogy, this could apply to
is not in another culture. So for example – your child likes sons.
having one night stands. Is that dishonorable or disgraceful?
Well I don’t know. But the law says “life,” so it has to be a (2) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted
way of life. So if it is just an isolated or a single incident, it of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
does not fall under the ground because it is not a way of life. spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
If corrupt siya, it could be considered as dishonorable or
disgraceful.
This ground is also present in case of disinheritance by
(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the parents of children or descendants.
penalty of civil interdiction;
(3) When the parent or ascendant has accused the
Crimes which are punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, testator of a crime for which the law prescribes
reclusion temporal, all carry the penalty of civil interdiction. imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation
So if the descendant or child was convicted by final judgment has been found to be false;
of crimes where there is an accessory penalty of civil
interdiction, that can be a ground to disinherit the child. The imprisonment prescribed for the crime should be 6 years
or more, and the accusation is groundless.
Article 920. The following shall be sufficient causes for the
disinheritance of parents or ascendants, whether legitimate or (4) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted
illegitimate:
of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the
testator;
(1) When the parents have abandoned their children or
induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral life, or (5) When the parent or ascendant by fraud, violence,
attempted against their virtue;
intimidation, or undue influence causes the testator to
make a will or to change one already made;
(2) When the parent or ascendant has been convicted of an
attempt against the life of the testator, his or her spouse,
(6) The loss of parental authority for causes specified in
descendants, or ascendants;
this Code;

When you say loss of parental authority, there are causes Article 921. The following shall be sufficient causes for
provided for under the law. But just remember, these causes disinheriting a spouse:
should be the fault of the parent concerned. Because
emancipation is also a ground for loss of parental authority, (1) When the spouse has been convicted of an attempt
but that is not a ground to disinherit the parent or ascendant. against the life of the testator, his or her descendants, or
So it should be the grounds which are due to the fault of the ascendants;
parent concerned, whatever that ground might be for the loss
of parental authority. (2) When the spouse has accused the testator of a crime for
which the law prescribes imprisonment of six years or more,
and the accusation has been found to be false;
(7) The refusal to support the children or descendants
without justifiable cause;
(3) When the spouse by fraud, violence, intimidation, or
undue influence cause the testator to make a will or to change
Again, it depends upon the means of the person obliged to one already made;
give support, or the parent, and the necessity of the child.
(4) When the spouse has given cause for legal separation;
(8) An attempt by one of the parents against the life of
the other, unless there has been a reconciliation (5) When the spouse has given grounds for the loss of
between them. parental authority;
Take note: the parent attempted against the life of the other (6) Unjustifiable refusal to support the children or the other
spouse. This is a ground to disinherit the parent, unless there spouse.
has been reconciliation between the parents. For example, the
father attempted against the life of the mother. So the child So take note – numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are actually already
can disinherit the father. But if the mother and the father had discussed and they are the same grounds to disinherit a child
already reconciled, then the child can no longer disinherit the or parent.
father based on that ground. Because if the person who was
directed offended – the mother – has found in her heart to So will discuss No. 4: When the spouse has given cause
forgive her spouse, then with more reason that the child for legal separation.
should not hold on to his grudge against the father. So if there
is reconciliation between the two, you cannot disinherit If you remember in Articles 919 and 920, there’s a ground to
anymore on this ground. disinherit a child – if the child is found guilty of adultery or
concubinage with the spouse of the testator, or if it’s a
Let’s go back to No. (2) When the parent or ascendant has parent – when the parent is found guilty of adultery or
been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, concubinage with the spouse of the testator.
his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants.
How about the spouse? Is there a ground here when the
Take note here, the law says, “convicted of an attempt.” This spouse is found guilty of adultery or concubinage with the
could also apply to that situation when the father attempts child or parent of the testator? There is none. But, there is a
against the life of the mother. Because the ascendant of the different one – when the spouse has given cause for legal
testator could be the mother. So this could also cover that separation. So what are the grounds for legal separation?
situation. Because these are also grounds to disinherit a spouse.
But in No. 8, it just says, “an attempt.” So it actually does ARTICLE 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed
not need any conviction by final judgment if the situation is “a on any of the following grounds:
parent attempts against the life of the other.” It could be: (1)
the father attempted against the life of the mother, or (2) the So remember these grounds. They are also grounds to
mother attempted against the life of the father. Okay, so if disinherit a spouse.
that’s the specific situation, we apply number 8, we do not
apply number. 2. (1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive
conduct directed against the petitioner, a common
So for example, somebody will consult, “Attorney, akong papa child, or a child of the petitioner;
kay iyahang gi-attempt akoang mama ug patay, so gusto
nako siya i-disinherit.” Then you tell him, “Dili pwede kay wala So if the spouse commits repeated physical violence or grossly
pa siya na-convict by final judgment. The law says he has to abusive conduct against the other spouse, or a common child
be convicted by final judgment.” That is wrong. Didto lang or the child of the other spouse – so, that’s a ground.
diay ka kutob nagstudy sa number 2, wala ka nakaabot sa
number 8. So, dapat you have to know everything kay luoy
(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the
imuhang client. So an attempt does not mean final conviction
petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;
if we’re referring specifically to ‘parent against another.‘
Reconciliation between them: If they reconciled but you So pwede diay nimo i-disinherit imuhang bana kung
really wanted to disinherit your parent, you can go to number halimbawa pugson ka niya mubalhin ug party. Or if there’s
2, but there has to be conviction. Because in number 2, what physical violence of moral pressure.
we need is conviction and even if there is reconciliation, there
can still be disinheritance. So that’s a different scenario.
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the
petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner,

to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such So, Article 922 speaks of the effect of reconciliation.
corruption or inducement;
(1) If there is yet no disinheritance made, that already
(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to deprives the testator of the right to disinherit;
imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned;
(2) If there is already a disinheritance made, then that erases
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the the disinheritance. It renders ineffectual the disinheritance
respondent; already made.
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
So reconciliation erases the effect of disinheritance. We
discussed before the requisites for a valid disinheritance. If
Can you disinherit a child because he’s a gay, lesbian or
you are the disinherited heir but there was already
homosexual? No. You cannot disinherit. Even your parents,
reconciliation, another defense for you is – assuming all the
you cannot disinherit them if they are homosexual. But your
requisites are present, you can invoke that you should be
SPOUSE, you can. You can disinherit your spouse if he/she is
given your legitime because there was already reconciliation.
a lesbian or a homosexual because siguro, the intention here
So you have to prove the reconciliation.
is, this also goes into the very essence of marriage.
WHAT IS RECONCILIATION?
So kung halimbawa i-allow na ang same-sex marriage,
mawala na ni siya nga ground. It will be affected because
As defined – It is the mutual restoration of feelings to the
homosexual man jud mong duha in the first place.
status quo. Meaning, there’s a mutual resumption of the
relationship between the testator and the disinherited heir. So
(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent
the relationship prior to the cause of the disinheritance is
bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or
already restored.
abroad;
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion; So when you say reconciliation, that is mutual. Meaning,
silang duha, nagkauliay na. If for example, the father forgave
So even if walang similar ground to disinherit the spouse the son but the son, dili gihapon makig-uli sa iyang father, it’s
because the spouse is found guilty of adultery or concubinage not reconciliation. So it’s not restored.
with the parent or child of the testator, under this similar
scenario, the spouse can be disinherited because of sexual ARTICLE 923. The children and descendants of the person
infidelity or perversion. You don’t even have to be convicted disinherited shall take his or her place and shall preserve the
here. It can be proved by mere preponderance of evidence. rights of compulsory heirs with respect to the legitime; but
the disinherited parent shall not have the usufruct or
administration of the property which constitutes the legitime.
(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the
petitioner;
So what is the effect if there is a valid disinheritance? The
disinherited heir is excluded from his legitime, from
So attempt by one spouse against the life of the other. This is
everything actually.
again similar to the ground No. 1 – when the spouse has been
convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator. So the
Let’s say – the testator disinherited his son, A. And it is a valid
testator is the other spouse here. But No. 1 requires
disinheritance. But A has a child, B. In disinheritance, the
conviction by final judgment. But under the ground for legal
disinherited heir can actually be represented. So, in that case,
separation, this does not require conviction by final judgment.
it will be B who shall represent. So the share of A will go to B.
It can be proven by mere preponderance of evidence.
Under the Family Code, the parents, as the natural and legal
If it is specifically an attempt by one spouse against the life of
guardians of their minor children, have the right to administer
the other, you don’t need conviction because No. 9 merely
the properties of their minor children, unless the income
says attempt. But if your spouse attempts against the life of
exceeds P50,000 wherein mag-bond? So what if B is a minor
your child or your parent, then that would need conviction by
and then ang iyahang nadawat by way of inheritance in
final judgment.
representation of his father is a parcel of land. And being a
minor, diba dapat ang parent niya ang mag-administer. The
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without parents will have administration and usufruct over the
justifiable cause for more than one year. properties of their minor children, supposedly. But if the
property was acquired by the child because the parent was
For purposes of this Article, the term "child" shall
disinherited, then the parent cannot have administration or
include a child by nature or by adoption.
usufruct over the said property. So kinsa ang mag-
administer? Kung naa’y other parent, pwede siya. Pero kung
If there is already a decree of legal separation, you no longer
wala, there has to be a guardian appointed over the property
have to disinherit your spouse. Because automatically, by
of the child because the parent cannot have administration
operation of law, he is disqualified to inherit from the innocent
and usufruct.
spouse. The guilty spouse is disqualified to inherit from the
innocent spouse.
ARTICLE 922. A subsequent reconciliation between the OCTOBER 8, 2018

offender and the offended person deprives the latter of the Transcribed by: COQUILLA
right to disinherit, and renders ineffectual any disinheritance
that may have been made.

SECTION 7 If the will be silent, then all shall be liable for the same
Legacies and Devises proportion in which they will inherit.
Example:
ARTICLE 924. All things and rights which are within the “I hereby institute A B C and D as my heirs and I also give a
commerce of man be bequeathed or devised. legacy of 1M to X”
Article 924 talks about what things may be subject of legacies ARTICLE 927. If two or more heirs take possession of the
and devises. estate, they shall be solidarily liable for the loss or destruction
of a thing devised or bequeathed, even though only one of
Review: them should have been negligent. (n)
 Legacy/ devise – specific property
 Heir – universal title, no designation of the specific OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
property given.
GENERAL RULE: if there is concurrence of debtors and
RULES: creditors in one and the same obligation, the obligation is
 Everything can be bequeathed or devised as long merely joint. So meaning, to each his own. If there are five
as within the commerce of man. debtors and the debt is 500,000, each is only liable for
 In inheritance, these are properties, rights and 100,000.
obligations.
 In legacies and devises, there are no obligations EXCEPTION: there is solidarity when the obligation expressly
mentioned. You cannot bequeath an obligation, declares so, or when the nature of the obligation requires
obviously because nobody would accept. solidarity or when the law decrees that there is solidarity.
ARTICLE 925. A testator may charge with legacies and So this is one example under the law where solidarity is
devises not only his compulsory heirs but also the legatees provided for; “if two or more heirs take possession of the
and devisees. estate, and liable dinha is solidary, if the thing possessed by
them is lost or destroyed.
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 Even if only one of them is negligent or is at fault, they are
compulsory heirs shall not be liable for the charge beyond the solidarily liable because the law does not care as long as she
amount of the free portion given them. possess the estate, two or more.
SUB-LEGACY OR SUB-DEVISE However, between them, the one who is not negligent can
recover for reimbursement from the one who is negligent,
 SUB LEGACY - that legacy which you are to deliver, if pursuant to the rule on solidary obligation.
you are a legatee and you have been charged to deliver
a legacy, In solidary obligations, any one of the debtors can be held
 SUB DEVISE - that devise which you are to deliver, if liable for the entire obligation. For example, one of the
you are devisee and you charged with the obligation to solidary liable defaulted, the one who is not at fault can be
deliver a devise held liable for the entire obligation including the penalty or
interest for the default. But when it comes to reimbursement
Example: between and among the debtors, they can collect from the
“I hereby give to B 10Mbut he shall also give to X 5000 one who is really negligent or is at fault.
every month.”
This article presupposes that there was no partition yet
So that’s a legacy charged to a legatee. The testator can because when there is already a partition, each heir is now
charge a voluntary heir with a legacy or devise and also a the exclusive owner of the specific portion. Thus, if there is
compulsory heir for as long as the compulsory heirs’ legitimes partition, this provision will no longer apply.
are not affected.
ARTICLE 928. The heir who is bound to deliver the legacy or
For Compulsory Heirs: the legacy is to be taken from the devise shall be liable in case of eviction, if the thing is
property also given to them as inheritance. It could not indeterminate and is indicated only by its kind.
prejudice their legitimes. It should be taken only from that
free portion over and above the legitime. GENERIC OR INDETERMINATE THING
ARTICLE 926. When the testator charges one of the heirs THE CHOICE IS WITH THE PERSON CHARGED TO
with a legacy or devise, he alone shall be bound. DELIVER THE LEGACY OR DEVISE: generic or
indeterminate
Should he not charge anyone in particular, all shall be liable in
the same proportion in which they may inherit. Example:
X has been charged with an obligation to deliver that legacy of
If only one is charged with the duty of satisfying a legacy or a car BUT that legatee is deprived of that car later on because
devise then, the act shall be his sole responsibility. there is a problem with respect to the car.
Example: Or
“I hereby institute A B C and D as my heirs and then A shall
also have the obligation to comply with the giving of the Even if it is a parcel of land, I hereby give to “A” one hectare,
legacy to X so it’s A alone who is charged.” where A is the devisee. There are several lands in the estate,
so it is the person charged to deliver the legacy or devise who
will choose which land or which car to deliver.

Here, the choice is with the person charged to deliver the ARTICLE 930. The legacy or devise of a thing belonging to
legacy or devise, so when the legacy or devisee is evicted or another person is void, if the testator erroneously believed
deprived of that thing, which is the legacy or devise, there is that the thing pertained to him. But if the thing bequeathed,
now a LIABILITY FOR EVICTION. There is a warranty in a though not belonging to the testator when he made the will,
sense. Meaning, dapat iya tong pulihan because he was the afterwards becomes his, by whatever title, the disposition
one who chose that land or who chose that car. So there is a shall take effect.
warranty for eviction.
SITUATION: the testator erroneously believed that the thing
THE CHOICE IS WITH THE TESTATOR: specific or
pertained to him and made a will giving the thing to the
determinate
legatee or devisee BUT the legacy or devise of a thing
belonged to another
This will not apply if the legacy or devise is specific, like it is
the testator himself who said, I hereby give this car with a
EFFECT: void
specific engine number, date number, etc. or this land in
Calinan, Davao City covered by TCT No. etc. etc.,
SITUATION: the thing bequeathed, though not belonging to
So it is the testator who made a choice. The person charged is
the testator when he made the will, afterwards becomes his,
needed to deliver the legacy or devise. If in case the legatee
by whatever title
or devisee is evicted from the land or deprived of the use of
the car, he will not be liable because it is the testator who
EFFECT: Valid. Disposition shall take effect.
made the choice, he merely delivered it pursuant to the
instruction of the testator.
Cross-reference: Article 793
ARTICLE 793. Property acquired after the making of a
That’s the difference if the legacy or devise is generic or
will shall only pass thereby, as if the testator had
indeterminate or it is specific or determinate.
possessed it at the time of making the will, should it
expressly appear by the will that such was his
ARTICLE 929. If the testator, heir, or legatee owns only a
part of, or an interest in the thing bequeathed, the legacy or intention. (n)
devise shall be understood limited to such part or interest,
unless the testator expressly declares that he gives the thing General Rule: After acquired properties the legacy or devise
in its entirety. includes only that thing which exists at the time of the
execution of the will. Those which are acquired or added to
such property after the execution of the will and before the
EFFECT OF OWNERSHIP OR THE LACK OF OWNERSHIP
OVER THE PROPERTY DEVISED OR BEQUEATHED death of the testator shall not be included to the legacy or
devise.
SITUATIONS:
1. The testator only owns a portion or a part of a thing, or Exception:
2. The testator did not own the thing at all, or
3. The property devised or bequeathed at the time of the 1. When the testator expressly provides that even after
execution of the will is already owned by the legatee or acquired properties shall be included.
devisee.
Example: 2. The execution of a codicil republishing the will has the

The testator owns ¼ of the land in Calinan, Davao City and he effect of reviving all the provisions in the old will.
said, if you buy, devise the land in Calinan, Davao City to B.
Upon the death of the testator, how much can B get? Can he
As we discussed, the testator made a will in year 2000
demand for the entire land?
and in that will he devised to X a parcel of land in
GENERAL RULE: It shall only be limited to the share of Calinan, Davao City, which at the time had 5 hectares.
the testator in that property. He cannot give what does By the action of the river overtime because the land
not own. adjoins a river, there was a question, so the 5 hectares
became 6 hectares. Ordinarily, the 1 hectare is not
So if your ownership is only limited to ¼ then that is included in the devise. What if in year 2005, the testator
understood to be the extent of the legacy or devise, UNLESS republished his will? He made a codicil for example. In
the testator expressly declares that he gives the thing in its the codicil he made some provisions but stated that on
entirety. other provisions or dispositions made in my year 2000
will, I will reproduce and shall continue to have full force
EXCEPTION: if the testator knows that he is not he
and effect. That execution of the codicil has the effect of
owner in full of the land but in his will, he stated that
republishing the will as modified by the codicil. Meaning,
he is giving the land in its entirety. (Article 931)
it is a safe the testator made the devise on the year
CONSEQUENCE: There is now an implied instruction to the 2005 because it was republished. Now, in 2005 the land
estate or to the administrator that, for example ¼ lang ang already had 6 hectares. Upon the death of the testator,
ownership ni testator, so the rest, the 3/4, the administrator the devisee can claim the 6 hectares.
shall acquire from the owners of the said portion.
3. Article 793.
What if the owners of the said portion refuse to part with their
share? Or they demand an excessive price for their share?
Technically, at the time of the execution of the will, the
In that case, the obligation of the estate is only give to the testator was not the owner of the property. He had no
devisee or to the legatee that just value of the remaining ¾. property to speak of. However, afterwards, the property

becomes his by whatever title. “I hereby give to A the land in Calinan, Davao City which
adjacent to my land, and because the land is mortgaged, I
Example: also order that the land be free from the mortgage.”
 In 2000, the testator made a will giving the land to EFFECT: The legacy or devise shall be valid to such extent of
A. At that time, the testator was not the owner of the order. Meaning, at the time of the testator’s death, the
the land, but erroneously believed he was the owner estate would pay the debt covering the land so that it can be
of the land. free from the mortgage.
 In 2003, the testator became the owner of the land
by donation. Example:
 In 2010, the testator died.  D owns a parcel of land
 D borrowed money from X, P1,000,000.
 To secure the loan, D mortgaged his land to X.
Can the devisee claim the land?  The testator, in his will, devised the same land to D and
ordered that the land be freed from the mortgage.
Yes. Even if technically it is after acquired property or
acquired after the execution of the will, but before the What is the effect of that devise of the land to D?
death of the testator.
D owns the land, so he cannot be the devisee of the land
which he already owns in the first place. Pursuant to the first
paragraph of Article 932, that devise if ineffective.
ARTICLE 931. If the testator orders that a thing belonging to
another be acquired in order that it be given to a legatee or However, because the testator ordered that the land be freed
devisee, the heir upon whom the obligation is imposed or the from the mortgage, although the devise of the land is not
estate must acquire it and give the same to the legatee or valid but still the estate has the obligation to free the land
devisee; but if the owner of the thing refuses to alienate the from the mortgage. So the devise is valid up to that extent.
same, or demands an excessive price therefor, the heir or the
estate shall only be obliged to give the just value of the thing. MEANING: Upon the death of the testator, the estate will pay
(861a) X P1,000,000 so that the land is now free from the mortgage.
So it’s valid up to that extent. As to the devise of the land, it
is not valid because you cannot give to D what D already
SITUATION: The testator did not own the thing at the time of
owns.
the execution of the will. But he knew he was not the owner.
Despite that he gave the thing to the legatee or the devisee.
ARTICLE 933. If the thing bequeathed belonged to the
EFFECT: There shall be an implied instruction to the estate to legatee or devisee at the time of the execution of the will, the
acquire the property so that it can be given to the legatee or legacy or devise shall be without effect, even though it may
devisee. Again, if the owner refuses to part with the thing or have subsequently alienated by him.
demands an excessive price, the estate would just have to
give to the legatee or devisee the just value of the thing. If the legatee or devisee acquires it gratuitously after such
time, he can claim nothing by virtue of the legacy or devise;
ARTICLE 932. The legacy or devise of a thing which at the but if it has been acquired by onerous title he can demand
time of the execution of the will already belonged to the reimbursement from the heir or the estate.
legatee or devisee shall be ineffective, even though another
person may have some interest therein. 1ST PARAGRAPH: THE LEGATEE OR DEVISEE WAS THE
OWNER AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE WILL
If the testator expressly orders that the thing be freed from
such interest or encumbrance, the legacy or devise shall be SITUATION:
valid to that extent. (866a)  The testator devised to A a parcel of land which at the
time of the execution of the will, was already owned by A.
(So, it is not valid)
SITUATION: At the time of the execution of the will, the
 Two years after the execution of the will, A, sold the land
testator was not the owner of the thing. In fact, it was the
and later on the land was acquired by the testator.
legatee or the devisee who was the owner of the thing.
 At the time of the testator’s death, the land already is in
his estate.
“I hereby give to A the 10 hectare land in Calinan, Davao
City which is adjacent to my 7 hectare land.” And then si
EFFECT:
devisee diay ang tag-iya sa land.
The legacy or devise is NOT VALID.
 Even though it may be subsequently alienated by him,
EFFECT: INEFFECTIVE. VOID. You cannot give someone
 If at the time of the execution of the will, the legatee or
something which he owns already.
devisee owned the thing,
 bisag unsa pa mahitabo in the future, dili valid ang legacy
Even if another person may have some interest there. Like si
or devise
devisee ang tag-iya sa land but he mortgaged the land. So
 UNLESS there is re-execution (e.g. the testator gave to A
still, he was already the owner of the land so the devise of the
a parcel of land which at the time of the execution of the
land to him would not be valid.
will, in year 2000 was owned by the devisee.)
SITUATION: If the testator expressly orders that the thing
SITUATION:
be freed from such interest or encumbrance or another person
 The devisee in year 2002 sold the land
has an interest
 eventually the land became the property of the testator.
 Then, the testator made a new will.
 He republished it or made a new one expressly saying that
he is giving the land to the devisee.

The same rule applies when the thing is pledged or mortgaged

EFFECT: after the execution of the will.
The legacy or devise is VALID.
 Reason: because of the execution of a new will or the Any other charge, perpetual or temporary, with which the
republication of the old will. If not, the devisee cannot thing bequeathed is burdened, passes with it to the legatee or
claim that. devisee.
 As long as the property was owned by the legatee or the SITUATION: the property is owned by the testator but the
devisee, at the time of the execution of the will, the legacy property has been pledged or mortgaged.
or devise shall have no effect, even though it may have
been subsequently alienated by him. Example:
 The testator devised to D a parcel of land.
2ND PARAGRAPH: THE LEGATEE OR THE DEVISEE WAS  The land is mortgaged by the testator to secure a debt.
NOT THE OWNER AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF Nag loan si testator ug 1 million and by way of collateral,
THE WILL he mortgaged the land.
 In his will, he gave the land to D.
SITUATION: What is the effect upon the death of the testator?

 Testator made a will in year 2000. D gets the land.
 He gave the land in Calinan, Davao City to D as a devise.
 2 years after the execution of the will, D acquired the How about the mortgage?
land. The estate should pay the loan to free the land from the
 Up to the time of death of the testator, D is still the owner mortgage.
of the land.
“Any other charge, perpetual or temporary, with which
EFFECT: the thing bequeathed is burdened, passes with it to the
legatee or devisee.”
*If he acquired it by onerous title (he gave up something in
exchange for that property) he can demand reimbursement So the obligation of the estate to free the thing from the
from the heirs or the estate. burden is only limited to a pledge or a mortgage. Kung naa pa
syay lain charge, whether temporary or perpetual, walay
How much? Kung pila ang price ang iyang gibayad for the obligation na si estate to free the property from that burden.
acquisition of the property. Mao to ang dapat ireimburse sa
iyaha sa estate. For example, land ni testator, and then naka bail bond,
property bond, halimbawa na preso tas gusto mugawas,
Why? Because the purpose of the legacy or devise is for the pwede ka mag property bond. And then that same land was
legatee or devisee to receive the property freely and without devised to D. Then the testator died.
consideration. So let’s restore that to the legatee or devisee.
If he paid something, he should be reimbursed to give effect So what is the obligation of the estate?
to the intention of the testator for the devisee or legatee to To deliver the land to D.
acquire the property gratuitously which is the very essence of
the devise or legacy. How about the bond?
REMEMBER: the legatee or devisee should not be the owner Halimbawa, mu-escape tung preso, ma forfeit ang bond in
of the thing devised at the time of the execution of the will, favour of the State. Kung na inherit na to ni D, mawala pud to
even though he acquires it subsequently. kay D. Here, the estate has no obligation to free the property
from the burden of the bond because the bond is not a pledge
*If he acquired the property through gratuitous title, like it or a mortgage.
was donated to him, he did not pay anything for that, he
cannot demand anything more from the estate. The law only guarantees na i.free ni testator from the
encumbrance ang property ni devisee if it is to secure a
Why? Because he did not give up or pay anything for that. recoverable debt by way of pledge or mortgage. Any other
The intent of the testator is for the devisee or legatee to charge like naka usufruct siya or naka lease, that will be
acquire that property freely by reason of the devise or legacy. shouldered by the legatee or devisee.
If it was already acquired gratuitously by the devisee or
legatee, the purpose was actually achieved already. So the The law says, any other charge, perpetual or temporary, with
devisee or legatee can no longer claim anything by virtue of which the thing bequeathed is burdened passes to the legatee
the legacy or devise. or devisee. Kato lang pledge to secure the recoverable debt,
kato lang sila ang i clear sa estate so that property shall go to
ADEMPTION the legatee or devisee of the mortgage or pledge. Others
It is the process of giving effect inter vivos to a disposition wala. They shall be assumed by the legatee or devisee.
mortis causa. Like naa kay will, so you gave this land to the
devisee for example, so that is supposed to be mortis causa. What if more burdensome siya?
But later on, you want to give effect to that disposition even if
you are still alive, so you already gave to him the property. May option ang legatee or devisee not to accept the legacy or
devise. Kung na mortgage siya tapos di siya ganahan, dili
ARTICLE 934. If the testator should bequeath or devise dawata.
something pledged or mortgaged to secure a recoverable debt
before the execution of the will, the estate is obliged to pay ARTICLE 935. The legacy of a credit against a third person or
the debt, unless the contrary intention appears. 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 if such payment should not have been effected at the time of
assigning to the legatee all rights of action it may have his death.
against the debtor. In the second case, by giving the legatee
an acquittance, should he request one. The legacy to the debtor of the thing pledged by him is
understood to discharge only the right of pledge.
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 1ST PARAGRAPH: LEGACY OF REMISSION OR A LEGACY
death. OF CREDIT
LEGACY OF CREDIT The testator made a will saying that whatever amount he
owes from me at the time of my death, that shall be
Example 1: considered remitted or condoned. One year after the
A owes the testator 1 million. And then the testator made a execution of the will, the testator filed a case for collection
will which provides that if upon my death, A’s obligation is not against A.
yet paid or a portion of it, then that obligation shall be
considered as remitted or condoned. Mao na to ang legacy, So what is the effect of that filing?
dili na singlon sa estate si A, iyaha na to.
The law says it shall lapse. Meaning the legacy is revoked. So
Example 2: that is an example of revocation by operation of law.
A owes 1 million to the testator. The testator said, if at the
time of my death, A still owes me an amount, whatever that Now take note the law says “should bring an action against
amount might be, I will give that to B. Si B na ang may right the debtor for the payment of his debt”, it contemplates a
to collect kay A upon the death of the testator, it shall be case filed against the debtor. So if it’s just a demand letter,
effective only as regards to that part of the credit or debt that will not have the effect of revocation.
existing at the time of death of the testator.
2ND PARAGRAPH. LEGACY TO THE DEBTOR OF THE
LEGACY OF REMISSION THING PLEDGED BY HIM IS UNDERSTOOD TO
DISCHARGE ONLY THE RIGHT OF PLEDGE.
A paid his death worth 200,000. At the time of death, 800,000
na lang ang iyang balance. That is the value of the legacy, The testator is not the owner of the thing. It could be the
800,000. Same if it is a legacy of credit like is said to be legatee or another person. In pledge, it is required that the
whatever that is receivable at the time of my death, I will give pledge itself must be consented to by the owner.
it to B. So kung nagbayad si A ug 200,000, ang ma collect na
lang ni B from A would be 800,000. Even if at the time of the For example, si A borrowed 1 million from the testator. And to
execution of the will, 1 million ang value sa debt. secure that loan, A pledged his jewelry. Diba it is a
requirement in pledge that the thing pledged must be
What if instead ug nagbayad, nagdugang pa ug utang? delivered to the pledgee. Pledge is a real contract. It requires
delivery of perfection. So si testator karon kay siya man ang
So 1 million ang debt ni A at the time of the execution of the pledgee, Nakita niya na naa siyay jewelry, for example,
will. And then he borrowed 200,000 more. So at the time of diamond ring. He thought na it was owned by him. So he gave
the testator’s death, ang utang ni A is 1.2 million. it to the legatee who is also the pledgor.
So, how much is the value of the legacy of remission if What is the effect of that legacy?
the legacy of credit, how much can be collected from A?
It is void. It is a legacy of a thing which belongs to the
Here, it would only be 1 million. That is under the rule on after legatee.
acquired properties. Limited only to the thing at the time of
the execution of the will. What if the diamond ring was owned by the mother of
the legatee?
If it is a receivable, how much is the receivable at the
time of the execution of the will? Mao ra gihapon, dili si testator ang tag-iya sa ring. So dili
valid ang legacy. However, that has a certain legal
1 million. Anything ma acquire after added after that, shall not consequence. Even if the legacy itself of the diamond ring is
be included pursuant to Article 793. Anything deducted from not valid because the legatee owned the property at the time
that shall be credited pursuant to Article 935 saying that it of the execution of the will, that has the effect of
shall be effective only as regards to that part of the credit or extinguishing the pledge. Meaning, upon the death of the
debt existing at the time of the death of the testator. testator, naay duha ka contract, contract of loan and contract
of pledge. The law says the pledge is extinguished but the
Kung deduction, kung unsa tong value of the time of death, loan still subsists. So naa gihapoy utang si legatee-pledgor
mao to siya. Pero kung addition, walay labot. Pursuant to kay testator-pledgee. So the testator can still collect from the
Article 793 on after acquired properties. But of course, in the legatee pledgor.
last paragraph, the law says, the legacy shall comprise all
interest on the credit or debt which may be due the testator What if the legatee-pledgor will not pay?
at the time of his death. So katung interest gikan gihapon sa
amount nga original, dili nga additional utang. Interest on the The estate cannot enforce the pledge anymore kay
credit or debt. Apil siya sa legacy of remission or legacy of extinguished na siya kay that is the effect of bequeathing to
credit. the legatee the thing pledged by him. It has the effect to
discharge the right of pledge. Dili lang niya ma dispose
through public auction ang diamond ring. It now becomes an
ARTICLE 936. The legacy referred to in the preceding article
unsecured debt. Kung mubayad, maayo, kung dili, mu file
shall lapse if the testator, after having made it, should bring siyag action for collection.
an action against the debtor for the payment of his debt, even

