Succession

Tolentino, pp 1-8

- Basis of law of succession: 1,2

- Legal philosophy of new code on succession: 3
- Fundamental changes in new code: 4
- Effectivity of new rights: 5
o Uson v del Rosario (see p)
 Death before effectivity of NCC. Therefore, rights transferred upon death. Vested rights upon
legal wife. Common law wife cannot claim rights || retroactivity (new rights effective at once x:
impair vested/acquired rights) because legal wife’s claim over properties already vested
- The corpse in succession: 6-8
o Almeida v Carrillo

Definitions

Succession

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. (n)

Art 712. Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual creation.

Ownership and other real rights over property

are acquire and transmitted
by law,
by donation,
by testate and intestate succession,
and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition.

They may also be acquired by means of prescription

Celestino Balus v Saturnino Balus, Leonarda Balus vda de Calunod (2010, Peralta, 45 certiorari)

- Sebastiana died 78 Sep

- Rufo
o Mortgaged 3 ha property to Rural Bank of Maigo, Lanao dN
o Failed to pay; bank foreclosed
 Property not redeemed
 Definite Deed of Sale issued by sheriff in 84 Jan
o died 84 Jul
- Celestino and Saturnino et al: children of S&R
o Executed EJ settlement of estate in 89
o Included 10,246 sq m of property above
o Admitted mortgage; intention to redeem ASAP
o Saturnino, et al, bought property in 92; Deed of Sale executed by Bnk
o Celestino possessed lot
- RTC: Saturnino v Celestino: recovery of possession and damages
o Saturnino et al to execute deed of sale in favor of Celestino (1/3 share)
o Celestion had right to purchase share in disputed property || EJ settlement
- CA: reversed RTC
o Children did not redeem property. Coo extinguished
- SC:
o Celestino: coownership subsists
o Saturnino: no coownership
o No coownership to talk about; no property to partition
 Property in question did not pass into hands of children as compulsory heirs; no inheritance
 The rights to a person’s succession are transmitted from the moment of his death
 The inheritance of a person consists of
o the property and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his
death
o as well as those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the
succession
 here, Rufo lost ownership during his lifetime
o therefore, at time of death, parcel of land no longer formed part of estate
which heirs may lay claim
 even in ej settlement, no express stipulation to continue with supposed coownership of lot
 claims of coo negated by
 Celestino’s assertions that he had chance to purchase property but refused to do so
 Ej settlement: partition of property
 lack of knowledge that property already exclusively owned by bank does not give children right
to declare selves as coos
o DENIED. CA affirmed.
Decedent

Art 775. In this Title, “decedent” is the general term applied to

the person whose property is transmitted through succession,
whether or not he left a will.
If he left a will, he is called a testator.

Heir

Art 782. An heir is a person

called to the succession
either by provision of a will
or by operation of law.

Devisees and legatees are persons

to whom gifts of real (devisee) and personal (legatee) property
are respectively given
by virtue of a will

Art 1026. A testamentary disposition may be made

to the State,
provinces,
municipal corporations,
private corporations,
organizations,
or associations for religious, scientific, cultural, education, or charitable purposes.

All other corporations or entities

may succeed under a will,
unless there is a provision to the contrary in their charter or the laws of their creation,
and always subj to the same.

Art 1029. Should the testator dispose of the whole or part of his property
for prayers and pious works
for the benefit of his soul,
in general terms and without specifying its application,
the executor, with the court’s approval
shall deliver one-half thereof or its proceeds
to the church or denomination to which the testator may belong,
to be used for such prayers and pious works,
and the other half to the State,
for the purposes mentioned in 10131.

See Tolentino, pp 24-27

1
…for the benefit of public schools, and public charitable institutions and centers, in such municipalities or cities. Court to
distribute estate as respective needs of each beneficiary warrant; trust may also be est
Inheritance

Art 776. The inheritance includes

all the property,
rights,
and obligations
of a person
which are not extinguished by his death. Pp 10-15

Art 781. The inheritance of a person includes

not only the property and the transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death,
but also those which have accrued thereto
since the opening of the succession. P 24

Rule 86. Claims against estate

RA 1056. An act to legalize permissions to use human organs or any portion or portions of the human body for medical,
surgical, or scientific purposes, under certain conditions (amendments; authorization form)

RA 7170. Organ donation act of 91

Art 89 (1). RPC. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Crim liab is totally extinguished
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment

Personal rights

Patrimonial rights

Contractual obligations

Art 603. Usufruct is extinguished by the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary intention clearly appears

Art 1830 (5). Dissolution is caused by the death of any partner.

