90 to 180 mins
parents. Check Article 902.
Intestate and Testate Succession
(From 2017 Bar)
Q: A bought a property worth 2M. He had in
his possession 3M. He wanted to come home
from Saudi. Before he could come home, he
died intestate. 1 LC, 3 ILC, Parents, common-
law spouse. Who are the heirs? The LC and the
ILC. The common-law spouse is excluded. The
parents are likewise excluded due to the
principle of exclusion. Remember this principle
in succession: Love descends, and then
ascends, and then it spreads.
How much should the compulsory heirs get in
intestate succession? In this question, there’s a
total of 5M. How much would LC get? ½ of the
estate or 2.5M. How much would ILC get?
Divide the remaining portion among them.
The rule changes if it is testate succession.
Supposed in the will, the common-law spouse
and the parents were instituted as heirs, the
will must be annulled because of preterition
due to impairment of the legitime of the
compulsory heirs.
Q: Assuming that the will went through
probate proceedings and you were asked to
distribute the estate, how much would the CLS,
the parents, the ILC and LC would get?
A: ½ goes to LC, ½ of the ½ from LC would go to
ILC. The remaining portion (after the LC gets his
share) would not be enough for the 3 ILC so
the remedy is to divide the portion to 3, just
like in intestate. Thus, the CLS and the parents
would not get any.
(Copy of table of legitimes)
Q: Remember also in the rule of LC, ILC and SS.
A: LC would get ½, ILC would get ½ of the LC,
while the SS would be treated as an ILC.
Next topic, under Article 992. The ILC is barred
to inherit from the LC descendants and
ascendants ab intestanto of his natural
Kunwari grandparent, may 2 anak: A and B. A is
ILC, can he represent his father, assuming
patay na ang father? No. A legitimate father
can only be represented by the LC. The reverse
is true, such as when ILC is the deceased, the
legitimate family can claim.
It is the presumption of law that there is an
irreconcibality between the legitimate and
illegitimate families. If you are going to check
902, you can deduce that if the person to be
represented is an ILC/person, both legitimate
and illegitimate family can represent him.
That’s why these commentators (Jurado and ?)
are questioning this Article since the legitimate
ascendants can only be represented by the
legitimate descendant but the illegitimate
ascendant can be represented by both the
legitimate descendants and IL descendants.
The law seems to be unjust against the
illegitimate.
If you are going to question the
constitutionality of this provision on the
ground of equal protection clause, it will not
prosper because of the substantial distinction
between the IL and the L. The purpose of the
law is to separate the IL and L families.
On preterition, under 854, remember that in
preterition, the rule is there is complete
omission of heir in the direct line. If during the
lifetime of the deceased, he donated a
property to an LC who was not included in the
will, there is no preterition because in
preterition, there must be a complete
deprivation of legitime of the compulsory heir.
In this case, there was already an advanced
legitime. If there was a complete deprivation,
the remedy is completion/oblation? of
legitime. If there is an advanced legitime such
as donation inter vivos, there is no preterit ion.
On the contrary, if there is preterition such as
this compulsory heir was completely deprived
of his legitime, you can now invoke 854. The
effect of preterition is the annulment of the
institution of the heir but you respect the
devisees and the legatees. They shall be valid
in so far as they are not inefficacious.
Assuming that there is preterition and the will
is admitted to probate proceeding, can the
probate court decide on the intrinsic validity of
the will? The answer is YES, to save the heirs
/parties from the recourse of proving the
invalidity of the will, it is essentially needed for
the probate court to declare the validity of the
will which preterated the compulsory heir.
Another topic, 235 of NCC, can you
compromise the affiliation of the child? No.
Ayun lang.
Co-ownership- remember that the law does
not favor co-ownership but under 494, as an
XPN, if the co-owners agree to keep their
property for a period of 10 years. If the
agreement says the thing shall not be
partitioned for 20 years, it is not valid. What
you will do with the invalidity of the
agreement? The agreement is invalid only to
the extent beyond 10 years.
Article 891- Reserva Troncal
It applies only to legitimate families. Once
there is an ILC in the equation, you rule out
Reserva Troncal.