ARTICLE 937. A generic legacy of release or remission of Art. 939. If the testator orders the payment of what he
debts comprises those existing at the time of the execution of believes he owes but does not in fact owe, the disposition
the will, but not subsequent ones. shall be considered as not written. If as regards a specified
debt more than the amount thereof is ordered paid, the
Kung halimbawa, nagdugang ug utang, will that be excess is not due, unless a contrary intention appears.
included in the legacy of credit or legacy of remission?
The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the
No. Only those existing at the time of the execution of the fulfillment of natural obligations.
will, but not subsequent ones. Pero kung nabawasan, again
katung deduction will be considered, and ang net value will be
at the time of death. Kung nadungagan, katung value at the There is a provision for the PAYMENT OF DEBTS.
execution of the will.
The testator allocated 1M to A for the payment of his debt to
ARTICLE 938. A legacy or devise made to a creditor shall not A. but in fact, wala syay utang kay A; or it was already paid
be applied to his credit, unless the testator so expressly before. So, the law says that the disposition shall be
declares. considered as not written. Meaning, it should not be given to
A because in reality, there was no debt in the first place, or it
In the latter case, the creditor shall have the right to collect was already paid. Or maybe it has already prescribe pero wala
the excess, if any, of the credit or of the legacy or devise. kabalo si testator.
(837a)
If the debt, if regards the debt, for example, 5M ang debt, and
Would a legacy or devise to a creditor be valid? then he ordered in the will that, this 8M shall be paid to A in
payment of my debt to him; but, not knowing na ang iyahang
Yes. There is no prohibition. So when you say a legacy or utang is 5M. The law says, the excess, it shall not be given
devise to a creditor, that shall be over and above his because it is not due, the excess is not due. And this is
collectible. So bayaran ang utang, and then kung naa pa siyay without prejudice of the fulfilment of natural obligations.
legacy or devise, tagaan siya sa distribution of the estate.
Unless the testator so expressly declares. Under the law on natural obligations, for example, if the
debtor voluntarily pays a debt which has already prescribed,
In fact, when we discussed witnesses to wills, we mentioned
he cannot later on recover what he has paid. Again, it shall be
that a creditor can be a witness to a will. Even if naay
allocation in the will for the payment of debt, that still knowingly, he knew that the debt has already prescribed and
remains. still, he voluntarily paid. So in that case, if it is the testator in
his will and he ordered the payment of his debt to A, knowing
Kung ang witness is a legatee or devisee, what is the that it had already prescribed, then he cannot recover also.
effect? That is the application of the law on natural obligations.
The legatee or devisee forfeits the legacy or devise. Pero Art. 940. In alternative legacies or devises, the choice is
witness gihapon siya. Pero kung creditor siya and gitagaan presumed to be left to the heir upon whom the obligation to
siyag allocation for the payment of his credit, he is not
give the legacy or devise may be imposed, or the executor or
disqualified to become a witness and he would still get that
administrator of the estate if no particular heir is so obliged.
allocation because even if wala siya na mention sa will,
obligado man gihapon ang estate to pay the debt.
If the heir, legatee or devisee, who may have been given the
So here this is different because aside from his credit, he’s choice, dies before making it, this right shall pass to the
given a legacy or devise. respective heirs.
The creditor shall have the right to collect the excess if any, of Once made, the choice is irrevocable.
the credit or of the legacy of the devise. This is in case the
testator says na the legacy or devise should be applied to the In the alternative legacies or devises, except as herein
credit of the creditor. Naa siya utang kay X na 10 million, in provided, the provisions of this Code regulating obligations of
his will he gave X a parcel of land which shall be applied in the same kind shall be observed, save such modifications as
payment of the debt. may appear from the intention expressed by the testator.
Take note if that is the case before we can apply the 2nd
paragraph. Meaning gi credit nimo ang land in payment of the The law speaks of an ALTERNATIVE LEGACY OR DEVICE.
debt, remember in oblicon you will not force a creditor to
accept a thing which is different from that which is due. “I hereby give to A either a necklace or a ring.” There is a
choice. The same concept with alternative obligations. You
So kung ang estate or si testator may utang na 10 million don’t have to give everything. It’s either the necklace or the
cash, the testator cannot force the creditor to accept the land ring. Now, who shall make the choice? Patay na man si
in payment of the debt. Pero kung nag sugot si creditor, then testator ana so obviously, dili sya ang mu-choose.
we apply the 2nd paragraph. Kung halimbawa the land is only 1. The heir who is charged with the obligation to deliver
worth 9 million, so the creditor can still collect the excess of the legacy or device; or
the credit or the legacy or devise. 2. To the executor or administrator of the estate, if no
one is charge in the particular.
OCTOBER 12, 2018
Transcribed by: ESCRITOR It is not the heir to whom the ring or the necklace is given but
the heir who has been given the obligation to give the legacy

or device. Or it could be a legatee or devisee, depende kung asa didto ang ihatag? Or daghan syag lands na atubang sa
kinsa ang gi-charge. Tagum, sa Digos, sa Davao, so who has the right of choice?
The law says it shall belong to the executor or administrator.
The law says, if the heir, legatee or devisee who may have Sya ang magchoose kung asa didto ang iyahang i-deliver in
been given the choice, dies before making it, his right shall order to comply with the legacy or devise. And it should not
pass to the heirs. We’re talking here of the choice. If the heir be of inferior quality. So, makareklamo si devisee or legatee if
has been given the right to choose whether it is a ring or a it is inferior quality. But he cannot demand that it should be of
necklace, he died, then his heirs shall exercise the right. And superior quality. So it is medium. Pag generic gani, the SOP
once the choice has been made, it is already irrevocable. here is medium quality.
Art. 941. A legacy of generic personal property shall be valid Art. 942. Whenever the testator expressly leaves the right of
even if there be no things of the same kind in the estate. choice to the heir, or to the legatee or devisee, the former
may give or the latter may choose whichever he may prefer.
A devise of indeterminate real property shall be valid only if
there be immovable property of its kind in the estate. It can also be given to the heir or to the legatee or devisee. It
is not only limited to the executor or administrator of the
The right of choice shall belong to the executor or estate. That’s the rule in article 942.
administrator who shall comply with the legacy by the delivery
of a thing which is neither of inferior nor of superior quality. And the former may give or the latter may choose, whichever
he may prefer. So what if he chooses superior quality? In that
Generic. Just like in Obligations and Contracts, there is a case, he can because he has the right of choice. Ang sa
generic thing, a specific thing. katong previous is when the right of choice is given or walay
gihatagan in particular and the choice is exercised by the
When you say generic or indeterminate, like a car, parcel of executor or administrator. Here, he only has the obligation to
land, jewelry, that is generic. Specific or determinate, this deliver a medium quality.
ring, my wedding ring, or my car with the plate number
12344, my cellphone, this cellphone, so specific. Art. 943. If the heir, legatee or devisee cannot make the
choice, in case it has been granted him, his right shall pass to
Here, the law says, if it is generic personal property: I hereby his heirs; but a choice once made shall be irrevocable.
give to A a red Honda City. What if there is no red Honda City
in the estate? The law says, it shall be valued even if there be Kung wala pa sya nakachoose and then he dies, then his right
no things of the same kind in the estate. So, what shall the to make a choice shall *inaudible* to his own heirs and once
estate do? It shall acquire a red Honda City to be given to the made, the choice is irrevocable.
legatee.
Art. 944. A legacy for education lasts until the legatee is of
But if it is indeterminate real property, a parcel of land. I
age, or beyond the age of majority in order that the legatee
hereby give to A a one-hectare parcel of land; so, it is generic
may finish some professional, vocational or general course,
or indeterminate. But the estate has no land, or naa syay land
provided he pursues his course diligently.
pero 1,000 square meters lang. There is no such thing of the
same kind in the estate. The law says, it is not valid. It shall
A legacy for support lasts during the lifetime of the legatee, if
be valid only if there is such kind of property in the estate.
the testator has not otherwise provided.
So it matters noh if it is movable or immovable basta generic.

If the testator has not fixed the amount of such legacies, it
What if specific? I hereby give to A the parcel of land which is
shall be fixed in accordance with the social standing and the
adjacent to my lot in Calinan, Davao City. So katong adjoining
circumstances of the legatee and the value of the estate.
din sa left side sa iyahang land sa Calinan, Davao City,
phasing north or south. Basta kato iyahang ihatag, specific.
If the testator or during his lifetime used to give the legatee a
Pero, that land does not belong to the estate. So what is the
certain sum of money or other things by way of support, the
consequence of that?
same amount shall be deemed bequeathed, unless it be
markedly disproportionate to the value of the estate.
You remember our discussion before? If the testator
erroneously believed that he owned the land but in fact, he
It could be a legacy of education, legacy of support.
does not own the land, that is not valid. Pero if he knew that
he did not own the land, but still he expressly gave that to the
Let’s go first to the legacy of education. The law says, the
devisee, the devise would be valid. How can it be given?
general rule here is, until the legatee is of age. So when you
There shall be an implied instruction to the estate to acquire
say he is of age, that would be 18. Legacy for education. What
the land so that it can be given to the devisee. If the owner of
if gusto sya mag-law school? Or, 18 di pa baya na mahuman
the land refuses to part with the land, or he demands an
kay naa pa kay senior high karon, diba? So di gyud na sya
excessive price, then the obligation of the estate is to give to
mahuman by 18. So it says, or beyond the age of majority in
the devisee or legatee, the just value of the thing. We are
order for the legatee to finish some professional, vocational,
talking here of specific. But if it is generic and there is no such
or general course.
real property in the estate, even if kabalo si testator na wala
syay real property in his estate, it is not valid.
What if ten years na? Or sa law school. Di baya sya usual na
mahuman ka in four years. Here, as long as he pursues his
Who has the right of choice? Because it is generic man, diba?
course diligently. So mao pud na ang magic word – diligently.
So, if it is a car, if it is a parcel of land, kinsa ang magbuot
So depende. How would we know kung nagwaldas-waldas
kung among the several cars in the estate which are all red,

lang to sya or nagstudy gyud syag tarong. Gimalas lang gyud can be given free of the encumbrance to the devisee. So in
sya. So, mademand gihapon niya iyahang legacy for that case, bayaran ni testator ang utang para mawala na ang
education. mortgage or pledge. But any other charge with which the
thing is burdened, whether perpetual or temporary, shall pass
GR: Support during the lifetime of the legatee. Mao ni sya ang through the heir. So, any other charge like a usufruct. The
duration. Unless the testator has provided otherwise. So mafix obligation, the testator’s estate has no obligation to free the
niya ang duration pero kung wala, lifetime. thing from the usufruct or, again, katong example nako na
nakabail bond sya. Dili obligation ni estate to free the thing
Now, kung walay good faith, how much is the value of the from the charge. It will pass on to the heir or legatee or
legacy? devisee. So, kung nakabail bond sya, although sa devisee na
ang property or land, subject gihapon sya sa bail bond. Kung
If the testator has not fixed. So kung gi-fix niya, then mao to musibat si accused, then maforfeit and bail bond, macancel
sya ang amount. But if he does not fix the amount, then it ang property, mawala sa heir. That’s the consequence.
shall be fixed in accordance with the social standing and
circumstances of the legatees and the value of the estate. Like WHAT IS THE GENERAL RULE IN USUFRUCT?
legacy for education, wala sya nakafix sa iyahang will pero sa
Ateneo man naglaw school ang legatee. So, mao pud to sya Death of either party extinguishes the usufruct. So kung
dapat ang value sa legacy. Enough for the legatee to finish his general rule lang pud, maadto lang gihapon ang property sa
education in the school kung asa sya nagaskwela. heir, free of the usufruct kay the death extinguishes the
usufruct. But a contrary stipulation can be made. So kung
Now, if the testator during his lifetime used to give the nag-agree si testator that this usufruct is for ten years and it
legatee a certain sum of money or other things, general rule, will continue despite the death of either party, and then
ipadayon lang to sya kung pila to na amount. Unless it is namatay si testator, let’s say the property subject of the
hardly proportionate to the estate. Kay malay mo, gamay ang usufruct is given to A, A has to respect the usufruct.
diay nabilin sa estate at the time of death, di na diay ma-
afford ang the same amount which the testator used to give Art. 947. The legatee or devisee acquires a right to the pure
during his lifetime so, it would be adjusted. and simple legacies or devises from the death of the testator,
and transmits it to his heirs.
Art. 945. If a periodical pension, or a certain annual,
monthly, or weekly amount is bequeathed, the legatee may A pure and simple legacy or devise. Meaning, there is no
petition the court for the first installment upon the death of condition, there is no period, there is no burden, or charge, or
the testator, and for the following ones which shall be due at mode attached to the legacy or devise. So, wala. Hatagan
the beginning of each period; such payment shall not be lang gyud sya anang property. The law says, the legatee or
returned, even though the legatee should die before the devisee acquires the right to such kind of legacy from the
expiration of the period which has commenced. moment of his death and transmits it to his heirs.
When can you demand? Of course you have to make sure also Upon the death of the testator, I hereby give to A my land in
that the will is already probated. If you are a legatee and Calinan, Davao City, consisting of 10 hectares. The testator
there is a pension or a monthly allowance given to you in the died in year 2000. So what happens now? Well, legally, upon
will pero wala pa man na-probate ang will, you cannot the death of the testator in the year 2000, the legatee or
demand that because an unprobated will cannot be used as a devisee already acquires rights over the land. However, as I
source of any right or obligation. It cannot be the foundation said, because this is a legacy or devise, the will where the
of any right or obligation. But once that is already probated, legacy or devise is embodied, must be probated. So, kung
you can petition the court for the first instalment upon the wala pa naprobate, dili pa makaclaim si legatee or devisee.
death of the testator. Again, this presupposes that the will is Halimbawa dugay ang probate noh? So namatay si testator in
already probated. And for the following ones which should be the year 2000. A petition for probate of his will was filed.
due at the beginning of each period. So, first day of the Eventually, it was finished in 2005. So the will was allowed. In
month. that case, pwede na mahatag ang mga legacies or devises
mentioned in the will. The same thing with that devise to A.
What if namatay sya? The law says, even though the legatee the will was probated in the year 2005 but the concept here is
should die before the expiration of the period which just since when did A acquire ownership over the land? It
commenced. Ang imohang allowance kay due na sya noh should be in year 2000 because transmission happens from
every first day of the month and this is supposed to be for the the moment of death. Although in the meantime dili sa nato
rest of the month. January 1, February 1. Gikuha niya, mahatag kay naa may will, we have to make sure that the will
January 1 and then he died January 15. Di na niya i-uli tong is genuine. And if it is proved to be genuine, then all
balance or sa iyang estate. provisions in that will can be given effect. But the
transmission happens at the time of death.
Art. 946. If the thing bequeathed should be subject to a
usufruct, the legatee or devisee shall respect such right until it The law says, transmits to his heirs. So we’re talking here of
is legally extinguished. the heirs, legatees or devisees. From the moment of death,
like katong akong example, they already acquired the rights
I already explained a similar provision before. I explained in of the property but gi-probate pa man, wala pa nahuman ang
Article 934 that if the property given as a devise, for example, probate. Nahuman ang probate year 2005. But the legatee or
is subject to a mortgage or pledge to secure a recoverable the devisee died in the year 2003. Well, his rights he passed
debt, upon the death of the testator, it is the obligation of the on to his heirs. Upon probate, ang makaclaim, iyahang heirs
estate to free the thing from the mortgage or pledge. So it na. As long as he does not die ahead of the testator.

Art. 948. If the legacy or device is of a specific and So the owner bears the risk of loss. Res perit domino. Also as
determinate thing pertaining to the testator, the legatee or to the improvements, he shall also get the improvements.
devisee acquires the ownership thereof upon the death of the
testator, as well as any growing fruits, or unborn offspring of Art. 949. If the bequest should not be of a specific and
animals, or uncollected income; but not the income which was determinate thing, but is generic or of quantity, its fruits and
due and unpaid before the latter's death. interests from the time of the death of the testator shall
pertain to the legatee or devisee if the testator has expressly
From the moment of the testator's death, the thing so ordered.
bequeathed shall be at the risk of the legatee or devisee, who
shall, therefore, bear its loss or deterioration, and shall be Here the legacy or devise is generic or indeterminate. I
benefited by its increase or improvement, without prejudice to hereby give to A a building. I hereby give to A a parcel of
the responsibility of the executor or administrator. land. So the estate of course has several buildings or several
parcels of land. Now, there are 5 buildings in the estate. The
THIS REFERS TO LEGACY OR DEVISE OF SPECIFIC AND executor or administrator delivered building number 1 to the
DETERMINATE THING. Again as we said, when will the devisee. This building number 1 has rentals. For example,
legatee or devisee acquire the rights over the property? from the moment of death of the testator until delivery, naa
Technically, upon the moment of death. Although again, as we pay uncollected income diri. Would the devisee be entitled to
said, there has to be probate. But it should be from the the uncollected income, prior to the delivery?
moment of death.
General Rule: NO. Why? Because prior to delivery, inasmuch
Now under this law or this provision, not only the thing itself. as the thing is generic or indeterminate, the devisee would
Any growing fruits. So kung land na sya, an orchard, and then not yet know what building in particular will be delivered to
at the time of death of the testator, daghan na mga mangga him. So he cannot claim na kani na building. Kay wala man
na pwede na i-harvest, nag-ingon sya magharvest ko ugma sya kabalo. Makabalo lang sya by the time when the building
nya namatay na sya pagkagabii, wala na niya naharvest. is given to him. That is the time when his right to the income,
Kinsa man karon ang naay right over those fruits? The law starts. The same with the fruits. So, here, that’s the reason.
says, the legatee or devisee of the land. Meaning ha, growing Because it is generic or indeterminate.
fruits. Kanang wala pa naharvest. Kung naharvest na sya
unya gi-stock lang didto sa bodega, dili na na sya iyaha. Kay Unlike when it is specific, katong gistoryahan nato before.
testator or sa iyahang estate. Kabalo na ta na mao ni na building ang ihatag kay A and this
building earns income. But here, daghan building. Naay one
Or unborn offspring of animals. So, baka for example na building na walay income, naay uban na naa. Nagkataon lang
nagbuntis. Wala pa nanganak, namatay na si testator. Apil to na ang gideliver kay devisee is the building which earns
sya sa legacy. Or uncollected income. Building which is leased income. Unless the testator provides otherwise.
by the testator. In his will, the testator devised the building to
A. Every month, naay collectible na 100,000 as rentals gikan Ang general rule, not entitled if it is generic or indeterminate
sa mga lessees. We have to make a distinction here. I think thing.
naay koy gi-explain under 934. The testator died in 2005. So,
naay mga uncollected income before the moment of death Art. 950. If the estate should not be sufficient to cover all the
and after the death but before delivery to the devisee of the legacies or devises, their payment shall be made in the
building. Who is entitled to the income from the building? following order:
2005, namatay si testator. So for one year prior to his death, (1) Remuneratory legacies or devises;
naay uncollected income. One year after his death, naa pud (2) Legacies or devises declared by the testator to be
uncollected income. 100,000 per month. Who’s entitle to the preferential;
uncollected income? The law says, “or uncollected income but (3) Legacies for support;
not the income that was due and unpaid before the latter’s (4) Legacies for education;
death.” The income which accrued, meaning the income which (5) Legacies or devises of a specific, determinate thing which
was earned but not yet collected, prior to the death of the forms a part of the estate;
testator, this should pertain to the estate. Why? Actually this (6) All others pro rata.
is governed by article 793 on after-acquired properties. The
devise or legacy is only limited to the property existing at the If you remember, there is a more or less similar provision in
time of the execution of the will, but before death. article 911. Here, the estate is not sufficient to cover all the
legacies and devises provided in the will by the testator
How about those rentals which accrued after the death because of course, if the estate is efficient, there’s no need to
of the testator, but not yet collected? So, pagedeliver sa make prioritizations. You just give all of these legacies and
property kay legatee or devisee, mao ni sya ang uncollected devises. But, not sufficient. So asa atong unahon pagsatisfy?
income: one year prior to death and one year after death.
Mao ni sila ang mga collectibles. Now, as to the income which
Here, the order is:
was not yet collected but accrued after death of the testator,
that would now go to the devisee pursuant to article 781,
1. Remuneratory legacies or devises
same law on after-acquired properties.
These are the ones which are given in remuneration of the
past services made by the legatee or devisee to the testator
And from the moment of death, of course, the thing
which is not necessarily a recoverable debt.
bequeathed shall be at the risk of the legatee or devisee
because there’s already transmission at the moment of death.

2. Legacies or devises declared by the testator to  Remuneratory legacy – 200,000

be preferential  One which is declared to be preferred – 50, 000
Meaning, preferred. Dapat, he has to state na these legacies  Support – 180, 000
or devises are preferred.  Education – 40, 000
 The land in Calinan devised to another person – 300,
3. Support 000
 Jewelry bequeathed to another person – 80, 000
No what do you mean by support? There is a definition under  Cell phone bequeathed to another person – 60, 000
the Family Code what comprises support, diba? Anything
indispensable for the sustenance, food, shelter, clothing, So how do we distribute? First, we give the legitimes. Free
education is even mentioned. But for the purpose of article portion is 500K. Legitime is also 500K. Hatag nato sa
950, we separate support and education. Why? Because compulsory heirs and legitime. So, 250K each. Now we go to
education is discussed in the next priority – legacy for the free portion. Gisunod naman nako na sya. So, you know
education. what to satisfy first:
1. Remuneratory legacy – 200K
4. Legacy for education 2. Preferred legacy – 50K
3. Support – 180K
5. Legacies or devises of a specific determinate 4. Education – 40K
thing which forms a part of the estate 5. Legacy of a specific thing assuming that it forms part
of the estate – 300K (excessive)
Specific sya and part of the estate. So, wala na. ang mahatag na lang nimo sa iyaha is worth
30K. So, diri lang ta kutob.
All others, pro-rata. So if you talk of generic legacies but
forming part of the estate, mahulog na sya sa all others pro- LEGITIME FREE PORTION
rata. Or, specific legacies pero dili part sa estate but expressly
stated to be given, still, it falls under the last category. REMUNERATORY
200K
LEGACY
As I mentioned in ARTICLE 911, there’s also a similar
provision because under that article, if the free portion is not PREFERRED
50K
sufficient to cover all donations, legacies and devises, the LEGACY
order of priority is:
SUPPORT 180K
1. Donations 500K EDUCATION 40K

If there are two or more donations, unahon nato pagsatisfy sa
older ones. So first in time, priority in right. LAND IN
CALINAN
2. Preferred legacies or devises declared by the (Legacy of a
testator to be preferred specific thing 30K
3. All others pro-rata assuming that it
forms part of
When do we know which article to be applied? When to apply the estate)
article 950 and when to apply article 911? Just remember,
these two requisites must concur for article 911 to apply: 500K 500K
1. There must be compulsory heirs
2. There should be donations inter vivos
Kay kung naa nay compulsory heirs, walay donations inter Now, let’s say this does not form part of the estate. Land in
vivos, so mga legacies and devises lang, we apply article 950. Calinan expressly mentioned by the testator to be given to the
Or, for example there are donations inter vivos pero walay devisee. Diba pwede man na sya because specific. Ang dili
compulsory heirs, still we apply article 950. pwede generic property, immovable, which does not form part
of the estate. That cannot be valid. But if it is specific, even if
Article 950, it could be na tanan voluntary heirs or naa pud it does not form part of the estate or expressly mentioned by
compulsory heirs but naay free portion where legacies and the testator na I want to give this to the devisee, so bahala na
devises should have to be satisfied. So, order of priority, sya.
RPSESA.
So here, balik ta diri. After education, you only have 30,000.
R – Remuneratory Legacy This would be all others, pro-rata. How do we satisfy?
P – Preferred legacy
S – Support 300K + 80K + 60K = 440K
E – Education
S – Legacy of specific thing assuming it forms part of the So we apportion.
estate
A – All others pro-rata Land in Calinan: (300K/440K) x 30K = 20, 454.55
Jewelry: (80K/440K) x 30K = 5, 454.55
Let’s say for example, testator left an estate valued at 1M. He Cell Phone: (60K/440K) x 30K = 4, 090.91
died with 2 legitimate children but no donations inter vivos.
So, these are the provisions in his will: This is how we distribute following article 950.

others may repudiate the share respectively belonging to

Art. 951. The thing bequeathed shall be delivered with all its them in the legacy or devise.
accessories and accessories and in the condition in which it
may be upon the death of the testator. Here, there is only one legacy or devise; but partly gratuitous,
partly onerous. Like a parcel of land consisting of 5 hectares.
If you recall, naa pud ni sya sa Obligations and Contracts. And The land is devised to A. now, the testator said, half of the
we are talking here of specific things, noh? So, all its land he shall deliver a portion of it to X. Ang sa pikas, no
accessions and accessories in the condition in which may be obligation at all. Here, there’s still a single legacy or devise
upon the death of the testator. kay wala man gispecify kung kani nga half, kani nga specific
half. Basta kay half ihatag kay X ang part sa proceeds. Let’s
Art. 952. The heir, charged with a legacy or devise, or the say half sa proceeds sa half, ihatag niya kay X. The other half,
executor or administrator of the estate, must deliver the very no obligation at all. So it is partly onerous, partly gratuitous.
thing bequeathed if he is able to do so and cannot discharge
this obligation by paying its value. The law says, he cannot accept a part and repudiate the latter
if the latter be onerous. Meaning, he cannot just accept the
Legacies of money must be paid in cash, even though the heir gratuitous and repudiate the onerous. Kay swerte ka, diba?
or the estate may not have any. Imong dawaton tanan kay gihatag gud na sa imo sa testator.
Gusto nimo walay sabit? So, apil tanan.
The expenses necessary for the delivery of the thing
bequeathed shall be for the account of the heir or the estate, But the law does not prohibit na you can accept the onerous
but without prejudice to the legitime. but repudiate the gratuitous. Wala. The law says, you cannot
accept the gratuitous and repudiate the onerous. You cannot
do that.
The law says, as much as possible, you have to deliver to
heir, legatee or devisee the particular thing which is
So, the heir, if he dies before having accepted, then his right
bequeathed or devised. If it is a legacy of a thing, that thing
to accept or repudiate would pass on to his heirs. But the
itself. Kung halimbawa kwarta. Legacies of money, it should
same limitation. They cannot accept the gratuitous and
be cash even if the estate did not have any cash. So what will
repudiate the onerous. They have to accept both; or they can
happen? The estate must sell some properties so that the
repudiate the gratuitous and accept the onerous because it is
estate may be given to the legatee.
not prohibited.
The expenses necessary for the delivery of the thing. If the
obligation to deliver is given to a particular heir, then that heir Art. 955. The legatee or devisee of two legacies or devises,
has to shoulder the expenses, without prejudice to his one of which is onerous, cannot renounce the onerous one
legitime. Dapat, dili pud maapektuhan iyahang legitime. If it is and accept the other. If both are onerous or gratuitous, he
the estate, in general, charge to the estate. shall be free to accept or renounce both, or to renounce
either. But if the testator intended that the two legacies or
devises should be inseparable from each other, the legatee or
Art. 953. The legatee or devisee cannot take possession of
devisee must either accept or renounce both.
the thing bequeathed upon his own authority, but shall
request its delivery and possession of the heir charged with
Any compulsory heir who is at the same time a legatee or
the legacy or devise, or of the executor or administrator of the
devisee may waive the inheritance and accept the legacy or
estate should he be authorized by the court to deliver it.
devise, or renounce the latter and accept the former, or waive
or accept both.
Here, the legatee or the devisee cannot just go to the estate
and then manguha sya didto. There has to be court authority
Two legacies or devises. Katong sa 954, isa lang but partly
and it should be for example, if it is a legatee, a devisee, or
onerous, partly gratuitous. Here, one is onerous, one is
an heir, katong gitagaan ug obligation to deliver the legacy or
gratuitous. Actually, the same rule. He cannot renounce the
devise or the inheritance, sila ang magdeliver. So, he shall
onerous and accept the gratuitout. But again, the law does
request the delivery and possession of the heir in charge with
not prohibit and there’s nothing here which says that you
the legacy or devise, or kung wala in particular, the executor
cannot accept the onerous and repudiate the gratuitous. You
or administrator of the estate. Mananghid sya didto na kwaon
can. If both are onerous, you can accept both or reject both.
na nako and with court authority. Why? Nga gihatag man
If both are gratuitous, you can all accept both or reject both.
kaha na sa iyaha sa will?
But if the testator intended that the two legacies should be
inseparable, you have to accept both or reject both. Kay dili
Remember, before the delivery of any asset from the estate,
sila pwede i-separate from each other. If there is an express
all obligations must be paid first, including the estate taxes.
intention, it can be gathered from the will na he has to accept
So before that, you cannot decide on your own na kuhaon na
both or reject both. Or it can be deduced from the terms or
nimo. We have to be sure na all of these obligations are
tenor of the will.
already paid.
The second paragraph says na the compulsory heir, at the

Art. 954. The legatee or devisee cannot accept a part of the
same time legatee or devisee sya. Pwede man na sya. You
legacy or devise and repudiate the other, if the latter be
can be given over and above your legitime. So the law says
onerous.
you can waive your inheritance and accept the legacy or
devise; or you can accept the inheritance and waive the
Should he die before having accepted the legacy or devise,
legacy or devise; or you can accept both or you can waive
leaving several heirs, some of the latter may accept and the
both.