Art 1919 (3). Agency is extinguished by the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the p or a

Art 1939 (1). Commodatum is purely personal in character. Consequently, the death of either the bailor or bailee
extinguishes the contract
Estate of KH Hemady v Luzon Surety Co, claimant-ant (1956, Reyes, JBL)

- Deceased: Hemady
o Signed as surety in 20 indemnity agreements/counterbonds
 In consideration of Luzon Surety’s guaranteeing the principals
 i.e., surety: Hemady; guaranteed by: Luzon
- CFI, Rizal: Luzon: value of 20 bonds executed; unpaid premiums; DST + int
o Premiums due and DST not contemplated under IAs to be part of Hemady’s undertaking since not liabilities incurred after execution of counterbonds
o Whatever losses occur after Hemady’s death not chargeable to estate; upon death, no longer surety/guarantor. DISMISSED
- SC:
o Administratrix: liability as guarantor terminated upon death; integrity a qualification of suretyship—
purely personal and not transmissible. + no demand of mortgage
o Hemady’s death did not extinguish liability as guaranty/surety
 Heirs succeed not only to the rights of the deceased but also to his obligations
 || Arts 774, 776, 1311
 || Mojica v Fernandez: heirs, by virtue of rts of succession, subrogated to all rts and
obligations of deceased and cannot be regarded as third parties with respect to a
contract to which the deceased was a party, touching the estate of the deceased
o They take such property subj to all obligations resting thereon in the hands of
him from whom they derive their rights
 The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased is not altered by ROC
that money debts of deceased must be liquidated and paid from estate before residue
distributed among heirs (Rule 89)
o Whatever payment is thus made from estate ultimately a payment by heirs and
distributes, since amt of paid claim diminishes shares that heirs would be
entitled to receive
 G: contractual rts and obligations transmissible to successors
o Consequence of progressive depersonalization of patrimonial rights and duties
that characterized the history of these institutions || Polacco
 Obligation evolved from Roman person to person relation to relation
from patrimony to patrimony
 Nature of obligation of surety does not warrant conclusion that peculiar individual
qualities are contemplated as principal inducement for contract
o Luzon expected nothing but reimbursement in case p did not pay from Hemady, an obligation to
give
o Luzon was indifferent that reimbursement should be made by Hemady himself or somebody else
o Integrity only a requirement at the time of the perfection of the contract
 Once contract perfected, supervening incapacity of gor would not exonerate him of
eventual liability
 || Art 2057: supervening dishonesty of gor does not terminate the contract
but merely entitles cor to demand replacement—optional for the cor—right,
not duty

A person who enters into a contract is deemed to have contracted for himself and his
heirs and assigns
o Unnecessary to expressly stipulate to that effect
o Failure to do so does not mean he intended his bargain to terminate upon
death (on intransmissibility by stipulation)
 No rule on surety/guaranty that guaranty extinguished upon death of guarantor/surety
o Hemady solidarily liable as surety; no need to go after p first
o No prejudice to remedies of administratrix against p dors
o REVERSED. Remanded
Union Bank of the Ph v Edmund Santibanez, Florence Santibanez Ariola (2005, Callejo)

