TOPIC: Transmissible Rights and
death.
Obligations
Alvarez v. IAC. GR No. 68053. May 7, 1990
During the pendency of a case involving a property
of the heirs of Aniceto Yanes (which the Yanes
heirs eventually won), Alvarez had sold the
property to Siason. SC found Siason as a buyer in
good faith. SC then ordered the heirs of Alvarez
(who already died during the pendency of the
case) to pay damages to heirs of Yanes for the
sale.
The heirs of Alvarez advanced that they cannot be
held liable for the sale of a property they were not
privy of, and the property they did not even inherit.
SC said that such contention is untenable because
it overlooks the doctrine on the general
transmissibility of the rights and obligations of the
deceased to his legitimate children and heirs as
provided in Arts. 774, 776 and 1311. The heirs are
still liable because although they did not inherit the
property per se, the monetary equivalent of which
devolved into the mass of their fathers' hereditary
estate. The hereditary assets are liable in their
totality for payment of debts of the estate.
However, they are only liable to the extent of the
value of the inheritance.
Johnny S. Rabadilla v. CA. GR No. 113725.
June 29, 2000
Jorge Rabadilla was to inherit a property provided
he delivers usufruct or 100 piculs of sugar to Maria
Cosculuella. Rabadilla died and the son inherited
the property. The son then failed to comply with
the condition to deliver sugar.
Cosculuella filed a case to enforce the provision in
the codicil arguing that the obligation of Jorge is
transmitted to the heirs. SC agreed that such
obligation is transmissible to the heirs. 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 imposed by the Codicil on the
deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise
transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his
TOPIC: Rights and Obligations
extinguished by death
NHA v. Almeida. GR No. 162784. June 22, 2007
Margarita Herrera applied for a contract to sell for
a land with NHA. When she died, her child
Francesca by virtue of a Deed of Self-Adjudication
filed with NHA an application over the same land.
It was then found out that she was not the only heir
of Margarita. The heirs of Beatriz (the other
daughter), respondent Segunda Almeida, filed an
opposition. However, NHA still granted the
application of Francesca.
SC ruled that at the time of Margarita's demise, the
rights and obligations of Margarita over the land
was transmitted to all her heirs, not only
Francesca. This Contract to Sell was an obligation
on both parties — Margarita 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.
NHA was wrong in granting another application to
Francesca as this now amounted to double sale
being that the previous contract with Margarita still
subsists. Upon the death of Margarita, the contract
was not extinguished, it continued to subsist as it
was transmitted to all the heirs.
Estate of Hemady v. Luzon Surety. 100 Phil
389 (1956)
Luzon Surety Co. filed a claim against the estate
based on twenty different indemnity agreements,
or counter bonds, each subscribed by a distinct
principal and by the deceased K.H. Hemady, a
surety solidary guarantor. The lower court,
however, dismissed the claims of Luzon Surety
Co. on the ground that "whatever losses that may
occur after Hemady's death, are not chargeable to
his estate, because upon his death, he ceased to
be guarantor."
The Supreme Court held that although the heirs
for the debts of their decedent cannot exceed the
value of the inheritance they receive from him, the
principle is still intact that these heirs succeed not
only to the rights of the deceased but also to his
1
obligations. Arts. 774 and 776 of the New Civil
Code further confirm Article 1311.
TOPIC: Wills; Testamentary Succession;
Disposition of Property
Seangio v. Reyes. GR Nos. 140371-72. Nov. 27,
2006
Private respondents Alfredo Seangio file for the
settlement of the intestate estate of the late
Segundo Seangio as well as for the appointment
of Elisa Seangio-Santos as special administrator
and guardian ad litem of petitioner Dy Yieng
Seangio. Petitioners Dy Yieng and others
opposed the petition contending, among others,
that Segundo left a holographic will disinheriting
one of the private respondents, Alfredo Seangio,
for a cause. In view of this, a probate of the
holographic will of Segundo was docketed before
the RTC. They likewise reiterated that the probate
proceedings should take precedence and enjoy
priority over intestate proceedings. Respondents
moved for the dismissal of the probate
proceedings primarily on the ground that the
document purporting to be the holographic will of
Segundo does not contain any disposition of the
estate of the deceased and thus does not meet the
definition of a will under Art. 783 of the NCC as it
only shows an alleged act of disinheritance by the
decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, and nothing
else.
