WILLS AND SUCCESSION Arts.

774-803
CASE

ARTICLE

1. LAURA ALVAREZ, FLORA

ALVAREZ and RAYMUNDO
ALVAREZ, petitioners,

Art. 774.
Succession is a mode of
acquisition by virtue of
which the property, rights
and obligations to the
extent of the value of the
inheritance, of a person
are transmitted through
his death to another or
others either by his will or
by operation of law.

vs.
THE
HONORABLE
INTERMEDIATE APELLATE
COURT and JESUS YANES,
ESTELITA YANES, ANTONIO
YANES, ROSARIO YANES,
and ILUMINADO YANES,
respondents.

Art. 776.
The inheritance includes
all the property, rights and
obligations of a person
which
are
not
extinguished by his death.
Art. 1311. Contract stake
effect only between the
parties, their assigns and
heirs except in case
where the rights and
obligations arising from
the contract are not
transmissible by their
nature, or by stipulation or
by provision of law. The
heir is not liable beyond
the value of the property
received
from
the
decedent.

FACTS

2. BIENVENIDO, ESTELITA,
MACARIO, LUIS, ADELAIDE,
ENRIQUITA and CLAUDIO,
all
surnamed,
GEVERO,
petitioners,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT and DEL MONTE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
respondents.

Teodora only cultivates 3 hectares of Lots 823 as she could not attend
to the other portions of the 2 lots
Rufino + children left the province due to the outbreak of WWII
From Japanese time up to peace time they did not visit the land but
after liberation, they found out that Fortunato Santiago, Fuentebella
and Alvarez were in possession of Lot 773
Santiago (TCT) sold Fuentebella Alvarez
2 years later Teodora & Rufinos children filed a against them for the
return of ownership & possession of Lots 773 & 823) + accounting of
the fruits (1960 CFI Negros Occ)
During pendency, Rosendo Alvarez sold Lots 773-A & 773-B Dr.
Rodolfo Siason
Yanes then filed a manifestation renounce, forfeit and quitclaims any
monetary claim against them

ISSUE

CFI ordered Alvarez to

reconvey Lots 773 & 823 + to
deliver the possession of lots;
Siason dismissed; Alvarez
liable

W/N the liability of

Rosendo
Alvarez
arising from the sale
of Lots 773-A & 773B could be legally
passed
or
transmitted
by
operation of law to
herein
petitioners
without violation of
law and due process

Upon execution by
was found that Lot
been subdivided into
A & 773-B in the
Siason

sheriff, it
773 had
Lots 773name of

Siason: buyer in good faith

(while in Mexico, he bought
land from agent)
Yanes: prayed for TCT
cancellation + delivery of
possession
Alvarez:
Yaneses
were
stopped
from
questioning
order by the court passing
upon the validity of the TCT,
hence, it had become res
judicata

SC CAs decision
affirmed

Lot No. 2476 ( 20,119 sqm) at Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City acquired by
Del Monte (DELCOR) from the late Luis Lancero as per Deed of
Absolute Sale; TCT was issued
Luis Lancero acquired the same from Ricardo Gevero on 1952 per
deed of sale which was duly annotated as entry at the back of the OCT
covering the mother Lot No. 2476 in the names of Teodorica Babangha
(Ricardos mother) for 1/2 share + his siblings: Maria, Restituto, Elena,
Eustaquio and Ursula Gevero, 1/2 undivided share of the whole area
Teodorica Babangha died long before WWII
Heirs executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement and Partition of the estate
consisting of 2 lots, one of them was Lot 2476
Ricardo = Lot 2476-D
DELCOR filed an action with CFI Misamis Oriental to quiet title and/or
annul partition made by the heirs insofar as the same prejudices the
land which it acquired
DELCOR as a buyer in good faith has occupied the land since the sale

HELD/DOCTRINE
YES! Petitioners contention that the liability arising from the
sale of Lots No. 773-A and 773-B made by Rosendo Alvarez
to Dr. Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the late
Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate, after his death is
untenable. It overlooks the doctrine obtaining in this
jurisdiction on the general transmissibility of the rights
and obligations of the deceased to his legitimate
children and heirs.(Arts. 774/776)
The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the
deceased party is not altered by the provision of our Rules of
Court that money debts of a deceased must be liquidated
and paid from his estate before the residue is distributed
among said heirs (Rule 89). The reason is that whatever
payment is thus made from the state is ultimately a payment
by the heirs or distributees, since the amount of the paid
claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs
would have been entitled to receive.
Under our law, therefore. the general rule is that a party's
contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to
the successors.
The rule is a consequence of the progressive
"depersonalization" of patrimonial rights and duties that,
as observed by Victorio Polacco has characterized the
history of these institutions. From the Roman concept of a
relation from person to person, the obligation has evolved
into a relation from patrimony to patrimony with the persons
occupying only a representative position, barring those rare
cases where the obligation is strictly personal, i.e., is
contracted intuitu personae, in consideration of its
performance by a specific person and by no other.

IAC/CA - affirmed

Art. 777.
The
rights
to
the
succession
are
transmitted
from
the
moment of the death of
the decedent.