Art. 956. If the legatee or devisee cannot or is unwilling to will execute a new will and then he will reiterate na, I hereby
accept the legacy or devise, or if the legacy or devise for any give to A the parcel of land in Calinan, Davao City which is
reason should become ineffective, it shall be merged into the now in the hands of X. Which is still valid because you can
mass of the estate, except in cases of substitution and of the actually devise a property which is not owned by the estate
right of accretion. but expressly declared by the testator na ihatag, knowing that
he does not own the thing, gihatag gihapon niya. So the rule
I explained this already. ISRAI – Institution, Substitution, that I discussed before that the estate will be obliged to buy
Representation, Accretion, Intestacy the property from this person, etc. So, he should make
manifest his intention by an overt act. He could execute a new
So, if the testator has instituted an heir or there is a legatee will.
or devisee designated, so as much as possible, the property
should be given to the heir, legatee or devisee. If for any Let’s go to the provisions of article 957.
reason, that heir, legatee or devisee cannot succeed to the
inheritance, legacy or devise, then what will happen? There is 1. Transformation
a vacant portion. To whom shall we give the vacant portion? If
there is a substitute, then give to the substitute. If there is no Take note ha, article 957 should only refer to specific or
substitute, and representation is possible, give to the determinate things. We cannot apply this if the legacy or
representative. If representation is not possible, and the devise is generic.
requisites of accretion are present, then we follow accretion.
We give to the co-heir. If not, then the last resort is intestacy The testator in his will provides, I hereby bequeath this ring to
– legal succession. my best friend, A. So, a specific ring described and mentioned
in the will. Later, the same ring, the testator had it converted
into a bracelet. The same gold, the same diamonds na naa sa
Art. 957. The legacy or devise shall be without effect:
ring, pero karon, gipabuhat niya ug bracelet. Now what
happens to the legacy of the ring? Can you argue na akoa
(1) If the testator transforms the thing bequeathed in such a
lang gihapon kay pareho lang man na sya? No. There is
manner that it does not retain either the form or the
transformation.
denomination it had;
When you say trasnsformation, the law says, it could be a

(2) If the testator by any title or for any cause alienates the
change in the form or the denomination. Let’s go first to the
thing bequeathed or any part thereof, it being understood that
form. Is there a change in the form? Yes. Lahi ra daw kayo
in the latter case the legacy or devise shall be without effect
nag nawong ang ring sa bracelet. Di man na maigo sa
only with respect to the part thus alienated. If after the
imohang wrist ang ring, dako ra pud kaayo ang bracelet for
alienation the thing should again belong to the testator, even
your finger. Or denomination, meaning the name has ascribed
if it be by reason of nullity of the contract, the legacy or
to it. The name ring, karon bracelet. So obviously, there’s a
devise shall not thereafter be valid, unless the reacquisition
change in denomination. Just like swimming pool, imohang
shall have been effected by virtue of the exercise of the right
gibuhat na fish pond.
of repurchase;
2. Alienation
(3) If the thing bequeathed is totally lost during the lifetime of
the testator, or after his death without the heir's fault.
If the testator, by any title, or for any cause, alienates the
Nevertheless, the person obliged to pay the legacy or devise
thing. So it could be sale, barter, donation, any title.
shall be liable for eviction if the thing bequeathed should not
have been determinate as to its kind, in accordance with the
So, in his will, he devised his land consisting of 2 hectares in
provisions of Article 928.
Jacinto St., Davao City to A, covered by this particular title.
So, specific. And then two years after he made the will, he
We discussed before the three kinds of revocation:
sold the very same land to X. And then, later on, the sale to X
1. Revocation by operation of law
was declared null and void, maybe because it was a prohibited
2. Revocation by subsequent document
transaction like under the homestead law, you cannot sell the
3. Revocation by means of overt acts
land within five years, you are under the DAR for ten years.
So, prohibitory period. So imong gibaligya, null and void.
Now, revocation by operation of law, article 957 is an
Maybe because it was absolutely simulated, so null and void.
example. Here, the testator in doing these acts, may not even
The land was returned to the testator. And when he died, the
have the intention to revoke the legacy or devise but the law
land is still there in his estate. Now here’s the will giving to A
presumes that in such an act, there is revocation. Even if in
that particular land. And the land is there in the estate. Can A
reality, the testator really has no intention to revoke, the law
claim the land? No. Because it was already revoked. The
will be followed. So here, the presumption of law prevails over
devise of the land was already revoked when the testator sold
the intention of the testator.
the land.
What if alienation, gibaligya ni testator ang property. But wala

And the law says, if after the alienation the thing shall belong
gyud syay intention na i-revoke. Gipit lang yud si testator
to the testator even if it did by reason of the nullity of the
that’s why he was constrained to sell his property. But he has
contract, still here the legacy or devise shall be without any
every intention to honor the devise. Still, the presumption of
effect. So the whole or part kung asa man didto iyahang gi-
law shall prevail. Unless the testator should make manifest his
alienate.
intention by means of an overt act. If he really does not
intend to revoke, and he sold the property, he could make in
So, after he made the will, the testator mortgaged the land.
in a sale with a right to repurchase. Or maybe after that, he
And because the testator was not able to pay the debt, it was

foreclosed. It was sold at public auction. But the testator was nawad-an ug 1M si testator, or nawad-an ug cash ang estate.
able to redeem the land. So again, when he died, the land still Still, wala na-extinguish ang obligation. If the legacy was in
forms part of the estate. Can A, the devisee of that land, cash, it shall be given even if the estate has no cash. The
claim the land? Here, yes. Because the alienation estate will have to sell properties. So, it should be specific.
contemplated should be voluntary transactions. Foreclosure is
an involuntary transaction. Art. 958. A mistake as to the name of the thing bequeathed
or devised, is of no consequence, if it is possible to identify
The same thing noh kung halimbawa, the sale made by the the thing which the testator intended to bequeath or devise.
testator was annulled by reason of vitiated consent. If the
land was returned to the estate because the sale to X was I think we already discussed before the rules in interpretation
declared voidable, then here, the devisee can claim the land or construction. What happens if there is a mistake as to the
because the sale was in the first place, not voluntary. It was name of the thing bequeathed or devised? The law says, it is
annulled by reason of vitiated consent. Or, even if the sale of no consequence as long as you can identify the thing which
was really voluntary, but the thing was returned because of the testator intended to bequeath or devise.
the exercise of the testator of his right to repurchase.
I think I gave an example. A table which is used by the
So, kung wala diay kay intention to revoke the legacy or testator as his bed. For him, it is a bed. So in this will, I
devise, but in the meantime you have to sell the property, but hereby give to A my favourite bed. And then pagkapatay niya,
you really intent to honor the devise or legacy, what you can wala man syay bed pero naay table. Actually, that is the one
do is you caption it as Sale with Right to Repurchase or Pacto given. There is evidence presented na this is really used as a
de Retro Sale. Here, the law will not presume revocation. So bed and this is his favourite bed and this is the one
that if you are able as the testator, to exercise your right to bequeathed. So, as long as you can identify.
repurchase and at the time of your death the land is still in
your estate, then the legatee or devisee can still take the
Art. 959. A disposition made in general terms in favor of the
property. Pag naay right to repurchase.
testator's relatives shall be understood to be in favor of those
nearest in degree.
Halimbawa, Deed of Absolute Sale. So again, testator devised
the land to A. After 2 years, he sold the very same land to X.
Here, who has been instituted? The law says, the disposition
Absolute Sale, no right to repurchase. Let’s say for 2M. And
is made in general terms. I hereby give one half of my estate
then the testator won the lotto. And because of that, he
to my relatives. I’m sure daghan gyud kaayo ning relatives na
offered to X, naa man gud sentimental value nang land sa
mutungha. Who are the relatives mentioned here? Of course,
akoa. I will buy that name your price. So nisugot si X. Now
when it comes to the relatives who are heirs of the testator, in
the land is in the estate of the testator. And then he died. Can
legal succession, when it comes to the direct line, ascending
A take the land? No, because there was no right to repurchase
or descending, wala na syay limitation. Maskin pila pa na sya
included in the sale. Didto ta magtan-aw sa sale itself. If it is
ka degrees.
voluntary, the alienation revokes the legacy or devise. But if it
is an involuntary sale, it would not revoke. If it is absolute
When it comes to the collateral line, daghan na man gyud
sale, voluntary with a right to repurchase, also it will not
kaayo na sya, so there is a limitation. Only up to the 5th
amount to revocation. But if it is voluntary absolute sale,
degree of consanguinity. So meaning, walay labot ang by
walay right to repurchase, it will revoke. Notwithstanding that
marriage na relationship but by consanguinity.
later on, the testator will be able to repurchase the lot.
Because his repurchase is not by virtue of the right to
Now, the law says, to my relatives. First, my relatives here
repurchase. It was another agreement. Nagkataon lang na
should refer to legal heirs. Meaning, by consanguinity. When it
nagsugot si X na iuli ang lot.
comes to the direct line, walay limit. When it comes to the
collateral line, up to the 5th degree of consanguinity. What if
Of course kung after the sale, wala nibalik sa estate ang land,
daghan kaayo? So all of them shall divide the property among
wala tay problema. The devisee or legatee really cannot claim
themselves? Just remember 959. There’s only one rule that
the land.
applies. The Rule on Proximity. Dapat, legal heirs sya as
contemplated under the rules on succession. But who among
3. Loss of the thing
them? Only the rule on proximity. So what do you mean by
only the rule on proximity?
Kanus-a man sya nawala? The law says, before the death or
even after death, basta kay nawala sya. Without the fault of
Diba we discussed before on reserve troncal. Katong rules in
the heir charged with the obligation to deliver the thing. Kay
legal succession. The first one, Rule on Proximity. The
kung nawala sya through the fault of the heir charged with
nearer relatives exclude those who are far. If they are of the
the obligation to deliver, then the heir, he should substitute,
same degree, those who are in the direct line are favoured
he shall indemnify the legatee or devisee for the loss of the
over those in the collateral line. For example, if they are of
thing. The same concept of loss noh in Obligations and
the same degree and they are both in the direct line, then the
Contracts.
third rule, those who are in the descending line are favoured
over those in the ascending line.
Loss is when a thing perishes, goes out of commerce, or
disappears in such a way that its existence can no longer be
But, under article 959, proximity lang gyud. Those who are
recovered.
near exclude those who are far. Even without the right of
representation. Dili na mag-apply diri. Dili pud na mag-apply
Again, just remember, it has to be a specific or determinate
ang direct line favoured over the collateral line. Di pud na
thing. Because if it is generic, generic things do not perish. I
mag-apply ang those in the descending line are favoured over
hereby give to A, cash. And then ang cash kay 1M. Unya kay

those in the ascending line. Proximity lang. Kung daghan mo - The will does not dispose of all the property. There
in the same degree, then all of you will share in the will be mix succession - partly by will and partly (for
inheritance. That is the meaning of article 959. that portion not disposed of in the will) shall be
distributed by legal succession.
The testator said, I hereby give this property to the relatives #3 and #4
of my wife. So, will article 959 apply? This would not apply
because article 959 refers to the testator’s relatives. The - If the suspensive condition attached to the
relatives of the wife are not the relatives of the testator. institution does not happen or is not fulfilled or
- There is predeceased, incapacity or repudiation.
These relatives must be living or at least conceived at the
time of death of the testator. Those conceived yet, at the time
of death of the testator, they should comply also with the We also have to take into account the ORDER OF PRIORITY:
provisions of article 40 and 41 of the NCC.
- If there is an INSTITUTED HEIR, the portion
thereof instituted shall be given to the heir
OCTOBER 13, 2018 instituted.
Transcribed by: GIDO - If he does not accept or he predeceases or he
becomes disqualified or again the condition for the
CHAPTER 3 institution is not fulfilled consider the an heir that is
Legal or Intestate Succession a SUBSTITUTE.
- If there is no substitute then see if there is a
SECTION 1 REPRESENTATIVE.
General Provisions - If there is no representative or the representation is
not proper then would ACCRETION be proper.
- And lastly, INTESTACY.
Article 960. Legal or intestate succession takes place:
(1) If a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one Article 961. In default of testamentary heirs, the law vests
which has subsequently lost its validity; the inheritance, in accordance with the rules hereinafter set
forth, in the legitimate and illegitimate relatives of the
(2) When the will does not institute an heir to, or dispose of deceased, in the surviving spouse, and in the State.
all the property belonging to the testator. In such case, legal
succession shall take place only with respect to the property Remember that ALL COMPULSORY HEIRS ARE LEGAL
of which the testator has not disposed; HEIRS. All these are compulsory heirs:
(3) If the suspensive condition attached to the institution of - legitimate children and descendants,
heir does not happen or is not fulfilled, or if the heir dies in the absence legitimate parents and descendants
before the testator, or repudiates the inheritance, there being and
no substitution, and no right of accretion takes place;
- Surviving spouse
(4) When the heir instituted is incapable of succeeding, except - illegitimate children.
in cases provided in this Code.
So all of these persons are also LEGAL HEIRS of the
decedent.
There is no actual definition of what is legal succession under
the new civil code. But there is an enumeration of what are It doesn't follow however that all legal heirs are compulsory
those instances when legal or intestate succession may take heir because aside from the persons we mentioned, there are
place: other legal heirs. We have the brothers and sisters, nephews
and nieces, uncles and aunts, the state is even a legal heir.
#1
Remember in legal succession when it comes to the direct line
- A person dies without a will (intestacy) or, - whether ascending or descending line - there is no
- The will is not valid, hence it is not allowed probate delineation **Walay to the nth degree, walay limitation.**
because it failed to comply with all the formalities when it comes to the collateral line, up to the 5th degree of
prescribed by law, or consanguinity - when there are no more relatives up to the
- one which has been revoked 5th degree of consanguinity then the estate of a person shall
In these cases the estate shall be distributed by way of be succeeded to by the state.
succession.
#2
Also we follow specific rules in succession. If you remember
- When a will does not constitute an heir. Like when our discussion in reserva troncal - we said that inreservice
the will constitute only a disinheritance. The lima ka relatives within the 3rd degree coming from the line of
disinheritance is valid - the heir disinherited is origin. What id there are alot of reservice - We follow the rule
excluded, but because there is no other provision in in legal succession - the rule is #1 Proximity, those who are
the will - the estate shall be distributed by legal near excludes those who are far subject to the right of
succession, or representation. Second, if of the same degree, those in the
direct line are favored compared to those in the collateral line.

If all of the same degree and of the same line (ex. All in
C (father)
collateral line) then the 3rd rule - those in the descending line
are favored than those in the ascending line. These are the
rules we follow in legal succession, These are also the order of
succession. A (Child 1 of ‘C’) B (child 2 of ‘C)
Article 962. In every inheritance, the relative nearest in X (child of A) Z (child of B)

degree excludes the more distant ones, saving the right of
representation when it properly takes place. Y (child of A)
Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares,

subject to the provisions of article 1006 with respect to
relatives of the full and half blood, and of article 987,
paragraph 2, concerning division between the paternal and
maternal lines. Example:
The first paragraph of 962 gives us the first order of Estate of C: 100k, hence
succession, the rule of proximity - those who are near
excludes those who are far. when you say those who are near Share of A: 50K
excludes those who are far they belong to different degrees -
the exception to the general rule, when the right of Share of B: 50K
representation applies, because if the right of representation
applies - those who are far becomes just as near.
Situation #1:
If both A and B predeceased C:

Second paragraph says if you belong to the same degree then
you inherit in equal shares (example: if you are all legitimate - There respective children will represent their
children then you will have the same shares) - that is the
individual shares in the estate of C, hence:
general rule. There are FOUR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS
GENERAL RULE.
Representative of A
X - 25K
1. FULL BLOOD AND HALF BLOOD RELATIVES.
Y - 25K
Under 1006 in legal succession (example: decedent is
survived by brothers and sisters, some of the full blood and Representative of B
some of the half blood (legitimate) if illegitimate, remember
that they cannot inherit under article 982. Those of the full Z - 50K
blood inherit twice as much as those of the half blood, here
even if they belong to the same degree, they do not inherit in
equal shares. If this situation is in a TESTAMENTARY
succession it shall be divided in EQUAL share because in Even if they (grandchildren) are of the same degree because
testamentary succession there is an opportunity for the they inherit by right of representation their shares are not the
testator to divide in different shares if he wanted to but since same this is called right of principle of PER STIRPES share.
he did not we cannot presume that his love for the full blood
is more than that for the half blood. In legal succession it is
the law that presumes *na mas close and full blood sa half 3. LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN.
blood*
Although they are both one degree away from the decedent
but legitimate children inherit twice as much as illegitimate
children.
2. RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION.
These are the exceptions to the rule that heirs of the same
Technically even if those far becomes just as near and they
degree inherit in equal shares.
are elevated to the status of the person represented, they
cannot have equal share at all times with the other heirs who
theoretically already belong to the same degree as they are.
Illustration A: (also used as reference in subsequent

discussions)

SUBSECTION 1. Relationship If A predeceases C or was disinherited or incapacitated, A’s

share will go to B. When it comes to incapacity predecease or
disinheritance, we don’t call that accretion - the share goes to
Just Read . . . B in his own right - although the effect is the same but
technically, the share of A goes to B in his own right.
Article 963. Proximity of relationship is determined by the

number of generations. Each generation forms a degree. If A repudiates, his share will go to B by ACCRETION even if
(915) ‘A’ has representatives. An heir who repudiates cannot be
represented. There can’t be any representation if their is
Article 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be repudiation.
either direct or collateral.
A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees

among ascendants and descendants. Article 969. If the inheritance should be repudiated by the
nearest relative, should there be one only, or by all the
A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees nearest relatives called by law to succeed, should there be
among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but several, those of the following degree shall inherit in their own
who come from a common ancestor. (916a) right and cannot represent the person or persons repudiating
the inheritance.
Article 965. The direct line is either descending or ascending.
The former unites the head of the family with those who
descend from him. (PLEASE REFER TO “ILLUSTRATION A”)
Situation:
The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends.
(917)
If both A and B repudiated their shares, they cannot be
represented by X,Y and Z respectively - because again, an
Article 966. In the line, as many degrees are counted as
heir who repudiates cannot be represented, but still under the
there are generations or persons, excluding the progenitor.
order of succession they (XY and Z) are the next in line - the
In the direct line, ascent is made to the common ancestor. nearest, in that case all 3 of them will inherit in equal shares
Thus, the child is one degree removed from the parent, two (PER CAPITA) in their own right *dili na sya per stirpes kay
from the grandfather, and three from the great-grandparent. kung representation (per stirpes) Z gets more than X and Y
but kung per capita equal ang division.
In the collateral line, ascent is made to the common ancestor
and then descent is made to the person with whom the
computation is to be made. Thus, a person is two degrees SUBSECTION 2. Right of Representation
removed from his brother, three from his uncle, who is the
brother of his father, four from his first cousin, and so forth.
(918a) Article 970. Representation is a right created by fiction of
law, by virtue of which the representative is raised to the
Article 967. Full blood relationship is that existing between place and the degree of the person represented, and acquires
persons who have the same father and the same mother. the rights which the latter would have if he were living or if he
could have inherited.
Half blood relationship is that existing between persons who
have the same father, but not the same mother, or the same This is the legal definition of representation.
mother, but not the same father
THERE WILL BE REPRESENTATION IN THE FOLLOWING
INSTANCES:
Article 968. If there are several relatives of the same - IN TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION, the
degree, and one or some of them are unwilling or representation refers only to the legitime.
incapacitated to succeed, his portion shall accrue to the others - When it comes to LEGAL SUCCESSION, it can
of the same degree, save the right of representation when it apply to the entire estate.
should take place.
In case of PREDECEASED, INCAPACITY, ONLY 3 KINDS OF VACANCY CAN GIVE RISE TO

DISINHERITANCE, there is right of representation. REPRESENTATION:
(PLEASE REFER TO “ILLUSTRATION A”) 1. Disinheritance

2. Predecease
SITUATION: 3. Incapacity
4.
If C’s only heirs are A and B, A and B don’t have any
representatives. If repudiation - again there can’t be representation.

The right of representation applies only to the descending line, The right of representation both in the direct and collateral
not to the ascending line. line applies only in the descending and not in the ascending
line. However, the law clarifies that when it comes to the
collateral line, the right of representation applies only to the
CHILDREN OF THE DECEDENT'S BROTHERS AND
Article 971. The representative is called to the succession by SISTERS whether of full or legitimate half blood (nephews
the law and not by the person represented. The and nieces).
representative does not succeed the person represented but
the one whom the person represented would have succeeded.
Article 973. In order that representation may take place, it is
necessary that the representative himself be capable of
The representative inherit from the decedent, not from the succeeding the decedent
person represented. In order to determine if the
“representative” himself is qualified to represent we measure In relation to article 971. The representative inherits from the
his qualification based on his relationship with the decedent decedent, not from the person represented. The
not with the person represented. He is called by succession by representative himself must be capable of succeeding the
the law and not by the person represented. decedent.
ROSALES VS ROSALES Article 974. Whenever there is succession by representation,

the division of the estate shall be made per stirpes, in such
Atty. Yang yang: As we have discussed in article 970 - the
manner that the representative or representatives shall not
representative inherits from the descendant not from the
inherit more than what the person they represent would
person represented. The representative in this case, the wife,
inherit, if he were living or could inherit.
should be qualified to inherit by blood. There should be a
relationship between her and the decedent, which is not
If you are a representative - inheriting by right of
present in this case - they (wife “representative” and
representation, your share is per stirpes.
decedent) are not related by consanguinity only by affinity.
The spouse cannot represent the husband in the estate of the Article 975. When children of one or more brothers or sisters
in-laws. of the deceased survive, they shall inherit from the latter by
representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts. But
if they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal portions.
RULE AS TO ADOPTED CHILDREN
Illustration B
SISON VS CA (GR. 89224-25)
Issue:
A ------------ C ------------- B (All Brothers)
Whether an adopted child can represent an adopted.
X Z (child of B)
Contention:
Y
Under the Family Code (Law in effect during this case) and the
(Both children of A)
Domestic Adoption Act - there is a provision that an adopted
child has the same right as a legitimate child. So if a Hence:
legitimate child has the right of representation then an
adopted child also has the right of representation. XYZ are nephers/nieces of C (decedent)
Ruling: > The presence of the brothers (or sisters) will exclude the ne
nephews and nieces.
The Supreme Court said NO. In the right of representation -
the relationship created by adoption is only between the > If one of the brother/sister predeceased the decedent
adopted and adopter, it does not include the relatives of the brother/sister - the nephew and nieces can now represent. If
adopter - his parents and other relatives. Citing article 970 100k and estate 50K kay B Z will get 50 K
and 971, it is required that the representative is qualified to
inherit from the decedent, if there is no relationship at all >If Both A and B predeceased all the nephew and nieces will
between the representative and the decedent, like in this case share equally.
then the representative cannot inherit. Of course the adopted
can inherit from the adopter. Transcriber’s Note:
Note that nephews and nieces here share equally even if the
reason for the representation is predeceased/ incapacity or
disinheritance. As compared to the previous discussion
Article 972. The right of representation takes place in the
direct descending line, but never in the ascending. (“illustration A” which refers to grandchildren of decedent -
Grandchildren always inherit by representation of their
In the collateral line, it takes place only in favor of the parents. If the parent predeceased, is incapacitated or
children of brothers or sisters, whether they be of the full or disinherited - maka inherit lang sila per Stirpes. The only
half blood. instance grandchildren can inherit per capita [meaning in
equal shares sila, in their own right to inherit by rule of
proximity] if there is repudiation on the part of the parent. .)

Let's have it in digits: C can represent B in the latter’s inheritance from A - Under
article 976 and 977 a person may represent him whos
(let us know kung naay mali.) inheritance he has renounced.
Estate of decedent: 100K A person who repudiated cannot be represented BUT he

can represent the person whose estate he has
SITUATION1: If the decedent is a grandparent and the all repudiated. C can represent B but C cannot be represented
the children of the grandparent either predeceased, was by D
disinherited or is incapacitated then the grandchildren
represent their own parents. If parent A have 2 children A1 OCTOBER 15, 2018
and A2 then they will have 25K each (they divide the 50k
share of their parent which is A). If parent B only have one Transcribed by: LAGAT
child say B1 then B1 will represent his parent to the latters
50K share.
Last time we discussed Article 990.
SITUATION2: If the decedent is an uncle or aunt and all
the other siblings of the decedent either predeceased, was Just remember, we don’t need to discuss one-by-one on the
disinherited or is incapacitated then the nephew and nieces legal shares.
share equally the estate itself and not only the share of their
When it comes to legal succession, when only one heir
respective parents. In the same example if A the first brother
survives, they are entitled to the entire estate. If it is the
has 2 children A1 and A2 and B only have 1 child, B1 - A1, A2
spouse alone, she will get the entire estate. If it is the child
and B1 is entitled to 33.33K each. They share the 100K estate alone, the parents alone, the brothers and sisters alone…
equally (this rule is again applicable only to grandparent- because there is no free portion in legal succession.
grandchild relationships if all the parents repudiates the
inheritance - they share not as a representative in that case Again, what we have illustrated before, as long as the
but in their personal capacity.) legitimes of the legitimate children and the spouse are not
prejudiced…like when legitimate children concur with several
Article 975 makes no qualification as to whether the nephews illegitimate children. That’s the only time when we cannot
and nieces are of the maternal or paternal line and without follow the formula, which we discussed before, if, the result
preference as to their relationship to the disease whether by would be the legitimate children and the spouse would get
whole or half blood. shares lower than their legitime.
The Supreme court said that by virtue of 975 the nephews Again, in general, we don’t discuss free portion in legal
and nieces are entitled to inherit in their own right. Nephews succession. So the entire estate is distributed among the
and nieces alone do not inherit by right of representation heirs.
unless concurring with brothers and sisters.
Article 976. A person may represent him whose inheritance Article 990. The hereditary rights granted by the two
he has renounced. preceding articles to illegitimate children shall be transmitted
upon their death to their descendants, who shall inherit by
Article 977. Heirs who repudiate their share may not be right of representation from their deceased grandparent.
represented
Article 990 discusses the rights of illegitimate children.
EXAMPLE:
We know that has successional rights. They can inherit from
A has a child B, B has a child C and c has a child D their illegitimate parent.
B died. C is the heir. C repudiated his share in the estate from Now, 990 speaks of the right of representation of the children
B. D cannot represent C because an heir that repudiates who are descendants of illegitimate children.
cannot be represented
The law says, their rights shall be transmitted upon their
In this case we go to the first rule in legal succession - death to their descendants, who shall inherit by right of
proximity. In this case the legal heir will be A representation from their deceased grandparent.
A (1 degree from B) Assuming this is the decedent, and he left an illegitimate child
A. A himself have two children, X (legitimate) and Y
D (in his personal capacity since there can’t be representation, (illegitimate).
he cannot be raised to the status of C - 2 degrees from B)
A predeceased.
SITUATION 2: With respect to the decedent, A of course, has the right to
inherit in his own right because he is the child. Now, if A
A - also dead now predeceased the decedent, question now, who can represent
A? X, his legitimate child? Y, his illegitimate child? Both;
B - still dead because the law does not make any distinction under 990. You
can be represented by the children whether legitimate or
C - Still repudiated estate of B illegitimate.
The law says, to their descendants who shall inherit by right

of representation from their deceased grandparent.

It does not make any distinction if those grandchildren are Can we give the legacy? Yes, so give the legacy of 100T. And
legitimate or illegitimate. Please remember Article 990 the remainder, to the spouse; 400T.
because we will discuss that in relation to 992.
Dili pod nato hutdon iyang 1/4 kay 100T lang man ang legacy.
Give the legacy, and the give the share of the spouse. Ang
Decedent legitime sa spouse is 250T and she gets 400T. Even if it is
| 400T, it is still over and above.
A (illegitimate)
/ \ Now if the legacy, let’s say, is 400T. What happens? Can we
X Y(illegitimate) give that?
We can give, but we have to reduce. In that case, the legacy

Article 991. If legitimate ascendants are left, the illegitimate is 400T, we give to the spouse the minimum: her legitime of
children shall divide the inheritance with them, taking one-half 250T. The legacy of 400T will also be reduced to 250T. That’s
of the estate, whatever be the number of the ascendants or of how we satisfy in case of partial intestacy.
the illegitimate children.
[Principle]
We deduct the legacy or the devise from the share of
991 again, this illustrates what I mentioned before, that in the heir who gets more in legal succession than in
legal succession, if there are two classes of heirs who testamentary succession without however, reducing or
succeed, aside from the legitimate children and the prejudicing his/her legitime. That is the rule.
illegitimate children, because one is to two.
But if two classes will concur, right legitimate parents or Kung halimbawa, ang ilahang share the same pud sa
ascendants and illegitimate children— Half, half. Unlike in testamentary sucession, wala, wala kay mahatag. Katong
testamentary succession, half to the parents, one-fourth to (situation) na duha ka legitimate children and daghan kaaung
the illegitimate children. Diri tanan, walay free portion. Mas illegitimate children, wala nakay mahatag na legacy. That’s
sayon imemorize ang sa legal succession. how you reduce.
Let’s discuss partial intestacy. Although we discussed it IRON-BAR RULE

before, there is a special rule that you have to consider.
Article 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
For example, the survivors are the legitimate parents, the
intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his
spouse, and the illegitimate child. So, the estate, for example
father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in
is 2 million.
the same manner from the illegitimate child.
In his will, the testator gave a legacy worth 100,000 cash to
his friend, X. So, there is a will because there is a legacy. How
do we distribute the estate? This is what we call the IRON-BAR RULE, the iron-curtain
bar rule, in legal succession. This is the separation within the
What is the sharing of these persons in legal succession? legitimate family and the illegitimate family.
One-half (parents), one fourth (spouse), one fourth So the law says: the illegitimate child cannot inherit ab
(illegitimate child). But there is a legacy. How do we satisfy? intestato (meaning, by legal succession) from the legitimate
Do we deduct the legacy from the 2 million? So, 1.9 million, relatives of his father or mother or vice versa.
and from there 1/2, 1/4, 1/4?
The reason here, the law presumes that there is an animosity
No, because that would result to legitimes (parents, spouse, existing between the legitimate family and the illegitimate
illegitimate child) lower than their supposed shares. Diri gyud family. Okay. Magka-away sila, ngano, because, authorities
ta magbase sa 2million because this is the estate. say, the legitimate family views the presence of the
illegitimate child as a reminder of sin, a blemish, broken in
How do we distribute the 2 million? life.
In testamentary succession, pila ilang legitimes? How about the illegitimate family or the illegitimate child?
1/2 (parents), 1/8 (spouse), 1/4 (illegitimate child); this is the Nganong masuko pod siya? Because he/she views the with
distribution; there is a free portion of 1/8. envy the resources and the status of the legitimate family of
which he is deprived.
So, here as we said in legal succession, we still preserve the
legitimes. So, here, where will we get the 100 thousand? That’s the reason daw. That’s why, to prevent this animosity
Kinsa man ang naay allowance diha na pwede mabawasan from further being aggravated the law already steps in and
ang legal shares? provide for the separation. Okay What is not the consequence
of this rule?
It is the spouse because in testamentary succession, one-
eight lang iyang share. Even if you deduct from the spouse, For example, A (illegitimate) B, C are brothers.
possible gihapon na dili ma-prejudice ang iyang legitime,
which is 1/8. Here, if B dies, A cannot inherit from B even if mga brothers
lang ang survivors. A cannot inherit from B because of the
In that case, Iron-Bar rule. So only C (will inherit from B). In the same
manner, if A dies, B and C cannot inherit from A because of
legitimate parents (1/2) = 1million the iron-bar rule.
illegitimate child (1/4) = 500T
spouse (1/8) = 250T

Another controversial situation for that

In that case, the legal presumption under Article 992 does not
Decedent apply because in truth and in fact there was no animosity.
/ \ The illegitimate children were treated like legitimate
A B (illegitimate) grandchildren without discrimination or distinction from
/ \ / \ legitimate relatives.
M N(il.) X Y(il.)
Q. What interest does Emilio have over the estate of Christina
because if you were to be appointed as an administrator you
have to be at least interested?
Now, what if A and B predeceased the decedent?
Now, the claimants are M, N, X and Y. 1) Emilio is the adopted child of Federico who was the
surviving spouse of Christina. Emilio has the right from
Let’s go to B. Federico over the estate of Christina.
Can X and Y represent B?
Yes, that’s the same situation in Art.992, which we discussed. Q. What kind of right does Emilio have?
So, X and Y can represent B because being an illegitimate
under 992, the law says, he transmits his right to his A. It is his own right being an adopted child of Federico.
descendants, who can inherit by right of representation.
When Federico died, the estate of Federico also consisted of

Here, can M represent A? the estate of Christina. So, in as much as Emilio III was
Yes, there is no prohibition. adopted, he had the interest over the estate of Federico which
consisted also of the estate of Christina. That’s why he would
How about N, can N represent A? also be considered as an interested party in the estate of
No, because of the Iron-Bar rule. Christina in his capacity as heir of Federico.
Here, the illegitimate child cannot inherit by legal succession
from the legitimate relatives of his father or mother.
Those are the reasons given by the Supreme Court.
Because A is legitimate, the decedent is legitimate relative of
A. So Article 992 applies. Here, B is illegitimate. The decedent In addition, you have to consider what Article 992 prohibits is
is his illegitimate parent, so dili mag-apply ang Art. 992 (iron legal succession. Meaning, you would like to inherit from the
bar rule), but Article 990. So, he (N) is barred. estate of the legitimate relatives of your father or mother and
you are an illegitimate child.
DELA PUERTA VS COURT OF APPEALS Here, Emilio III did not seek to inherit from the estate of
Christina. He merely wanted to administer. That’s different.
The same scenario here: the illegitimate child would like to When you administer, you just oversee, you make sure the
represent his legitimate parent. But the Supreme Court said, estate is preserved, that the debts are paid and eventually the
“you cannot because you are barred by Article 992.” Ang estate is settled. That is different from legal succession. You
nakalahi diri kay gi-adopt si N; the illegitimate child was have to be careful also in applying the ruling in this particular
adopted by A. case.
So, being an adopted child, the law says, the adopted child
has the same right as legitimate children and being that, they Art. 993. If an illegitimate child should die without issue,
can represent. Still, the Supreme Court said No, because even either legitimate or illegitimate, his father or mother shall
if you’re adopted like we discussed before, an adopted child’s succeed to his entire estate; and if the child's filiation is duly
relationship is with respect to his adopter. He himself must be proved as to both parents, who are both living, they shall
qualified to inherit from the decedent, from home the person inherit from him share and share alike. (944)
represented would have inherited. Still, he cannot inherit -
either as illegitimate child (as barred by 992) or even if he Art. 994. In default of the father or mother, an illegitimate
was adopted, to raise the status of his legitimacy, again, he child shall be succeeded by his or her surviving spouse who
cannot represent. shall be entitled to the entire estate.
If the widow or widower should survive with brothers and