- Efraim loaned 128,000 from First Countryside Credit Corp

o For payment of Ford Tractor
o Sgd PN with son, Edmund; 5 inst
- Efraim loand 123thou from FCCC
o Pay balance of tractor, Howard Rotamotor
o Another PN sgd by him and son, Ed
o Also sgd continuing guaranty agreement
- Efraim died 81 Feb; left holographic will
- RTC: testate proceedings. Edmund as special administrator
o Edmund and Florence: Joint Agreement: divide and take possession of 3 tractors; 2:1; to assume FCCC
liabilities || share
- FCCC and Union Savings: Deed of Assignment with assumption of liabilities: FCCC assigned to Union S
- Union Bank to Edmund: demand for settlement of account; unheeded
- RTC: Unionbank v heirs: sum of money (summons not served on Ed since in US)
o Florence: loan not binding since not party thereto; agreement with Ed not approved by probate court
o Dismissed. Should have filed claim with probate court; agreement void since not approved; failure to
prove assignment; assets and liabilities assigned not clearly referring to Efraim’s account
- CA: Unionbank: obligation of Efraim passed on to Ed and Flo; joint agreement estopped Flo and Flo can no
longer deny liability—not necessary to get approved by court since sgd in personal capacity….
o Affirmed. Agreement partition null and void since no partition until will probated; tractors included in
will since ‘all properties’
- SC:
o Union bank: obligations transmitted therefore no need for approval of joint agreement; Ariola
estopped; will did not include tractors therefore beyond will; active participation of Ariola = waiver of
right to have claim presented in probate proceedings; Ariola and Ed executed loan docs establishing
vinclulum juris bet Efraim and heirs = solidary obligation; PN made obligation solidary
o Ariola: claim must be before probate court; court approval of agreement required
o Joint agreement by Ed and Flo not valid
 Probate court has juris to determine properties of deceased
 No valid partition among heirs until after will probated
 Unless will probated and notice given to world, rt of a person to dispose of property by
will may be nugatory
 Will covers tractors
 “all other properties, real or personal, which I own and may be discovered later after
my demise, shall be distributed in the proportion indicated…”
 To dispose of tractors without court approval tantamount to divesting court with jurisdiction
 + court has to identify heirs; no showing that Flo and Ed lone heirs
o Ed and Flo not bound by assumption of indebtedness || joint agreement
 Partition invalid, therefore no tractor and accompanying liability received
o Claim should have been filed with probate court
 || Py Eng Chong v Herrera: to protect estate. Speedy settlement of affiars and early delivery
o Union Bank succeeded FCCC
o DENIED. Affirmed
Laura, Flora, Raymundo Alvarez v IAC, Jesus, Estelita, Antonio, Rosario, Iluminado Yanes (1990, Fernan)

- Aniceto Yanes
o Owned 773 and 823
o Children: Rufino, Felipe, Teodora
o Died 1962
- Felipe’s children: Antonio, Rosario (Respondents)
- Rufino’s children: Estelita, Iluminado, Jesus (Respondents)
- Teodora’s: Jovito Alib, not party
- Teodora cultivated 3 ha of 823; Felipe’s not shown to have cultivated any; Rufino left province || WW II
- Santiago issued TCT covering 773-A, -B, portion of 773
o Sold lots to Fuentebella
- Fuentebella died
o Administratrix widow: auth to sell lots to Alvarez
- Two yrs later, Teodora Yanes and children of Rufino v Santiago, Fuentebella, Alvarez: return of ownership
o Jesus: manifested with other piffs renunciation, forfeiture, quitclaim against Fuentebella
- CFI, Negros Occ: above
o Alvarez to reconvey lots 773, 823; Jesus manifestation not mentioned in decision
o Not executed; lots sold to Siason who was not party to writ of execution
- CFI: petition for issuance of new cert of land; declare Alvarez titles null
o Siason, manifestation: good faith and for consideration; no lien or encumbrance; not party
o Yanes: alias writ of exec; oppsed by Siason
o Alvarez died
- CFI: Yaneses: recovery of real property with damages v Siason, Alvarez
o Siason: titles valid
o Siason a buyer in good faith; was in Mexico when purchase made through agent
o Yaneses negligent to place notice of lis pendens
o Dismissed as to Siason; Alvarez to pay Yaneses value of lots and damages
- IAC: affirmed; Alvarezes solidarily liable for lots. Reversed damages. MR denied
- SC:
o CFI decision already final and executory. Reconvey. Except as to Siason who was not a party
 Alvarez and heirs failed to appeal
 When a rt or fact judicially tried and determined by competent court, as long as unreversed,
should be conclusive upon parties and those in privity with them in law or estate
o Siason a purchaser in good faith
o Heirs of Alvarez liable to Yaneses
 V petitioners: estate liable alone. SC: X
 Doctrine of general transmissibility of rts and obligations of deceased to legit children, heirs
 || Art 774, 776, 1311
 || Estate of Hemady v Luzon Surety
 Cannot escape legal consequences of father’s transxn giving rise to claim for damages
 Did not inerhit property involve, yes, but the monetary equivalent devolved into the mass of
father’s hereditary estate
 Hereditary assets are always liable in their totality for payment of debts of estate
 Liable only up to extent of value of inheritance.
 AFFIRMED
Sps Virgilio, Esperanza Santos, Sps Victorino Santos, Lagrimas, Ernesto, Tadeo Santos v Sps Jose, Proserfina Lumbao
(2007, Chico-Nazario)

