WILLS AND

SUCCESSION
ATTY. TERESITA L. CRUZ

ART. 774.
SUCCESSION
1.

Bases/Reasons
Decedent/Testator
Heir/Legatee/Devisee

2.

Terms

Property
Rights

3.

Elements

Obligations

ART. 776

INHERITANCE

LITONJUA VS. MONTILLA

90 PHIL 757
D

C
(creditor of A)

LEDESMA VS MCLACHLIN
66 PHIL 547

D
(+12/15/32)

(creditor of A)

(+3/9/30)
x

RABADILLA VS CA
GR 113725 JUNE 29, 2000
Aleja Belleza
d
o
c

l
i
ic

Dr. Jorge Rabadilla

(511,856 sq. m. lot in Bacolod)

Ma. Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza

(100 piculs of sugar/crop year)

ART. 777
TRANSMISSION
OF
SUCCESSIONA
L RIGHTS

Art.
783.
WILLS
S U S A C P E R V I
D

LWT

Statutory

Unilateral

Solemn/formal

Animus testandi

Capacitated

Personal

Effective mortis causa

Revocable

free from Vitiated consent

Individual

Disposes of Ts estate to a certain extent

Art. 793. AFTER-ACQUIRED

PROPERTY
1. Q:

In 2000, T made a will

stating, I give all my cars to
X. In 2000, T has 5 cars. In
2003 when T died, T already
has 10 cars. How many cars
will X get?

2. Q: I hereby give to X all

my cars and all other
cars I may acquire
before my death. How
many cars will X get?

3. In a will he executed in 1999 T said: I

institute my 2 legitimate brothers Arnold
and Anton as my sole heirs to all the
properties I own. Arnold died in 2000
survived by his legitimate son, Arman. In
1999, Ts estate was worth P5M. On Ts
death in 2002, Ts estate was already
worth P10M.
Anton

Q:

(+2002)

Arnold (+2000)
Arman

a.) Who will inherit from T?

b.) By what right and how much will
the heir(s) inherit?

RELATE TO
ART.935.
LEGACIES OF
CREDIT/REMISSION
OF DEBT

1. Q:
T is the creditor of D for
P1M.
T made a will in
1999 which
reads: I give
this legacy of
P1M to X. In
2001, D had
already paid
P500T to T. On
Ts death in
2002, how much
will X get?
2. Q:

If instead of paying, D again

borrowed P500T in
2001. On
Ts death in 2002,
how much
will X get?

ART. 795.
EXTRINSIC
VALIDITY OF
WILLS
(As To Time)

I. EXTRINSIC
VALIDITY:
Place)

(As To

General Rule:

Article 17 (1) Civil Code

Additional Rules:

Articles 815 819 Civil

Code

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:
X, a Japanese citizen, domiciled in China,
on her way to Spain, made a 2-day stopover in Paris, France. What law my X
follow as to formalities and solemnities so
her will may be probated in the Philippines
and her estate in the Philippines
distributed in accordance with the
provisions of said will?

II. INTRINSIC
VALIDITY:
Place)

General Rule:

(As To

Article 16 (2) Civil

Code
Article 1039 Civil
Code

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:
1. Bellis vs Bellis 20 SCRA 358
2. Aznar vs Garcia 7 SCRA 95
3. Miciano vs Brimo 50 SCRA 867

1.

T executed will in 1908; new

law passed in 1916; T died in
1917.

(IN RE JOSE RIOSA 39 PHIL 23)

ENRIQUEZ VS ABADIA
95 PHIL 627
LWT

T
1

FRONT PAGES

AC

2.

1__________
2__________
3__________

[4]

[5]
BACK PAGES

[6]

ART. 796.
PERSONS WHO CAN
MAKE WILLS

Testamentary Power
Testamentary Capacity
L

NE
W

C IV I
NEW DE
CO

CI
VL
CO
DE

ART. 799.
SOUND MIND

(BAGTAS VS PAGUIO 22 PHIL

227)

2.

T was extremely ill, in an advanced

state of tuberculosis, complicated with
severe intermittent attacks of asthma; too
sick to rise unaided from his bed; T made
a will leaving everything to his wife as
sole heir,
there being no other heir in the
direct descending or ascending line;
oppositors are
brothers and sisters of the
T.
(BUGNAO VS UBAG 14 PHIL 163)

3.

Testatrix sick of insomnia, TB,

diabetes, Addisons disease;
contention of oppositors to the
probate of the will is that she is not of
sound mind when she executed her
will.
(NEYRA VS NEYRA 76 PHIL 333)

ART. 800/801.
SANITY/
SUPERVENING
INCAPACITY

ARTS. 804/805/806.

FORMALITIES
OF A NOTARIAL
WILL

1. Attestation clause
a). We do hereby certify that the
testament was read by him and the
T has published unto us the foregoing
will consisting of three pages, including
the Acknowledgement, each page
numbered correlatively in letters on the
upper part of each page, as his Last Will
& Testament, and he has signed the
same and every page thereof, on the
spaces provided for his signature and on
the left hand margin, in the presence of
the said T and in the presence of each
and all of us (CANEDA VS CA 222 SCRA
781 MAY 28, 1983)

b). We, the undersigned, all of legal

age, certify: that the foregoing will
written in Spanish which is known to the
T, composed of 2 pages actually used
including the attestation clause paged
correlatively in letters and numbers at
the upper part thereof as well as the
pages of the same, in our presence and
that each one of us have attested and
signed said document and all the pages
thereof in the presence of the T and
each one of us (GIL VS MURCIANO 88
PHIL 260)

In witness whereof, I sign this testament in the

municipality of Iba, Zambales, Philippines, this
h
day of October, 1945, in the presence of
e three
witnesses, namely
1 __
,
_ _2_____, and
_____3_____ as instrumental
tnesses to my signing;
this instrument is
itten in three (3) sheets marked
by letters
, B and C consecutively on top of
each
eet and upon my request and in my presence
and also in the presence of each of the aforesaid
instrumental witnesses, they also sign this
instrument
already referred to.

c).