2 parcels of land (Lot 773-A & 773-B) originally known as Lot 773
(156,549 sq. meters) in Murcia, Negros Occidental
OCT registered under heirs of Aniceto Yanes (1917)
Aniceto Yanes survived by Rufino, Felipe, Teodora
He left Lots 773 and 823 to them
Rufino Yanes children Estelita, Iluminado, Jesus
Felipes children Antonio, Rosario
Teodora Jovita (not a party to the case)

COURTS

Heirs cannot escape the legal consequences of their fathers

transaction, which gave rise to the present claim for
damages. They are liable only to the extent of the value of
their inheritance.
YES! The hereditary share in a decedents'
CFI DELCOR true and
absolute owner of Lot 2476 of
Cagayan Cadastre
2476-B heirs of Elena
2476-C heirs of Restituto
2476-E spouses Enrique
Torres/Francisca Aquino
2476-G/H/I spouses Enrique
Abada/Lila Abada
CA affirmed
SC - affirmed

W/N the share of

Teodorica Babangha
in one of the litigated
lots, Lot 2476 in
included in the Deed
of Sale

estate is transmitted or vested immediately from the moment

of the death of the "causante" or predecessor in interest (Art.
777), and there is no legal bar to a successor (with requisite
contracting capacity) disposing of his hereditary share
immediately after such death, even if the actual extent of
such share is not determined until the subsequent liquidation
of the estate.
Teodorica Babangha died long before World War II, hence,
the rights to the succession were transmitted from the
moment of her death. It is therefore incorrect to state that it
was only in 1966, the date of extrajudicial partition, when
Ricardo received his share in the lot as inheritance from his
Marjorie Melgar
Kyla Gapit
Errol Cabrera

WILLS AND SUCCESSION Arts. 774-803

until 1969 when defendants Abadas forcibly entered the property

mother Teodorica.
Thus, when Ricardo sold his share over lot 2476 that share
which he inherited from Teodorica was also included unless
expressly excluded in the deed of sale.

3. MARIANO B. LOCSIN,
JULIAN J. LOCSIN, JOSE B.
LOCSIN, AUREA B. LOCSIN,
MATILDE
L.
CORDERO,
SALVADOR B. LOCSIN and
MANUEL
V.
DEL
ROSARIO, petitioners,

Art. 777.
The
rights
to
the
succession
are
transmitted
from
the
moment of the death of
the decedent.

The late Getulio Locsin had 3 children (Mariano, Julian and Magdalena
Locsin)
Getulio owned extensive residential and agricultural properties in Albay
and Sorsogon. After his death, his estate was divided among the 3
children:

CFI ruled in favour of

Jaucian (plaintiffs) and against
Locsin (defendants)

(a) 700 hectares of coconut lands in Bual, Pilar, Sorsogon, =

Magdalena Locsin

CA affirmed

vs.
(b) 106 hectares of coconut lands = Julian Locsin, father of the
petitioners (Julian, Mariano, Jose, Salvador, Matilde, and Aurea)

THE
HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, JOSE JAUCIAN,
FLORENTINO
JAUCIAN,
MERCEDES
JAUCIAN
ARBOLEDA,
HEIRS
OF
JOSEFINA J. BORJA, HEIRS
OF EDUARDO JAUCIAN and
HEIRS
OF
VICENTE
JAUCIAN,respondents.

(c) more than 40 hectares of coconut lands in Bogtong, 18 hectares of

riceland in Daraga, and residential lots in Daraga, Albay and Legazpi
City = Mariano, which Mariano brought into his marriage to Catalina
Jaucian in 1908. Catalina brought into the marriage untitled properties
which she had inherited from her parents, Balbino Jaucian and Simona
Anson. They had no children.

Those that Mariano inherited from his father, Getulio Locsin, were
registered in the name of "Mariano Locsin, married to Catalina Jaucian
Mariano Locsin executed a Last Will and Testament instituting his wife
Catalina as the sole and universal heir of all his properties
The spouses being childless, they had agreed that their properties, after
both of them shall have died should revert to their respective sides of
the family, i.e., Mariano's properties would go to his "Locsin relatives"
(i.e.,brothers and sisters or nephews and nieces), and those of Catalina
to her "Jaucian relatives."
After Marianos death (cancer in 1948), his will was probated without
opposition from both sides of the family.
9 years after Don Marianos death, Catalina began transferring by
sale/donation/assignment both their properties to their nephews and
nieces
4 years before her death (1977) she made a will affirming the transfers
she made. All the relatives agreed that there was no need to submit it to
the court for probate because the properties devised to them had
already been conveyed to them by the deceased when she was still
alive, except some legacies which the executor of her will or estate,
Attorney Salvador Lorayes, proceeded to distribute.
6 years after, some of nephews and nieces who had already received
their legacies and hereditary shares from her estate, filed action in the
RTC Legaspi City to recover the properties.
They alleged that the conveyances were inofficious, without
consideration, and intended solely to circumvent the laws on
succession.

SC reversed CAs decision

W/N the CA erred in

declaring the private
respondents,
nephews and nieces
of Doa Catalina J.
Vda.
de
Locsin,
entitled to inherit the
properties which she
had already disposed
of more than ten (10)
years before her
death.