SUNTAY VS SUNTAY sisters, nephews and nieces, she or he shall inherit one-half of
the estate, and the latter the other half.
Q. Illegitimate grandmother niya si Christina. Can he be
appointed as an administrator?
Let us just summarize the TABLE OF INTESTATE SHARE.
1) Yes, he can be appointed, as there are facts that show
that Article 992 is inapplicable. Both Christina and
Federico treated Nenita and Emilio III just like their HEIRS INTESTATE SHARES
grandchildren and at the same time, since their infancy
until their adulthood they were in the care of Christina sole survivor
and Federico. They treated them like their own children, (child alone; spouse alone, ALL
so the supposed animosity between the legitimate family parents alone)
and the illegitimate children is not present.
2 classes
Note also that what was sought is the administration only and (illegitimate children and 1/2 each
the Supreme Court did not rule on their legal heirship. spouse; or spouse and

HEIRS INTESTATE SHARES SUBSECTION 4. Surviving Spouse
brothers, sisters)
Art. 995. In the absence of legitimate descendants and
ascendants, and illegitimate children and their descendants,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, the surviving spouse shall
inherit the entire estate, without prejudice to the rights of
“special” 2 classes: Legitimate children will brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, should there be
legitimate children and get TWICE as much as any, under article 1001. (946a)
illegitimate children the share of the Art. 996. If a widow or widower and legitimate children or
| 2X = 1X | illegitimate children descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the
(even if there is a succession the same share as that of each of the children.
surviving spouse) (834a)
3 classes: Art. 997. When the widow or widower survives with

illegitimate children 1/4 legitimate parents or ascendants, the surviving spouse shall
surviving spouse 1/4 be entitled to one-half of the estate, and the legitimate
legitimate parents 1/2 parents or ascendants to the other half. (836a)
*2 or more legitimate Art. 998. If a widow or widower survives with illegitimate

children and surviving children, such widow or widower shall be entitled to one-half
spouse (= *consider of the inheritance, and the illegitimate children or their
spouse as 1 legitimate descendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate, to the other
child and divide estate half. (n)
by the total number)
Art. 999. When the widow or widower survives with
legitimate children or their descendants and illegitimate
Now, what you have to remember also is the EXCLUSION children or their descendants, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, such widow or widower shall be entitled to the
Who would survive together? Who are excluded? same share as that of a legitimate child.
1. Parents are excluded by the presence of Legitimate

Children Article 1000. If legitimate ascendants, the surviving spouse,
2. Parents OR children and illegitimate children are left, the ascendants shall be
= brothers or sisters and other collateral relatives are entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the other half shall
excluded, be divided between the surviving spouse and the illegitimate
but, the collateral relatives CAN concur with spouse children so that such widow or widow shall have one-fourth of
the estate, and the illegitimate children the other fourth.
3. illegitimate child will excluded brothers and sisters
We already discussed this before.
3. Illegitimate parents are EXCLUDED by the presence of
children, whether legitimate or illegitimate One-half to the parents, one-fourth to the spouse, one-fourth
to the illegitimate children; mao na siya kung they survived
Unlike if you’re the legitimate parent, only the legitimate child together.
or descendant will exclude you; not the illegitimate children.
Pero kung illegitimate parent ka, presence of children will But in the case of Del Rosario v Cunanan, ang survivors:
exclude you. legitimate parents, spouse and the adopted child. So, the
question here is: would the presence of the adopted child
NOTE: exclude the parents, because adopted child has the same
rights as a legitimate child.?And a legitimate child excludes
When it comes to the surviving spouse, there is no such thing the parents.
as, katong parehas testamentary succession, if you remember
in TS, if the spouse is the only survivor, she gets one-half as a So, in this case, the Supreme Court said “no”. Because it
general rule. would not be fair to exclude the parents considering that they
are bound by blood relationship to the decedent, whereas the
But, if the marriage was celebrated in articulo mortis, and the adopted is only related by fiction of law to the adopter. So to
testator died within 3 months from the celebration of the be equitable, the Supreme Court applied the sharing in Article
marriage, the share is reduced to 1/3. 1000.
Exception to the exception, despite the marriage in articulo TAKE NOTE:

mortis, if they have been living together as husband and wife Ang “sharing” lang; wala siya nahimong illegitimate child.
for at least five years prior to the celebration of the marriage,
balik siya sa one-half. Iyang “share” pareho sa illegitimate, wala siya nahimong
illegitimate para dili pod ma exclude ang iyang legitimate
There is no such thing in legal succession. The entire estate, parents. I already explained before kung applicable pa ba ang
halimbawa siya lang—walay parents, walay children, walay ruling aning Del Rosario vs Cunanan.
brothers or sisters or other collateral relatives within the 5th
degree, the spouse gets everything. That’s Article 995.

Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children predeceased the decedent, they still distribute the property
survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled per stirpes.
to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or
their children to the other half. Article 1006. Should brothers and sisters of the full blood
survive together with brothers and sisters of the half-blood,
Article 1002. In case of a legal separation, if the surviving the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the
spouse gave cause for the separation, he or she shall not have latter.
any of the rights granted in the preceding article.
Okay, we already discussed this.
Spouse, in case of legal separation.
TWO-IS-TO-ONE.
We discussed before Disinheritance of a Spouse.
Twice ang share sa full-blooded kay sa half-blood brothers
Now, in legal separation, the guilty spouse is disqualified to and sisters.
inherit from the innocent spouse even without disinheritance.
By operation of law, the guilty spouse cannot inherit from the Again, I have to remind in you testamentary succession, if
innocent spouse. they are instituted in a will, how do we divide? In equal
shares, because it is testamentary succession and the testator
But if you remember in legal separation, if there is had the opportunity to specify the shares had he wanted to.
reconciliation, that will also restore the guilty spouse into his Kay wala man, the law presumes equal shares.
inheritance. Just like in disinheritance, na if there is
reconciliation with the testator and the disinherited heir, then, Atong computation diri kay the same atong legitimate children
the effects of disinheritance is already erased. Kung wala pa and illegitimate children. (full:half;2X:1X)
na-disinherit that already deprives the testator of the right to
disinherit the offending heir. Nephews and nieces will also apply. Nephews and nieces of
Article 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, the full-blood and nephews and nieces of the half-blood, the
illegitimate children or a surviving spouse, the collateral same gihapon; 2-is-to-1.
relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in Illustration:
accordance with the following articles.
Decedent’s brothers (A,B,C,D):
If there is a descendant, the collateral relatives are excluded. A (f) B (f) C (h) D(h)(predeceased)
If there is an ascendant, the collateral relatives are also / \
excluded. If there is an illegitimate child, still the collateral x y
relatives are excluded.
Estate: 600k
But, if there is a spouse, the collateral relatives—divide that, how do we distribute?
equally with the spouse. The spouse does not exclude the
collateral relatives. Ang share ni A and B, as full blood brothers, will have twice as
much as the share of C and D.
Article 1004. Should the only survivors be brothers and
sisters of the full blood, they shall inherit in equal shares.
Let X be the share of the half-blood:
Article 1005. Should brothers and sisters survive together
2X = full blood’s share
with nephews and nieces, who are the children of the
2X
descendant's brothers and sisters of the full blood, the former
1X X = 600k/6
shall inherit per capita, and the latter per stirpes.
1X X = 100k
Article 1004, I already illustrated that, how you divide. You 600k
just divide in equal shares.
Article 1005, we already illustrated that. Like brothers and Each will get hundred thousand.
sisters, and we have nephews and nieces. For example, all the The full-bloods will get 200K each.
brothers and sisters are alive. Under the Rule on Proximity, Because D predeceased, he will be represented by X and Y.
the nephews and nieces are excluded by the brothers and So, X and Y will just divide the 100; so, 50K each; per stirpes.
sisters.
However, if some, for there is one brother who predeceased

Art. 1007. In case brothers and sisters of the half blood,
the decedent, and he has his own children. So, nephews and
some on the father's and some on the mother's side, are the
nieces, who are the children of the deceased brother or sister,
only survivors, all shall inherit in equal shares without
who could concur with the other brothers or sisters of the
distinction as to the origin of the property.
decedent can inherit by representation. We mentioned and
illustrated na as to the brothers and sisters, they inherit per
Art. 1008. Children of brothers and sisters of the half blood
capita or by their own right. The nephews and nieces per
shall succeed per capita or per stirpes, in accordance with the
stirpes.
rules laid down for the brothers and sisters of the full blood.
And please do not forget what illustrated before, if for
Art. 1009. Should there be neither brothers nor sisters nor
example, patay na ang tanang brothers and sisters, and then
children of brothers or sisters, the other collateral relatives
ang nabilin nephews and nieces. How do we divide? It’s not
shall succeed to the estate.
per stirpes. It is per capita - by their own right. Which is
different from grandchildren. Kung ang grandchildren, the law
says, they inherit by representation. So bisag, their parents all

The latter shall succeed without distinction of lines or How does the State take possession of the property?
preference among them by reason of relationship by the The law says the Rules of Court must be observed that’s Rule
whole blood. 91 of the Rules of Court or Escheat Proceeding.
Art. 1010. The right to inherit ab intestato shall not extend Escheat Proceeding – the proceeding where the State takes
beyond the fifth degree of relationship in the collateral line. the property of the decease who dies intestate and without
heirs.
Article 1007
Half-blood silang tanan, regardless kung asa na Article 1013. After the payment of debts and charges, the
marriage basta married. Kung illegitimate, dili man pwede personal property shall be assigned to the municipality or city
maka-inherit under Article 992. So regardless of the origin of where the deceased last resided in the Philippines, and the
the property, they will all inherit in equal shares. real estate to the municipalities or cities, respectively, in
which the same is situated.
Article 1008
I already explained that.
If the deceased never resided in the Philippines, the whole
Article 1009 estate shall be assigned to the respective municipalities or
Kung walay brothers or sisters, nephews or nieces, cities where the same is located.
the estate shall be succeed by the other collateral relatives
without distinction of lines, or preference among them by Such estate shall be for the benefit of public schools, and
reason of blood. They will just share equally. Subject on the public charitable institutions and centers, in such
Rule of Proximity; we’re talking here of collaterals, wether it is municipalities or cities. The court shall distribute the estate as
the paternal line or the maternal line as long as they are of the respective needs of each beneficiary may warrant.
the same degree, they will concur. They will exclude those
farther in degree.
The court, at the instance of an interested party, or on its own
Article 1010 motion, may order the establishment of a permanent trust, so
We already discussed this. It cannot go beyond 5th degree. that only the income from the property shall be used.
TAKE NOTE:
What is the specific rule here? How should the estate be
divided? Kinsa man sa State? Is it the municipality? City?
It is the collateral line.
province?
In the direct line, whether it is ascending or descending, there
It would depend:
is no limitation because most of the time, it will not reach
fourth degree. 1. If he resided in the Philippines,
a. it depends kung PERSONAL PROPERTY,
Usually 3 lang na siya; unlike in the collateral, dili na siya municipality or city where the deceased
mag-end. last resided.
b. But with respect to the REAL PROPERTY,
the municipality or city which the same is
OCTOBER 19, 2018 situated.
Transcribed by: NARCA
2. But if the deceased NEVER resided in the
Philippines, then kung asa siya naka-locate ang
SUBSECTION 6. The State
respective properties (REAL OR PERSONAL) to the
municipalities or cities of those places.
Article 1011. In default of persons entitled to succeed in It should be for the benefit of public schools, public
accordance with the provisions of the preceding Sections, the charitable institutions and centers in those municipalities
State shall inherit the whole estate. or cities.
We discuss before that if a person dies: Article 1014. If a person legally entitled to the estate of the
deceased appears and files a claim thereto with the court
a. without a will and
within five years from the date the property was delivered to
b. without relatives in the direct line (ascending or
the State, such person shall be entitled to the possession of
descending) and
the same, or if sold, the municipality or city shall be
c. collateral relatives within the 5th degree of
accountable to him for such part of the proceeds as may not
consanguinity
have been lawfully spent.
Then the next in line will be the STATE.
What if after distributing the property to the State naa diay
This is by virtue of the CADUCIARY RIGHT of the State. It is
heirs karon lang ni-appear? The law says he is entitled but he
the right of the State to succeed to the estate of a person who
has to make the claim WITHIN 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE
died without a will and without heirs.
THE PROPERTY WAS DELIVERED TO THE STATE.
Article 1012. In order that the State may take possession of He can recover it. For example it was already sold then the
the property mentioned in the preceding article, the pertinent proceeds which have not been lawfully spent. Kato lang
provisions of the Rules of Court must be observed. naibilin na wala na lawfully spent.

REPUBLIC VS CA the land has 10 hectares or 20 hectares). It is one

GR. 143483 inheritance. It is considered as a single unit.
If you notice it is very strict. Even if the contention was in the 2. PLURALITY OF SUBJECTS
first place escheat should not have been instituted because
the property was no longer part of the estate because it was Two or more heirs are instituted to that one inheritance
already donated by the decedent during her lifetime. or designated as legatees or devisees in one legacy or
However, the SC said even if that is the case you should have devise.
filed the petition within 5 years from the time the property
3. There is VACANT PORTION
was distributed to the State.
One of them cannot inherit because maybe of
repudiation.
CHAPTER 4
Provisions Common to Testate and Intestate Like A repudiated his share. What will happen to the
Successions share of A? Again, if there is a substitute, give it to the
substitute. If there is none, is right of representation
SECTION 1 proper? In this case NO because we are talking here of
Right of Accretion voluntary heirs, legatees or devisees. Then next would be
Accretion. Is it possible? Yes because there is one
inheritance (unity of object), plurality of subject and a
Article 1015. Accretion is a right by virtue of which, when vacant portion. And of course they must accept.
two or more persons are called to the same inheritance,
devise or legacy, the part assigned to the one who renounces 4. There must be ACCEPTANCE OF THE VACANT
or cannot receive his share, or who died before the testator, is PORTION
added or incorporated to that of his co-heirs, co-devisees, or
Because if they will not accept also that would be the
co-legatees.
time the share of A will go by way of intestacy.
Accretion is a concept which is both present in

Article 1017. The words "one-half for each" or "in equal
TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION and in LEGAL
shares" or any others which, though designating an aliquot
SUCCESSION.
part, do not identify it by such description as shall make each
Diba there is a prioritization? heir the exclusive owner of determinate property, shall not
exclude the right of accretion.
Order of Priority (ISRAI)
In case of money or fungible goods, if the share of each heir is
I – Institution not earmarked, there shall be a right of accretion.
S – Substitution
How do we know if there is really UNITY OF OBJECT?
R – Representation
EXAMPLE 1: “I hereby give to A, B and C my land in Calinan,
A – Accretion Davao City to A – ½, to B – ¼, to C – ¼ .”
I - Intestacy
Is there still unity of object? Can there still be accretion?
As much as possible if there is an instituted heir, the ANS: Accretion is proper.
property should be given to the instituted heir. If he cannot
receive or the share becomes vacant, then let’s see if he has It is still one single inheritance. Here even if the shares are
substitute. If he has no substitute, then let’s see if he has a designated as ½, ¼, ¼, still each heir is not made the
representative. If not, accretion before we distribute by exclusive owner of the specific portion of the property.
legal succession or intestacy.
If you say ½ to A, A cannot say this is my ½. Actually in that
case for every unit of measure of property, each of them is
Article 1016. In order that the right of accretion may take entitled to ½, ¼, and ¼.
place in a testamentary succession, it shall be necessary:
EXAMPLE 2: “I hereby give to A, B and C my land in Calinan,
(1) That two or more persons be called to the same Davao City to A – the northern portion, to B – the southern
inheritance, or to the same portion thereof, pro indiviso; and portion.”
ANS: Accretion is not proper.

(2) That one of the persons thus called die before the
testator, or renounce the inheritance, or be incapacitated to Here, you can already indicate which specific portion of the
receive it. property is being given to them. ½ gihapon so you can still
identify. A now can say this is mine alone. There is no unity of
THESE ARE THE REQUISITES FOR ACCRETION: object here.
In case of money…
1. There must be UNITY OF OBJECT
Meaning there is only one inheritance, legacy or devise. EXAMPLE 3: “I hereby give to A, B and C my Php 10 M to A –
For example, the testator gave his land in Calinan, Davao ½ , to B – ¼ , to C – ¼ .”
City to A, B and C. There is only one inheritance (even if

ANS: Accretion is proper. You can compute but it is still Estate = 1.5 million
considered as one inheritance.
EXAMPLE 1: A repudiated his share. His share will go to B
EXAMPLE 4: “I hereby give: and C.
to A – my cash in HSBC , A B C
to B – the money in BPI ,
to C – my cash in the vault in my house .” ½ ¼ ¼
750K 375K 375K

ANS: Accretion is not proper. Here there is already a
EARMARKING. Each heir is considered the exclusive owner AFTER - 375K 375K
of the specific property given to him. REPUDIATION
TOTAL - 750K 750K

Article 1018. In legal succession the share of the person who
repudiates the inheritance shall always accrue to his co-heirs.
EXAMPLE 2: How about if C is the one who repudiated? In

WHEN IS THERE A VACANCY THAT WILL GIVE RISE TO
what proportion? In the proportion that they inherit.
ACCRETION?
A B C
Just remember this. You have to make a distinction if it is
Testamentary Succession or Legal Succession.
½ ¼ ¼
 TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION. These are the
instances when the vacancy can cause accretion. And 750K 375K 375K
remember when it is testamentary succession, accretion
is possible only in the free portion. It will not apply to AFTER
250K 125K -
legitimes. REPUDIATION
1. Predecease TOTAL 1M 500K -

2. Incapacity
3. Repudiation (share always accrues to the others –
Art. 1018) 750
4. If the suspensive condition is not fulfilled A. × 375 = 250,000
1125
5. Failure to identify one particular heir (ineffictiveness
of institution) B.
375
× 375 = 125,000
1125
The share of that heir goes to the others by succession.

As long as we observe the order of priority. Article 1020. The heirs to whom the inheritance accrues shall
succeed to all the rights and obligations which the heir who
PREBAR: Among compulsory heirs, accretion takes place renounced or could not receive it would have had.
only in free portion. If part repiudated is legitime, co-
heirs inherit in their own right, not by accretion.
Whatever conditions, whatever obligations imposed upon the
 LEGAL SUCCESSION. Accretion is possible to the entire vacant portion, general rule, the heirs who would get that by
estate. There is no free portion. There is no legitime. If accretion shall also assume the same rights and obligations.
the vacancy is caused by these two, accretion would be
possible:
1. Repudiation Article 1021. Among the compulsory heirs the right of
2. Incapacity accretion shall take place only when the free portion is left to
3. Predecease – No accretion because there is two or more of them, or to any one of them and to a stranger.
really no vacant portion and survivors inherit in
their own right or by representation. But the
Should the part repudiated be the legitime, the other co-heirs
effect is the same.
shall succeed to it in their own right, and not by the right of
accretion.
EXAMPLE: A, B and C are legal heirs. A predeceased the
decedent. The estate is 1.5 million. How we divide the estate?
This is what I mentioned before. If it is testamentary
The share of A goes to B and C also. But it is not actually succession, it refers only to the free portion. There is no
by accretion. We just exclude A. Wala man siyay accretion in the legitime because if there is a vacant portion
representative. Kung nay representative si A, then his share then the remaining heirs get the vacant portion in their own
will go to his representative. (Again ISRAI). Kung walay right.
representative si A, then this time his share really becomes
vacant.
Only B & C will inherit in their own right. Not by

accretion. Although pareha lang ang effect.
Article 1019. The heirs to whom the portion goes by the

right of accretion take it in the same proportion that they
inherit.

Article 1022. In testamentary succession, when the right of Article 1023. Accretion shall also take place among devisees,
accretion does not take place, the vacant portion of the legatees and usufructuaries under the same conditions
instituted heirs, if no substitute has been designated, shall established for heirs.
pass to the legal heirs of the testator, who shall receive it with
the same charges and obligations.
Just read Article 1023. This does not only apply to inheritance
but also to devisees, legatees and usufructuaries.
The same order of priority which we discuss before (I-S-R-A-
I). Again, this is applicable not only in testamentary
succession but also in legal succession. SECTION 2
Capacity to Succeed by Will or by Intestacy
IN TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION
Article 1024. Persons not incapacitated by law may succeed
Institution by will or ab intestato.
Substitution The provisions relating to incapacity by will are equally

applicable to intestate succession.
Possibly naay substitute in testamentary
succession We now go to CAPACITY TO SUCCEED.
Representation Not applicable.
Just like representation and accretion, some provisions here in

Accretion applies only to the free portion incapacity also apply both to testamentary succession and
in testamentary succession and in the legal succession.
free portion there is no right of
representation.
Accretion If possible Who are qualified to inherit? When we speak of capacity
to succeed. We are talking of the heir. Testamentary capacity
- we are talking of the testator.
Intestacy
So who are capacitated to succeed? Actually in general under

IN LEGAL SUCCESSION Article 1024, as long as you are not incapacitated by law
you can inherit either by will or by legal succession.
For example there are heirs who are left so walay instituted
heir because it is legal succession. But one of them If you remember we also discuss before, what are the
repudiated, so dili pud pwede ang substitution because walay matters governed by the national law of the decedent?
may substitution sa legal succession. Possible ang Capacity to succeed is one of them. Actually that is
representation, one of them was incapacitated. Incapacity is mentioned under Article 1039 of the New Civil Code.
also a vacancy in legal succession that could give rise to
accretion. Whether or not an heir is qualified to inherit from the
decedent or testator, we should look into the NATIONAL
A, B and C are legal heirs. A becomes incapacitated. Kung naa LAW of the decedent.
siyay representative, give to the representative. If none, then
accretion. MATTERS GOVERNED BY NATIONAL LAW. Several bar
questions before what are the matters governed by the
When you compare the right of representation and accretion, national law of the decedent? There are FOUR. We discuss
we can see na all of them apply in testamentary succession already the THREE under Article 16.
and legal succession.
1. The order of succession;
However, accretion in testamentary succession applies only to 2. The amount of successional rights;
the FREE PORTION. Whereas the right of representation in 3. The intrinsic validity of testamentary
testamentary succession applies on to the LEGITIME. dispositions; and
4. Capacity to succeed.
REPRESENTATION ACCRETION
All of them apply in testamentary succession and legal So these are the four matters governed by the national law of
sucession. the decedent.
IN TESTAMENTARY IN TESTAMENTARY
SUCCESSION: SUCCESION: Accretion can Article 1025. In order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir,
Representation can happen happen only in free portion, devisee or legatee must be living at the moment the
only to legitime, not in the not in the legitime. succession opens, except in case of representation, when it is
free portion proper.
Legitime goes to the co-heirs
in their own right. A child already conceived at the time of the death of the
decedent is capable of succeeding provided it be born later
under the conditions prescribed in article 41.

We already mentioned before to be an heir he or she TESTAMENTARY

LEGAL SUCCESSION
must be LIVING at the time of death of the decedent OR SUCCESSION
AT LEAST CONCEIVED because it is the time when
Natural persons Natural persons
transmission happens.
Juridical persons ONLY THE STATE
So kung ang recipient diay at the time of death of the testator
is not yet a person then walay mahitabo na transfer. That’s How about juridical persons? How about juridical persons?
why there should be a recipient who has a civil personality YES. The State, provinces, It is only the State by virtue
at the time of the death of the testator or decedent. municipal corporations, of its cudiciary rights. Other
private corporations, juridical entities they cannot
organizations, or associations succeed by legal succession.
However, even if the heir is still conceived pwede siya as long
for religious, scientific,
as he is later on born alive subject to the conditions under
cultural, educational, or
Articles 40 and 41 of the NCC.
charitable purposes as
mentioned in Article 1026.
Article 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived
child shall be considered born for all purposes that are As long as if it is an entity
favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions there CHARTER OF
specified in the following article. (29a) CREATION should allow
them to SUCCEED BY WILL.
Article 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if If there charter of creation
it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the prohibits them from
mother's womb. However, if the foetus had an intra-uterine succeeding by will, they
life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it cannot inherit.
dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from
the maternal womb. (30a)
KINDS OF INCAPACITY
The law says “except in case of representation, when it is

proper”. Actually, even the representative must be living Now let’s go to the different KINDS OF INCAPACITY.
or at least conceived at the time of death of the
testator. Dapat naa na siyay civil personality. 1. ABSOLUTE INCAPACITY
2. RELATIVE INCAPACITY
EXAMPLE: A, B and C are the heirs of the decedent. A
predeceased the decedent. Pero wala ta kabalo na ang asawa ABSOLUTE INCAPACITY – the heir cannot inherit at all
diay ni A kay buntis. Ang anak possible siya na times under any circumstances.
representative.
EXAMPLE:
In that case ang katong anak sa asawa ni A dapat he will be
born alive. Depende pud ug kung naa siyay intrauterine life of
7 months or less than or kung nabuhi jud siya then okay. a) ABORTED INFANTS. Katong less than 7 months
and they did not leave for 24 hours. Any
testamentary dispositions given to them will not be
Pero delikado kung ang asawa ni A nabuntis pagkahuman ug effective because they did not civil personality.
kamatay ni A. Dili nato anak ni A. No representation in that Therefore, absolutely they cannot inherit.
case. b) CORPORATIONS WHO ARE ABSOLUTELY
PROHIBITED TO INHERIT UNDER THEIR
Article 1026. A testamentary disposition may be made to the CHARTER. They are absolutely incapacitated.
State, provinces, municipal corporations, private corporations,
organizations, or associations for religious, scientific, cultural, RELATIVE INCAPACITY - the heir just cannot inherit under
educational, or charitable purposes. certain situations or they cannot just inherit from certain
persons. But in other situations or from other persons or
other respective properties, they can inherit.
All other corporations or entities may succeed under a will,
unless there is a provision to the contrary in their charter or
the laws of their creation, and always subject to the same Under the NCC, there are THREE KINDS OF RELATIVE
INCAPACITY.
Who are qualified to succeed? The law says any person as
long as not disqualified by law. 1. Incapacity by reason of POSSIBLE UNDUE
INFLUENCE
2. Incapacity by reason of PUBLIC POLICY OR
What kind of person? It could be a: NATURAL PERSON or MORALITY
JURIDICAL PERSON. 3. Incapacity by reason of UNWORTHINESS
Kinsa man na person? We have to make a distinction.

In these cases, the heirs can actually inherit from other
testators or other such different circumstances or they can
inherit certain properties but because of the instances here
WHO CAN BE HEIRS???
they cannot inherit so relative lang.

Article 1027. The following are incapable of succeeding: of his material possessions or worldly materials possessions.
Mag huna-huna nana siya ug after life.
(1) The priest who heard the confession of the testator during
his last illness, or the minister of the gospel who extended Here, the law sees na gi-influence jud ni father si testator mao
spiritual aid to him during the same period; gitaagan ug 5 hectares ang church or si father mismo. Cguro
ni ana si priest: “Manong, daghan kayoo kag properties noh?
Kung maghatag kag 5 hectares sa church mas modako
(2) The relatives of such priest or minister of the gospel within imohang chance nga maka sulod ka sa langit kay adlaw-adlaw
the fourth degree, the church, order, chapter, community, mag ampo para nimo ang church.”
organization, or institution to which such priest or minister
may belong;
In that case, susceptible na siya to that kind of suggestion. So
unsoan mana niya ang 5 hectares dili mana niya madala sa
(3) A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given langit or kung asa man siya padulong (lels) so ihatag na lang
by a ward in his favor before the final accounts of the niya sa church para at least mas dako-dako iyahang chance.
guardianship have been approved, even if the testator should
die after the approval thereof; nevertheless, any provision
made by the ward in favor of the guardian when the latter is Reason: To safeguard the right of the heirs who may be
his ascendant, descendant, brother, sister, or spouse, shall be defrauded by the sinister and undue influence which may be
valid; exercised by some priest and minister over a dying man.
(4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a will, the THE TESTAMENTARY PROVISIONS SHOULD BE MADE
spouse, parents, or children, or any one claiming under such DURING THE LAST ILLNESS. So naa nay illness. Unsang
witness, spouse, parents, or children; klase na illness? It should be an illness where there is GREAT
DANGER OF DEATH. Kay kung gi-sip-on lang si testator
nagkumpisal na siya unya nabanggaan siya. Mao jud to
(5) Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health officer or druggist literally iyang last illness iyahang sip-on. Pero that is not the
who took care of the testator during his last illness; kind of illness contemplated. It must be grave.
(6) Individuals, associations and corporations not permitted THE LAST ILLNESS SHOULD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDE
by law to inherit. THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. He does not have to die of
that illness. Like cancer stage 4, nangumpisal na siya and
This is INCAPACITY BY REASON OF POSSIBLE UNDUE then nagbuhat na siyag will gitagaan niyag 5 hectares ang
INFLUENCE. simbahan. But he died not because of that cancer siguro na-
kilatan siya. Under the contemplation of the law, that was his
last illness katong iyang cancer and he made a will. So
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION. Here, these persons are disqualified si priest.
presumed to have exercised undue influence upon the
testator. Authorities would say that the presumption here is
conclusive. Unlike a disputable presumption that you can THE WILL MUST BE MADE AFTER THE CONFESSION. Kay
present evidence to the contrary, here it cannot. They are presumption is didto nahitabo ang undue influence during the
really disqualified because of their possible undue influence. confession that’s why the testamentary disposition was made.
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 1027. Just remember na If the will existed even before the confession then this would
Article 1027 applies only to TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION, not apply.
NOT LEGAL SUCCESSION because there is no possibility of
unsue influence in legal succession. Wala may will. It is the PRIEST AS SON OF TESTATOR. How about the priest was
law which says that you are a legal heir and therefore you are also the son of the testator? And he confessed to the son
qualified. INCAPACITY BY REASON OF POSSIBLE UNDUE during the last illness after that he made a will and he gave
INFLUENCE only applicable to testamentary succesion. properties to his son. Would the son be disqualified? Only as
to the portion over and above his legitime. Sa iyahang
legitime no amount of ndue influence can deprive the
1) The priest who heard the confession of the testator
heir. In fact he is entitled maski pa walay undue influence he
during his last illness, or the minister of the gospel
is entitled of that as matter of right. But again over and above
who extended spiritual aid to him during the same
his legitime he would be disqualified.
period;
2) The relatives of such priest or minister of the
gospel within the FOURTH DEGREE, the church, 3) A guardian with respect to testamentary
order, chapter, community, organization, or dispositions given by a ward in his favor before the
institution to which such priest or minister may final accounts of the guardianship have been
belong; approved, even if the testator should die after the
approval thereof; nevertheless, any provision made
by the ward in favor of the guardian when the
PRIEST OR THE MINISTER. The priest or the minister who
latter is his ascendant, descendant, brother, sister,
administered the last confession during the last illness of the
or spouse, shall be valid;
testator.
THE CONFESSION MUST HAPPEN FIRST BEFORE THE A guardian can either be or both:
TESTATOR MADE THE TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION.
And it should happen during the last illness because it is a. A guardian over the person of the ward
presumed when the testator is ill so he would not be thinking b. A guardian over the property of the ward.