(Sgd.)

Witnesses:
1
(Sgd.)
2
(Sgd.)
3
ACHACOSO

(CUEVAS

VS

2. Attestation clause not

signed by T.
(ABANGAN VS ABANGAN 40
PHIL 476).
3. Attestation Clause not signed
by 1 witness
(CAGRO VS CAGRO 92 PHIL
1032)

4.

Attestation Clause in a
language not known to T

5.

Attestation Clause in a
language not known to
attesting witnesses

6. Attestation Clause did not

include the number of pages
of a will.
(SINGSON VS FLORENTINO
92 PHIL 161)

7.
LWT

AC

ACK

2
2
1

[1]

D___
P ___
B ___
S ___

N.P.

[2]

CAGRO VS CAGRO 92 PHIL 1032

8.Decedents alleged will was

written entirely in English but it
was proven from the records that
the T knew no other language
except the Igorrote dialect with a
smattering of Ilokano.
(ACOP VS PIRASO 52 PHIL
660) will, 1 page of
9.5-page
which
was not signed by 1 witness at Lhand margin
(ICASIANO VS ICASIANO 11
SCRA 423)

10. 6-page will, the first 5 pages

were signed at the L-hand
margin by the T and not by the
three(3) attesting
witnesses
(IN RE WILL OF PRIETO 46
PHIL 700)
11. 1-page will not signed by T and
3 attesting witnesses at L-hand
margin.
(ABANGAN VS ABANGAN
40
PHIL 476)

12. 2-page will, the first page of which

was not signed by T at the L-hand
margin.
LWT
3

AC

ACK

Page [1]

D ___
P ___
B ___
S ___

T
1 .
2 .
3 .

N.P.

Page [2]

(ESTATE OF TAMPOY VS ALBERASTINE 107

PHIL 100)

13. Marginal signatures of T and 3

witnesses were placed on R
margin
instead of L.
T

LWT

AC

ACK

2
3
Page [1]

D ___
P ___
B ___
S ___

T
1 .
2 .
3 .

N.P.

Page [2]

(AVERA VS GARCIA 42 PHIL 145)

14.
AC

LWT
3

1
2
3

ACK
. . . consisting of 2
pages . . . .

1
T

[1]

D ___
P ___
B ___
S ___

N.P.

[2]

(TABOADA VS ROSAL 203 PHIL

15. Ts signature located below

signature of Notary Public in the
acknowledgement.
AC

LWT
3

1 _______
2 _______
3 _______

ACK
1

N.P.

[1]

D ___
P ___
B ___
S ___

[2]

VOID. If the will is not signed at

the END but somewhere else, the will
is NOT VALID. End of the will means
the LOGICAL, not the physical end of
the will (See Stinsons Estate 228 Pa
475)
So important is this requirement
that if after the signature, there are
additional clauses or provisions, not
only should those clauses be
considered VOID , but also the WHOLE
WILL, from beginning to end, and the
will, therefore, should be denied
probate (IN RE ANDREWS, 162 NY 1)

16. True test of signing in the

presence
of T and 3 witnesses.

(JABONETA VS GUSTILO 5 PHIL

541)

17. 2 witnesses and T in one room signing

the will; 1 witness was outside, 8 10
feet away in a large room connected to
the small room by a doorway with a curtain.

18.

LWT

Yap
Caong

Tomasa

YAP TUA VS YAP CA KUAN 27 PHIL

579

19. Testators name was written for

the testator, in his presence and
at his express direction, by one
of the credible witnesses.
Opposition was made for the
probate of this will contending
that the will was not signed by
the testator and such signing was
not done in the presence of three
credible witnesses.

20. Testator executed a will

attested by 3 credible witnesses.
Opposition to the allowance of
the will on the
ground that the
will was not
read to the
witnesses, hence,
they do not
know the contents
of the will.
21. Notarial will executed by testator
was not dated, hence, the
contention that
it is void.
(ESTATE OF LABITORIA 54
PHIL 378)

22. Notarial will was executed by

T. One of the attesting

witnesses was the Notary Public
before whom the will was
acknowledged and
subscribed.
Opposition to
the probate of
the will on the
ground that the
will was not executed in
accordance with the
formalities
required by law.
(CRUZ VS VILLASOR 54 SCRA
31
NOVEMBER 26, 1973)

23. Notarial will was executed

by T with 3 credible
witnesses;
opposition to the allowance of
the will on the ground that T and
the 3 instrumental witnesses did
not acknowledge and subscribe
the will before the
Notary
Public in the presence of each
other.
(ESTATE OF LEDESMA 97 PHIL
258)

Art. 807.

DEAF/DEAFMUTE
TESTATOR

Art. 808.
BLIND
TESTATOR
79 year-old T, sick of glaucoma,
executed an 8-page notarial will and 5 page
codicil

(ALVARADO VS GAVIOLA 226

SCRA 347, SEPTEMBER 14, 1993)

Art. 810 - 814.

HOLOGRAPHIC
WILLS

1.

This holographic will, written in Ilocano

and translated in English reads: This
is the day which we agreed that we are
making the partition and assigning the
respective assignment of the said
fishpond and this being in the month of
March 17 day in the year 1968 and this
decision and/or instruction of mine is the
matter to be followed and the one who
made this writing is no other than
MELECIO LABRADOR, their father.
(LABRADOR VS CA 184 S 170)

Q: Was the holographic will dated?

2.

Probate of the HW was opposed on

the grounds:
(1)

the will and the signature were

not in decedents handwriting.

(2)

some dispositions were signed

but not dated by T

(3)

there were alterations and

corrections not signed by T

(AJERO VS CA 236 SCRA 488

SEPTEMBER 15, 1994)

3.

The holographic will of testatrix

contained only one provision which
reads:

Gregorio
I bequeath to my sole heir, Rosa
Kalaw all my properties.