YES! CA erred. Those properties did not form part of her

hereditary estate the property and transmissible rights and
obligations existing at the time of (the decedent's) death and
those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the
succession."
The rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the
moment of his death, and do not vest in his heirs until such
time.
Property which Doa Catalina had transferred or conveyed
to other persons during her lifetime no longer formed part
of her estate at the time of her death to which her heirs
may lay claim.
Had she died intestate, only the property that remained in
her estate at the time of her death devolved to her legal
heirs; and even if those transfers were, one and all, treated
as donations, the right arising under certain circumstances to
impugn and compel the reduction or revocation of a
decedent's gifts inter vivos does not inure to the respondents
since neither they nor the donees are compulsory (or forced)
heirs.
There is thus no basis for assuming an intention on the part
of Doa Catalina, in transferring the properties, to circumvent
the law in violation of the private respondents' rights to her
succession.
Said respondents are not her compulsory heirs, and it is
not pretended that she had any such, hence there were no
legitimes that could conceivably be impaired by any transfer
of her property during her lifetime. All that the respondents
had was an expectancy that in nowise restricted her freedom
to dispose of even her entire estate subject only to the
limitation set forth in Art. 750, Civil Code which, even if it
were breached, the respondents may not invoke

Marjorie Melgar
Kyla Gapit
Errol Cabrera

WILLS AND SUCCESSION Arts. 774-803

4.
NATALIA
CARPENA
OPULENCIA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT
OF
APPEALS,
ALADIN
SIMUNDAC
and
MIGUEL
OLIVAN, respondents.

Art. 777.
The
rights
to
the
succession
are
transmitted
from
the
moment of the death of
the decedent

Complaint for specific performance by Aladin Simundac adn Miguel

Oliven (herein respondents) alleging that petitioner Natalia Carpena
Opulencia executed in their favour a Contract to Sell of Lot 2125 of Sta.
Rosa Estate in Sta. Rosa, Laguna (23,766 sqm)
Natalia failed to comply with her contractual obligations despite
demands by Aladin/Miguel
Natalia admitted the execution of the Contract + the downpayment of
P300,000
However she stated that the property subject of the contract formed part
of Estate of Demetrio Carpena (her father) of which a petition for
probate was filed with RTC Binan
She averred that the respondents were aware of such probate
proceeding and that the CTS was not approved by the court. She then
offered to return the downpayment but the latter refused.
RTC ordered parties to submit their evidence
Natalia, instead of submitting her evidence, filed a Demurrer to
Evidence, maintining that the CTS was null and void for want of
approval by the probate court

RTC granted Demurrer to

Evidence and dismissed the
complaint; CTS void
CA set aside
decision; CTS valid

RTCs

W/N the Contract to

Sell executed by
Natalia and private
respondents without
the requisite probate
court approval is
valid

SC - affirmed

YES! We emphasize that hereditary rights are vested in

the heir or heirs from the moment of the decedents
death.
Petitioner, therefore, became the owner of her hereditary
share the moment her father died. Thus, the lack of judicial
approval does not invalidate the Contract to Sell, because
the petitioner has the substantive right to sell the whole or a
part of her share in the estate of her late father.
Petitioner further contends that to sanction the sale at
this stage would bring about a partial distribution of the
decedents estate pending the final termination of the testate
proceedings. This becomes all the more significant in the
light of the trial courts finding, that the legitime of one of the
heirs has been impaired.
Petitioners contention is not convincing. The Contract
to Sell stipulates that petitioners offer to sell is contingent on
the complete clearance of the court on the Last Will
Testament of her father. Consequently, although the
Contract to Sell was perfected between the petitioner and
private respondents during the pendency of the probate
proceedings, the consummation of the sale or the transfer
of ownership over the parcel of land to the private
respondents is subject to the full payment of the
purchase price and to the termination and outcome of
the testate proceedings.
Therefore, there is no basis for petitioners
apprehension that the Contract to Sell may result in a
premature partition and distribution of the properties of the
estate. Indeed, it is settled that the sale made by an heir of
his share in an inheritance, subject to the pending
administration, in no wise stands in the way of such
administration.

5.
EMILIO
EMNACE, petitioner,
vs.
COURT
OF
APPEALS,
ESTATE
OF
VICENTE
TABANAO,
SHERWIN
TABANAO,
VICENTE
WILLIAM
TABANAO,
JANETTE
TABANAO
DEPOSOY, VICENTA MAY
TABANAO
VARELA,
ROSELA TABANAO and
VINCENT
TABANAO, respondents.

Art. 774.
Succession is a mode of
acquisition by virtue of
which the property, rights
and obligations to the
extent of the value of the
inheritance, of a person
are transmitted through
his death to another or
others either by his will or
by operation of law.

Art. 777.
The
rights
to
the
succession
are
transmitted
from
the
moment of the death of
the decedent

Petitioner Emilio Emnace, Vicente Tabanao and Jacinto Divinagracia

were partners in a business Ma. Nelma Fishing Industry
1986 - they decided to dissolve their partnership + executed an
agreement of partition and distribution of the partnership properties
among them, consequent to Jacinto Divinagracias withdrawal from the
partnership.
Assets to be distributed 5 fishing boats, 6 vehicles, 2 parcels of land
located at Sto. Nio and Talisay, Negros Occidental, and cash deposits
in the local branches of the Bank of the Philippine Islands and
Prudential Bank.
Throughout the existence of the partnership and even after Tabanaos
death in 1994, Emilio failed to submit to Tabanao heirs any statement of
assets and liabilities of the partnership and an accounting of partnership
affairs
Emilio also reneged on his promise to turn over the 1/3 share (P10M) in
the total assets (P30M) of the partnership despite demand
Tabanao heirs filed an action for accounting, payment of shares,
division of assets and damages