A guardian here who is disqualified could EITHER OF CONTINUING CARE. Here what is contemplated is a
THE TWO OR BOTH. The reason is there might be undue continuing care because the wording of the law is who took
influence exerted by the guardian over the ward. care of the testator during his last illness. When we say took
care, it contemplated something which is not just a single care
or an isolated incident (like nagpa-check-up). Dapat siya jud
DURATION. The disqualification is only for a certain duration:
ang nag take care so continuing care sa testator.
 During the period of the guardianship and

What is druggist? In the sense na murag pharmacist.
 Before approval of the final accounts of the
guardianship.
What if anak sa testator or descendant, disqualified ba?
The same sa priest sa iyahang legitime he is not disqualified.
If the testamentary dispositions were made after the approval
But over and above his legitime, he cannot get that. He is
of the final account of the guardianship then that would be
disqualified.
valid.
There is a distinction because with respect to the priest, his Article 1028. The prohibitions mentioned in article 739,
relatives up to the 4th degree are disqualified. But in #3 concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to testamentary
(Guardian), take note, when the latter is his ascendant, provisions
descendant, brother, sister or spouse, the provision shall be
valid. Meaning if the guardian is ascendant, descendant, Article 739. The following donations shall be void:
brother, sister or spouse of the ward, the testamentary
provision will not be void. Unlike with respect to the priest or
the minister, bisag pag anak niya, ascendant, descendant, (1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery
brother, sister or spouse, void gihapon. But as I mentioned or concubinage at the time of the donation;
before, katon lang over and above his legitime ang void. Kung
naa siyay legitime, he is entitled to that. (2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same
criminal offense, in consideration thereof;
PRIEST OR MINISTER GUARDIAN

(3) Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants
The relatives of such any provision made by the
and ascendants, by reason of his office.
priest or minister of the ward in favor of the guardian
gospel within the fourth when the latter is his
degree, the church, order, ascendant, descendant, In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of
chapter, community, brother, sister, or spouse, nullity may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee;
organization, or institution to shall be valid. and the guilt of the donor and donee may be proved by
which such priest or minister preponderance of evidence in the same action.
may belong;
This is INCAPACITY BY REASON OF PUBLIC POLICY OR

4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a will, the MORALITY.
spouse, parents, or children, or any one claiming
under such witness, spouse, parents, or children;
If you notice these are disqualifications in donations as
mentioned in Article 1028. The same would apply in
If you remember under Article 823, what is the effect if succession. They are founded on the same consideration,
the witness is also a legatee, devisee or heir? Is the will liberality or generosity of the donor or the testator.
valid?
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 1028. Now take note this
YES. It is valid. What is the consequence of that situation? would only apply to TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION. This
The heir, legatee or devisee forfeits the inheritance, legacy or cannot apply to legal succession because these persons are
devise. He is disqualified to prevent conflict of interest. That is entitled to receive their shares regardless sa kaning mga
also here. situtations sa Article 739.
But again applying Article 823, if there are other three Applying Article 739, THESE SHOULD BE THE
witnesses who are qualified to become a witness, aside DISQUALIFICATIONS:
from that 4th witness (for example who is also a
legatee), he can still get his legacy because this time his
1) Those made between persons who were guilty of
presence as a witness is no longer material for the validity of
adultery or concubinage at the time of the
the will since the will only needs three witnesses.
donation;
5) Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health officer or

Here, even if the law says guilty, it can be proved by mere
druggist who took care of the testator during his
preponderance of evidence.
last illness;
Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health officer or druggist.

Kanang mga nag take care sa testator.

2) Those made between persons found guilty of the The preceding paragraph shall apply when the testator has
same criminal offense, in consideration thereof; disposed of his property in favor of the poor of a definite
locality.
So imong gisugo si X pataya gud to akong silingan. Gitagaan

nimo siyag property sa imohang will in consideration of that. It is what we call the INSTITUTION OF THE POOR.
That is not allowed.
The provision is not specified kung kinsa ang poor kay kung
3) Those made to a public officer or his wife, moingon si testator sa akong poor na mga silingan so walay.
descendants and ascendants, by reason of his Sa poor in general without the designation of particular
office. persons or community.
Kinsa man karon ang poor? Those who are living in the
Tangaa pud ani uy. Mang bribe na lang gani ka ibutang pa jud
domicile of the testator at the time of his death. So kung
nimo sa will.
kababayan mo ni testator pwede. Unless it should clearly
appear that his intention was otherwise.
Article 1029. Should the testator dispose of the whole or
part of his property for prayers and pious works for the Kinsa man magbuot kung kinsa ang poor? And how
benefit of his soul, in general terms and without specifying its should the property be distributed?
application, the executor, with the court's approval shall
deliver one-half thereof or its proceeds to the church or
denomination to which the testator may belong, to be used for  The person appointed by the testator kung nay
such prayers and pious works, and the other half to the State, gi-appoint.
for the purposes mentioned in article 1013.  Kung wala, by these persons mentioned: by the
justice of the peace, the mayor, and the
municipal treasurer, who shall decide by a
This is what we call the INSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. majority of votes all questions that may arise.
 Plus approval by the RTC
This is intended for prayer and pious works for the benefit of
the soul of the testator. Article 1031. A testamentary provision in favor of a
disqualified person, even though made under the guise of an
EXAMPLE: I hereby leave 1 million for prayers and pious onerous contract, or made through an intermediary, shall be
works for my soul. Wala niya gi-specify kung kinsa na church. void.
Unsaon pag-apply. Kapila ba ampoan.
To avoid the disqualification under the law, gihatag sa nimo
This is the application if there is no specification: through an intermediary. Gusto nimo ihatag sa imo mistress
ipaagi nimo sa inyo common friend and the common friend
will give to the mistress. That is still prohibited.
 ½ to the church or denomination to which the
testator may belong to be used for prayers and
pious works. Even in the guise of an onerous contract, ipaagi ninyo na
 And the other ½ to the State katong sa Escheat Deed of Sale daw kuno, still it is still void.
proceedings for purposes mentioned in Article 1013.
If it is proved ha na mao jud to siyay eventual recipient and
Kung naka specify to how much, unsa ang purpose, kinsa ang the purpose is because of that.
mag gunit sa money, pila i-spend, pila ka days, then kato ang
i-follow. This is just applicable if there is no specific
application and to particular person is in-charge with the duty Article 1032. The following are incapable of succeeding by
of giving the money or property and no date fixed for the reason of unworthiness:
prayers.
(1) Parents who have abandoned their children or induced
their daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life, or attempted
Article 1030. Testamentary provisions in favor of the poor in
against their virtue;
general, without designation of particular persons or of any
community, shall be deemed limited to the poor living in the
domicile of the testator at the time of his death, unless it (2) Any person who has been convicted of an attempt against
should clearly appear that his intention was otherwise. the life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or
ascendants;
The designation of the persons who are to be considered as
poor and the distribution of the property shall be made by the (3) Any person who has accused the testator of a crime for
person appointed by the testator for the purpose; in default of which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more,
such person, by the executor, and should there be no if the accusation has been found groundless;
executor, by the justice of the peace, the mayor, and the
municipal treasurer, who shall decide by a majority of votes
(4) Any heir of full age who, having knowledge of the violent
all questions that may arise. In all these cases, the approval
death of the testator, should fail to report it to an officer of
of the Court of First Instance shall be necessary.
the law within a month, unless the authorities have already
taken action; this prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein,
according to law, there is no obligation to make an
accusation;

(5) Any person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the NOT APPLICABLE. But this take note this prohibition should
spouse of the testator; not apply to cases wherein according to law there is no
obligation to make an accusation. This is not yet applicable
under our present state of laws because there is no law that
(6) Any person who by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue compels us to make an accusation to report. Dili ni siya
influence should cause the testator to make a will or to applicable.
change one already made;
Article 1033. The cause of unworthiness shall be without

(7) Any person who by the same means prevents another
effect if the testator had knowledge thereof at the time he
from making a will, or from revoking one already made, or
made the will, or if, having known of them subsequently, he
who supplants, conceals, or alters the latter's will;
should condone them in writing.
(8) Any person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the

decedent. The rule here is CONDONATION ERASES THE
DISQUALIFICATION OF THE HEIR.
This is INCAPACITY BY REASON OF UNWORTHINESS.

CONDONATION. When you say condonation, it is a
UNILATERAL ACT OF THE TESTATOR. Iyahang gi-forgive
If you notice, the grounds under Article 1032 most of them ang heir. The heir does not have to repent or ask for
are similar to the grounds for DISINHERITANCE. Here, the forgiveness. In fact, gi deadma lang sa testator or decedent
reason for the disqualification is because of the but under the law on disqualification, condonation would erase
UNWORTHINESS OF THE HEIR. He has committed an the effect of disqualification.
offense against the testator or decedent that makes him
unworthy of the generosity or liberality of the decedent.
DISINHERITANCE. This is different from disinheritance, in
disinheritance, what erases the effect of disinheritance?
Items No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are similar to the grounds RECONCILIATION. So mere condonation in disinheritance is
for disinheritance. also not sufficient. It should be reconciliation meaning
BILATERAL. Both the testator or decedent and the heir have
resumed their relationship, the relationship prior to the
The ground here should be EXISTING AT THE TIME OF offense. So nagkauliay silang duha.
DEATH. Example attempt against the life of the testator, his
spouse, descendant or ascendant. Namatay si testator then
one of the heirs attempted against the life of the spouse of INCAPACITY
DISINHERITANCE
the testator. Is he disqualified? He is convicted for that. NO (UNWORTHINESS)
because your qualification should be measured at the time of Condonation Reconciliation
death because that is the time when there is transmission. Unilateral act (by the testator Bilateral act (by the
Kung after death pa nimo gibuhat dili siya applicable. or decedent) testator and heir)
This would apply to LEGAL SUCCESSION AND There are TWO KINDS OF CONDONATION contemplated
TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION. under Article 1033:
Some of the grounds here are grounds for disinheritance so 1. Testator had knowledge thereof at the time he made the
because of this a son convicted of an attempt against the child will (IMPLIED CONDONATION)
of the testator, even if you do not disinherit that son he
is disqualified by reason of Article 1032. You don’t have
to disinherit him. Pero kung naglagot jud ka then you can The heir already attempted against the life of the
disinherit him in the will para klaro. testator. He was convicted. He is already disqualified
diba. And then the testator made a will. In his will, he
instituted that same child as heir. That is an implied
(4) Any heir of full age who, having knowledge of the violent condonation. He is now qualified because of that will. The
death of the testator, should fail to report it to an officer of will should really institute him as heir. Dili enough na
the law within a month, unless the authorities have already nag buhat siyag will and then naa siyay gihatag na legacy
taken action; this prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein, sa another person. Dapat the person who committed the
according to law, there is no obligation to make an offense should be instituted as an heir in the will for their
accusation; to be an implied condonation
FULL AGE here is 21 years old. LEGAL AGE is 18 years old. 2. If, having known of them subsequently, he should
condone them in writing (EXPRESS CONDONATION)
HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE VIOLENT DEATH OF THE

TESTATOR. When the law says VIOLENT DEATH, this Under this situation, naa nay gibuhat na will si testator
should refer to an INTENTIONAL CRIME. Pwede man and then he instituted that heir for example and then the
naligsan na wala gituyo. Reckless imprudence. That’s not the heir committed an offense which is a ground for
one contemplated. Murder – pwede. disqualification. The testator would really like to condone
kay gusto jud niya na tagaan si heir. How can he
condone? This time in WRITING. Whatever written
SHOULD FAIL TO REPORT IT TO AN OFFICER OF THE document would that be basta there should be written
LAW WITHIN A MONTH. Wala niya gireport. document manifesting or declaring the condonation.

Unlike katong first situation na he already knew of the Dili pa ko pwede mag disinherit because the law says
ground and then he made a will. convicted by final judgement. Unya dugay pa man mahumana
ang kaso namatay na lang si testator.
The effect is the heir is already restored to his capacity.
He can make a will as long as later on there is really
conviction by final judgement. The same thing for
THE SAME GROUND FOR INCAPACITY IS MADE AS disqualification. There is no need for the final judgment
GROUND FOR DISINHERITANCE. What if the ground here to come out before the death of the testator because
for disqualification (convicted of an attempt against the life of that is already beyond the control of the testator.
the testator), that is also made as a ground for
disinheritance? The son made an attempt against the life of
the testator. The testator was so offended he made a will. In Kung conditional ang institution, devise or legacy, the time of
that will, he distributed his properties but hi disinherited the compliance with the condition should also be considered.
son because of that ground (attempt against the life of the
testator for which he was convicted). The ground for
Article 1035. If the person excluded from the inheritance by
disqualification here is also made a ground for disinheritance.
reason of incapacity should be a child or descendant of the
Nagkauliay si testator and the heir. There was
decedent and should have children or descendants, the latter
RECONCILIATION between them.
shall acquire his right to the legitime.
Can we now say that the heir has been restored to his
The person so excluded shall not enjoy the usufruct and
inheritance? Or should there be CONDONATION in writing
administration of the property thus inherited by his children.
(Express Condonation)? Under the law on disinheritance, mere
reconciliation is sufficient para ma erase ang effect sa
disinheritance. But under the law on incapacity naa naman This is similar to the RULE ON DISINHERITANCE. If you are
siyay will iya nang gi disinherit so dapat kung gusto niya i- disqualified to inherit and you are represented by your child,
restore, he should condone in writing under the law on you cannot have administration or usufruct over the property
disqualification. of the child who inherited the property because you cannot
inherit.
ANSWER: Just remember that if the ground for incapacity is
also made as a ground for disinheritance meaning wala nag Article 1036. Alienations of hereditary property, and acts of
rely si testator sa by operation of law that he is disqualified, administration performed by the excluded heir, before the
nag disinherit jud siya he made will. judicial order of exclusion, are valid as to the third persons
who acted in good faith; but the co-heirs shall have a right to
In that case, we follow the law on disinheritance kay recover damages from the disqualified heir.
nahimong naman siyang ground for disinheritance. Na
supersede kung baga sa rules on disinheritance ang rules sa
Before the declaration of disqualification, even before you file
incapacity if again the same ground for incapacity is made as
the petition for declaration of incapacity, katong si heir na
ground for disnheritance. In that case mere reconciliation
disqualified supposedly nag baligya ug property sa estate, nag
would be sufficient. No need for a condonation in
administer siya para i-preserve ang estate, what is status of
writing. Here the heir can already claim his inheritance
those contract? The law says they are valid as to third
because of the reconciliation. Both of them nagbalikay
persons who acted in good faith. Wala siyay idea na
silang duha.
disqualified diay siya na heir.
Article 1034. In order to judge the capacity of the heir, But the co-heirs shall have a right to recover damages from
devisee or legatee, his qualification at the time of the death of the disqualified heir. They are not deprived of remedy.
the decedent shall be the criterion.
Article 1037. The unworthy heir who is excluded from the

In cases falling under Nos. 2, 3, or 5 of article 1032, it shall succession has a right to demand indemnity or any expenses
be necessary to wait until final judgment is rendered, and in incurred in the preservation of the hereditary property, and to
the case falling under No. 4, the expiration of the month enforce such credits as he may have against the estate.
allowed for the report.
He (unworthy heir) has the right to recover these damages

If the institution, devise or legacy should be conditional, the
and expenses because this would still be incurred even if it
time of the compliance with the condition shall also be
were not for the heir who ___ for them. The expenses for
considered.
preservation inures to the benefit of the estate so he has the
right to demand indemnity for that.
I already mentioned this. For an heir to be qualified or
disqualified, WE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
Article 1038. Any person incapable of succession, who,
DISQUALIFICATIONS AT THE TIME OF DEATH. Whether
disregarding the prohibition stated in the preceding articles,
the heir is disqualified tan-awon nato kung unsa ang iyang
entered into the possession of the hereditary property, shall
status at the time of death because it is the time when the
be obliged to return it together it its accessions.
transfer happens.
He shall be liable for all the fruits and rents he may have
EXAMPLE: Convicted by final judgment pwede na magbugat
received, or could have received through the exercise of due
si testator ug will bisag pag wala pa na convict as long as ma
diligence.
convict siya later on by final judgement because alangan pag
maghulat pa si testator kanus-a maning mahuman ang kaso.

These are also his obligations under Article 1038. We are [1] “ACCEPTANCE”—is the act by which a person called to
talking here of the disqualified heir. He has to return the succeed to the inheritance of the [decedent], either by
hereditary property he possess plus its accessions. Also the will or by law, manifests his assent to the receipt of the
fruits and interest if he received them or could have received property, rights, and obligations which are transmitted to
through the exercise of due diligence. He should also him through the death of the decedent.
indemnify the estate for this expenses.
[2] “REPUDIATION”—is the act by which the person called
to succeed to the inheritance manifests his unwillingness
Article 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of to succeed to the same.
the nation of the decedent.
REQUISITE: CONSENT
This is the fourth matter in succession which is governed by
You cannot be forced to accept, you cannot be forced to
the national law. The first three are mentioned in Article 16 of
repudiate; so, to be valid, the acceptance or repudiation must
the NCC.
be voluntary and free. Meaning, we should be free from
vitiated consent. If there is vitiated consent, the repudiation,
Article 1040. The action for a declaration of incapacity and for example is not effective.
for the recovery of the inheritance, devise or legacy shall be
brought within five years from the time the disqualified person _____________________________________________
took possession thereof. It may be brought by anyone who EFFECTS OF VALID ACCEPTANCE OR REPUDATION
may have an interest in the succession.
ARTICLE 1042. The effects of the acceptance or repudiation
shall always retroact to the moment of the death of the
Before we discussed sa State five years pud to siya. Here, 5 decedent.
years but the period shall start from the time the disqualified
person took possession. EFFECT OF ACCEPTANCE:
Duha ka actions ang gimention diri. Even if you accepted, [e.g.,] 10 months after the death, your
acceptance has a retroactive effect: It is as if your
ownership of the property inherited starts from the moment of
 The action for a declaration of incapacity and death.
 for the recovery of the inheritance, devise or legacy
Within 5 years from the the disqualified person took EFFECT OF REPUDATION:
possession. Because kung wala siya nag take possession dili
ka ma-bother diba kay wala naman siya nanghilabot pero [Same:] Even if you repudiated 10 months after the death of
kung diha mo enter then you can take actions. Anyone who the decedent, your repudiation retroacts from the moment of
may have an interest in the succession, the heirs, the death.
creditors of the estate. They can bring the action for
declaration of incapacity or for the recovery of the inheritance, What’s the effect? Because of this, a person who repudiates
devise or legacy. is deemed never to have possessed the estate; so, you cannot
claim for any right for 10 months.
OCTOBER 24, 2018
Example: “Wala pa man ko nag-repudiate for 10
Transcribed by: UGDANG
months, so ako sa to’ng ako’ng gi-harvest.”—No!
If you repudiate, that retroacts [from] the moment of death,

SECTION 3
so all you can or have received should be returned, because
Acceptance and Repudiation of the Inheritance
you never became an heir, legatee or devisee, by reason of
repudiation
BASIS OF THE CONCEPTS: ACCEPTANCE AND
REPUDIATION; POLICY: WHEN ACCEPTANCE AND REPUDIATION MAY BE MADE
You have discussed before in Obligations, and in Donation, ARTICLE 1043. No person may accept or repudiate an
no one is forced to accept the generosity or liberality of inheritance unless he is certain of the death of the person
another. The same goes with Succession, because the from whom he is to inherit, and of his right to the inheritance.
consideration here is the liberality or the generosity of the
testator, that’s why we have here the concepts of
“HE SHOULD BE CERTAIN OF THE DEATH OF THE
“acceptance” and “repudiation;” so, the heir, legatee or
DECEDENT AND HIS RIGHT TO THE INHERITANCE.”
devisee has the option whether to accept or reject the
inheritance, legacy, or devise.
NOTE: You cannot accept or repudiate prior to the death of
the decedent. That would be premature, because there is
_____________________________________________
nothing yet to accept or repudiate. Your rights are merely
“ACCEPTANCE”; “REPUDIATION”;
inchoate; so, any acceptance or repudiation made before
REQUISITES FOR A VALID ACCEPTANCE/REPUDATION
death, e.g., repudiation: directly repudiated before dead, still,
that is not valid.
ARTICLE 1041. The acceptance or repudiation of the
inheritance is an act which is purely voluntary and free. So, upon death, you can still change your mind, and take your
inheritance, because your repudiation made before [was] not
DEFINITION: valid.

Both acceptance and repudiation must be made at the time of [Article 1044] guardians guardians,
death, and of course the heirs should also know the fact nga,
“the decedent or the testator had already died;” so, “He
should be certain of the death of the decedent and his right to
the inheritance.” must be
with judicial
[Note: Articles 1044-1048 were discussed together] approval
_____________________________________________
WHO MAY ACCEPT OR REPUDIATE
Article 1044. Any person having the free disposal of his [2] PERSON
property may accept or repudiate an inheritance. SUFFERING guardian guardians,
UNDER CIVIL
Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons may INTERDICTI
be accepted by their parents or guardians. Parents or ON
guardians may repudiate the inheritance left to their wards [Article 1044] must be
only by judicial authorization. with judicial
approval
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.
[3] POOR
Article 1045. The lawful representatives of corporations, [Article 1044] The person CANNOT
associations, institutions and entities qualified to acquire designated by the
property may accept any inheritance left to the latter, but in testator;
order to repudiate it, the approval of the court shall be
necessary.
Article 1046. Public official establishments can neither accept or, in his default,
nor repudiate an inheritance without the approval of the we follow the order
government. in Article 1030:”
[katong]
Article 1047. A married woman of age may repudiate an
inheritance without the consent of her husband.
[1] Justice of the
Article 1048. Deaf-mutes who can read and write may Peace,
accept or repudiate the inheritance personally or through an
agent. Should they not be able to read and write, the [2] the Mayor, or
inheritance shall be accepted by their guardians. These
guardians may repudiate the same with judicial approval. [3] Municipal
Treasurer.
INCAPACITY TO ACCEPT
Actually you can give an inheritance, legacy or devise to a

person, even if he is still in the womb as long as he is later [4] CORPORATIO
born and died; so, for you to become an heir, you don’t need to NS, lawful lawful
possess free disposal of the property ASSOCIATIO representative representati
NS, AND ve,
But of course, that property given has to be accepted or ENTITIES
repudiated, e.g., 1 year old pa lang ka, you cannot possibly [Article 1045]
accept, you cannot also reject, but the law says, “there is need
for acceptance,” so in that case, who shall accept or reject? So, but with
that’s mentioned under Article 1044. court
approval
We will summarize who are the heirs, legatees, or devisees,
and who may accept in their behalf, and who may repudiate in
their behalf:
ABRIDGED VERSION [SUMMARY] [5] PUBLIC

OFFICIAL with the approval with the
WHO MAY ESTABLISHM of the government approval of
HEIRS, WHO MAY REPUDIAT ENTS the
LEGATEES, OR ACCEPT [IN E [IN [Article 1046] government
DEVISEES, THEIR BEHALF] THEIR
BEHALF]
[6] MARRIED
[1] MINOR/S WOMAN without the without the
parents or parents, or consent of the consent of

[Article 1047] husband the husband Repudiation:
Who can repudiate? Nothing is provided in the law. Wala,

meaning, they cannot repudiate, why?
[without the
consent of Well, obviously, poor na gani sila, tapos mag-repudiate pa
[without the the wife] g’yud, so wala sila’y karapatan daw, to mag-repudiate—
consent of the accept lang! Wala’y nakabutang sa law, so meaning they
[MARRIED wife] can’t repudiate.
MAN]
[4] CORPORATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS, AND ENTITIES—
Acceptance:
[7] DEAF – MUTE personally or personally
WHO CAN through an agent or through Under Article 1045, the law says, “acceptance may be
READ AND made by the lawful representative.
an agent.
WRITE
Repudiation:
[Article 1048] [Same]
Also under Article 1045, it can be done by the lawful
representative, but with court approval.
[8] DEAF – MUTE [5] PUBLIC OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS who are also
WHO guardian. guardian instituted in the will—
CANNOT
READ OR Acceptance:
WRITE
[Article 1048] with court Who can accept? Article 1046 says, “[a]cceptance must
approval. be with the approval of the government.“
Repudiation:
How about repudiation? Also with the approval of the

government, also under 1046.
SUMMARY: [6] MARRIED WOMAN—
[1] MINORS— under Article 1044, Acceptance:
Acceptance: Article 1047, says, she can accept on her own, without
the consent of the husband.
The law says, [t]hey can accept as long as they are
represented by their parents or guardians. The minor Repudiation:
himself cannot accept, because he has no free disposal.
Although he can be an heir, he has no free disposal of his Also under Article 1047, the same, she can repudiate
property. on her own without the consent of her husband.
Of course, we also know nga, married men can accept

Repudiation:
or repudiate on their own, without the consent of their
Can that minor repudiate? Again, he must be represented wives, but [the law] does not mention anymore, of
by his parents, or guardians, and the repudiation must be course, because it is already presumed.
with judicial approval
[7] DEAF – MUTE WHO CAN READ AND WRITE—
[2] PERSON SUFFERING UNDER CIVIL INTERDICTION—
Acceptance:
the same thing: He cannot accept on his own, he has to be
represented by a guardian. That’s under Article 1048, the law says, “they can
accept personally or through an agent.“
[3] POOR—
Repudiation:
Diba, we have mentioned before, the poor can be But as to repudiation, 1048 actually, basta deaf-mute
instituted, so, it depends, who will determine who are the who can read and write, the same: personally or
persons considered as poor. through an agent.
Acceptance: [8] DEAF MUTE WHO CANNOT READ OR WRITE—
Who may accept? Article 1044 says, “by the person
Acceptance:
designated by the testator; or, in his default, we follow the
order in Article 1030:” [katong] 1048 says, “acceptance must be made by the
guardian.”
[1] Justice of the Peace,
[2] the Mayor, or Repudiation:
[3] Municipal Treasurer.
Also must be made by the guardian with court approval.

So these are the specific provisions relating to the concept of acceptance. You cannot be
acceptance and repudiation by specific recipients. perceived to have accepted if you did those
acts, as long as it is clear pud na wala nimo gi-
REPUDATION HAS MORE REQUIREMENTS THAN assume ang title or capacity of an heir, i.e.,
ACCEPTANCE; POLICY: concerned lang ka sa estate.
If you notice, the law requires more conditions or ____________________________________________

requirements— there are more requirements imposed— for EXAMPLES OF TACIT ACCEPTANCE:
repudiation, than for acceptance, because, it’s common to
accept. It’s not usual to repudiate; so, the law has to be sure [In] Article 1050:
nga, “[t]inuod ba gy’ud ni nga gi-repudiate g’yud?” So, most
[of] the articles, there is [a] need for court approval, so that Article 1050. An inheritance is deemed accepted:
the court will really be satisfied nga voluntary g’yud ang
repudiation— done intelligently without vitiated consent. (1) If the heirs sells, donates, or assigns his right to a
stranger, or to his co-heirs, or to any of them;
____________________________________________
KINDS OF ACCEPTANCE (2) If the heir renounces the same, even though gratuitously,
for the benefit of one or more of his co-heirs;
Article 1049. Acceptance may be express or tacit.
(3) If he renounces it for a price in favor of all his co-heirs
An express acceptance must be made in a public or private indiscriminately; but if this renunciation should be gratuitous,
document. and the co-heirs in whose favor it is made are those upon
whom the portion renounced should devolve by virtue of
A tacit acceptance is one resulting from acts by which the accretion, the inheritance shall not be deemed as accepted.
intention to accept is necessarily implied, or which one would
have no right to do except in the capacity of an heir. ____________________________________________
NO.1: “[S]ELLS, DONATES, OR ASSIGNS HIS RIGHT”
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. Whether this is made to a stranger (meaning not to an heir)
or to his co-heirs, or to any of them: meaning, he sold,
donated, or assigned his rights to a stranger or to all his co-
3 KINDS OF ACCEPTANCE: heirs.
[1] Express acceptance [Article 1049] Example:
[2] Tacit acceptance [Article 1049]
[3] Presumed acceptance [Article 1057] A, B, C, and D are co-heirs
DISCUSSION: [i] A sold his rights to B, C, and D.
[1] “EXPRESS ACCEPTANCE”—[How] do we know that it is ILLUSTRATION:

express? The law says, “public or private document” so
there has to be a document to be called an express B[co-heir]
acceptance:
Sell/ A
[a] “public document”, meaning, notarized; or,
[b] “private document”, meaning, not notarized, as Donate/ [heir] C[co-heir] [AND]
long as it is in writing.
Assign
[2] “TACIT ACCEPTANCE”—This is not in writing:
D[co-heir]
[a] 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 (Article 1049, 2nd par.). [ii] Or, only to B
e.g., Imo na’ng gibaligya: Without expressing

any acceptance or repudiation, you sold the
property intended for you, what is that? ILLUSTRATION:
You cannot sell something which you do not B[co-heir] [ONLY]

own. So that act necessarily implies acceptance,
because you cannot sell what you did not accept Sells/ A
in the first place. Donates/ [heir] C[co-heir]
[b] Acts of mere preservation or provisional Assigns
administration, do not imply an acceptance of the D[co-heir]
inheritance, if through such acts, the title or
capacity of an heir has not assumed (Article 1049,
3rd par.).
e.g., Gipa-repair nimo ang portion sa estate,

that’s act of preservation. It’s not necessarily in

[iii] or to B and C. Wala niya gi-apil si D, still, that will be considered as

acceptance, because, again, if it is renunciation, it should
be renounced in favor of all.
ILLUSTRATION: So if your renounce only in favor of 1 or sum, or not all,

even if it is gratuitous, it would be considered as
acceptance.
_____________________________________________
B[co-heir] NO.3: [H]E RENOUNCES IN FAVOR OF ALL BUT FOR A
PRICE
Sells/ A [AND] _____________________________________________
Donates/ [heir] C[co-heir] Examples:
Assigns [i] [A] renounces [his] share in favor of B, C, and D for

10M.”
D[co-heir]
ILLUSTRATION:
That is still acceptance, because again, how could you donate,
assign, or sell something which, in the first place, you did not
own? So, you must have first assumed the capacity of an heir,
before you can sell, donate or transfer. B[co-heir]
A [AND]
__________________________________________________ Renounces [heir] C[co-heir]
NO. 2: “[R]ENOUNCES, EVEN THOUGH GRATUITOUSLY, For 10 M:
FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE OR MORE OF HIS CO-HEIRS” D[co-heir]
_____________________________________________
Example:
[i] A said, “I am renouncing my share in favor of B.” Well, if you really renounce, you are not entitled to
receive anything, so, if that is the case, it is not
renunciation. You really accepted because you
demanded for ₱10M in exchange.
ILLUSTRATION:
[ii] But if [A says] “I hereby renounce my share to B, C,
B[co-heir] and D without asking anything in return, then that is
really renunciation.
A
Renounces: [heir] C[co-heir] So, those are the instances of tacit acceptance mentioned
D[co-heir] in Article 1050.
__________________________________________
“REPUDIATION”
Even if he did not receive anything for that, that is

ARTICLE 1051. The repudiation of an inheritance shall be
considered as acceptance, because if you are renouncing,
you cannot choose to whom you are renouncing your made in a public or authentic instrument, or by petition
share. Here, A said, “to B,” presented to the court having jurisdiction over the
testamentary or intestate proceedings.
[ii] or even if A says, “to B, and C.”