Signed:
Kalaw
December 24, 1968

Natividad
Date
:

(KALAW VS RELOVA 132 SCRA

237 SEPTEMBER 28, 1984)

4.

T executed a holographic will on

December 21, 2002. On December 25,
2002, his wife discovered said will and
made alterations, corrections and
insertions on several dispositions of
the will.
a)
b)

alterations made by the wife

were made with the consent of T

alterations made by the wife

were made without the consent
of T
c)
alterations made by the wife
were authenticated by the full
signature of the T

5. T executed a holographic
will with several
dispositions. Two
dispositions were not signed
and dated by T but
the
last disposition
contained
Ts signature and date.

6.

T was diagnosed to be terminally

ill of cancer of the lungs. With
the help of his wife he executed
a holographic will in his
hospital
room. Upon Ts
instructions,
some provisions in
the will
were written by the wife but
majority were written by the T. T
signed the will and wrote the
date. Opposition to the
probate
of this will was made by the
parents of T.

ART. 818. JOINT WILLS

1.
LWT

LWT

FRONT

BACK

ART. 818. JOINT WILLS

2.
LWT

H
LWT

3.

A & B are husband and wife. A

executed a will which reads: On my
death, I give all my properties to B.
B, likewise, executed a will which
reads: On my death, I give all my
properties to A. Bs father contends
these are joint wills, hence, VOID.

ART. 820/821.

WITNESSES TO WILL

ART. 823.
DEVISE/LEGACY GIVEN TO
WITNESS
T
Witnesses

BUT W/
A

A
D

D
E

E
Devise/legacy

Witnesses

ART. 825.
CODICIL
LWT

CODICIL

2002

2003

ART. 830. REVOCATION

OF WILLS
A. BY IMPLICATION OF LAW
1. T gave a legacy of his Honda
Civic 1998 car to X in a will
he executed in 1999. In
2000, T sold the car to Y for
P1M. On Ts death in 2001,
will X get the car, the P1M or
nothing?

2.

T gave X a legacy of his

credit of P1M in a will he
executed in 1999. In 2001, T
demanded this credit in a
suit he filed in court. On Ts
death in 2002, will X get
anything?

3.

T executed a will in 1998

instituting his wife as heir.
In
January 2000, T filed a
case
against his wife for
legal
separation on the ground of
adultery. The decree of legal
separation was granted by the
court in
February 2002. In
November 2002, T died without
making
a new will. Will his
wife
inherit anything from the
T?

B.

REVOCATION BY OVERT ACT

1. Will was thrown into a fire and
was burned despite the efforts of
T to retrieve and save it.
2. Will was thrown into a fire in Ts
garden by T with intention to
revoke but was not burned
because Ts grandson retrieved it
from the fire.

3. T with intention to revoke threw

his will upon the fire. Only the
upper portion of the will was
burned and the entire writing on
the will remained intact.

4. Crumpling of the will with

the intention to revoke.

5. With intention to revoke, T

tore his signature from his
will leaving all the other
portions of the will intact
and readable.

6. In a fit of anger and with

intention to revoke, T
obliterated the signatures of
the 3 witnesses in a
holographic will.

C.

REVOCATION BY ANOTHER
WILL
1. T made a will in 1987. After one

year, he wanted to revoke will #1

so he made will #2 in 1988. In
the belief that he had already
accomplished what needs to be
done, he tore will #1. On his
death, it was discovered that will
#2 was attested by only 2
credible witnesses, hence was
NOT validly executed. Can we
consider will #1 validly revoked
or could it still be given effect?

DOCTRINE OF
DEPENDENT RELATIVE
REVOCATION
If T revokes his will with the
present intention of making a new
one and as a substitute, if the new
will is NOT MADE or even if made,
FAILS to take effect for any reason
whatsoever, it will be presumed that
the T prefers the old will to intestacy.

Where the act of destruction is

connected with the making of
another will so as fairly to raise the
inference that the T meant the
revocation of the 1st will to depend
upon the efficacy and validity of the
2nd will, the revocation shall be
CONDITIONED and DEPENDENT upon
the validity of the 2nd will and if, for
any reason, the 2nd will intended to
be a substitute is INOPERATIVE, the
revocation of the 1st will fails and it
remains in full force and effect.

ART. 831 IMPLIED REVOCATION

WILL #1

WILL #2

WILL #3

LWT

LWT

LWT

T
A

B
C

2000

T
X

2002

EXPRESSLY
REVOKING
WILL #2

2004

ART.
832.
EXPRESS
REVOCATION
BUT
NEW
WILL INOPERATIVE
T

T (+ 11/22/2002)

2001

2002

A
Will #1 expressly
revoked by Will # 2

repudiated
inheritance

ART. 833.

FALSE CAUSE/MISTAKE

WILL #1

WILL #2

LWT

LWT

2002
*A imprisoned in Muntinlupa

2003

ART. 834.
RECOGNITION
OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILD
LWT

LWT

I recognize X as
my illegitimate
son.

I am expressly
revoking my will
executed in
2002.

T
2002

T
2003

ART. 835.
REPUBLICATION
OF WILLS

ART. 837. EXPRESS

REVOCATION
WILL #1

WILL #2

WILL #3

LWT

LWT

LWT

T
A

B
C

2000

T
X

T
Z

expressly
revoking will #1

expressly
revoking will #2

2002

2004

ART. 838.
WILLS

PROBATE OF
LWT

xxx this will shall not

be presented before
the courts.

(TESTATE ESTATE OF PILAPIL

72 PHIL 546)

2.

Ts will was contested. The three

attesting witnesses were
presented
in the probate of the
will. Two of these attesting
witnesses denied the due execution
of the will saying that they signed as
attesting witnesses on different
dates and in separate places.
(TOLENTINO VS FRANCISCO 57
PHIL 749)

3.