RTC denied motion to

dismiss and held that the heirs
had the right to sue in their
own names in view of Art. 777
CA affirmed
SC - affirmed

W/N the Tabanao

heirs has the legal
capacity to sue

YES! Petitioner asserts that the surviving spouse of Vicente

Tabanao has no legal capacity to sue since she was never
appointed as administratrix or executrix of his
estate. Petitioners objection in this regard is misplaced.
The surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as
executrix or administratrix of the estate before she can
file the action. She and her children are complainants in
their own right as successors of Vicente Tabanao. From the
very moment of Vicente Tabanaos death, his rights
insofar as the partnership was concerned were
transmitted to his heirs, for rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of death of the decedents.
Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had against the
partnership and petitioner were transmitted to respondents
by operation of law, more particularly by succession, which is
a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights
and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of
Marjorie Melgar
Kyla Gapit
Errol Cabrera

WILLS AND SUCCESSION Arts. 774-803

a person are transmitted. Moreover, respondents became

owners of their respective hereditary shares from the
moment Vicente Tabanao died.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss stating improper venue, lack of

jurisdiction over the nature of action and lack of capacity of the estate of
Tabanao to sue

A prior settlement of the estate, or even the appointment

of Salvacion Tabanao as executrix or administratrix, is
not necessary for any of the heirs to acquire legal
capacity to sue. As successors who stepped into the shoes
of their decedent upon his death, they can commence any
action originally pertaining to the decedent. From the
moment of his death, his rights as a partner and to demand
fulfillment of petitioners obligations as outlined in their
dissolution
agreement
were
transmitted
to
respondents. They, therefore, had the capacity to sue and
seek the courts intervention to compel petitioner to fulfill his
obligations.

6.
JOHNNY
RABADILLA, petitioner

S.

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND
MARIA
MARLENA COSCOLUELLA Y
BELLEZA
VILLACARLOS, respondents.

Art. 776. The inheritance

includes all the property,
rights and obligations of a
person which are not
extinguished by his death.

Art. 777. The rights to the

succession
are
transmitted
from
the
moment of the death of
the decedent.
Art. 789. when an
uncertainty arises upon
the face of the will, s to
the application of any of
its
provisions,
the
testators intention is to be
ascertained
from
the
words of the will, taking
into consideration the
circumstances
under
which it was made,
excluding
such
oral
declarations.

In a Codicil appended to the Last Will and Testament of testatrix Aleja

Belleza, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, predecessor-in-interest of the herein
petitioner, Johnny S. Rabadilla, was instituted as a devisee of 511, 855
square meters of that parcel of land surveyed as Lot No. 1392 of the
Bacolod Cadastre.
The codicil commanded that should Aleja Belleza die and Jorge
Rabadilla shall have already received the ownership of the said Lot No.
1392 of the Bacolod Cadastre, Jorge Rabadilla shall have the obligation
until he dies, every year to give to Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza,
Seventy (75) (sic) piculs of Export sugar and Twenty Five (25) piculs of
Domestic sugar, until the said Maria Marlina Coscolluela y Belleza dies.
Dr. Jorge Rabadilla died in 1983 and was survived by his wife Rufina
and children Johnny (petitioner), Aurora, Ofelia and Zenaida, all
surnamed Rabadilla.
On August 21, 1989, Maria Marlena Coscolluela y Belleza Villacarlos
brought a complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 5588, before Branch
52 of the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City, against the abovementioned heirs of Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, to enforce the provisions of
subject Codicil. The Complaint alleged that the defendant-heirs violated
the conditions of the Codicil.
The plaintiff then prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendantheirs to reconvey/return-Lot No. 1392 to the surviving heirs of the late
Aleja Belleza, the cancellation of TCT No. 44498 in the name of the
deceased, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, and the issuance of a new certificate of
title in the names of the surviving heirs of the late Aleja Belleza.
The plaintiff (private respondent) and a certain Alan Azurin, son-in-law
of the herein petitioner who was lessee of the property and acting as
attorney-in-fact of defendant-heirs, arrived at an amicable settlement
and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on the obligation to
deliver one hundred piculs of sugar.
Petitioner submits that by virtue of the amicable settlement, the said
obligation imposed by the Codicil has been assumed by the lessee, and
whatever obligation petitioner had became the obligation of the lessee;
that petitioner is deemed to have made a substantial and constructive
compliance of his obligation through the consummated settlement
between the lessee and the private respondent, and having
consummated a settlement with the petitioner, the recourse of the
private respondent is the fulfilment of the obligation under the amicable
settlement and not the seizure of subject property.

RTC: the Court held that the

action is prematurely filed as
no cause of action against the
defendants has as yet arose in
favor of plaintiff. Dismissed.
CA: reversed RTC;
ordered the reconveyance of
title over Lot No. 1392 from the
estates of Jorge Rabadilla to
the estate of Aleja Belleza.
SC: upheld CA.