HOW IS REPUDIATION DONE?
There are only 2 MODES:

ILLUSTRATION:
[1] [by a] public or authentic instrument—
meaning:
B[co-heir]
[a] public instrument—notarized before a notary
A [AND] public; or,
Renounces: [heir] C[co-heir]
[b] authentic instrument—not necessarily
D[co-heir] notarized, but it is in writing, and it is not forged:
It is a genuine document.
[2] [By a] petition presented with the court having

jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate
proceeding—

execution of the compromise agreement equivalent

Example: Nag file ka ug petition sa court, to a repudiation of his legitime?
manifesting your renunciation. Although, that is a
more expensive way of renouncing, because mag-file HOLDING: No. Under the Law, there is no such
pa ka ug petition. thing as implied repudiation.
THERE IS NO IMPLIED OR TACIT REPUDIATION Ang sa acceptance, naa: You have
IMPERIAL V. CA [1] tacit acceptance, and

G.R. No. 112483.
October 8, 1999 [2] presumed acceptance.
FACTS: During his lifetime, LEONCIO sold a parcel
of land to his SON, but it was alleged that it was Now, under the law, Article 1051, there are only
actually a donation, not a sale. 2 ways:
Later on, LEONCIO himself filed a complaint for [1] in a public or authentic document, or
the annulment of that sale on the ground that,
allegedly, he was deceived into signing a document. [2]by a petition presented to the court.
And then later on, there was a compromise So, the SC said2 that: “VICTOR’s act of moving for
agreement between LEONCIO and the execution of the compromise agreement cannot be
DEFENDANT. considered an act of repudiation of his legitime. Our
law on Succession does not countenance tacit
While it is a compromised agreement, if it is repudiation of inheritance. It requires an express
approved by the court, it actually becomes the act on the part of the heir.”
judgment of the court, so the parties to the
compromise agreement must comply; otherwise, Just remember: There are only 2 ways to repudiate
anyone of them who is aggrieved can file a motion an inherence, and there is no such thing as
for execution of the compromise agreement. implied or tacit repudiation.
Pending the execution of the judgment on the

compromise agreement, Leoncio died, and he left
_____________________________________________
2 heirs: his NATURAL SON, and the ADOPTED SON,
WHEN CREDITORS MAY ACCEPT
VICTOR.
VICTOR was substituted in place of LEONCIO in that ARTICLE 1052. If the heir repudiates the inheritance to the
case, and it was VICTOR who moved for the prejudice of his own creditors, the latter may petition the
execution of the said compromise agreement. court to authorize them to accept it in the name of the heir.
VICTOR died single, and was survived by1 CESAR The acceptance shall benefit the creditors only to an extent
and TERESA. sufficient to cover the amount of their credits. The excess,
should there be any, shall in no case pertain to the renouncer,
CESAR and TERESA filed a complaint for the but shall be adjudicated to the persons to whom, in
nullification of the deed of sale, katong same accordance with the rules established in this Code, it may
deed of sale, which was the subject of the case filed belong.
by LEONCIO. The ground of CESAR and TERESA in
seeking for the nullification of the Deed of Sale was
that, it impairs the legitime of their predecessor,
VICTOR. WHEN AVAILABLE:
According to the DEFENDANT in that case, [CESAR Here, we have an heir who repudiates his inheritance.
and TERESA] cannot anymore question the deed of
sale, because VICTOR himself, during his lifetime, Actually, rights may be waived, provided, it is not contrary to
moved for the execution of the compromise law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, or
agreement, and the compromise agreement ended prejudicial to third person with rights recognized by law. This
that case regarding also the same subject matter, is an application: If you are an heir, you can actually
[the sale], so when VICTOR moved for the repudiate your inheritance, but if that would be for the
prejudice of your creditors,
execution of the compromise agreement, he
impliedly renounced his legitime according to the
e.g., A owes B ₱5M, and then A stands to inherit ₱10M,
DEFENDANTS, so there is no more legitime to talk and A has no other properties, he is actually insolvent,
about here— no legitime that is impaired because
VICTOR already renounced his legitime by moving
for the execution of the Compromise Agreement. 2
[O]ur law on succession does not countenance tacit repudiation of
ISSUE: Was the act of VICTOR in moving for the inheritance. Rather, it requires an express act on the part of the heir. Thus,
under Article 1051 of Civil Code: The repudiation of an inheritance shall be
made in a public or authentic instrument, or by petition presented to the
1
(his NATURAL FATHER, so daghan ni’ng namatay, etc,. so later on ang court having jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate proceedings.
nabilin na lang iyang other heirs,) (Imperial v. CA, G.R. No. 112483. October 8, 1999)

and then he repudiated his inheritance. “I don’t need [2] substitution,

₱10M.” [3] representation,
[4] accretion,
Ana si B, “Ako, I need to be paid. Naa ka’y utang sa [5] intestacy.
akoa, kung imo’ tong i-accept sobra pa siya pangbayad
sa utang.” In that case, B is a prejudiced creditor Last will be intestacy ,kung dili possible to’ng
“TO THE PREJUDICE OF HIS CREDITOR” [1] substitution,

[2] representation,
When you say, “to the prejudice of his creditor,” meaning, [3] accretion,
the creditor has no other means to collect the debt, kay kung [4] then it will go to the legal heirs of the decedent.
naa pa siya’y other assets from which the creditors can
proceed against, this would not apply. Adto-a lang to’ng
other properties ni heir, ayaw lang hilabti to’ng iyang __________________________________________________
inheritance kay dili man siya gusto mudawat. Don’t force him WHEN RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REPUDIATE
to accept; but, if he has no other means to pay, then, this TRANSMITTED TO HEIR’S HEIR:
will now apply
ARTICLE 1053. If the heir should die without having
REMEDY OF THE CREDITOR: TO ACCEPT IN BEHALF
accepted or repudiated the inheritance his right shall be
THE HEIR REPUDIATED
transmitted to his heirs.
The creditor may petition the court to authorize them to
accept the inheritance in the name of the heir. If an heir dies, he already inherited pero wala pa man siya
naka-accept or repudiate, so his right will now be exercised by
WHEN NOT APPLICABLE: his own heirs.
If you remember the case of Leviste v. CA, which we have __________________________________________________

discussed before: (Katong:) SEVERAL HEIRS— RULE FOR ACCEPTANCE OR
REPUDIATION
LEVISTE V. CA
G.R. No. L-29184 ARTICLE 1054. Should there be several heirs called to the
January 30, 1989 inheritance, some of them may accept and the others may
FACTS: [The] lawyer appealed the denial of the repudiate it.
probate, because according to him, he was a
creditor of the estate pursuant to Article 1052, so
he could accept in of behalf the heir.
It’s not required na, all of them must accept or must
repudiate.
ISSUE: Is the lawyer a creditor pursuant to Article
1052, so he could accept in behalf of the heir? ACCRETION
HOLDING: No. So what happens if some accept and some repudiate— there
are several heirs?
[1] Contingent lang iya’ng fees, and then,
Actually, the concept of accretion can apply, because
[2] Rosa did not become an heir, because the will
was denied, and it was just a legacy, so a [1] there is repudiation and
legacy has to depend on the existence of a [2] there is plurality of subjects:
valid will. So he is denied. So no legacy. So dili
ka legatee , so Atty. Leviste was not a creditor Several heirs instituted to 1 inheritance; one of them
of an heir. repudiates. So, the share of the one who repudiates can
accrue to other heirs. So accretion here would be possible,
EXTENT OF ACCEPTANCE: again, as long as i-follow nato tong order of priority.
Here, the law says, “if you are a prejudiced creditor, you may __________________________________________________
accept the inheritance in behalf of, or in the name of the heir REPUDIATION AS TESTAMENTARY HEIR OR AS
repudiated, but only to the extent sufficient to cover the amount INTESTATE HEIR
of the credit.”
ARTICLE 1055. If a person, who is called to the same
Example: If the debt was just ₱5M, and the inheritance is ₱10 inheritance as an heir by will and ab intestato, repudiates the
M, then B can only petition to accept the ₱5 M—not the ₱10M.” inheritance in his capacity as a testamentary heir, he is
understood to have repudiated it in both capacities.
UNACCEPTED PORTION OF THE ENHERITANCE:

Should he repudiate it as an intestate heir, without knowledge
Asa ma-adto ang remaining 5M? of his being a testamentary heir, he may still accept it in the
latter capacity.
Diba, gi-renounce man to niya noh, ni A, ₱10 Million? Pero, gi-
accept man ni creditor ang ₱5M, so naa pa’y ₱5M, asa man ma- [1] REPUDIATION AS TESTAMENTARY HEIR.—
adto ang ₱5M?
 The same person, both an heir in the will, and also a
[1] Institution,3 legal heir,
3
Note: was not mentioned again in the subsequent enumeration

 the law says: “if you repudiate in your capacity as a This is what we call presumed acceptance: 30 days after the
testamentary heir, meaning your institution in the court has issued an order for distribution that fact signified nga
will, you repudiated it, the presumption is you also ang heirs, legatees, or devisees whether they accept or they
repudiated your capacity as legal heir, reject, but kung wala na—silent, the law presumes nga they
accepted; so here, silence means yes!4
because if there is a will, meaning that it is the express
desire of the testator. If you are not willing to honor the
express wishes of the testator, then with more reason
that you will not honor the presumed wishes of the
SECTION 4
testator, which is the essence of legal succession.
Executors and Administrators
[2] REPUDIATION AS INTESTATE HEIR.—However, the law
says: “If you repudiated as legal heir, without knowing
____________________________________________
that you are also instituted as testamentary heir, then you
can still accept in your capacity as a testamentary heir,” EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS
because again, the same reason, ang legal succession ARTICLE 1058. All matters relating to the appointment,
,presumed will lang na siya sa decedent; so, maybe ikaw, powers and duties of executors and administrators and
dili nimo ka-ayo gusto dawaton, total dili man g’yud na concerning the administration of estates of deceased persons
mao ang gusto g’yud sa testator, mao lang man na siya shall be governed by the Rules of Court.
ang presumption sa law, so kung wala ka kabalo nga gi-
institute diay ka sa will, and then later on nahibal-an nimo
nga you are instituted in the will, you can still accept that, This will actually be discussed in your Special Proceedings.
because, maybe gusto nimo i-respect kay mao na siya ang Just so you would know the concept:
express wishes sa testator, unlike in legal succession nga
presumed wishes lang sa testator, so that’s the reason for [1] “Executor.”—If a person dies with a will, and he
Article 1055. appoints a person in his will to oversee his estate, to
preserve the estate, [or/and] to pay the debts, that
__________________________________________________ person is called an executor [kung babae executrix].
ACCEPTANCE AND REPUDIATION—IRREVOCABLE
[2] “Administrator with a will annexed.”—If he left a will
ARTICLE 1056. The acceptance or repudiation of an but he did not appoint anyone, and there is a need to
inheritance, once made, is irrevocable, and cannot be appoint someone for that purpose that person is called
impugned, except when it was made through any of the an administrator with a will annexed.
causes that vitiate consent, or when an unknown will appears.
[3] “Administrator.”—If a person dies intestate (so wala’y
GENERAL RULE: IRREVOCABLE will) and a person has to be appointed again for that
purpose, that person is called an administrator, kung
Another characteristic of acceptance and repudiation—[it is] babae administratrix.
irrevocable: You cannot change your mind later—you cannot
accept, and later repudiate, you cannot repudiate, and later You will discuss in your Special Proceedings what are the
accept, as long as the acceptance and repudiation is free from grounds for the appointment; what are the reasons why [is
vitiated consent. there] a need to appoint; what are the qualifications of an
administrator or executor; [and] what are their duties?
EXCEPTION: __________________________________________________
INSOLVENCY OF THE ESTATE
[1] kung naa’y vitiated consent, then, you can still accept, if
your prior repudiation was by reason of mistake or you ARTICLE 1059. If the assets of the estate of a decedent
were intimidated or [with] undue influence, you can still which can be applied to the payment of debts are not
subsequently accept in that case or vice versa, [because, sufficient for that purpose, the provisions of articles 2239 to
another requirement [is that] it should be free and 2251 on Preference of Credits shall be observed, provided
voluntary;] or that the expenses referred to in article 2244, No. 8, shall be
those involved in the administration of the decedent’s estate.
[2] when an unknown will appears, because that’s another
story: If there is a will, then that’s another testamentary
disposition, maybe there is another one in your favor, that CONCURRENCE AND PREFERENCE OF CREDITS
again, you can still accept or you can still reject.
__________________________________________________ [Cf. Credit Transactions]
PRESUMED ACCEPTANCE
Kung dili sufficient ang estate to pay of all obligations, naa’y
ARTICLE 1057. Within thirty days after the court has issued preference of credit ang preferred creditors: unahon to sila,
and then after, all the others will concur, so mao na siya ang
an order for the distribution of the estate in accordance with
rule.
the Rules of Court, the heirs, devisees and legatees shall
signify to the court having jurisdiction whether they accept or
repudiate the inheritance.
4
So kung mang-ligaw ka, hatagi pud ug 30 days to accept or reject, kung
If they do not do so within that time, they are deemed to
have accepted the inheritance. dili mutingog pursuant to Article 1057 of the New Civil Code, there is
presumed acceptance.

__________________________________________________
JURIDICAL ENTITIES AS EXECUTOR, ADMINISTRATOR, [1] COLLATION AS A MATHEMATICAL PROCESS—this is
GUARDIAN OF AN ESTATE, OR TRUSTEE the imaginary addition or fictitious union of the property
donated by the testator inter vivos with the properties left
ARTICLE 1060. A corporation or association authorized to at the time of his death.
conduct the business of a trust company in the Philippines
may be appointed as an executor, administrator, guardian of Upon the death of the testator, diba, we have to compute
an estate, or trustee, in like manner as an individual; but it his net hereditary estate:
shall not be appointed guardian of the person of a ward.
[a] Value at the time of death less obligations;
APPLICABILITY
NET HEREDITARY ESTATE =
This applies to a corporations or associations whose
charters authorize them to conduct a business of a trust, so
they can be [VALUE AT THE TIME OF DEATH — OBLIGATION]
+
[1] executors in a will, or DONATION INTER VIVOS
[2] administrators of estates,
[3] guardians.
[b] if there are none, then add donations inter vivos.

JURIDICAL PERSON CAN’T BE A GUARDIAN OVER THE
PERSON OF THE WARD
NET HEREDITARY ESTATE =
But, when it comes to guardianship, diba ang guardianship
can be VALUE AT THE TIME OF DEATH + DONATION INTER
VIVOS
[1] over the person,
[2] over the property, or
[3] both;
if, you are a corporation or a juridical person you can’t be ILLUSTRATION:

a guardian over the person of the ward, [because] it requires
a personal relationship. Estate value at the time of death: ₱1M
Unlike sa property, mag-administer sa property, and then +

e.g., ang ward over the person: guardian of the person, naa
siya’y mga concerns sa iyang love life, sa iyang personal Donations inter vivos (₱100K to A + ₱100K to friend)
problems, so magpa-appointment pa siya sa Board of
Directors of [the] corporation para magpaconsulta siya? (Collation as a mathematical process)
It requires a personal relationship which cannot be satisfied by Net Hereditary Estate= ₱1.2M
a juridical person, that’s why it cannot be appointed as a
guardian over the person of the ward.
So the estate is ₱1.2M, so this is collation as a
mathematical process: imaginary addition or fictitious
union, so that’s one concept.
SECTION 5
Collation [2] COLLATION BY WAY OF IMPUTATION—meaning, the
advances: The donations made to the compulsory heirs
during the lifetime of the decedent shall be considered as
3 CONCEPTS OF COLLATION
advances to their legitimes.
[Cf. Collation as previously discussed]
ILLUSTRATION
PROBLEM: Estate: ₱1.2M
During the lifetime of the testator, he donated ₱100K to his Legitime: ₱600K=
son, A, and also another donation, ₱100K to his friend; And
then he died, ang survivors niya: si A, B, and C [1] to A—₱200K
[2] to B—₱200K
Given: [3] to C—₱200K
Estate: ₱1M
Free Portion: ₱600K
Donations inter vivos:
Donations inter vivos
[1] To A—₱100k
[2] To friend—₱100K [1] to A — ₱100K [charged to the legitime]
Survivors: A, B, and C [2] to friend—₱100K [charged to free portion]
(Collation by imputation)
There are 3 concepts of collation:

EFFECT:
Discussion:
[1] Just give A ₱100K upon actual distribution
[2] Respect the donation given to friend (covered by Example: Aside from A, B, and C who are legitimate children,
₱600K free portion.) there are 10 illegitimate children. So, ang share sa illegitimate
children will be ½ of the share of 1 legitimate child: ½ [of
₱200K (share of 1 legitime child)] is ₱100K X 10= ₱1M.
Discussion: Unya ang free portion nimo kay ₱600K lang. You cannot
satisfy all of that. What happens is [that] the ₱600K shall be
So in that case, the estate is ₱1.2M. The legitime will be divided equally among all the illegitimate children. Wala na’y
₱600K; free portion is ₱600K. There are 3 heirs: A, B, and C, free portion.
each should be entitled to ₱200K.
So, what happens now to the donation made to the friend? It
However, A already received ₱200K, so upon actual is now subject to reduction or abatement. Now, he really
distribution, A would just get an additional 100K, because he has to return the property to the estate, kay kung dili,
already received ₱100K in advance. kulangan ang imong panghatag sa mga illegitimate children.
How about the donation made to the friend? it shall be So that’s the third concept of collation : reduction or
charged to the free portion. OK lang siya kay ₱600K man ang abatement. So it does not really follow na pag collation ibalik
free portion. dayon noh? Dili! ibalik lang either partially or in its entirety
kung ma-prejudice ang legitimes because the donation now is
[3] ACTUAL REDUCTION OR ABATEMENT— it means an inofficious.
actual reduction, or bringing back of the property donated
by the testator during his lifetime to the hereditary estate So these are the 3 concepts of collation.
if the donations are found to be inofficious.
COLLATION REQUIRES
[1] EXISTENCE OF COMPULSORY HEIRS AND
ILLUSTRATION: [2] DONATION INTER VIVOS
Legitime: ₱600K ARELLANO V. PASCUAL

G.R. No. 189776
December 15, 2010
Legitimate children: 3
FACTS:
[1] A—₱200K [legitime]
[2] B—₱200K[legitime]
ANGEL JR. died intestate leaving as heirs his siblings:
[3] C—₱200K[legitime]
PETITIONER AMELIA5 who is represented by her
DAUGHTERS AGNES and NONA, and RESPONDENTS
Free Portion: ₱600K FRANCISCO and MIGUEL.
Illegitimate children: 10 FRANCISCO and MIGUEL assailed the donation of

Angel’s property to AMELIA. They posited that it may
Legitime of each illegitimate child: be considered as an advance legitime to petitioner.
( ½ of legitimate child’s share): For the purpose of determining whether property

subject to donation formed part of the decedents
₱200K/2 = ₱100K each estate, the probate court holds that it is subject to
collation following Article 1061 of the New Civil
TOTAL: 10 x ₱100K = ₱1M Code.
(Exceeds ₱600K free portion] ISSUE: Is there a need to collate?
EFFECT: HOLDING: No.
[1] ₱600K/10 = ₱60K each PUPOSE
(Share of illegitimate child)
[2] No more free portion The purposes of collation are
DONATION INTER VIVOS:

[1] to secure equality among the compulsory heirs in
[1] to A [₱100K, charged to legitime] so far as is possible, and
[2] to friend [₱100k, charged to free portion]—
inofficious [2] to determine the free portion, after finding the
legitime, so that inofficious donations may be
reduced.
EFFECT:
The friend has to return back to the estate the ₱100K

5
donated by the decedent to satisfy the legitime. Q: Who died first, Amelia or Angel?
(Reduction or abatement) A: Amelia died first.

computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir,

and in the account of the partition.
REQUISITE
This is what we discussed before:
Collation takes place when there
are compulsory heirs, one of its purposes being to [1] Whatever donation made by the testator must be added
determine the legitime and the free portion. If there is back to his estate, so, that is by way of mathematical
no compulsory heir, there is no legitime to be process, and
safeguarded.
[2] then upon the determination of the legitimes, those
HERE, THERE ARE NO COMPULSORY HEIRS donations made to compulsory heirs shall be considered
as advances to their legitime.
The records do not show that the decedent left any
primary, secondary, or concurring compulsory Now the law says:
heirs. He was only survived by his siblings, who are
his collateral relatives and, therefore, are not entitled ”which he may have received from the decedent, during
to any legitime that part of the testators property the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any
which he cannot dispose of because the law has other gratuitous title,”
reserved it for compulsory heirs.
So, and atong i-collate is not only limited to donations, but
The decedent not having left any compulsory heir who other receipts by way of gratuitous title which are to be
is entitled to any legitime, he was at liberty to donate enumerated, we will discuss one by one what are these
all his properties, even if nothing was left for his grants, or transfer which are subject to collation.
siblings-collateral relatives to inherit. His donation to
DETERMINATION WHETHER THE DONATION, GRANT,
petitioner, assuming that it was valid, is deemed as
OR TRANSFER IS INOFFICIOUS
donation made to a stranger, chargeable against the
free portion of the estate. There being no compulsory TUPAS V. RTC
heir, however, the donated property is not subject to G.R. No. L-65800
collation. October 3, 1986
FACTS:
Q: When will collation apply? EPIFANIO TUPAS died, childless, leaving his
WIDOW, PARTENZA, as his only surviving
A: COLLATION TAKES PLACE WHEN compulsory heir. He also left a will, which was
admitted to probate.
[1] there are compulsory heirs,
Among the assets listed in his will were lots Nos.
one of its purposes being to determine the legitime and
837, 838 and 839. However, at the time of his
the free portion. If there is no compulsory heir, there is
death, these lots were no longer owned by him, he
no legitime to be safeguarded; and
having donated them the year before to THE TUPAS
[2] there are donations inter vivos. FOUNDATION, INC., which had thereafter obtained
title to said lots.
Both of these requisites must be present. If there are
donations inter vivos, but there are no compulsory Claiming that said donation had left her practically
heirs, then there’s no need for collation, because the destitute of any inheritance, TUPAS' WIDOW
purpose of collation is to safeguard the legitime. So, brought suit against TUPAS FOUNDATION, INC. to
there are no legitimes to be considered, if there are no have the donation declared inofficious insofar
compulsory heirs. as it prejudiced her legitime, therefore reducible
"by one-half or such proportion as might be
DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE deemed justified and, the resulting deduction
restored and conveyed or delivered to her.
So as discussed in this case, no need to collate. Whatever
was given to Amelia should be retained by her and her heirs. ISSUE: Should the property be collated?
Whatever is left at the time of death of Angel that will be
divided equally among his siblings: HOLDING: Yes.
[1] to Francisco 1/3, [per capita] and The fact, therefore, that the donated property no
[2] Miguel 1/3, per capita, and longer actually formed part of the estate of the
[3] kay Amelia, supposedly 1/3 but represented by her donor at the time of his death cannot be asserted to
children, Agnes and Nona— per stirpes.
prevent its being brought to collation. Indeed, it is
___________________________________________________
an obvious proposition that collation contemplates
COLLATION BY COMPULSORY HEIRS
and particularly applies to gifts inter vivos. The
further fact that the lots donated were admittedly
ARTICLE 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with
capital or separate property of the donor is of no
other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the
moment, because a claim of inofficiousness does
estate any property or right which he may have received from
not assert that the donor gave what was not his,
the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of
but that he gave more than what was within his
donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be
power to give.

DONATION TO STRANGER CHARGEABLE TO PARTENZA is adjudged entitled to so much of the

FREE PORTION donated property in question, as may be found in
excess of the freely disposable portion of the estate
Since it is clear that the questioned donation is of Epifanio, determined in the manner above-
collationable and that, having been made to a indicated. Let the case be remanded to the Trial
stranger (to the donor) it is, by law Court for further appropriate proceedings in
chargeable to the freely disposable portion of accordance with this decision.
the donor's estate, to be reduced insofar as
inofficious, i.e., it exceeds said portion and thus
impairs the legitime of the compulsory heirs.
PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER Comment:

DONATION/ GRANT/ TRANSFER IS
INOFFICIOUS As long as there are compulsory heirs, all donations are
subject to collation, the values of those donations shall be
[I]n order to find out whether it is inofficious or not, added back to the estate.
recourse must be had to the rules established by
the Civil Code for the determination of the legitime Example: The donation was made in year in 2000, and the
and, by extension, of the disposable portion. These testator died in year 2005, diba, we said that we have to add
back the value.
rules are set forth in Articles 908, 909 and 910 of
the Code, on the basis of which the following step-
Q: What value—at the time of death, or at the date of the
by-step procedure has been correctly outlined: donation?
[1] determination of the value of the property
What if there is an increase or decrease in the value of the
which remains at the time of the testator's
property from the time of the donation until the time of
death;
death?
[2] determination of the obligations, debts, and A: At the time of the donation.
charges which have to be paid out or deducted
from the value of the property thus left; Q: How about the increase or decrease?
[3] the determination of the difference between A: No. 4: Value at the time of the donation, regardless of the
the assets and the liabilities, giving rise to the increase or decrease of the values of the property. Well kung
hereditary estate; nag-increase dili to i-consider, so lugi karon si donee kay nag
increase na man diay, kung nag-decrease, lugi si estate. So,
[4] the addition to the net value thus found, of it’s at the time of donation, so wala ta’y labot kung unsa man
the value, at the time they were made, of ang increase or decrease.
donations subject to collation; and
Q: When it is a donation to a stranger, we shall charge it to
[5] the determination of the amount of the the?
legitimes by getting from the total thus found
the portion that the law provides as the A: Free portion.
legitime of each respective compulsory heir.
Deducting the legitimes from the net value of the It’s easy lang man to determine if it’s inofficious: If it exceeds
hereditary estate leaves the freely disposable the free portion. Mao lang na siya atong bantayan. If it does
portion by which the donation in question here not exceed the free portion so it is not inofficious so it will not
must be measured. be reduced.
WHEN DONATION IRREVOCABLE (STILL
[1] If the value of the donation at the time it was COLLATIONABLE: IMPUTABLE TO LEGITIME);
made does not exceed that difference, then it
must be allowed to stand. WHEN DONATION EXPRESSLY MADE NOT SUBJECT TO
COLLATION: STILL COLLATIONABLE, BUT IMPUTABLE
[2] But if it does, the donation is inofficious as TO FREE PORTION]
to the excess and must be reduced by the
amount of said excess. BUHAY DE ROMA V. CA
G.R. No. L-46903
July 23, 1987
HERE, THE CASE MUST BE REMANDED FOR FACTS:
FURTHER DETERMINATION OF FACTS
The pertinent portions of the deed of donation are
In this case, if any excess be shown, it shall be as follows:
returned or reverted to the petitioner-appellant as
the sole compulsory heir of the deceased Epifanio …sa pamamagitan ng kasulatang ito ay kusang-loob
R. Tupas. kong ibinibigay, ipinagkakaloob at inililipat sa
nabanggit na BUHAY DE ROMA, sa kanyang mga
For obvious reasons, this determination cannot now kahalili at tagapagmana, sa pamamagitan ng
be made, as it requires appreciation of data not pagbibigay na di na mababawing muli…”
before this Court and may necessitate the [Irrevocable donation]
production of evidence in the Court a quo.
ISSUE: When it is designated as irrevocable

donation, does it mean that this is not subject to legitime. So, over and above to siya sa legitime. Didto na siya
collation? i-charge sa free portion. So that’s the rule if the donation is
denominated as not subject to collation.
HOLDING6:
“IRREVOCABLE” DONATION
No. They are not the same. The fact that a donation
is irrevocable does not necessary exempt the Pero kung mu-ingon ka’g irrevocable, imputed gihapon na
subject thereof from collation. siya sa legitime.
The intention to exempt from collation should be Pero kung muingon ka’g not subject to imputation: It shall
expressed plainly and unequivocally as an exception not be considered as an advance to the legitime, but still
to the general rule announced in Article 1062. charged to the free portion. So that’s the meaning.
__________________________________________________
[2] “OR IF THE DONEE SHOULD REPUDIATE THE
POLICY: INHERITANCE,”
__________________________________________________
So, meaning, even if it is irrevocable, it is still subject to
collation, because if we will not collate that, because it is Of course, Kay kung i-repudiate niya iyang inheritance, wala
irrevocable, it would be easy to circumvent the law on na siya’y legitime diba? So asa man nato i-charge ang
legitimes. You can just caption it as irrevocable donation, and donation na atong gihatag sa iyaha? Sa free portion. He would
then wala na’y mabilin sa imong mga anak. So, still, it is be considered as a stranger, because he is not a compulsory
subject to collation, but the SC said: heir anymore.
“unless the intention to exempt from collation ___________________________________________________

is expressed plainly and unequivocally,” TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS GENERALLY WILL NOT BE
COLLATED
So meaning diay pwede diay i-mention sa testator nga, “This
donation is not subject to collation”? Actually pwede siya, but ARTICLE 1063. Property left by will is not deemed subject to
what does it mean? collation, if the testator has not otherwise provided, but the
legitime shall in any case remain unimpaired.
Example: Under Article 1062
This just refers to those properties mentioned in the will by
______________________________________________ way of legacy or devise.
WHEN COMPULSORY HEIRS “WILL NOT COLLATE” Of course you should not collate them, because in the first
place wala man sila na-deduct sa value sa estate, so you
ARTICLE 1062. Collation shall not take place among should not add because they are already included in the value
compulsory heirs if the donor should have so expressly of the estate at the time of death.
provided, or if the donee should repudiate the inheritance, ____________________________________________________
unless the donation should be reduced as inofficious. COLLATION BY GRAND CHILDREN
COLLATION SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE AMONG ARTICLE 1064. When grandchildren, who survive with their
COMPULSORY HEIRS IF: uncles, aunts, or cousins, inherit from their grandparents in
___________________________________________________ representation of their father or mother, they shall bring to
[1] THE DONOR SHOULD HAVE SO EXPRESSLY collation all that their parents, if alive, would have been
PROVIDED,” obliged to bring, even though such grandchildren have not
___________________________________________________ inherited the property.
So pwede diay nga the testator donates to his son a parcel They shall also bring to collation all that they may have
land, like in this case, ₱100K, and then he provides that, received from the decedent during his lifetime, unless the
“This donation is not subject to collation.”
testator has provided otherwise, in which case his wishes
must be respected, if the legitime of the co-heirs is not
“NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATION”
prejudiced.
Unsa ma’y meaning ana?
Example: Decedent, naa siya’y 3 children: A, B, and C; and,
(Diba there are 3 concepts of collation.)Is it not subject si B, naa pu’y 2 children: X and Y.
to collation as a mathematical process?
Let’s say, the decedent made these donations:
It is still subject to collation as a mathematical process: I-add
back gihapon ang value sa ₱100K sa donation didto sa estate, [1] he donated to B worth ₱300K,
but because the testator says that, “it is not subject to [2] he also donated to Y worth ₱200K.
collation,” meaning it should not imputed as an advance to his
Now, B predeceased, so he will be represented by his own
children X and Y, now kinsa man ang mag-inherit?
6
[T]he phrase "sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay na di na mababawing
It would be X and Y.
muli" merely described the donation as "irrevocable" and should not be
What does the law say: “Grandchildren surviving together
construed as an express prohibition against collation. The fact that a
with their uncles and aunts, they shall bring to collation
donation is irrevocable does not necessarily exempt the subject thereof all that their parents, if alive, would have been obliged
from the collation required under Article 1061.

to bring, even though such grandchildren have not He will have to return, otherwise ma-prejudice pud ang
inherited the property.” share ni X, kay ₱200K lang dapat iyaha, and then
nakadawat na siya. Ok lang to kung wala’y donation kay
Example: B, zero (0) iyang madawat.
ILLUSTRATION: CLARIFICATION:
 Estate: 2.4M Total subject of donation here is, ₱500K.