Will of wife admitted to probate

upon petition of her husband
without any opposition; 3 years
later, decedents sister
filed
opposition alleging forgery and
falsification of the will; Criminal
cases were filed 4 times against
the husband.
(MERCADO VS SANTOS 66 PHIL
215)

ART. 840.
INSTITUTION
OF HEIRS

ART. 845.
UNKNOWN
PERSON
T executed

a will
stating: I institute one of
my friends to my estate of
P1M.

ART. 846.
HEIRS INSTITUTED W/O
DESIGNATION OF SHARES
INHERIT IN EQUAL PARTS
1. T instituted his 3 brothers as heirs; estate
is P300T
X
T

Y
Z

2. T instituted his son A and his bros. X and

Y as heirs; estate is 600T
Y

A
3. T instituted his wife S, legitimate son A
and F, his friend, as heirs, estate is
P1.2M. Distribute the estate to Ts heirs.
T
F

ART. 847.
COLLECTIVELY
INSTITUTED
DEEMED
1. In his will T said: I institute as heirs to
INDIVIDUALLY
my estate of P600TINSTITUTED
my friends X and Y

and the 2 sons of Z. How much will

each get?
T
X

2 sons of Z
A

2. Ts will reads: I institute my 3

sons (A, B, C) and my friends X
and
Y as heirs to my estate of P300T.
How much will each
receive?
T

3. Ts will reads: I designate as my

heirs my son A, daughter B, the
children of my deceased son C
and my friend F; estate is P180T
T
A

children of C
X

ART. 848.
BROTHERS/
SISTERS
OF
FULL
T instituted as heirs his full-blood
AND A and B and half-blood brothers C, D
brothers
and E; estate
is P1M; how much will each get?
HALF-BLOOD
T
A

TS = Art. 848 (equal sharing)

IS = Art. 962 (half blood bros/sis share of full
blood bros/sis)

RT. 849.
SIMULTANEOUSLY
T instituted X and Xs children
(A & B)
as heirs to his estate of P300T.
NOT
SUCCESSIVELY
How much will each get?
INSTITUTED HEIRS
T
X
A

ART. 850.
CAUSE

FALSE

Ts will reads: I institute Y as my

sole heir to my estate of P1M for
being the #1 in my Civil Law Review
class in FEU. If Y was not the #1
in his class, will he still inherit?

ART. 851. WHOLE

ESTATE
1.
Ts will reads: I institute my best
friendNOT
X asDISTRIBUTED
heir to of my
properties.
Estate = P1M. T has 2
TO
legitimate
brothers A and B who
survive him.
Distribute his estate.
INSTITUTED
HEIRS
A
T

Estate = P1M

2.
Ts will reads: I institute as heirs
my top three students A, B and C to
inherit of my estate, respectively. On
Ts death, 2 sons of his predeceased
brother, X and Y, survive him. Estate of
T at the time of his death is P160T.
Distribute Ts estate to his heirs.
T

Estate = P160

predeceased brother

ART. 852.
INCREASE OF
SHARES PROPORTIONATELY
Ts will reads:
I institute my
friends A to 1/3, B to and C to of
my estate and they are the only ones
who shall inherit from me.
Ts
estate is P120T. Distribute the estate
to these heirs.
T

Estate = P120T

A
1/3

B
1/4

C
1/4

ART. 853.

DECREASE OF

Ts
will states:
I institute as my sole
SHARES
PROPORTIONATELY
heirs A, B, C and D to get 1/2; 1/3; 1/4 and
1/6 of my state. On Ts death, his estate
is worth P120T. Distribute his estate to
the heirs.

A
1/2
Estate = P120T

B
1/3

C
1/4

1/6

ART. 854.

PRETERITION

1.
Husband omitted in the will of testatrix
(IN RE WILL OF LEODEGARIA JULIAN
64 SCRA 452).
2.
Father of T omitted in a will and
legitimate children of T instituted as
heirs.
3.
Illegitimate daughter was given a
legacy but was not instituted as heir
4.
Legitimate parents were completely
omitted in the will of testatrix who
instituted as sole heir her sister (one of six
brothers/sisters).
(NUGUID
VS
NUGUID 17 SCRA 449).

5.

T instituted his brother as universal

heir to all his properties. He stated in
his will that in case his brother
predeceased him, his brothers
children shall inherit from him all his
properties. Ts wife and legally
adopted daughter were omitted in his
will. (ACAIN VS IAC 155 SCRA 101).

6.

T instituted his children of the 2nd

marriage as heirs without giving
anything to his children of the 1st
marriage, although they were
mentioned in his will. (NERI VS
AKUTIN 72 Phil 322).

7.

T has legitimate sons, A and B. A was

instituted as sole heir to an estate of
P100T and a legacy of P10T was given to
friend F.
T

8.

F (P10T)

Suppose the legacy given to F was P70T

instead of P10T, what is the effect?
T
A

F (P70T)

VIADO NON VS CA
GR 137287
FEB. 15, 2000
Julian
(+ 1985)

Alicia

Nilo
+ 4/22/87

Virginia
(+ 1982)

Leah
Rebecca
(+ 4/22/87)

Delia
(Retardate)

2 leg. children
1.

Deed of Donation covering his share of the

conjugal property executed by Julian in
favor of
Nilo
2.
Extra-Judicial Settlement executed by Julian,
Leah and Rebecca in favor of Nilo

ART. 856. VOLUNTARY/

COMPULSORY HEIRS WHO
DIE/ARE INCAPACITATED/
RENOUNCE INHERITANCE
VOLUNTARY
HEIR

COMPULSORY
HEIR

T (+) 2002
F (+) 2001
A
Estate is P1M

T (+) 2002
(+) 2000 A
X

Y
Estate is P900T

ART. 863.
FIDEICOMMISSARY
T - fideicomitente
SUBSTITUTION

Only 1 degree
apart in
relationship

A - 1st heir (fiduciary heir)

preserve & transmit
the property
B - 2nd heir
(fideicommissary heir)

1.
to

T devised land to X with authority

sell if X has children but if he has
none, X must deliver property to Y
after his death.

2.
to

T asked X to deliver house and lot

Xs daughter after Ts death.