W/N a will can be the

subject
of
a
settlement

No. Petitioners contention that by virtue of the amicable

settlement, the said obligation imposed by the Codicil has
been assumed by the lessee, and whatever obligation
petitioner had became the obligation of the lessee; that
petitioner is deemed to have made a substantial and
constructive compliance of his obligation through the
consummated settlement between the lessee and the private
respondent, and having consummated a settlement with the
petitioner, the recourse of the private respondent is the
fulfilment of the obligation under the amicable settlement and
not the seizure of subject property is untenable.
Suffice it to state that a Will is a personal, solemn, revocable
and free act by which a person disposes of his property, to
take effect after his death. Since the Will expresses the
manner in which a person intends how his properties be
disposed, the wishes and desires of the testator must be
strictly followed. Thus, a Will cannot be the subject of a
compromise agreement which would thereby defeat the very
purpose of making a Will.
It is a general rule under the law on succession that
successional rights are transmitted from the moment of
death of the decedent and compulsory heirs are called to
succeed by operation of law. The legitimate children and
descendants, in relation to their legitimate parents, and the
widow or widower, are compulsory heirs. Thus, the
petitioner, his mother and sisters, as compulsory heirs of the
instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, succeeded the latter by
operation of law, without need of further proceedings, and
the successional rights were transmitted to them from the
moment of death of the decedent, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla.
Under Article 776 of the New Civil Code, inheritance includes
all the property, rights and obligations of a person, not
extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr.
Jorge Rabadilla had by virtue of subject Codicil were
transmitted to his forced heirs, at the time of his death. And
since obligations not extinguished by death also form part of
the estate of the decedent; corollarily, the obligations
Marjorie Melgar
Kyla Gapit
Errol Cabrera

WILLS AND SUCCESSION Arts. 774-803

imposed by the Codicil on the deceased Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted to his compulsory
heirs upon his death.
In the said Codicil, testatrix Aleja Belleza devised Lot No.
1392 to Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, subject to the condition that the
usufruct thereof would be delivered to the herein private
respondent every year. Upon the death of Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla, his compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights and
title over the said property, and they also assumed his
(decedent's) obligation to deliver the fruits of the lot involved
to herein private respondent. Such obligation of the instituted
heir reciprocally corresponds to the right of private
respondent over the usufruct, the fulfillment or performance
of which is now being demanded by the latter through the
institution of the case at bar. Therefore, private respondent
has a cause of action against petitioner and the trial court
erred in dismissing the complaint below.
In the interpretation of Wills, when an uncertainty arises on
the face of the Will, as to the application of any of its
provisions, the testator's intention is to be ascertained from
the words of the Will, taking into consideration the
circumstances under which it was made. Such construction
as will sustain and uphold the Will in all its parts must be
adopted.
Subject Codicil provides that the instituted heir is under
obligation to deliver One Hundred (100) piculs of sugar
yearly to Marlena Belleza Coscuella. Such obligation is
imposed on the instituted heir, Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, his heirs,
and their buyer, lessee, or mortgagee should they sell, lease,
mortgage or otherwise negotiate the property involved. The
Codicil further provides that in the event that the obligation to
deliver the sugar is not respected, Marlena Belleza
Coscuella shall seize the property and turn it over to the
testatrix's near descendants. The non-performance of the
said obligation is thus with the sanction of seizure of the
property and reversion thereof to the testatrix's near
descendants. Since the said obligation is clearly imposed
by the testatrix, not only on the instituted heir but also
on his successors-in-interest, the sanction imposed by
the testatrix in case of non-fulfillment of said obligation
should equally apply to the instituted heir and his
successors-in-interest.

7. BELINDA TAREDO, for

herself and in representation
of her brothers and sisters,
and
TEOFILA
CORPUZ
TANEDO, representing her
minor
daughter
VERNA
TANEDO, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS,

Art. 1544. If the same

thing should have been
sold to different vendees,
the ownership shall be
transferred to the person
who may have first taken
possession thereof in
good faith, if it should be
movable property.
Should it be immovable
property, the ownership
shall belong to the person

Lazardo Taedo executed a notarized deed of absolute sale in favor of

his eldest brother, private respondent Ricardo Taedo, and the latters
wife, Teresita Barera, whereby he conveyed to the latter in
consideration of P1,500.00, one hectare of whatever share I shall have
over Lot No. 191 of the cadastral survey of Gerona, Province of Tarlac
and covered by Title T-l3829 of the Register of Deeds of Tarlac, the
said property being his future inheritance from his parents.
Upon the death of his father Matias, Lazaro executed an Affidavit of
Conformity dated February 28, 1980 to re-affirm, respect, acknowledge
and validate the sale I made in 1962.
On January 13, 1981, Lazaro executed another notarized deed of sale
in favor of private respondents covering his undivided ONE

RTC: The trial court decided in

favor of private respondents,
holding that petitioners failed
to adduce a preponderance of
evidence to support their
claim.
CA: On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision
of the trial court, ruling that the
Deed of Sale dated January
13, 1981 was valid and that its

W/N a sale of future

inheritance is valid

Petition dismissed.
No, a contract of sale of anticipated future inheritance is null
and void. However, the court held that the sale made in 1962
involving future inheritance is not really at issue here.
But to remove all doubts, we hereby categorically rule that,
pursuant to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, no contract may
be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases
expressly authorized by law.
Consequently, said contract made in 1962 is not valid and
cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any
obligation between the parties.
Hence, the affidavit of conformity dated February 28, 1980,
insofar as it sought to validate or ratify the 1962 sale, is also
Marjorie Melgar
Kyla Gapit
Errol Cabrera

WILLS AND SUCCESSION Arts. 774-803

SPOUSES
RICARDO
M.
TAREDO AND TERESITA
BARERA
TAREDO, respondents.

acquiring it who in good

faith first recorded it in the
Registry of Property.
Should there be no
inscription, the ownership
shall pertain to the person
who in good faith was first
in the possession; and, in
the absence thereof, to
the person who presents
the oldest title, provided
there is good faith.