 Legitime: 1.2M
 Free Portion: ₱1.2M So kung unsa’y kulang ni X, si Y ang mudugang, because si Y
 3 Children [Ch]: man ang nakadawat sa ₱200K, during the lifetime of the
Legitime/Child [Ch]: ₱1.2M /3 =₱400K each testator
 (Predeceased) B’s share: goes to X and Y _________________________________________________
[₱200K each] DONATIONS TO GRAND CHILDREN
ARTICLE 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.
DECEDENT
[DONATED] Another situation is Article 1065:
[₱300k]
Example: Kung wala’y representation, the same situation:
B received the donation of ₱300K,
[₱400K] [₱400K] [₱400K] his [child] also received, i.e., Y received a donation of ₱200K,
A [Ch] B [Ch] C [Ch] but all of them survived.
[predeceased]
ILLUSTRATION:
NOTE: ALL SURVIVED

[DONATED] Y [G. Ch7] X[G.Ch]
[₱200K] [₱200K] [₱200K] DECEDENT
[by representation] [by representation] [DONATED]
[₱300k]
COLLATION: A [Ch] B [Ch] C [Ch]
[1] Si X and Y will have to “bring into collation all that
their parent, B, received.“
[DONATED] Y [G. Ch8] X[G.Ch]
So, kay diba supposedly si B man ang heir. So, ₱400K,
[₱200K]
nakadawat na siya’g ₱300K na advance, so ₱100K na lang.
[1] B [Ch.] shall bring into collation whatever he
Aside from that,
received from the decedent na ₱300K,
[2] under the 2nd. par., “They shall also bring into the
[2] Pero, wala’y labot ning nadawat sa heir ang mga
collation all that they may have received from the
anak [G. Ch.], because they [mga anak] did not inherit
decedent during his lifetime.”
at all [from the decedent].
Because even if they are just representatives, but actually,
they inherit not from B, but from the decedent; so, si Y, iya pa So, they are actually excluded under the Rule of
gyu’ng i-collate. Proximity,
[3] DISTRIBUTION UPON DEATH: [3] so kaning mga donations made to Y, asa man ni siya i-
charge? To the free portion.
So, actually si Y wala na siya’y madawat diri [upon death],
kay nadawat man niya during the lifetime of the decedent, so Kay si Y dili siya compulsory heir in this case. He is
₱100K na lang man to’ng nabilin noh? Supposedly ta’g ₱200K excluded by his parent B, so Y is a stranger.
sila, and share ni B is ₱400K, tungaon nila, ₱200k each.
So that’s subject to collation, meaning, shall not be
SUMMARY: considered as an advance to the legitime of the parent.
[1] Here, we collate the ₱300K— ₱100K na lang, _________________________________________________

DONATIONS TO SPOUSE OF CHILD
[2] and then, we also collate the share of Y—actually, si Y
wala na’y madawat.
ARTICLE 1066. Neither shall donations to the spouse of the
Pero ang tip nko ani, ang ₱100K ihatag kay X, si Y child be brought to collation; but if they have been given by
mudungag pa siya kay X ug ₱100K. the parent to the spouses jointly, the child shall be obliged to
bring to collation one-half of the thing donated.
7 8
grandchild grandchild

Example: Si A and B mag-asawa. Anak nila si X. Si X kay [1] [As to X]— ₱25K, gikan kay A, ₱25K gikan kay B.
nag-asawa pud siya kay Y. [2] [As to Y]— ₱25K gikan kay A, ₱25K gikan kay B (The
same thing).
ILLUSTRATION:
ILLUSTRATION:
[JOINT DONOR; DONATED: ₱100k]

[JOINT DONOR; DONATED: 100k]
A [F] B [M]
A [F9] B [M10] [DECEASE [₱100K]
[DECEASED] [A’s share: ₱50K] [B’s share: ₱50K]

[₱25K] [₱25K [₱25K] [₱25K]
X [Ch.] Y [Sp.11]
[DONEE] X [Ch.] Y [Sp.]

[collate]
[JOINT DONEE]
So, anak nila si X. Nag-donate sila kay Y. Namatay si A. Let’s

say ₱100K ang ilahang gi-donate. Namatay si A, kinsa ma’y
mag-inherit? Of course si X.
Namatay si A, si A lang ang namatay. Who is the decedent? A.
Katong gi-donate nila’ng duha kay Y, i-considered as advance
to the legitime of X? No, because lahi man si X. Kay X lang. How much is the value of the donation which X is obliged to
collate here?
Examples:
[a] Kung jointly gi-donate nila ang property worth ₱100K kay [1] So, syempre, katong donation na nadawat nila from A, ug
X and Y, silang duha, and A died. How do we compute sa iyaha [Ch. X] lang share:[ ₱25k]
kung pila g’yud ang subject to collation?
[2] Although si Y nakadawat kay A, pero iyaha man to, wala
to’y labot! Kani lang ang value of this donation, kani lang
ILLUSTRATION: ang subject to collation.
That’s under Article 1066.
[ JOINT DONOR, DONATED: ₱100k] [b] Wala’y problema siguro kung isa lang ka spouse ang nag-
donate: si A lang. iyahang separate property gi-donate niya
A [F12] B [M13] kay X and Y, so kana, out of ₱100K, ₱50K ang i-collate.
[DECEASED] ILLUSTRATION:
X [Ch.14] Y [Sp.15]
[DONOR, DONATED: ₱100K]
[JOINT DONEE]
A [F] B [M]
[VALUE OF DONATION:] If that is ₱100K,

[DECEASED][ ₱100K]
[DONOR’S SHARE]
[1] ₱50K of that— estate of A.

[2] ₱50K of that— estate of B.
[₱50K][collate] [₱50K]
When they jointly donated to both X and Y, ₱100K gihapon. [Ch.] Y [Sp.]
[VALUE RECEIVED BY THE DONEE VIS-À-VIS DONOR] [JOINT DONEE]
Diri sa ilaha Pero kato siya [example [a]], jointly: The spouses made the
donation jointly pud sa iyahang anak ug sa iyang asawa. So
that’s how you compute.
9
father _________________________________________________
10mother
EXPENSES NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATION:
[1] EXPENSES FOR SUPPORT,
11
spouse [2] EDUCATION,
12 [3] MEDICAL ATTENDANCE,
father
[4] EXTRAORDINARY ILLNESS,
13
mother [5] APPRENTICESHIP,
14
child [6] ORDINARY EQUIPMENT, OR
15 [7] CUSTOMARY GIFTS
spouse

ARTICLE 1067. Expenses for support, education, medical consider as advance to the legitime, or even if they did not
attendance, even in extraordinary illness, apprenticeship, mention, pero, again, ma-impair na ang legitime sa
ordinary equipment, or customary gifts are not subject to imohang compulsory heirs nga uban.
collation.
But the law says, “If there is a need for collation, dili pud
tanan ang ato-ang i-addback, ug atoang i-impute sa iyang
What do you mean by “not subject to collation”? legitime.” We have to deduct daw, “what the parents would
have spent if the child had lived in the house and
Dili nimo siya i-add back sa value sa estate. So, not by way of company of his parents.” So meaning, kung wa’ siya ning-
mathematical process, of course, not imputed at all, and shall skwela ug law school, mukaon man gihapon na siya,
not be returned. Wala g’yud siya’y apil sa value sa estate. magkasakit man pud siguro na siya, so ayaw pud apila to nga
mga ingon ato nga expenses. I-deduct lang nato siya, dili
tanan atong i-collate.
“SUPPORT” AND “EDUCATION” UNDER THE LAW ON
SUCCESSION V. UNDER FAMILY CODE _________________________________________________
OTHER SUMS WHICH SHOULD BE COLLATED:
But, in relation to Article 1068, Article 1067 diba, support, [1] SUMS PAID BY A PARENT IN SATISFACTION OF THE
education, so under the law of Succession ginalahi g’yud DEBTS OF HIS CHILDREN,
nila ang support ug education although under the Family [2] ELECTION EXPENSES,
Code, education is subsumed under support. Here, different. [3] FINES, AND
[4] SIMILAR EXPENSES
Ang education nga referred to in Article 1067 is only up to
high school, because there is separate treatment for college ARTICLE 1069. Any sums paid by a parent in satisfaction of
and vocational education. the debts of his children, election expenses, fines, and similar
expenses shall be brought to collation.
____________________________________________________
EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PARENTS IN GIVING THEIR
CHILDREN A PROFESSIONAL, VOCATIONAL OR OTHER
CAREER—NOT COLLATIONABLE; EXCEPTION WHEN HEIR RECEIVED COLLATIONABLE PROPERTY—
NO PRETERITION
ARTICLE 1068. Expenses incurred by the parents in giving
Remember huh, kaning kinds of expenses they are subject to
their children a professional, vocational or other career shall
collation. Actually, diba, under the question of preterition:
not be brought to collation unless the parents so provide, or
unless they impair the legitime; but when their collation is Example: Wala ka na-mention sa will at all, omitted ka, and
required, the sum which the child would have spent if he had then the will disposed of the entire estate, wala’y donations
lived in the house and company of his parents shall be inter vivos, pero katong nidagan ka ug Barangay Captain, kay
deducted therefrom. ang imong parents ang nag-finance sa imohang campaign.
EDUCATION: PROFESSIONAL, VOCATIONAL, OR OTHER Actually, it can be contended nga you are not preterited,
CAREER because you already received portion or advance to your
legitime kay kato sila subject to collation.
Education pero professional, vocational, or other career, so
college education. Of course, law school— apil na kaayo diri. If you have received anything which is subject to collation
even if you’re not mentioned in the will, even if technically
What is the treatment? mura ka’g preterited, dili ka preterited because donations
inter vivos, or other gratuitous transfers are considered as
GENERAL RULE: advances to your legitime. In those cases, you are just
entitled to the completion of your legitime.
Not subject to collation. Dili siya i-add back sa estate;
_________________________________________________
EXCEPTION: WEDDING GIFTS—NOT COLLATIONABLE; EXCEPTION
[1] or, unless the parents so provide; or,
[2] unless they impair the legitime. ARTICLE 1070. Wedding gifts by parents and ascendants
consisting of jewelry, clothing, and outfit, shall not be reduced
Examples: as inofficious except insofar as they may exceed one-tenth of
the sum which is disposable by will.
[1] 20 years na ka in law school, pila na ka-Million ang
nagasto sa imong parents. So, siguro ana imong mga
Under Article 1067, customary gifts are not subject to
igso-on nga, “Wala na ma’y nabilin sa amo oi, nahurot na
collation. So, regalohan mo’g plato, customary gift ra man na
man niya tanan!”
siya. So dili na siya subject to collation at all.
So, kana siguro basig na-impair na jud nimo ang legitime
GENERAL RULE:
sa imong mga igso-on.
Pero, wedding gifts, that’s another issue under Art. 1070.
[2] Or the parents themselves, they can provide. Here, “jewelry, clothing, outfit,” ordinarily not subject to
collation,
So this is optional sa ilaha. They can provide nga, “This is
subject to collation.” EXCEPTION:
Pero general rule dili, but they can provide nga, “subject siya If they exceed 1/10 of the sum which is disposable by will,
to collation,” so meaning i-add-back siya sa estate, and i- meaning they exceed 1/10 of the free portion

Example: _________________________________________________
DONATION BY BOTH PARENTS
[a] Wedding gift—the free portion is only ₱500K, and
then naghatag ka’g JEWELRY sa imong anak, wedding ARTICLE 1072. In the collation of a donation made by both
gift, worth ₱60K, is that subject to collation? parents, one-half shall be brought to the inheritance of the
father, and the other half, to that of the mother. That given
What is the 1/10 of ₱500K? ₱50K. by one alone shall be brought to collation in his or her
inheritance.
So the ₱60K wedding gift na jewelry, that is in excess
of 1/10. So, meaning subject to collation, but not the
entire ₱60, kato lang in excess sa1/10 ang 1/10 is I explained this already in relation to Article 1066, gi-
₱50K, and wedding gift na jewelry is ₱60K, so ang combine lang nako tong Article 1066 ug Article 1072— kani
₱10K lang ang subject to collation. Meaning na example. Again, pls. remember that.
pagmamatay to’ng parent na nag-hatag sa jewelry,
ang ₱10K considered as advance to the legitime of [See Article 1066, 3rd and 4th illustration]
the child who received the jewelry.
_________________________________________________
[b] Ordinary donation—How about HOUSE AND LOT? Unsa REDUCTION OF DONEE’S SHARE IN THE ESTATE
man ang treatment sa house and lot? Gi-regalo nimo siya
during the wedding day, 1/10? ARTICLE 1073. The donee’s share of the estate shall be
reduced by an amount equal to that already received by him;
The law mentions, “jewelry, clothing, and outfit,” and his co-heirs shall receive an equivalent, as much as
possible, in property of the same nature, class and quality.
How do we treat that house and lot?
Balik ta sa Article 1067, customary gift? Kay kung

customary siya not subject to collation at all. Again, the donation made to compulsory heir shall be
considered as advance to his legitime, so you are just entitled
How do you know na it is customary? to the balance.
Depende sa imohang means. Malay mo, bisa’g nag- Now, if the done received none, by way of donation inter
birthday lang manghatag ka’g house and lot. So, vivos, as much as possible the legitimes of the other should
customary gift na g’yud na siya, so not subject to also be in the form of lands so dapat equality ang i-observe:
collation. Pero kung installment pa pud na nila for 20 as much as possible same nature, class and quality— as much
years para mahatag, unya ikaw lang ang tagaan, dili na as possible.
siya customary gift. That would be considered as an
ordinary donation. That’s with respect to gifts. _________________________________________________
WAYS OF EQUALIZATION
_________________________________________________
COLLATION OF THE VALUE ARTICLE 1074. Should the provisions of the preceding
article be impracticable, if the property donated was
ARTICLE 1071. The same things donated are not to be immovable, the co-heirs shall be entitled to receive its
brought to collation and partition, but only their value at the equivalent in cash or securities, at the rate of quotation;
time of the donation, even though their just value may not and should there be neither cash nor marketable
then have been assessed. securities in the estate, so much of the other property as
may be necessary shall be sold at public auction.
Their subsequent increase or deterioration and even their total
loss or destruction, be it accidental or culpable, shall be for If the property donated was movable, the co-heirs shall
the benefit or account and risk of the donee. only have a right to select an equivalent of other personal
property of the inheritance at its just price.
1st par.— that refers to collation as a mathematical
process, na we just add back the value: The value at the
time of the donation, regardless of their increase or decrease.
[1] IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
This answers my question before, that their subsequent
increase or decrease, or even their total loss, shall be for the Example: In relation to Article 1073, if again, ang isa
benefit or account and risk of the donee. nakadawat ug land by way of donation, the other compulsory
heir should also receive land.
Kung nawala siya, i-add back gihapon nimo, sorry g’yud ka!
What if there is no land in the estate?
Unya, kung inofficious pa g’yud i-uli gyud to nimo, bayaran
nimo siya. So that’s the consequence if the donation is Then the other [co-heirs] have the right to receive the
inofficious. equivalent in cash or in securities. Kung wala’y cash or
securities, other properties should be sold to generate case or
Kung dili siya inofficious wala kay prolbema. Dira lang man securities.
magkaproblema kung inofficious.
Note: The same right does not apply if the property donated
was movable.
[2] MOVABLE PROPERTY

Example: One of the heirs was given a car during the lifetime ARTICLE 1076. The co-heirs are bound to reimburse to the
of the testator, so upon the death of the testator, that car donee the necessary expenses which he has incurred for the
shall be considered as an advance. preservation of the property donated to him, though they may
not have augmented its value.
The other heirs, of course, as much as possible they should
[also] receive cars; but if there is none, they have no right to
The donee who collates in kind an immovable, which has been
demand na securities or cash, unlike sa immovable na they
can demand for cash or securities. So kung movable siya, given to him, must be reimbursed by his co-heirs for the
pangita na lang mo ug laing assets dira. Kana ang ilang right . improvements which have increased the value of the property,
So they cannot demand na cash jud or security. So that’s the and which exist at the time the partition is effected.
difference if the donation was real property or movable
property. 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
FRUITS AND INTEREST OF PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO injuring the estate.
COLLATION
ARTICLE 1075. The fruits and interest of the property WHEN APPLICABLE:
subject to collation shall not pertain to the estate except from
the day on which the succession is opened. Again, the same with Article 1075, this article will retroact
when there is [a] need to abate or reduce the donation kay
i-uli na man ni donee ang property to the estate.
WHEN APPLICABLE:
What’s important here is for you to know, “what are the
This article should only apply, if there is a need to return the expenses to be reimbursed to the donee?”
property which was donated because it was inofficious, so
kung it’s not inofficious dili ni siya mag-apply. The law has specified what [these expenses are]; otherwise,
the collation can be defeated because the heirs cannot pay, or
reimburse the demands— the amounts demanded by the
APPLICATION donee. So, mao na to siya ang iyahang rights.
[1] From the moment of death of the decedent, all donations “EXPENSES”—WHEN MAY BE REIMBURSED, WHEN NOT
are subject to collation.
He has the right to be reimbursed
[2] The values of these donations at the time these
donations were made shall be added back to the estate. [1] for the expenses NECESSARY FOR THE
So that will be the basis for you to determine the PRESERVATION OF THE PROPERTY, because this
legitime. would also inure to the benefit of the other heirs, even if
wala gi-donate sa iyaha kinahanglan man g’yud ni i-
[3] If upon computation the donations are not inofficious, spend for the property to be preserved, and
then there’s no problem;
[2] for the IMPROVEMENTS WHICH HAS INCREASED
[4] but, if upon computation, it is determined that a THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY and still existing at
portion of the donated property, or the whole of the the time of the partition.
donated property shall be returned, then you will now
ask, how about fruits and interest, i-uli pud na to siya’g But,
apil?
[1] If the works are for the MERE PLEASURE of the
Yes, but only the fruits and interests accruing at the donee—he is not entitled to the reimbursement, he can
time of death, kay didto man nag-start ang collation, remove however without destroying the estate.
katong buhi pa si testator, ayaw to siya’g hilabti kay ang _________________________________________________
donee man ang tag-iya ana diba? QUESTIONS RELATING TO COLLATION—WHEN DOES
NOT INTERRUPT PARTITION AND DISTRIBUTION;
Donation transfers ownership to the donee, kaya lang at BOND/ SECURITY
the time of death, there is a need to determine if that
donation prejudiced the legitimes of the compulsory heir. ARTICLE 1077. Should any question arise among the
co-heirs upon the obligation to bring to collation or as to
CONSIDERATIONS: the things which are subject to collation, the distribution
of the estate shall not be interrupted for this reason,
[1] So, tan-awon sa nato kung inofficious ba g’yud—pag-
provided adequate security is given.
inofficious g’yud siya, then i-return siya, and now the question
of the interest and fruits becomes relevant.
Even if there are questions relating to collation, there can still
[2] “At the time of death,” diha, kay at the time of death kay be partition and distribution as long as mag-bond lang or
dapat i-uli na man sa donee, so diha ta mag-count sa fruits security ang katong other heirs who are not affected: katong
and interests. other heirs who could already demand na ihatag na ilahang
shares, so this will not impair or impede the distribution of the
_________________________________________________ estate.
RULES FOR RETURNING IN KIND

OCTOBER 25, 2018 Now let start with Article 1078:

Transcribed by: ALTISO
ARTICLE 1078. Where there are two or more heirs, the
whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in
SECTION 6 common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the
Partition and Distribution of the Estate deceased.
SUBSECTION 1. Partition Before partition of course, the estate is owned in common. All
of them cannot act without the consent of the others. There
has to be consensus among the co-owners. You cannot also
This is the second case when for example the will is admitted identify a specific portion of the property.
for probate and there are provisions of the will for the
distribution of the estate, that is the second case. That is How about if one of the parties would like to sell? Can
partition and distribution. he do that?
He can sell his share. For example, A, B, C, D. A can sell his
If it is an intestate proceeding, then after payments of all ¼ share but that is as to his ideal share.
obligations, charges then last also the partner. The parties,
the heirs, distribute among themselves the properties. What if A sells a specific portion?
He cannot do that.
WHEN IT COMES TO PARTITION, HOW IS IT DONE?
What is the status of the sale if he sells a specific portion of
Basically, there are TWO KINDS OF PARTITION: the estate?
1. one made during the lifetime of the decedent
(Partition Intervivos) It is the decedent who decides It would be void because he is not an exclusive owner of that
how to partition. specific portion.
2. one made after his death.
However, if after partition that very same portion sold by A
When the decedent does not make a partition intervivos, his was the one adjudicated with A, what will happen to the sale?
estate can also be partitioned after his death by: It could be A cannot impugn that because he is already estopped. He
cannot say na that is void – I was not yet the existing owner
1. he designated a certain person to effect the partition of that portion. The reason here is you would be barred by
on his estate or estoppel. The sale becomes effective.
2. kung wala – so his heirs will have to partition the DEFINITION OF PARTITION
property among themselves.
a. If there is only one heir and there is no will,
ARTICLE 1079. Partition, in general, is the separation,
then it is effected by executing the Affidavit of
division and assignment of a thing held in common among
Self-adjudication. It will have to be
those to whom it may belong. The thing itself may be divided,
published. The procedure is discussed in your
or its value.
special proceeding and that would be the basis
of the register of deeds, for example if there are
real properties (lands), as basis to transfer the It is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in
name of the property from the decedent to the common. That thing could be the thing itself or its value.
heir. Like a parcel of land. You can actually physically divide it (si
b. If there are several heirs, IT DEPENDS. A, B, C, D) But if it is a car or a house, you can physically
 If they can agree among themselves how divide it but it would lose its integrity. So in that case, it
to partition the estate then they can would be the value of the thing.
execute an EXTRAJUDICIAL
PARTITION, which is also governed by What are the requirements of partition? Because Article 1079,
the Rules of Court. it is the separation, division and assignment. Are there
 If they cannot agree among themselves. formalities prescribed by law?
They have two options:
1. If the property has no debts, they can Actually there is no particular form of partition. However,
actually directly file an action for when it comes to extrajudicial partition (like the heirs among
partition which is a civil case. AN themselves decides to divide the estate and they agree), Rule
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION – AN 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides for the
ACTION FOR PARTITION. requirement.
2. If the estate has debts or creditors
affected, then there is a need to Case: Heirs of Joaquin Teves v. CA, G.R. No. 109963.
institute a SPECIAL PROCEEDING October 13, 1999.
for the settlement of the estate of the
deceased person. That is an The court said, that for a partition pursuant to section 1 of
INTESTATE PROCEEDING. There, Rule 74 to be valid, the following conditions must concur:
an administrator is appointed, the (1) the decedent left no will; (You cannot enter into an
estate would have to be liquidated and extrajudicial partition if there is a will because in that
the properties eventually distributed. case the estate would have to be distributed pursuant
to the will.)
(2) the decedent left no debts, or if there were debts left,
all had been paid;
(3) the heirs are all of age, or if they are minors, the
latter are represented by their judicial guardian or legal
representatives;

(4) the partition was made by means of a public “The Statute of Frauds does not apply because
instrument or affidavit duly filed with the Register of partition among heirs is not legally deemed a
Deeds. conveyance of real property considering that it
involves not a transfer considering that it involves
In this particular case, the partition was not registered. It not a transfer of property from one to the other but
was in writing. It was notarized, in a public instrument but rather, a confirmation or ratification of title or right
not registered. Is that valid? of property that an heir is renouncing in favor of
another heir who accepts and receives the
Now in another case, inheritance.”
Case: Pada-Kilario v. CA, G.R. No. 134329. January 19,
In partition, you are already owners. You just allocate among
2000.
yourselves your shares. So it is not actually partition which is
the mode of transfer; it is succession. So it is not required to
Here, it was not in a public document but in a private be in writing for it to be valid. It is not covered by the Statute
document. It is in writing but not notarized. Would that be of Frauds.
valid?
ARTICLE 1080. Should a person make partition of his estate
Or in other cases – oral ang ilahang partition, is these by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall be
valid? respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the
compulsory heirs.
In all these cases, the SC said that although it is required in
Rule 74, Section 1 that the extrajudicial partition must be in a A parent who, in the interest of his or her family, desires to
public instrument and registered with the Registry of Deeds keep any agricultural, industrial, or manufacturing enterprise
that would not affect the validity of extrajudicial partition IF in intact, may avail himself of the right granted him in this
these cases there are NO CREDITORS affected. article, by ordering that the legitime of the other children to
whom the property is not assigned, be paid in cash.
No particular form required by law for extrajudicial partition.
The requirements under Rule 74, Section 1 is only intended THE SECOND PARAGRAPH:
for the protection of: A parent who, in the interest of his or her family,
desires to keep any agricultural, industrial, or
1. CREDITORS so that the creditors would know that manufacturing enterprise intact, may avail himself of
the estate has already been settled so that they can the right granted him in this article, by ordering that
file their claims against the estate. the legitime of the other children to whom the
2. HEIRS, also, against tardy claims because there is a property is not assigned, be paid in cash.
period within which creditors must file their claim
against the estate. SITUATION:
a. If it is a judicial proceeding, Petition for
the Settlement of the Estate of the So if you are a testator or you are the owner of a specific land
Deceased Person ~ Intestate Proceeding, or industry or enterprise and you would like to keep that
we have what we call the STATUTE OF intact (dili nimo siya gusto na ma partition kay delikado if
NON-CLAIMS. Within that period the mapartition basin eventually madissolve na hinuon imong
creditors must file their claim otherwise, enterprise because the heirs cannot agree). Para mapreserve
their claims are already barred. ang enterprise.
b. If it is an extrajudicial partition, there is
a period of TWO (2) YEARS within which REMEDY:
creditors must present their claim. If
makakita mog titulo kanang mag You can actually order that this one shall go to this person
extrajudicial partition, pag gawas sa bago alone. And then the others, pay them in cash.
na title, nakasulat sa likod naka annotate
nga naay lien or annotation in favor of The first paragraph talks of Partition Intervivos. This is
creditors na pwede sila magclaim within a done by the testator himself during his lifetime.
period of two years. So bisag gibaligya pa
na nimo sa other parties, they cannot say Should a person make partition of his estate by an
na “I’m an innocent purchaser for value” act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall be
because naka annotate na siya sa likod. respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the
legitime of the compulsory heirs.
Okay so that’s the purpose for the
annotation of the heir because despite of Case: JLT Agro v. Balansag, G.R. No. 141882. March 11,
the annotation, if the creditors did not 2005
pursue their claims against the estate, then (Recit)
their claims are already barred forever.
Q: Why was there a compromise agreement in the first place?
How about the statute of frauds? Diba we’ve learned
A: Because there was a case, an action for partition and
before in Article 1403, when there’s a conveyance of real
damages.
property, the conveyance should be in writing and subscribed
by the party charged (minimum requirement).
Q: The title was transferred by Don Julian to JLT Agro. Upon
If the subject of the partition is a real property, is it the death of Don Julian, what did the second family do? How
covered by the statute of fraud? did they know of the title of JLT Agro?
NO. The SC said in the case of Pada-kilario v. CA,
NO. Q: When do you consider something as future inheritance?

A: For the inheritance to be considered future, the succession

must not have been opened at the time of the contract. A Case: Zaragosa v. CA, G.R. No. 106401. September 29,
contract may be classified as a contract upon future 2000
inheritance, prohibited under the second paragraph of Article Although it is a partition inter vivos, the limitation would be
1347, where the following requisites concur: that it should not prejudice the legitimes of the compulsory
heirs.
(1) That the succession has not yet been opened;
(2) That the object of the contract forms part of the Even if there is partition inter vivos but na prejudiced diay ang
inheritance; and legitime, there would be adjustments in the partition.
(3) That the promissor has, with respect to the object,
an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary in ARTICLE 1081. A person may, by an act inter vivos or mortis
nature. causa, intrust the mere power to make the partition after his
death to any person who is not one of the co-heirs.
So that’s why you cannot sell property own by your parents
on the premise that you would eventually inherit them The provisions of this and of the preceding article shall be
because the succession has not yet open. They are still alive observed even should there be among the co-heirs a minor or
your right is only an expectancy. a person subject to guardianship; but the mandatary, in such
case, shall make an inventory of the property of the estate,
after notifying the co-heirs, the creditors, and the legatees or
Contracts involving future inheritance are not valid. They are
devisees.
exception to the general rule that:
“all things, even future ones, which are not outside
This is the one I’ve mentioned. A person can be intrusted to
the commerce of man may be the object of a contract.”
make a partition upon the death of the testator or decedent.
That person should not be one of the co-heirs so that he
An exception to the exception is partition inter vivos. would be impartial also.
Q: What is the nature of partition inter vivos? ARTICLE 1082. Every act which is intended to put an end to
A: no formalities are prescribed. indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed
to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, and
Q: Is it required to be in the form of a will? exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction.
It does not necessarily require the formalities of a
will for after all it is not the partition that is the mode of A partition doesn’t have to be expressly agreed like verbally
acquiring ownership. you agree. Imuha ni imuha ni akoa ni. Even a private
document can be valid of course a public document even if not
Q: Is it required to be in the form of donation? registered with the Registry of deeds. Because every act
Neither will the formalities of a donation be required which is actually intended to put an end to indivision can be
since donation will not be the mode of acquiring the ownership as a partition.
here after death; since no will has been made it follows that
the mode will be succession (intestate succession). For example the heirs sold properties of the estate agreeing
among themselves that these properties are to be sold, that
The character of partition inter vivos is REVOCABLE actually an act of partition.
IN CHARACTER.
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. SANTIBAEZ,
Q: What is the status of the transfer made by Don Julian to G.R. No. 149926. February 23, 2005
JLT Agro?
A: Valid Here, the testator left a will. There was a probate proceeding
initiated for the probate of the last will and testament.
Q: Why is the transfer valid diba he already executed a Pending the probate proceeding, three tractors belonging to
Compromise Agreement in favor of the second family? What is the estate were sold by the heirs.
the nature of that Compromise Agreement?
A: It is in the nature of partition inter vivos. Being a partition The question here is “without approval by the probate court,
inter vivos, he could revoke it at any time. When he sold the without having found the will to be valid first, was it proper for
land to JLT Agro that means he revoked the partition inter the heirs to sell the three tractors pending probate
vivos embodied in the Compromise Agreement. JLT Agro proceedings?
effectively acquired ownership over the property.
NO. Basic is the rule that when there is a will, it has to be
Q: How about the contention of the heir that they were probated first. The court should determine whether or not the
allegedly preterited when Don Julian executed a Deed of will is extrinsically valid. Once the court determines that the
Assignment in favor of JLT Agro? will is extrinsically valid then the properties mentioned in the
A: NO preterition. will shall be disposed of in accordance with the will unless
First, the issue of preterition only becomes relevant when there are certain limitation that must be observed. Kadto
there is a will and a compulsory heir in the direct line has diayng disposition in the will are meant to disqualify a person
been omitted in the will. That is the first requirement, there or maybe na prejudiced na ang legitime sa uban, there should
should be a will. be adjustments.
Second reason, Lot 63 is not the only property. No complete
omission. Assuming na naay will, there are still other Because there is a pending probate proceeding, the heirs
properties from whom the heirs of the 2nd marriage could extra judicially partitioned the estate. Bawal na siya. The act
participate.