3. T made a will where he made X

his heir with a request that X must
preserve and transmit a parcel of
land to Xs son after Xs death.

ART. 863. FIDEICOMMISSARY

SUBSTITUTION
T instituted X as heir and stated in her will:

1.
Should X die, the whole
estate should pass
unimpaired to Xs children;
2.
The estate should never pass
out of the hands
of X and her
children as long as legally
possible;
3. Should X die after me while
her children are
still
(PEREZ VS GARCHITORENA 54 PHIL 431)
minors, the estate would be

ART. 891.
RESERVA
ORIGIN
TRONCAL
(ascendant, bro/sis.
where property
came from)

RESERVOR
(ascendant who
acquired property
by operation of
law)

PROPOSITUS
(descendant who acquired
property gratuitously)
RESERVATARIOS
(relatives within the 3 rd degree
belonging to the line where the
property came from)

F
+ (1993)

M
+ (2000)

X
+ (1995)

1. G donated a
parcel of land
to X in 1990
2. F died in 1993
3. X died in 1995
4. M died in 2000

GF
A

1st WIFE

+1/1/80

(+2/1/99) (+1/1/2002)

E
H
K

(+3/1/2000)

J(bro.)

Juliana
(+1889)

Segunda

Francisco
(1914)

Alfeo
(+1890)
2 parcels of land

Manuela

Jose

(NIEVA VS ALCALA 41 PHIL 915)

aunt

Esteban, Sr.

Salustia

aunt

Esteban, Jr.

SOLIVIO VS CA 182 SCRA 199

sister
(Donated 4 lots)

bros./sisters

father (+1928)
3 lots pro-indiviso share in 7
parcels of land

Toribia
(+1915)

Faustino
(+1939)

Eustacio
(+1965)

Trinidad
(+1939)

Primo

Dalisay

DE PAPA VS CAMACHO 144 SCRA

281

ART. 874.

CONDITION NOT
TO MARRY

1.

LWT

2.

Institute my
friend X as sole
heir to my estate
of P10M on the
condition she
shall not marry
Y.

LWT

3.

Institute my
husband X as
sole heir to my
estate of P10M
on the condition
she shall not
marry.

LWT

I leave to my
beloved wife all
my properties
and she shall not
marry again.

4.

In her will, the wife stated:

1. I hereby order that all real estate
which
may belong to me shall pass to my
husband, H;
2. That my said husband shall not leave
my sisters after my death, and that he
shall not marry anymore ; xxx ;
3. After my death, I direct my husband to
dwell in the camarin in which the
bakery is located, which is one of the
properties belonging to me.
The husband married again within 4
months of the death of the T. Sister of the
decedent filed in the probate proceedings of
the will of T and moved that the devise to
the husband be annulled. (MORENTE VS
DELA SANTA 9 PHIL 387)

ART. 875.
DISPOSITION
CAPTATORIA
LWT

I institute my
friend F as sole heir to
my estate of P 10M on
the condition that he
will also institute me
as sole heir to all his
properties in his own
will.

ART. 887/888.

COMPULSORY
HEIRS/CHILDREN/
DESCENDANTS

SURVIVING RELATIVE
1. legitimate children
2. legitimate parents
3. illegitimate
children

TABLE OF LEGITIMES
TESTATE SUCCESSION

TABLE OF INTESTATE SHARES

(INTESTATE SUCCESSION)

NHE number of
legitimate children

ALONE

ENTIRE
ESTATE

NHE

4. illegitimate parents
5. surviving spouse

1/2; 1/3; 1/2; 0

6. 1 legitimate child; surviving spouse

1/2; 1/4

1/2, 1/2

7. a. 2 or more legitimate children;

surviving spouse

1/2 NHE no. of legitimate

children; same share as 1
legitimate child;

consider spouse as 1 child and

estate by
total number

b. 2 or more legitimate children;

surviving spouse; illegitimate
children

NHE no. of legitimate

children; same share as 1
legitimate child; 1/2 share of
1 legitimate child

*satisfy legitimes first; then, distribute

FP
pro-rata (concurrence theory)

8. legitimate parents; surviving spouse

1/2; 1/4

9. illegitimate parents; surviving spouse

1/4; 1/4

10. illegitimate children; surviving

spouse

1/3; 1/3

11. legitimate parents; illegitimate

children; surviving spouse

1/2; 1/4; 1/8

12. surviving spouse;

bros/sis/nephews/nieces

1/2; 1/2
1/2; 1/4; 1/4
1/2; 1/2

SURVIVING RELATIVE

TABLE OF LEGITIMES
TESTATE SUCCESSION

1. legitimate children
2. legitimate parents
3. illegitimate children
4. illegitimate parents

NHE number of legitimate children

ALONE

NHE

5. surviving spouse

1/2; 1/3; 1/2; 0

6. 1 legitimate child; surviving spouse

1/2; 1/4

7. a. 2 or more legitimate children;

1/2 NHE no. of legitimate children;

same share as 1 legitimate child;

surviving spouse
b. 2 or more legitimate children;
surviving spouse; illegitimate
children

NHE no. of legitimate children; same

share as 1 legitimate child; 1/2 share of
1 legitimate child

8. legitimate parents; surviving spouse

1/2; 1/4

9. illegitimate parents; surviving spouse

1/4; 1/4

10. illegitimate children; surviving

1/3; 1/3

spouse
11. legitimate parents; illegitimate

1/2; 1/4; 1/8

children; surviving spouse

12. surviving spouse;
bros/sis/nephews/nieces

ART. 887/888.
COMPULSORY
HEIRS/CHILDREN/DECENDANT
S
1.
F
M
T

NHE is P1M

2. F

(Illegitimate) (legitimate)

NHE is P900T

C (adopted
child)

ART. 890
LEGITIMATE
PARENTS/ASCENDANTS
2. GGF

1. GF
F

M
T

GF

GM

GF

Estate is 100T

GM
M

ART. 908. FORMULA

FOR NET HEREDITARY
ESTATE
Property left at the time of death
- debts/charges
+ collationable donations

NHE

1. Ts estate at the time of death = P1M

A

ID = P200T
legitimate children

ID = P100T

F (friend)

ID = P100T

Debt of T = P200T
T
A

2.