8. SPS. VIRGILIO F. SANTOS

&
ESPERANZA
LATI
SANTOS, SPS.VICTORINO F.
SANTOS,
&
LAGRIMAS
SANTOS,
ERNESTO
F.
SANTOS, and TADEO F.
SANTOS, Petitioners,

Art. 776. The inheritance

includes all the property,
rights and obligations of a
person which are not
extinguished by his death.

vs.
SPS. JOSE LUMBAO and
PROSERFINA
LUMBAO, Respondents.

TWELVE (1/12) of a parcel of land known as Lot 19. He acknowledged

therein his receipt of P 10,000.00 as consideration therefor.
However, in February 1981, Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the same
property to his children, petitioners herein, through a deed of sale
dated December 29, 1980. On June 7, 1982, private respondents
recorded the Deed of Sale in their favor in the Registry of Deeds.
Petitioners then filed a complaint for rescission (plus damages) of the
deeds of sale executed by Lazaro in favor of private respondents
covering the property inherited by Lazaro from his father.
Petitioners claimed that their father, Lazaro, executed an Absolute
Deed of Sale dated December 29, 1980, conveying to his ten children
his allotted portion under the extrajudicial partition executed by the heirs
of Matias, which deed included the land in litigation (Lot 191).
Private respondents, however presented in evidence a Deed of
Revocation of a Deed of Sale dated March 12, 1981 (Exh. 6), wherein
Lazaro revoked the sale in favor of petitioners for the reason that it was
simulated or fictitious - without any consideration whatsoever.
Lazaro thereafter executed a sworn statement (Exh. G) which virtually
repudiated the contents of the Deed of Revocation of a Deed of Sale
(Exh. 6) and the Deed of Sale (Exh. 4) in favor of private respondents.
However, Lazaro testified that he sold the property to Ricardo, and that
it was a lawyer who induced him to execute a deed of sale in favor of
his children after giving him five pesos (P5.00) to buy a drink.

registration in
vested
title
respondents.

good
in

faith
said

On two separate occasions during her lifetime, Rita sold to respondents

Spouses Lumbao the subject property which is a part of her share in the
estate of her deceased mother, Maria Catoc (Maria), who died intestate
on 19 September 1978. On the first occasion, Rita sold 100 square
meters of her inchoate share in her mothers estate through a
document denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa," dated 17 August
1979. Respondents Spouses Lumbao claimed the execution of the
aforesaid document was witnessed by petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo, as
shown by their signatures affixed therein. On the second occasion, an
additional seven square meters was added to the land as evidenced by
a document also denominated as "Bilihan ng Lupa," dated 9 January
1981.
After acquiring the subject property, respondents Spouses Lumbao took
actual possession thereof and erected thereon a house which they have
been occupying as exclusive owners up to the present. As the exclusive
owners of the subject property, respondents Spouses Lumbao made
several verbal demands upon Rita, during her lifetime, and thereafter
upon herein petitioners, for them to execute the necessary documents
to effect the issuance of a separate title in favor of respondents

RTC: Petition denied for lack

of merit.

useless and, in the words of the respondent Court, suffers

from the same infirmity. Even private respondents in their
memorandum concede this.

SC: Affirmed CA decision

However, the documents that are critical to the resolution

of this case are: (a) the deed of sale of January 13, 1981 in
favor
of
private
respondents
covering
Lazaros
undivided inheritance of one-twelfth (1/12) share in Lot No.
191, which was subsequently registered on June 7, 1982;
and (b) the deed of sale dated December 29, 1980 in favor of
petitioners covering the same property. These two
documents were executed after the death of Matias (and his
spouse) and after a deed of extrajudicial settlement of his
(Matias) estate was executed, thus vesting in Lazaro actual
title over said property. In other words, these dispositions,
though conflicting, were no longer infected with the infirmities
of the 1962 sale.
Critical in determining which of these two deeds should be
given effect is the registration of the sale in favor of private
respondents with the register of deeds on June 7, 1982.
Article 1544 (rule on double sale) of the Civil Code governs
the preferential rights of vendees in cases of multiple sales.
The property in question is land, an immovable, and
following the above-quoted law, ownership shall belong to
the buyer who in good faith registers it first in the registry of
property. Thus, although the deed of sale in favor of private
respondents was later than the one in favor of petitioners,
ownership would vest in the former because of the
undisputed fact of registration. On the other hand, petitioners
have not registered the sale to them at all.
Petitioners contend that they were in possession of the
property and that private respondents never took possession
thereof. As between two purchasers, the one who registered
the sale in his favor has a preferred right over the other who
has not registered his title, even if the latter is in actual
possession of the immovable property.

CA:
Appeal
is
hereby
GRANTED. RTC REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Ordered
petitioners to reconvey 107
square meters of the subject
[property] covered by TCT No.
PT-81729 of the Registry of
Deeds of Pasig City, Metro
Manila, and to pay to
[respondents
spouses
Lumbao]
the
sum
of P30,000.00 for attorneys
fees and litigation expenses.
SC: Petition denied. CA
decision affirmed.