- Rita Santos
o Children: virg, vic, Ern, Tad
o Sold to sps Lumbao property (107 sq m), share in estate of mother Maria; intestate || Bilihan ng Lupa
 Witnessed by Virg and Tad
o Died 1985
- Sps Lumba possessed land and built house occupied till present
o Verbally demanded execution of docs to effect issuance of sep title
o Prior Rita’s death, Rita informed Prosefina that she could not deliver bc mom estate not partitioned
- Rita heirs partitioned properties || Deed of EJ Settlement, property included
o Ignored formal demand letter; refused to convey
o REM in favor of Esplana annotated at back of title
- RTC, Pasig: Sps Lumbao v Sps Santos: reconveyance with damages
o Dismissed
- CA: Reversed RTC. Sps Santos to reconvey property to Sps Lumbao
- SC:
o Santoses: did not witness execution of documents which was basis of decision; laches (12 yrs); ej
settlement in good faith; no claimant appeared when settlement published; Bilihang Lupa null and
void, not real witnesses
o Not dismissible on ground of non-referral to Barangay Lupon. No MTD. Filed answer anyway
o Bilihan valid
 Virg and Tad even admitted witnessing execution + signature
 No denial of signing; just no knowledge of sale
o Sale to Lumbas valid
 Property sold when estate not yet partitioned and description was entire estate
 But no choice since no specific metes and bounds yet
 Even while estate undivided, coo have full ownership of respective aliquots or undivided shares
and may alienate, assigne, mortgage them but not those in common
 Sale valid with respect to aliquot share
o 107 sq m property cannot be inherited
 No longer part of inheritance because already sold
 Heirs bound by contracts entered into by predecessors || 1311
 Cannot escape legal consequence of transxn entered into by predecessor-in-int bc
inherited property subj to liability affecting common ancestor
 Being heirs, there is privity of int bet them and deceased mother
 Only succeed to what rts mother had and what is valid and binding against her is also
valid and binding as against them
 Death of a party does not excuse non-perf of contract involving a property rt and rts
and obligations pass to personal reps of deceased
 Non-perf not excused by death when other party has property int
 Therefore, must reconvey to sps Lumbao
o No laches
 When in possession of land to be reconveyed, no prescription. Sps Lumbao’s rt to seek
reconveyance cannot prescribe since in possession
o DENIED. CA affirmed.
Vesting of succession rights

Art 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted

from the moment of the death of the decedent (p 15)

Art 533. The possession of hereditary property

is deemed transmitted to the heir
without interruption
and from the moment of the death of the decedent,
in case the inheritance is accepted.

One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same.

Art 1347. All things which are not outside the commerce of men,
including future things,
may be the obj of a contract.
All rights which are not intransmissible may also be the object of contracts.

No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law

All services which are not contrary to lmgcpopp may likewise be the object of a contract.

Art 2263. Rts to the inheritance of a person who died,

w/ or w/o a will,
before the effectivity of this Code,
shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1889, by other previous laws, and by the Rules of Court.
The inheritance of those who,
w/ or w/o a will,
die after the beginning of the effectivity of this Code,
shall be adjudicated and distributed
in accordance with this new body of laws and by the Rules of Court;
but the testamentary provisions shall be carried out
insofar as they may be permitted by this Code.
Therefore, legitimes, betterments, legacies, and bequests shall be respected;
however, their amount shall be reduced
if in no other manner can every compulsory heir be given his full share || Code.
Art 50. FC. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which
are declared ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45.

The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of
the common children, and the delivery of third presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.

All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation.

In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129

Art 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court,
shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such
matters.

The children or their guardian or the trustee of their property may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.

The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the
death of either of both of the parents; but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be
considered as advances on their legitime
Uson v Del Rosario
De Borja v Vda de Borja
Bornilla v Barcena
Lapuz v Eufemio
Kinds of succession

Art 778. Succession may be

(1) Testamentary
(2) Legal or intestate, or
(3) Mixed

Art 779. Testamentary succession is that which

results from the designation of an heir,
made in a will executed in the form prescribed by law

Art 780. Mixed succession is

that effected partly by will
and partly by operation of law (pp 22-23, Tolentino)

Art 960. Legal or intestate succession takes place:

(1) if a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one which has subsequently lost its validity
(2) when the will does not institute an heir to, or dispose of all the property belonging to the testator. In such case,
legal succession shall take place only with respect to the property of which the testator has not disposed
(3) if the suspensive condition attached to the institution of heir does not happen or is not fulfilled, or if the heir
dies before the testator, or repudiates the inheritance, there being no substitution, and no right of accretion
takes place;
(4) when the heir instituted is incapable of succeeding, except in cases provided in this Code (p 433, Tolentino)