Ts estate is P100T
debt of T is P120T
collationable donation = P50T
Compute the NHE

ART. 908. FORMULA FOR

NET HEREDITARY ESTATE
I. Compute NHE.
II. Give legitimes of A & B
T

1. property at the time of Ts death = P100T

debt of T = P30T
intervivos donation to A = P50T
2. property at the time of Ts death = P90T
intervivos donation to A = P10T
NO COLLATION stated in Deed of
Donation
3. property at the time of Ts death = P20T
intervivos donation to A = P80T
NO COLLATION stated in Deed of
Donation

4. property left at the time of Ts

death = P100T
debt of T = P20T
intervivos donation to A
= P30T
intervivos donation to F
= P10T
legacy given to B
= P10T
legacy given to F
= P10T
5. property left at the time of Ts
death = P100T
T instituted A & B as heirs but charged
them with giving P90T to F (Ts best
friend)

6.

property left at the time of death = P30T

Intervivos donation to A = P60T
a.

If all the children (A, B and C)

accepted the inheritance, should the
donation to A be reduced?

b.

If only B&C accepted the inheritance

and A repudiated, do we have to
reduce the donation to A?

ARTICLE 915.
DISINHERITANC
E

PECSON VS MEDIAVILLO
28 PHIL 81
Florencio Pecson
(+)

Basilio

Teresa
(+) predeceased
Florencio

Rosario
(disinherited)

Nicolasa Manjares
(+) predeceased Florencio

6 other legitimate children

Joaquin
(+) predeceased Florencio

ART. 918.
INEFFECTIVE
DISINHERITANC
E

1. A, B and C are legitimate children of T. A

was disinherited in Ts will for not passing
the 2002 Bar. B and C were instituted as
heirs. Estate is P900T
T
A

2. Ts estate is P100T; legitimate son X was

disinherited in Ts will for having married Y
against the wishes of T; legacy of P10T
given to friend F.
T
X

F (P10T)

3. Suppose the legacy given to F was P70T,

what will be the effect?
T
X

F (P70T)

4. Ts estate is P900T; in his will he stated:

I give to my son B his legitime but
disinherit my son A for not taking up law as I
desire.
T
A

B (legitime only)

PRETERITON AND
DISINHERITANCE
1. A, B and C are Ts legitimate children. T
instituted A as sole heir, completely
omitted
B
from
inheritance
and
disinherited C for having been found
guilty of an attempt against Ts life.
Distribute Ts estate of P900T.
T

2. Same facts as #1 but the

disinheritance of C was because he
immediately married X right after he
graduated from FEU with a degree of
Bachelor of Laws. Distribute Ts
estate of P900T.
T

3. Ts legitimate children are X, Y and Z.

T disinherited all of them: X, for no
reason whatsoever; Y, for not taking
care of him when T was hospitalized at
St. Lukes hospital and Z for living the
life of a male prostitute. Ts estate is
P900T.
T

ART. 922.
RECONCILIATION
Ts will reads: I disinherit my son X for
trying to kill me. X was convicted and
served his prison term. When he was
released from Muntinlupa, X stayed with
his father in his fathers house until Ts
death. T never changed his will (where
the disinheritance was made). T did not
also execute any document condoning
Xs offense. Will X inherit from T?

ART. 923.
CHILDREN/
DESCENDANTS OF
VALIDLY
DISINHERITED HEIR

Ts estate is P1M; A and B are

sons of T; C is the son of A; B was
instituted as heir and A was
disinherited in the will for his unjust
refusal to support T during Ts
lifetime. Distribute Ts estate.
T
A
C

ART. 930.

T gave to X in a will he
executed in 1999 a legacy of
a 1998 Mitsubishi Galant car,
green,
which
he
thought
belonged to him but in reality
belonged to A. On Ts death
in January 2000, will X get the
car or nothing?

ART. 931.
T gave X in a will he
executed
in
1999
a
Honda Civic 1999 model
car which is owned by A.
On Ts death, will X get
the car?

ART. 932/933.
LEGATEE/DEVISE
E
ALREADY OWNED
THE THING

CROSS REFER to
ART. 957.
LEGACY OR
DEVISE SHALL
BE WITHOUT
EFFECT IF:

1. T transforms the thing does NOT retain

its form or denomination
2. T
alienates
repurchase

except

with

right

of

T gave X a legacy of his (Ts) car in a

will executed in 1987. In 1988, T donated
the car to his mistress. As the donation to
the mistress was VOID, X claims the car
on Ts death. Is X entitled to the car?
If instead of donating the car to his
mistress, T sold the car to Y with
consideration with a right of repurchase.
Later, T re-acquired the car. Is X entitled
to the legacy?

3. Thing

bequeathed

was

lost

during

the

ART. 937.
D is the debtor of T in the amount
of P1M; P200T and P300T which he
incurred from T in a span of 10
years.
In 1982 T made a will
saying: I remit all the debts owed
to me by D.
In 1985, D again
borrowed several times from T in
the amounts P300T; P150T and
P25T.
On Ts death in 1987, D
claims that all his debts have been
remitted.

ART. 938. LEGACY TO

CREDITOR
1. T owes C P1M.
In his will
executed in 1985, T said:
I
give C a legacy of P1M in
cash. How much will C get on
Ts death?