W/N
herein
petitioners are legally
bound to comply with
the "Bilihan ng Lupa"
dated 17 August
1979 and 9 January
1981
and
consequently,
reconvey the subject
property to herein
respondents spouses
Lumbao.

Petition dismissed.
Yes. The general rule that heirs are bound by contracts
entered into by their predecessors-in-interest applies in the
present case. Article 1311 of the NCC is the basis of this
rule. It is clear from the said provision that whatever rights
and obligations the decedent have over the property were
transmitted to the heirs by way of succession, a mode of
acquiring the property, rights and obligations of the decedent
to the extent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs.
Thus, the heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of a
transaction entered into by their predecessor-in-interest
because they have inherited the property subject to the
liability affecting their common ancestor. Being heirs, there is
privity of interest between them and their deceased mother.
They only succeed to what rights their mother had and what
is valid and binding against her is also valid and binding as
against them. The death of a party does not excuse
nonperformance of a contract which involves a property right
and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the
personal representatives of the deceased. Similarly,
Marjorie Melgar
Kyla Gapit
Errol Cabrera

WILLS AND SUCCESSION Arts. 774-803

9.
NATIONAL
HOUSING
AUTHORITY, petitioner,
vs.
SEGUNDA ALMEIDA, COURT
OF APPEALS, and RTC of
SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, BR.
31, respondents.

Ponente: Puno

Art. 774. Succession is a

mode of acquisition by
virtue
of
which the
property, rights and
obligations to the extent
of the value of the
inheritance, of a person
are transmitted through
his death to another or
others either by his will
or by operation of law.

Spouses Lumbao insofar as the subject property is concerned.

Respondents Spouses Lumbao alleged that prior to her death, Rita
informed respondent Proserfina Lumbao she could not deliver the
title to the subject property because the entire property inherited
by her and her co-heirs from Maria had not yet been partitioned.
On 2 May 1986, the Spouses Lumbao claimed that petitioners, acting
fraudulently and in conspiracy with one another, executed a Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement, adjudicating and partitioning among
themselves and the other heirs, the estate left by Maria, which
included the subject property already sold to respondents
Spouses Lumbao.
Respondents Spouses Lumbao thereafter sent a formal demand
letter to petitioners but despite receipt of such demand letter, petitioners
still failed and refused to reconvey the subject property to the
respondents Spouses Lumbao. Consequently, the latter filed a
Complaint for Reconveyance with Damages before the RTC of Pasig
City.
Petitioners filed their Answer denying the allegations that the subject
property had been sold to the respondents Spouses Lumbao. They
likewise denied that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement had been
fraudulently executed because the same was duly published as
required by law. On the contrary, they prayed for the dismissal of the
Complaint for lack of cause of action because respondents Spouses
Lumbao failed to comply with the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay
Law under Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991, which repealed Presidential Decree No.
1508 requiring first resort to barangay conciliation.
On June 28, 1959, the Land Tenure Administration (LTA) awarded to
Margarita Herrera several portions of land which are part of the
Tunasan Estate in San Pedro, Laguna. (771 sqm.)
The LTA was succeeded by the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR). The DAR was succeeded by the NHA. NHA as the successor
agency of LTA is the petitioner in this case.
Margarita Herrera had two children: Beatriz Herrera-Mercado (the
mother of private respondent) and Francisca Herrera. Beatriz HerreraMercado predeceased her mother and left heirs.
Margarita Herrera passed away.
Francisca Herrera, the remaining child of the late Margarita Herrera
executed a Deed of Self-Adjudication claiming that she is the only
remaining relative, being the sole surviving daughter of the deceased.
She also claimed to be the exclusive legal heir of the late Margarita
Herrera.
The Deed of Self-Adjudication was based on a Sinumpaang Salaysay
allegedly executed by Margarita Herrera, waiving and transferring his
rights over the lot in favor of Francisca.
The surviving heirs of Beatriz Herrera-Mercado filed a case for
annulment of the Deed of Self-Adjudication before the then Court of
First Instance of Laguna, Branch 1 in Binan, Laguna.
During trial on the merits of the case assailing the Deed of SelfAdjudication, Francisca Herrera filed an application with the NHA to
purchase the same lots submitting therewith a copy of the
"Sinumpaang Salaysay" executed by her mother. Private respondent
Almeida, as heir of Beatriz Herrera-Mercado, protested the application.
NHA granted the application made by Francisca Herrera, holding that
protestee has a better preferential right to purchase the lots in question
because of the Sinumpaang Salaysay and that the protestee

nonperformance is not excused by the death of the party

when the other party has a property interest in the subject
matter of the contract.
In the end, despite the death of the petitioners mother, they
are still bound to comply with the provisions of the "Bilihan ng
Lupa," dated 17 August 1979 and 9 January 1981.
Consequently, they must reconvey to herein respondents
Spouses Lumbao the 107-square meter lot which they
bought from Rita, petitioners mother.
When the estate left by Maria had been partitioned on 2 May
1986 by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, the 107square meter lot sold by the mother of the petitioners to
respondents Spouses Lumbao should be deducted from the
total lot, inherited by them in representation of their
deceased mother, which in this case measures 467 square
meters. The 107-square meter lot already sold to
respondents Spouses Lumbao can no longer be
inherited by the petitioners because the same was no
longer part of their inheritance as it was already sold
during the lifetime of their mother.