Another rule, double consanguinity. First, the
relative who would inherit the property must
be a relative of the propositus within the third
civil degree of consanguinity and it must come
from the line from which the property
originated. Second, dapat yung reservatorios
must be related by consanguinity from the
origin of the property.
V-formation, the origin of the property must be
from the ascendant. It is transferred to the
descendant through a gratuitous title, and then
it is transferred to another ascendant.
This is inverted L-formation, If the origin of the
property is a brother/sister and it was
transferred to another bro/sis, then it was
transferred to another ascendant.
So kapag gagawa kayo ng table, kapag may V or
inverted L, pwedeng may reserve troncal. So
now you check for the requisites:
1. The property should have been acquired by
operation of law by operation of law by an
ascendant from his descendant upon latter’s
death.
2. The property should have been previously
acquired by gratuitous title by descendant
from another descendant or from brother or
sister;
3. The descendant/propositus should have died
without any legitimate issue in the direct
descending line who could inherit from him;
This requisite is important. P is the
obiter of reserve troncal. If namatay is P with
descendants who could inherit from him, wala
ng RT. But if he died intestate without
descendants, then RT may apply. Atty.
Pagaruigan said, what you should do to avoid
RT, don’t die intestate.
4. There must be relatives of the descendants
who are within 3rd degree and who belong to
the line from which property came.
In one question in the bar, the facts are: A is
married to B with whom they had C, a LC. B
died. A married D, they got a child again, E. The
other surviving heirs are the father of A, A1
and father of B, B1.
C owns the property, he transferred the lot to
E. From half-brother to half-brother. E died.
The property was transferred to D, his parent.
D died. Is there a reserve troncal?
Elements:
1. May illegitimate ba? Wala. May double
consanguinity ba? Meron.
Remember that C transferred the property
through donation. There is gratuitous title.
The property was transferred to D from E
through operation of law. Check.
There is a reserve troncal. Who should own the
property? Who are the reservatarios? Article
891 would tell you who the reservatorios are.
Reserva Troncal still follows right of
representation, exclusion.
Who should own the property?
In this case, the only reservatarios is A.
Because the source of the property is the child
of A and the preposterous of this case is E,
child of A again. (Memorize niyo na lang, basta
ganon.)
What if A died, after getting the property from
the preposterous and reservista? Who should
now own the property?
C should own the property as the only
surviving descendant of A, to the exclusion of
the ascendants, even if one of them is a
reservatarios. The moment that it was
transferred to A, RT is already extinguished.
First degree relatives: Parents
Second: Brother/Sister
Third: Grandparents
Bar Q: Loan Agreement
The debtor would pay as soon as his means
permit him to do so. If that is the tenor of the
loan created, how would the creditor collect?
The remedy of the creditor is to ask the
court to fix the period. The creditor cannot just
send a demand letter because the period is not
yet clear. Without a period, there could not be
default. After asking the court, the creditor can
now collect.
Can the creditor in the same case ask for the
setting of the period and ask for the collection
of the debt?
He cannot because as a requisite for
collection of money, the debt must be due and
demandable. The SC, however, allowed the
same-day collection because the debtor has
been in default for several years and it is unfair
to the part of the creditor to demand again in
another action.
Under 1403, unenforceable contracts, there is
an enumeration which is exclusive.
Is it necessary to reduce into writing every
contract?
No. Contracts are valid save for
instances where the law requires it to be
written such as in 1403.
If the two contracting parties are minors, the
contract is unenforceable.
If one of them is a minor and the other is
represented by a parent, the contract is
voidable.
Other pointers:
Extinguishment of Obligations, remember the
causes and the requisites. The three kinds of
Novation, as well.
Cases in torts: Intergames v. Abrogar, SPS
Latonio v. McGeorge Food Industries, Radio
Communications vs. CA
Proximate Cause
Psychological Incapacity- is an expert
testimony indispensable? No. The basis is the
totality of evidence. Requisites of PI: Gravity,
Juridical Antecedents, Insurability (?)
Escalation Causes under Contracts, when
applicable, validity