2. Suppose T said:
I give C a
legacy of P1M in cash to be
applied to my credit. On Ts
death, how much will C get?

INTESTATE
SUCCESSION

SURVIVING RELATIVE

(INTESTATE
SUCCESSION)

1. legitimate children
2. legitimate parents
3. illegitimate
children
4. illegitimate parents

TABLE OF INTESTATE
SHARES

ALONE

ENTIRE
ESTATE

5. surviving spouse
6. 1 legitimate child; surviving spouse

1/2, 1/2

7.

consider spouse as 1 child

and estate by total
number
*satisfy legitimes first;
then, distribute FP prorata (concurrence theory)

a. 2 or more legitimate children;

surviving spouse
b. 2 or more legitimate children;

surviving spouse; illegitimate

children
8. legitimate parents; surviving spouse
9.

illegitimate parents; surviving spouse

10. illegitimate children; surviving spouse

11. legitimate parents; illegitimate

1/2; 1/2
1/2; 1/4; 1/4

ART. 968.

ACCRETION

A, B, C are legitimate brothers

of D who died without a will; A was
incapacitated
to
receive
the
inheritance; estate is P900T
A
D

B
C

WITH REPRESENTATION
Ds estate is P900T; A, B, C are
compulsory heirs of D who died with a
revoked will;
a.
b.
c.

predecease
incapacity
repudiation

ART. 969. REPUDIATION OF

INHERITANCE
D

Estate = P1.2M

A
W
1.
2.
3.
4.

A, B, C repudiate inheritance
Only C repudiates
A, B, C are all incapacitated
A predeceased D

RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION
Art. 972.
1.

(+2002)

B
(+1997)

Estate is P900T
Who will inherit from D

C
(incapacitated
in 1998)
Z

2.

GF

Estate is P1M

(+ 2000) F

M
D (+ 2003)

3.
D
(+2000)

X
(+1998)

Y (+1999)

B (+1997)

X and Y are brothers of D

Estate is P1M
Who will inherit from D?

REPUDIATES
CANNOT BE
REPRESENTED BUT
HE WHO
REPUDIATES MAY
REPRESENT HIM
WHOSE
INHERITANCE HE
HAS RENOUNCED

(+) 2002

(+) 1997

B - renounces his inheritance from

A but may represent A from
inheritance of D (Art. 976)

- cannot represent B in the

inheritance from A because of the
repudiation made by B (Art. 977)

D (+2002)
Estate of A = P10M

(+2001) A

Estate of D = P20M

Y - repudiated his inheritance

from A but may represent A

from inheritance of D (Art. 976)

Z - cannot represent Y in the

inheritance from A because of

repudiation by Y (Art. 977)

the

ART. 979/980. CHILDREN INHERIT

IN THEIR OWN RIGHT
S

(1st marriage)

(2nd marriage)

Estate = P1M

ART. 983. LEGITIMATE

CHILDREN WITH ILLEGITIMATE
CHILDREN
OFD DECEDENT
P
S Estate is P72T
B C D E

D
X

Estate is P80T

ART.985/987.
PARENTS/ASCENDANTS
GF

GM
F

M
D

Brother
Sister

Ds estate is P1M. Who will inherit?

ART. 992. IRON CURTAIN/

BARRIER
X

A
(leg.)

B
(ill.)

If A dies without any descendant

with B as only surviving relative, will
B inherit?

D (+ 2003)

A (legitimate child of D)
(+ 1997)

B (illegitimate child of A)
Can B inherit from D?

1. LLORENTE VS RODRIGUEZ
10 PHIL 585
Martina
(+ 6/6/02)

Jacinta Julio
(+ 8/11/01)

Rosa
Llorente

Several leg.
children

Llorente
(+)

Martin

Francisco
(+)

Soledad

Adela

2. DIAZ VS IAC
182 SCRA 427
Simona Pamuti Vda de Santero
(+ 1976 intestate)

Pablo Santero
(+)

ill.

children

sister (+)

Felisa Pamuti --- Jardin

3. CACHO VS UDAN
13 SCRA 693
Silvina
(+)

John

Rustico

Leg. bros. of Silvina

by will
Francisco Udan
(+ intestate)

RELATE TO ART. 902.

RIGHTS OF ILLEGITIMATE
CHILDREN
D (+2002)
(+2000) A
(leg)

W
(leg)

B (+1999)
(ill)

X
(ill)

Y
(leg)

Z
(ill)

INTESTATE
SUCCESSION
CASES

1. ROSALES VS ROSALES
148 SCRA 69
Petra
(+)

Magna

Antonio

Fortunato

Carterio
(+)
Son

Irenea

2. HEIRS OF PASCASIO URIARTE VS

CA
284 SCRA 511
Pedro

Ursula

(+) 1st marriage

Agatonica

Benedicto

Juan

2nd marriage

Justa
(+ 3/31/89)

Domingo

Catalina

(brother of Juan)

Primitiva Conrado

Pascasio wife

Heirs of Pascasio

3. SAYSON VS SAYSON
205 SCRA 321
Eleno Sayson
(+ 11/10/52)

other

leg.

Rafaela Sayson
(+ 5/15/76)

children

Delia

Teodoro
(+ 3/23/72)

Mother

Isabel
(+ 3/26/81)

Edmundo
adopted

Doribel
(leg.)

4.

ANTONIA ARMAS VS MARIETA

CALISTERIO GR 126467
APRIL 6, 2000

1st husband

(disappeared)

Marietta

married on
5/8/58

Teodorico
(+)

Antonia
(sister)

Children of Antonia

5. BAGUNU VS PIEDAD
GR 140975
GF
Pastora Piedad
Maternal Aunt

GM GF

GM

M
Augusto Piedad
(+) Decedent

Paternal U
First Cousin

Ofelia Bagunu

6.
RODOLFO FERNANDEZ ET AL VS
ROMEO FERNANDEZ ET AL
GR 143256 AUGUST 28, 2001
Genaro
(Bro. of Jose)
(+)

Dr. Jose R. Fernandez

(+ 7/20/82)

Children of Genaro

Generosa

(Rodolfo Fernandez not a leg.,

ill., legitimated or adopted son)

Estate = 194 sq. m. lot w/ building

7.
MA. ELENA RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA VS
CA
GR 118680 MARCH 5, 2001
Brothers
Sisters

Miguel
(+ 4/29/72)