of the heirs in selling the tractors actually amounted to a law. Na even if that is the legitime of the reservoir, if the
partition of the estate. reservoir dies and there are reservees who survived, that
property will not go to the reservoir but to the reservees.
“The probate proceeding had already acquired jurisdiction However, the prohibition cannot exceed 20 years. If the
over all the properties of the deceased, including the three (3) testator says 50 years, 20 years. If it is silent, still 20 years.
tractors. To dispose of them in any way without the probate If he says forever, 20 years.
courts approval is tantamount to divesting it with jurisdiction
which the Court cannot allow. Every act intended to put an Even though forbidden by the testator, the co-ownership
end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is terminates when any of the causes for which partnership is
deemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a dissolved takes place, like death of one co-owner. Death of
sale, an exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction.” one partner dissolves the partnership.
The act of selling the tractor with the agreement of the heirs Or when the court finds for compelling reasons that division
was in the nature of extrajudicial partition. This cannot be should be ordered, upon petition of one of the co-heirs. So
done. The heirs cannot just divest the Court of its jurisdiction. there has to be a partition.
That was regarded as extrajudicial partition which is not
allowed pending probate proceeding. IN RE: PETITION FOR PROBATE OF LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT OF BASILIO SANTIAGO, G.R. No. 179859,
August 9, 2010
CRUCILLO v. IAC, G.R. No. 65416. October 26, 1999
Here Santiago executed a last will and testament. In his will,
The heirs already occupying specific portions of the estate. there was a certain provision:
They developed and improved the portions occupied by them.
They declared this for tax purposes under their respective e) Ang lupat bahay sa Lunsod ng Maynila na nasasaysay sa
names. itaas na 2(c) ay ililipat at ilalagay sa pangalan nila Ma. Pilar at
Clemente hindi bilang pamana ko sa kanila kundi upang
Based on that the Supreme Court said it is very clear that pamahalaan at pangalagaan lamang nila at nang ang sinoman
there is already partition in this case. They already agreed sa aking mga anak sampu ng apo at kaapuapuhan ko sa
among them how to partition the property. Here even though habang panahon ay may tutuluyan kung magnanais na mag-
there is no written document to evidence a partition made, aral sa Maynila o kalapit na mga lunsod x x x.
the SC said:
Pursuant to that provision, the house and lot in manila was
After exercising acts of ownership over their respective placed under the name of Maria Pilar and Clemente. The will
portions of the contested estate, petitioners are estopped was approved 1978. In year 2000, the heirs of the second
from denying or contesting the existence of an oral partition. marriage filed before the probate court a motion for
The oral termination of administration, accounting, etc. and for the
agreement for the partition of the property owned in common transfer of titles to their names of all the heirs concerning that
is valid, binding and enforceable on the parties. house and lot in Manila.
Here naay concerted action murag ingana so there was really It was contended by Ma. Pilar at Clemente that the
a partition. proceedings had already terminated so it cannot be re-open
anymore and besides what the heir of the second marriage
wanted was contrary to the express wishes of the testator
because the testator precisely intended that the house and lot
ARTICLE 1083. Every co-heir has a right to demand the
division of the estate unless the testator should have in Manila should be preserved. It is just named under Pilar or
expressly forbidden its partition, in which case the period of Clemente for administration.
indivision shall not exceed twenty years as provided in article
494. This power of the testator to prohibit division applies to The Supreme Court said although that was the express desire
the legitime. of the testator but that is contrary to the provision of Article
1083. The condition set by the decedent on the property’s
Even though forbidden by the testator, the co-ownership indivisibility is subject to a statutory limitation. He could
terminates when any of the causes for which partnership is prohibit the division of that house and lot. He could order that
dissolved takes place, or when the court finds for compelling it should be preserved. Meaning, not partitioned but for a
reasons that division should be ordered, upon petition of one period not exceeding 20 years. Here, more than 20 years had
of the co-heirs. already lapsed.
Every heir has the right to demand partition. In general, this The SC said:
right does not prescribe. As long as there is still co-ownership, Although the Civil Code is silent as to the effect of the
the co-owners may still demand partition. indivision of a property for more than twenty years, it would
be contrary to public policy to sanction co-ownership beyond
The testator, however can prohibit partition. He can apply the period expressly mandated by the Civil Code.
this prohibition even to the legitime. So this is one of the
exception to the general rule that no burden, encumbrance, The Court ordered here the transfer of the title over the
substitution, etc. may be imposed upon the legitime. property to the name of all the heirs.
The second one that we discussed is the concept of reserve

truncal although it was not imposed by the testator but by the
SANTOS V. SANTOS

The law says, the other heirs katong walay condition imposed
As we have discussed, every co-owner or co-heir can demand upon them, they can demand for partition.
for the partition of the property as long as co-ownership
exists. This right to ask for partition is not barred by What if A pass the 2018 Bar Exams?
prescription or laches. Anytime EXCEPT pwede mag apply
ang prescription if there is repudiation. The co-heirs (the others) may demand partition but they have
to give sufficient security for the rights of the heir whose
For example, A, B, C and D. They are co-owners of a specific institution is subject to a condition. The security will answer
parcel of land. Anytime, anyone of them can ask for partition. for whatever share of A.
For example A, he repudiated the co-ownership. When he
repudiated the co-ownership complying all the requisites of xxx and until it is known that the condition has not been
repudiation, he can already acquire the property by fulfilled or can never be complied with, the partition shall be
prescription after repudiation. These are the requirements for understood to be provisional.
repudiation:
In the meantime, until A passed the Bar Exams or until it is
(1) a co-owner repudiates the co-ownership; clear that A cannot pass the Bar Exams.
(2) such an act of repudiation is clearly made known to the
other co-owners; (For them to demand that co-owner ARTICLE 1085. In the partition of the estate, equality shall
to vacate or to file a case) be observed as far as possible, dividing the property into lots,
(3) the evidence thereon is clear and conclusive; and or assigning to each of the co-heirs things of the same nature,
(4) he has been in possession through open, continuous, quality and kind.
exclusive, and notorious possession of the property for
the period required by law. (This is after repudiation. There should be as much as possible, EQUALITY IN THE
Actually when you repudiate, you should need at least PARTITION of the same quality, nature and kind.
30 years because you are in bad faith.) Halimbawa kung nakadawat ang compulsory heir ug land, ang
other heirs dapat makadawat sad ug land AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE.
After 30 years, kung magdemand si B ug partition, no more
because there is nothing to partition anymore since the entire
When you say equality, how is that?
property is acquired by A by prescription. That’s the time
when you cannot demand for partition.
Although in this case the SC said, there is no valid

repudiation. Therefore, anyone of the co-owners may
demand the partition of the co-owned property even if only
one of them occupied the property because they are all
members of the same family.
Filipino family ties being close and well-knit as they are, and
considering that the ward is also a member of the family, in So highway ang front, ang likod dagat. How do we partition na
fact even when he was still an infant, it was but natural that equal? Ana? Unsaon na pagbalay? Although technically, equal
they did not interpose any objection to his continued stay on dyud na sila but this is not practical unless kung magbowling
the property and even acquiesce thereto. sila or mag garden?
Here, the SC reiterated the rule that:
The action for partition is not barred by laches. An action to

demand partition is imprescriptible or cannot be barred by
laches. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition
of the common property.
ARTICLE 1084. Voluntary heirs upon whom some condition

has been imposed cannot demand a partition until the
condition has been fulfilled; but the other co-heirs may
demand it by giving sufficient security for the rights which the So how do you divide it in such a way that you comply with
former may have in case the condition should be complied equality?
with, and until it is known that the condition has not been 1. All of them should have access to the highway. So
fulfilled or can never be complied with, the partition shall be pwede sila mag create ug common road.
understood to be provisional. 2. Kaya lang ang duol sa highway dapat mas gamay
iyaha kay mas mahal man ang value kung duol ka sa
For example, A, B, C and D are co-heirs over a parcel of land. highway. The more na magkalayo ka sa highway, it
The institution of A is subject to the condition that he should would be equitable na mas dako imong share. That’s
first pass the 2018 Bar Exams. Ang uban walay condition. So the concept of equality siguro not in the size but in
pwede ba ipartition ang property? the value of the property. Not necessarily equal in
size but at least equal in value.
What if A does not pass the 2018 Bar Exams? So wala
siyay share?

What if A sells his share to X? Pwede na siya diba, as to his

ideal share. X now will become a co-owner with B, C and D.
ARTICLE 1086. Should a thing be indivisible, or would be
much impaired by its being divided, it may be adjudicated to What happens if di ganahan si B, C, and D kay X?
one of the heirs, provided he shall pay the others the excess They can exercise their right of legal redemption.
in cash. Anyone of them. Pwede paliton ni B kay X or all of them.
They can buy from X the share of A so that they can limit the
Nevertheless, if any of the heirs should demand that the thing co-ownership among themselves.
be sold at public auction and that strangers be allowed to bid,
this must be done. Remember that this right is only applicable before partition.
Kay kung nagpartition na sila and then A sold his share to X,
Halimbawa land 50 sqm. lang then 10 ka heirs. Dili siguro na walay right of legal redemption. In the first place, di naman
siya practicable na imuha pa na siyang idivide. You gave that sila co-owner. If A sold it to X, X will be the exclusive owner
to one of the heirs and then the value, bayaran nalang ato of the share. He will not co-owned that with B, C and D.
nga heir.
ANG USUAL ISSUE IN ARTICLE 1088 IS THE PERIOD
ARTICLE 1087. In the partition the co-heirs shall reimburse WITHIN WHICH TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF LEGAL
one another for the income and fruits which each one of them REDEMPTION. WHEN SHALL IT STARTS?
may have received from any property of the estate, for any
useful and necessary expenses made upon such property, and The law says – one month (30 days) from the time they were
for any damage thereto through malice or neglect.
notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.
Whatever expenses incurred by the heir or whatever income Several case reaches the SC, the law says from the
they have receive from the estate prior to partition, i account notification in writing and they are insisting from actual
na siya tanan. Kung naay income ihatag sa estate pero knowledge. Giingnan naka na ibaligya namo among share
eventually idivide gihapon na siya sa ilang tanan. unya wala ka nilihok. Or wala dyud giingnan pero one of the
co-heirs went to the Registry of Deeds and saw for himself
Like si A nakagasto siya 100k, si B wala siyay nagasto at all. kay ang buyer iyahang gipa annotate sa title ang pagbaligya.
Si D nakabenefit siyag 200k. So actually si D mubayad siyag
200k. Si A bayaran siya sa 200k. In effect naay 100k net CASE: GARCIA vs. CALALIMAN, G.R. No. L-26855, April
ang estate. Ilaha lang gihapon na siyang bahinun in the end 7, 1989
in equal share. So that is how to account for the income and The same question. The respondent said that the 30-day
expenses. period had already elapsed because when one of the co-heirs
went to the Register of Deeds and saw for himself, read and
THE RIGHT OF LEGAL REDEMPTION understood the contents of the sale, he is already notified
within the contemplation of Article 1088.
ARTICLE 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary
rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co- The SC said NO. In the interpretation of the New Civil Code, it
heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by says “notified in writing.”
reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so
within the period of one month from the time they were
Written notice is indispensable, actual knowledge of
notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.
the sale acquired in some other manners by the
redemptioner, notwithstanding. He or she is still
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
entitled to written notice, as exacted by the Code, to
remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and
A, B, C and D are co-owners of this land. As co-owners, it is
its validity, and to quiet any doubt that the
burdensome on the part of the owners because you cannot act
alienation is not definitive. The law not having
without the consent of the others.
provided for any alternative, the method of
notifications remains exclusive, though the Code
FOR EXAMPLE A. X is not a co-owner of the property. He is
does not prescribe any particular form of written
considered as a stranger in the co-owned property under
notice.
Article 1088. Even if X still may be an heir of the same
decedent but over different property, but as to this property,
There has to be notification in writing. Otherwise, the law
he is a stranger. Kay di man siya apil sa co-ownership.
would not have specified so under Article 1088 if we will just
allow any kind of notice.
EXCEPTIONS, however were made:

1st Exception ~ Case: Alonzo v. IAC, G.R. No. 72873, In this particular case, lets say A, B, C, and D are co-owners
May 28, 1987 of a certain property. A sold his hereditary rights to X. Then
naa siyay duha ka anak si M ug si N. X notified the other co-
In this case there was actual knowledge. The co-heir has heirs of the sale. M and N sought to exercise the right of legal
actual knowledge but he exercises the right of legal redemption.
redemption more than 13 years after the sales were
concluded. First question: Had the right of legal redemption already
lapsed from the time of the written notification by the buyer
The SC said, actual knowledge is considered as an equivalent and
to written notice of the sale because the right of legal
redemption was invoked more than 13 years after the sales Second issue: Can M and N exercise the right of legal
were concluded. redemption?
The SC said, as to the first issue, it has not yet lapsed

2nd Exception ~ Case: Cabales v. CA, G.R. No. 162421
because the written notification should come from the
August 31, 2007
seller not from the buyer. The reason here is that:
Here, focus on the contention of Nelson on the right of legal the vendor is in the best position to know who are
redemption. The sale happened in 1978. That time, Nelson his co-owners that under the law must be notified of
was still a minor. He read of the sale in 1988, 10 years after the sale. Also, the notice by the seller removes all
the sale was made. Legal age na siya at that time. In 1993, doubts as to fact of the sale, its perfection; and its
Nelson signified his intention to redeem the property (to validity, the notice being a reaffirmation thereof, so
exercise the right of legal redemption) during a barangay that the party notified need not entertain doubt that
conciliation process. But he only filed the complaint for legal the seller may still contest the alienation. This
redemption on January 12, 1995. assurance would not exist if the buyer should give
the notice.
The SC said:
So dapat written notice of the seller kay malay nimo gidispute
In the face of the established facts, petitioner Nelson
pa diay later on ni seller ang iyahang sale. So wala nagstart
cannot feign ignorance of the sale of subject
ang 30 days because there was no written notification from
property in 1978. To require strict proof of written
notice of the sale would be to countenance an the seller.
obvious false claim of lack of knowledge thereof,
thus commending the letter of the law over its Second, M and N cannot exercise the right of legal redemption
purpose, i.e. (which is), the notification of because the right of legal redemption pertains to the co-heirs
redemptioners. of the one who sold his hereditary rights. It should be B, C
and D. A does not have the right of legal redemption. If this is
The Court is satisfied that there was sufficient notice the case, her heirs also did not have the right of legal
of the sale to petitioner Nelson. The thirty-day redemption because they only steps into the shoes.
redemption period commenced in 1993, after he
sought the barangay conciliation process to redeem
ARTICLE 1089. The titles of acquisition or ownership of each
his property. (Not in 1998 because at that time we
property shall be delivered to the co-heir to whom said
cannot be sure if he really knew of the sale or the
property has been adjudicated.
terms of the sale) By January 12, 1995, when he
filed a complaint for legal redemption and damages,
it is clear that the thirty-day period had already Once there is a title issued, for example kung land na siya, it
expired (lapsed). should be given to the heir to whom that property has been
adjudicated.
Although again in the
ARTICLE 1090. When the title comprises two or more pieces
Case: Primary Structures Corp. v. Sps. Valencia, G.R. of land which have been assigned to two or more co-heirs, or
No. 150060. August 19, 2003 when it covers one piece of land which has been divided
The SC reiterated that the 30-day period should start from the between two or more co-heirs, the title shall be delivered to
written notice. In this case, it cited the case of Alonzo v. IAC. the one having the largest interest, and authentic copies of
the title shall be furnished to the other co-heirs at the
Even in Alonzo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court expense of the estate. If the interest of each co-heir should be
(150 SCRA 259), when the Court ruled that actual the same, the oldest shall have the title.
knowledge is equivalent to a written notice of sale,
the Court made it clear that it was not reversing the
prevailing jurisprudence. The Court simply adopted
an exception to the general rule, in view of the SITUATION:
peculiar circumstances of this case.
It is possible na after partition, wala gihapon physically na
Take note in Alonzo, it was actual knowledge. So kung divide ang property. Like the land is owned by the testator so
constructive notice lang like giregister lang sa Register of usually naa siya sa will ni testator. Then nag extrajudicial
Deeds ang sale, that ruling in the case of Alonzo should also partition si A, B, C and D pero wala nila gibuak. Gipangalan
not apply. There has to be actual knowledge and at least 13 lang nila sa ilang upat ang title. Pwedeng equal shares,
years kay 13 years man ang mentioned na period sa Alonzo. pwedeng ½ to A, etc. So silang upat ang nakabutang sa
titulo. Unya isa ra man dyud na siya ka owner’s copy ang
There is another case in relation to Article 1088. ihatag sa ROD. Kinsa man mag gunit?
Case: Cuizon v. Remoto, G.R. No. 143027 October 11,

Mao ni siya (Art. 1090) ang answer.
2005

Si A dapat he has to institute the action to enforce the

RULES: warranty within 10 years from the time na naevict siya sa
1. Whoever has the largest share, siya magunit. property.
2. Kung pareha silag share, katong pinakatigulang sa
ilaha. Murag impossible pud siguro kung gianak dyud INSOLVENCY OF THE DEBTOR
sila at the same time, minute or second.
ARTICLE 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
SUBSECTION 2. Effects of Partition time the partition is made.
The warranty of the solvency of the debtor can only be

ARTICLE 1091. A partition legally made confers upon each enforced during the five years following the partition. Co-heirs
heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to do not warrant bad debts, if so known to, and accepted by,
him. the distributee. But if such debts are not assigned to a co-
heir, and should be collected, in whole or in part, the amount
It just says na when you already partitioned, you are now the collected shall be distributed proportionately among the heirs.
exclusive owner of the specific portion of the property. So you
can now sell a specific portion after partition.
Pwede man na ang estate has receivables. He has receivables
ARTICLE 1092. After the partition has been made, the co- from actually several debtors – W, X, Y, Z. So gi assign nila:
heirs shall be reciprocally bound to warrant the title to, and D – imuha ning kay W
the quality of, each property adjudicated. C–X
B–Y
A–Z
in relation to
What happens kay A was not able to collect kay si Z diay
ARTICLE 1093. The reciprocal obligation of warranty referred insolvent?
to in the preceding article shall be proportionate to the The law says, the co-heirs shall not be liable for the
respective hereditary shares of the co-heirs, but if any one of subsequent insolvency of the debtor of the estate.
them should be insolvent, the other co-heirs shall be liable for
his part in the same proportion, deducting the part  If the insolvency happened AFTER partition, wala na
corresponding to the one who should be indemnified. Those silay labot.
who pay for the insolvent heir shall have a right of action
 But if the insolvency occurred at the time that
against him for reimbursement, should his financial condition
partition is made, then there is a warranty.
improve.
So katong mga receivables na nabilin idivide na siya ug 4 para

apil gihapon si A or they will contribute so that masatisfy ang
In 1092, there is a RECIPROCAL WARRANTY.
share ni A, naa gihapon siyay share sa estate na ¼.
For example, A, B, C and D already divided among

BAD DEBTS
themselves the property. There is a reciprocal warranty here
When you say bad debts, those that are doubtful of collection.
as to the title and quality.
Kay siguro estapador tong nangutang so murag di man siya
makacollect kay Z, although dako ug collectible kay Z. Say:
W – 1M
X – 1M
Y – 1M
Z – 10M
So si A, “sige nalang kay dako man ang share” gidawat niya.

That case kung dili siya makacollect, then wala.
Then later on naa diay kaso sa estate napahawa si A. So
wala na siyay share. What will happen? Because of the Co-heirs do not warrant bad debts, if so known
reciprocal warranty dapat its either usabon nila or hatagan to, and accepted by, the distributee.
nilag share si A sa portions nila or hatagan nila si A sa value
of that property. So that’s a reciprocal warranty. Halimbawa gi exclude nila ilang collectible kay Z. Kato lang
kay W, X and Y kay bad debt lagi daw ni siya (Z), so
For example, one of them is insolvent. Si C dili siya ka nagdistribute na sila. But later on nagbayad diay si Z, so
contribute kay insolvent man siya then ishoulder sa uban ang ilaha napud ng bahinon usab.
iyahang share until his financial condition shall improve.
Warranty 5 years following the partition – warranty of
the insolvency of the debtor.
ARTICLE 1094. An action to enforce the warranty among
heirs must be brought within ten years from the date the right
of action accrues. ARTICLE. 1096. The obligation of warranty among co-heirs
shall cease in the following cases:

1. When the testator himself has made the partition, unless

it appears, or it may be reasonably presumed, that his So this could be the possible reasons for the annulment of
intention was otherwise, but the legitime shall always partition.
remain unimpaired;
2. When it has been so expressly stipulated in the ARTICLE 1098. A partition, judicial or extra-judicial, may
agreement of partition, unless there has been bad faith; also be rescinded on account of lesion, when any one of the
3. When the eviction is due to a cause subsequent to the co-heirs received things whose value is less, by at least one-
partition, or has been caused by the fault of the fourth, than the share to which he is entitled, considering the
distributee of the property. value of the things at the time they were adjudicated.
Please remember under this situation, walay reciprocal Take note ha Art. 1098, whether it is judicial or extrajudicial.
warranty. When one of the co-heirs received things ang value is less by
1. IF THE TESTATOR HIMSELF HAS MADE THE at least ¼. If 1M iyahang share supposedly ang iyang
PARTITION. Si testator ang nagbuot wala silay nadawat lang is 750k. That is less than at least ¼. So he can
choice. Kung ma evict man si A sa iyahang share na ask for rescission.
gi allocate sa iyaha ni testator, wala tay mabuhat
ana. Gusto guro ni testator na maevict si A so NO Considering the value of the thing at the time of
RECIPROCAL WARRANTY. partition, at the time they were adjudicated ~ so mao to
siya ang basis.
UNLESS IT WILL IMPAIR THE LEGITIME.
Halimbawa legitime diay ni A, we still apply the Rule
ARTICLE 1099. The partition made by the testator cannot be
on Reciprocal Warranty. impugned on the ground of lesion, except when the legitime
of the compulsory heirs is thereby prejudiced, or when it
2. WHEN IT HAS BEEN SO EXPRESSLY appears or may reasonably be presumed, that the intention of
STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT. They clearly, the testator was otherwise.
voluntarily, intelligently they agreed na wala kay
reciprocal warranty. This applies to partition made by the testator like partition
inter vivos.
Unless there is bad faith. Like if the other heirs
kabalo sila nga naay problema kay A pero niingon Before, we discussed one limitation is the legitime of the
sila kay A na ok lang na sige mag agree gihapon na compulsory heir should not be prejudiced. Also the same thing
walay reciprocal warranty. So in that case, there is you cannot impugn the partition made by the testator on the
bad faith. ground of lesion. Again exception is the same – When the
legitime of the compulsory heir is prejudiced.
3. WHEN THE EVICTION IS DUE TO A CAUSE
SUBSEQUENT TO THE PARTITION, OR HAS 1100 just remember when you shall file an action for
BEEN CAUSED BY THE FAULT OF THE rescission on the ground lesion – 4 years from the time a
DISTRIBUTEE OF THE PROPERTY. Supposed to partition was made. Actually this is the same sa kanang
be naay reciprocal warranty against eviction or action for rescission under Article 1381of the Civil Code.
warranty as to title or quality but at the time of Kadtong on account of lesion, 4 years gihapun siya.
partition, wala pay problema ang yuta. Didto na
siya nagkaproblema after the partition. In that case
ARTICLE 1101. The heir who is sued shall have the option of
walay reciprocal warranty. Remember this will only indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss, or consenting to a new
apply for the defects existing before or at the time of partition. Indemnity may be made by payment in cash or by
partition. Subsequently no more. Or even if before the delivery of a thing of the same kind and quality as that
partition naa na siya but the eviction is due to the awarded to the plaintiff. If a new partition is made, it shall
fault of the distributee – like before the partition naa affect neither those who have not been prejudiced nor those
nay case sa this portion. Si A gipadalhan ug have not received more than their just share.
summons, wala siya nagtubag, na default siya. Nag
render ug judgment against him. It’s his fault so he This is when there is a need to indemnify an heir who has
cannot enforce the rule on reciprocal warranty. suffered a lesion because of the partition.
They can just indemnify the heir or they can have a new
SUBSECTION 3 partition para equal share sila. It could be in cash or delivery
of a thing of the same kind.
Rescission and Nullity of Partition
ARTICLE 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
ARTICLE 1097. A partition may be rescinded or annulled for
lesion, but he shall have a right to be indemnified in cash.
the same causes as contracts.
So for example ang kulang nalang sa iya kay 100k ang

iyahang share dapat is 1M so 900k na iyang nadawat and
Pwede gihapon because partition is an agreement. It can be
then gibaligya daun niya ang 800k worth so obviously kung
rescinded or annulled for the same causes as contract.
magbag.o moo g partition, you cannot do daw kay iyahang
naming gi dispose iyahang share. Tagaan nalang siya sa iyang
Rescinded – lesion
kulang.
Annulment – vitiated consent

The respondents were not notified since the petitioners

ARTICLE 1103. The omission of one or more objects or misrepresented themselves as legitimate descendants and
securities of the inheritance shall not cause the rescission of sole heirs of the decedent. In fact, they also admitted, they
the partition on the ground of lesion, but the partition shall be also admitted that the decedent has grandchildren and
completed by the distribution of the objects or securities children who were not mentioned in the extrajudicial partition.
which have been omitted. There was actually bad faith because of the
misrepresentation. The SC said it is only proper to annul the
This is one thing called PRETERITION OF OBJECTS IN THE extrajudicial partition.
PARTITION.
ARTICLE 1105. A partition which includes a person believed
So nag partition sila wala naapil tung isa ka property. What to be an heir, but who is not, shall be void only with respect
will happen? Is that ground to rescind a partition? No. just to such person.
made that partition of that property which has not been
included. Here, kabaliktaran sa Art. 1104. Sa 1104, ang heir wala na
apil. Diri ang walay apil, na apil. Does this annul the
ARTICLE 1104. A partition made with preterition of any of partition?
the compulsory heirs shall not be rescinded, unless it be
proved that there was bad faith or fraud on the part of the The law says, it is not entirely void. It is only void with
other persons interested; but the latter shall be respect to that person who is not an heir. Halimbawa si B dili
proportionately obliged to pay to the person omitted the share diay siya heir, nakadawat siyag 1M. Ang 1M atong ihatag sa
which belongs to him. uban na mga heirs. Balikon ug partition.
Another concept of Preterition – PRETERITION OF Regarding that we have

COMPULSORY HEIR IN THE PARTITION.
Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. CA, G.R. No. 128102.
Article 854 preterition of compulsory heirs in the direct line so
March 7, 2000
sa will. This, compulsory heir has been omitted in the
partition. When we say compulsory heir it could be any of
The same remedy. We just exclude the person who is not
them not like in 854, in the direct line.
included and partition regarding that portion.
So what if for example a daughter was not included in the

Lets discuss
partition?
CASE: NON vs CA, G.R. No. 137287. February 15, 2000 Balus v. Balus, G.R. No. 168970, January 15, 2010
Delia Viado here was excluded from the extrajudicial partition. Here during his lifetime, Rufo owned a certain parcel of land.
So it was alleged na that should be a ground for the rescission He mortgaged the land with the Rural Bank. He defaulted in
of the partition. the payment of the loan for which the land was held as a
collateral. Therefore the bank foreclosed of the mortgage and
Article 1104 of the Civil Code governs this particular the property was sold at public auction and Rural Bank was
case. The law says that when the preterition is not able to acquire the property as the highest bidder. There was
attended by bad faith and fraud, the partition shall a period of redemption but Rufo was not able to redeem the
not be rescinded but the preterited heir shall be paid property during the redemption period. So the bank was able
the value of the share pertaining to her. to consolidate the title under its name. Then, Rufo died.
So here there was no showing of fraud or bad faith. So the Upon the death of Rufo, the children of Rufo executed an
remedy here is just give to Delia her supposed share. It extrajudicial partition of his estate. Among the properties in
should not be rescind the partition. So here the court directed the extrajudicial partition is the land which was acquired by
the proper evaluation of the property and the ascertainment the bank. In the extrajudicial partition, it actually contains a
of the amount due to the omitted ompulsory heir. provision wherein the heirs already acknowledge the fact that
the property was already foreclosed by the bank. Then they
Case: Reillo v. San Jose and Espiritu Santo, G.R. No. would repurchase the property from the bank.
166393 June 18, 2009
Lets say A, B, C. They were the participants in the
Here, there was an extrajudicial partition. In the extrajudicial extrajudicial partition. C negotiated by the bank. He
partition, certain heirs were omitted. But in the extrajudicial succeeded in buying the property from the bank. He was able
partition, they declared that they are the sole surviving heirs to transfer the title of the property from the name of the bank
of the decedent. Obviously some of the grandchildren were to his name. Then he demanded from his siblings, A and B to
not included in the partition. And they knew that they were vacate the property because he already acquired the property.
excluded.
But the siblings said, NO. We have an agreement. Under the
The SC said: extrajudicial partition, we agreed with a co-ownership over
Under the rules, no extrajudicial settlement shall be the property. So because you bought the property from the
binding upon any person who has not participated bank, we will just reimburse you of the 2/3. 1/3 kay A, 1/3
therein or had no notice thereof. kay B. We will reimburse you of our share and we will
continue our co-ownership. Is that correct?

The SC said:
There is nothing to partition. Because when Rufo died, the

land was no longer part of his estate. It was already
foreclosed by the bank. That never formed part of the estate.
At the time of his death, there was nothing to partition
regarding that land. So it is not proper to the heirs to extra
judicially partition the land pursuant to Article 777. They
never inherited the land from their father.
How about their contention that in the Extrajudicial Partition,

they agreed to co-own the land and an extrajudicial partition
being an agreement, it should be complied with in good faith?
Is it binding among the parties?
No. That is not correct.
In the first place, when you say extrajudicial settlement, it is a

form of partition. When you partition, you do not agree to
continue a co-ownership.
Partition calls for the segregation and conveyance of a

determinate portion of the property owned in common. It
seeks a severance of the individual interests of each co-
owner, vesting in each of them a sole estate in a specific
property and giving each one a right to enjoy his estate
without supervision or interference from the other. In other
words, the purpose of partition is to put an end to co-
ownership.
The essence of the extrajudicial settlement is not to create co-

ownership but to end a co-ownership. This objective of
executing an extrajudicial partition negates their claim of co-
ownership.
Exam Coverage: Disinheritance up to the end.
Thank you and Good luck!

Sucession Exam 2018

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sucession Exam 2018

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

WILLS & SUCCESSION TSN

From the lectures of Atty. Lielanie Yangyang-Espejo, CPA

SECTION 6 2. It must be made expressly.

3. No imposition of burden, charge, or condition “Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by

Halimbawa, gibutang sa testator sa will, “I hereby

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 1 of 68

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 2 of 68

So this is the difference between the effect of preterition and

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 3 of 68

So now, we go to the case of:

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 4 of 68

Induced their daughters to live a corrupt or immoral

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 5 of 68

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 6 of 68

ARTICLE 922. A subsequent reconciliation between the OCTOBER 8, 2018

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 7 of 68

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 8 of 68

Example: 2. The execution of a codicil republishing the will has the

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 9 of 68

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 10 of 68

The same rule applies when the thing is pledged or mortgaged

SITUATION: What is the effect upon the death of the testator?

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 11 of 68

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 12 of 68

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 13 of 68

So it matters noh if it is movable or immovable basta generic.

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 14 of 68

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 15 of 68

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 16 of 68

2. Legacies or devises declared by the testator to  Remuneratory legacy – 200,000

1. Donations 500K EDUCATION 40K

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 17 of 68

others may repudiate the share respectively belonging to

The second paragraph says na the compulsory heir, at the

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 18 of 68

When you say trasnsformation, the law says, it could be a

What if alienation, gibaligya ni testator ang property. But wala

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 19 of 68

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 20 of 68

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 21 of 68

Article 962. In every inheritance, the relative nearest in X (child of A) Z (child of B)

Relatives in the same degree shall inherit in equal shares,

If both A and B predeceased C:

Illustration A: (also used as reference in subsequent

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 22 of 68

SUBSECTION 1. Relationship If A predeceases C or was disinherited or incapacitated, A’s

Article 963. Proximity of relationship is determined by the

A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees

In case of PREDECEASED, INCAPACITY, ONLY 3 KINDS OF VACANCY CAN GIVE RISE TO

(PLEASE REFER TO “ILLUSTRATION A”) 1. Disinheritance

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 23 of 68

ROSALES VS ROSALES Article 974. Whenever there is succession by representation,

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 24 of 68

Estate of decedent: 100K A person who repudiated cannot be represented BUT he

The law says, to their descendants who shall inherit by right

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 25 of 68

We can give, but we have to reduce. In that case, the legacy

Let’s discuss partial intestacy. Although we discussed it IRON-BAR RULE

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 26 of 68

Another controversial situation for that

When Federico died, the estate of Federico also consisted of

If the widow or widower should survive with brothers and

3RD EXAM - ALTISO|BORBE|COQUILLA|ESCRITOR|GIDO|LAGAT|MURRAY|NARCA|UGDANG|VALLENTE Page 27 of 68

HEIRS INTESTATE SHARES SUBSECTION 4. Surviving Spouse