RTC: deeds of sale executed

by NHA in favor of Herrera's
heirs null and void; cancel TCT
already
issued;
the
"Sinumpaang Salaysay" was
not an assignment of rights
but a disposition of property
which shall take effect upon
death
*Both filed Recon; Both were
denied, then appealed to CA
CA:
affirmed
RTC;
the
Sinumpaang Salaysay is her
last will (takes effect after
death)

WoN
the
Sinumpaang
Salaysay, being the
last will, would bind
NHA

YES. NHA should have noted that the effectivity of the said
document commences at the time of death of the author of
the instrument; in her words "sakaling ako'y bawian na ng
Dios ng aking buhay" Hence, in such period, all the
interests of the person should cease to be hers and shall be
in the possession of her estate until they are transferred to
her heirs by virtue of Article 774 of the Civil Code.
The NHA gave due course to the application made by
Francisca Herrera without considering that the initial
applicant's death would transfer all her property, rights and
obligations to the estate including whatever interest she has
or may have had over the disputed properties. To the extent
of the interest that the original owner had over the property,
the same should go to her estate. Margarita Herrera had an
interest in the property and that interest should go to her
estate upon her demise so as to be able to properly
distribute them later to her heirsin accordance with a will or
by operation of law.
The death of Margarita Herrera does not extinguish her
interest over the property. Margarita Herrera had an existing
Contract to Sell with NHA as the seller. Upon Margarita
Herrera's demise, this Contract to Sell was neither nullified
nor revoked. This Contract to Sell was an obligation on both
partiesMargarita Herrera and NHA. Obligations are
transmissible. Margarita Herrera's obligation to pay became
transmissible at the time of her death either by will or by
operation of law.
Marjorie Melgar
Kyla Gapit
Errol Cabrera

WILLS AND SUCCESSION Arts. 774-803

10.
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,
vs.
GLORIA UMALI y AMADO
AND SUZETH UMALI y
AMADO, defendantsappellants
Ponente: Medialdea

Art. 821. The following

are disqualified from
being witnesses to a
will:
(1) Any person not
domiciled
in
the
Philippines;
(2) Those who have
been
convicted
of
falsification
of
a
document, perjury or
false testimony.

Rule 130, Section 20 of

the Revised Rules of
Court.
Except as provided in the
next succeeding section,
all persons who can
perceive, and perceiving
can make known their
perception to others may
be witnesses.
Religious
or
political
belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or
conviction of a crime
unless
otherwise
provided by law, shall
not be a ground for
disqualification.

(Francisca) paid the lots.

Francisca Herrera died. Her heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement
of her estate which they submitted to the NHA. Said transfer of rights
was approved by the NHA. The NHA executed several deeds of sale in
favor of the heirs of Francisca Herrera and titles were issued in their
favor.
Segunda Mercado-Almeida filed a Complaint with the Regional Trial
Court of San Pedro, Laguna invoking her forty-year occupation of the
disputed properties, and re-raised the fact that Francisca Herrera's
declaration of self-adjudication has been adjudged as a nullity because
the other heirs were disregarded.
Pierre Pangan a minor was investigated by Pat. Felino Noguerra for
drug dependency and for an alleged crime of robbery.
The father of Pierre (Leopoldo) asked the police investigators if
something could be done to determine the source of the marijuana
which has not only socially affected his son, but other minors in the
community.
Previous to the case of Pierre Pangan was the case of Francisco
Manalo, who was likewise investigated by operatives of the Tiaong,
Quezon Police Department and for which a case for violation of the
Dangerous Drug Act was filed against him.
Francisco Manalo, a detention prisoner for violation of Drugs Act,
agreed to help in the identification of the source of the marijuana. In
return he asked the policeman to help him in some cases pending
against him. He did not negotiate his case for violating the dangerous
drug act, as he has entered a plea of guilty to the charge
With the consent of Francisco Manalo, Pfc. Sarmiento, Chief of the
Investigation Division gave him four (4) marked P5.00 bills to buy
marijuana from sources known to him.
Few minutes thereafter, Manalo returned with two (2) foils of dried
marijuana which lie allegedly bought from the accused Gloria Umali.
After searching Umalis house, they found a can of milo, containing
sixteen (16) foils of dried marijuana leaves which were placed in a
tupperware and kept in the kitchen where rice was being stored.
A case was filed against Umali and cohorts.
Umali vehemently denied the findings of the lower court and insisted
that said court committed reversible errors in convicting her. She
alleged that witness Francisco Manalo is not reputed to be trustworthy
and reliable and that his words should not be taken on its face value.

RTC: guilty beyond reasonable

doubt

WoN the testimony of

Manalo should be
given weight and
credence

The phrase "conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided

by law" takes into account Article 821 of the Civil Code which
states that persons convicted of falsification of a document,
perjury or false testimony" are disqualified from being
witnesses to a will."
Since the witness Francisco Manalo is not convicted of any
of the above-mentioned crimes to disqualify him as a witness
and this case does not involve the probate of a will, We rule
that the fact that said witness is facing several criminal
charges when he testified did not in any way disqualify him
as a witness.
The testimony of a witness should be given full faith and
credit, in the absence of evidence that he was actuated by
improper motive. Hence, in the absence of any evidence that
witness Francisco Manalo was actuated by improper motive,
his testimony must be accorded full credence.

Marjorie Melgar
Kyla Gapit
Errol Cabrera