Rosalina

Maria Elena
(legally adopted 8/1/46)

8. SPOUSES ZARAGOZA VS
CA
GR 106401
SEPT. 29,
2000

Flavio
(+ 12/9/64 intestate)

Alberta

Florentino

wife
(+)

Gloria

Zacarias

delivery of her share in the inheritance

particularly lots 943 and 871 and for
payment of damages

9. JINKIE CHRISTIE DE JESUS VS

ESTATE OF JUAN GAMBOA DIZON
142877 OCT. 2, 2001
Danilo de Jesus
Carolina
married 8/23/64

GR

Juan Dizon SS
(+ 3/12/92)
.
c
do

d
e
iz 91
r
a /7 /
t
no 6

Jacqueline

Jinkie Christie

leg. children

10. ABELLANA DE BACAYO VS

BORROMEO 14 SCRA 986
1st Husband
(+)

Catalina
(+ 1910)

Filomena Abellana
de Bacayo

2nd Husband

Rosa Ferraris Anacleto Ferraris

(+ 1943)
(+ 1925)
Arturo
(+ 1947)

Melodia
(Presumed
dead in 1954)

Gaudencia Catalina Conchita Juanito

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

I. Jonathan, a widower has 3 legitimate

hildren Joy, Joey and Jona. He executed a will
n 1992 instituting Joy,
Jona and his friend
erry as his heirs to
his estate of 900T.
onathan died on October 27, 1995.
1.
How would you divide Jonathans
estate? Explain fully. (5%)
2.
Suppose that Jonathans estate was
P1M and in his will executed in 1992,
he instituted Joy and Jona as heirs
and gave a legacy of P100T to his
friend Jerry, how would you divide
Jonathans estate. Explain fully. (5%)

II. Rollie instituted his cousin Romy as heir to a

parcel of land in Cavite City. Rollie provided
in his will that Romy shall be obliged to
preserve and transmit the said parcel of land
to Romys brother Rody upon Romys death.
Rollie died in 1990. Rody died in 1991. Romy
died in 1992.
Upon Romys death, the
claimants to the property are the children of
Romy and the only son of Rody. If you were
the judge, to whom will you adjudicate the
property? Explain well. (5%)
III. Ramon died leaving a will instituting his
legitimate son Roy and illegitimate son Romy
as sole heirs without designating their
shares. The estate of Ramon is P60,000.00.
Divide his estate among his heirs. (5%)

IV. Antonio and Anselma are husband and wife.

They have a son Avelino who was married
to Ana-Liza. Avelino and Ana-Liza have a
daughter, Anita. Avelino died on November
24, 1988 of lung cancer. On February 2,
1990, Antonio died and in his will, he
devised a parcel of land to Anita.
On
December 22, 1995, Anita died in a plane
crash, single and without issue, and the
parcel of land was inherited by Ana-Liza.
On December 1, 1999, Ana-Liza died
without a will with the following as
surviving relatives:
Annabel, Ana-Lizas
sister, Antero, father of Antonio and Alicia,
sister of Avelino. Who should validly inherit
the property? Explain well. (5%)

V. James and Jennifer, both citizens of California

but domiciled for several years in the
Philippines, executed a joint will on their
honeymoon in Brazil.
Under the laws of
California, wills executed by its citizens in a
foreign country for as long as valid in the
country where they were executed shall also
be valid in California. Under the laws of Brazil,
joint wills are allowed.
Both James and
Jennifer have acquired properties, both real
and personal, in the Philippines, while they
were single and after their marriage. In 1999,
James and Jennifer died in a vehicular
accident while traveling in Japan. Their will
was presented for probate before the RTC of
Manila. Should the Philippine Court allow the
will of James and Jennifer? Explain well. (5%)

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

I. While on their way to Tagaytay, Antonio

and his wife Amy were involved in a
serious vehicular accident. Antonio died
on the spot while Amy was rushed to the
hospital. Unfortunately, despite medical
attention, she also died 2 days later.
The
spouses have acquired properties worth
P10M. Considering they have no
children,
their parents are claiming, in
equal shares,
the properties acquired by the couple. Were
the parents correct? Divide the spouses
properties among
their parents. (5%)

II. Eric has a legitimate son Emil. Emil has an

illegitimate son Edric. Emil died in 1981. Eric
died in 1984 leaving a net hereditary estate of
P2M in intestacy. Edric contends he has a right
to inherit from Eric. Rule on this contention.
(5%)
III. Consuelo died intestate on Dec. 1, 1999 leaving
as heirs her husband Carlos and 2 daughters
Connie and Cherry.
Consuelos eldest son,
Cornelio, predeceased her leaving his wife
Caridad and son Carl as his own heirs.
Consuelo left an estate worth P10M. In the
intestate proceedings of Consuelos estate,
Caridad intervened claiming she and her son
Carl are compulsory heirs of Consuelo who
should be given their share from her estate.
Rule on her contention.
Divide Consuelos
estate among her legal heirs. (5%)

IV. Amalia and her late husband Antero had

two children, Anton and Arnold, aged 7
and 10 years respectively.
While on
their way to Mega-mall with their
grandmother Arsenia, they met a
vehicular
accident.
Arsenia
died
instantly while the 2 children were
brought to the hospital where they also
died 2 days later. Surviving Arsenia are
her two sons Boyet and Caloy. Amalia
claims that she is entitled to share in
the
inheritance
by
right
of
representation of her children. Is she
correct in her contention? (5%)

V. Araceli and Benjie were married

with one legitimate son Charlie and
2 adopted daughters Debbie and
Eliza. Romulo and Raquel were the
parents of Benjie. Romulo died on
Dec. 1, 1972, Araceli died on Nov.
22, 1973. Benjie died on Feb. 1,
1979. Raquel died on Mar. 1, 2003
leaving an estate of P5M. Surviving
her are the grandchildren Charlie,
Debbie and Eliza. Divide her estate
and give your reasons for such
division. (5%)