The Supreme Court held that while a
disinheritance does not make an affirmative
disposition of the decedent's property, the
disinheritance of an heir, nonetheless, is an act of
disposition itself. In other words, the disinheritance
results in the disposition of the property of the
testator in favor who would succeed in the
absence of that disinherited heir.
TOPIC: Mortis Causa
Vitug v CA. 183 SCRA 755
Survivorship agreement is not a disposition mortis
causa.
Romarico Vitug, surviving spouse of deceased
Dolores Vitug, filed a motion asking for authority
from the probate court to sell certain shares of
stock and real properties belonging to the estate
to cover allegedly his advances to the estate in the
sum of P667,731.66 plus interests which he
claimed were personal funds. Rowena Corona,
the appointed executrix of Dolores Vitug's wills,
opposed the motion to sell on the ground that the
same funds withdrawn were conjugal partnership
properties and part of the estate, hence there was
no ground for reimbursement. Vitug insists that the
funds were his exclusive property having acquired
the same through a survivorship agreement
executed with his late wife and the bank on June
19, 1970. CA held that the survivorship
agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa
which did not comply with the formalities of a valid
will as prescribed by Art. 805.
SC held that the survivorship agreement is not a
disposition mortis causa which should be
embodied in a will. A will has been defined as "a
personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which
a capacitated person disposes of his property and
rights and declares or complies with duties to take
effect after his death." Thus, the bequest or device
must pertain to the testator. In this case, there is
no showing that the funds exclusively belonged to
one party, and hence it must be presumed to be
conjugal, having been acquired during the
existence of the marital relations
TOPIC: Law governing form
Enriquez v. Abadia. GR No. L-7188. August 9,
1954
This involves a holograhic will of testator Father
Sancho Abad of Talisay in 1923 (Old Civil Code).
When the administrator of the estate, Andres
Enriquez, probated the will (New Civil Code of
1950 was already in place), the legal heirs
opposed on the ground that the holographic will
was made when the old Civil Code (Civil Code of
1889) was enforced, which does not yet allow for
any holographic will.
The SC held that the law that must govern the form
of the will shall be the law in force at the time of
the execution of the will. In the case, the will was
made in 1923, therefore the law that must be
applied is the Old Civil Code. Such law does not
allow execution of a holographic will. Since what
the testator made was a holographic will, then it is
void.
2
TOPIC: Law governing content; As to time TOPIC: Law governing content; As to
successional rights
Jimenez v Fernandez. GR No. L-46364. April 6,
1990 Miciano v Brimo. GR No. 22595. Nov. 1, 1924.
Subject land is covered by a TCT issued in the A turkish national, Joseph Brimo, died in the
name of petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez. This land Philippines. His brother, Andre Brimo, opposed
formerly belonged to Fermin Jimenez who has two the provisions of his will which states that:
sons named Fortunato and Carlos. Fortunato who "Although I am Turkish National, what should
predeceased his father has only one child, the govern must be the Philippine Law."
petitioner Sulpicia Jimenez. After the death of
Fermin Jimenez, the entire parcel of land was The Supreme Court held that such provision is not
registered under Act 496 in the name of Carlos in accordance with the laws of his Turkish
and Sulpicia Jimenez in equal shares pro-indiviso. nationality for being in violation of the Civil Code
Carlos died and his illegitimate daughter, Melecia (Art. 16) which provides that the legal and
Jimenez took possession of the eastern portion of testamentary successions must be in accordance
the property. She then sold said property to with the nationality of the person whose
Edilberto Cagampan and Teodora Grado by succession is in question, whatever may be the
executing a contract entitled "Exchange of Real nature of the property or the country in which it
Properties" whereby the former transferred said may be situated.
portion to the latter, who has been in occupation
since. Sulpicia instituted an action for the recovery
Cayetano v Leonidas. 129 SCRA 522
for the entire eastern portion of the property
however the CA ruled in favor of the absolute
Adoracion Campos is an American citizen. She
ownership of Teodora Grado. Sulpicia then
executed a will leaving her properties to her
elevated the case to the SC on the issue of
siblings. The father, being the compulsory heir in
whether the CA erred in not declaring that Melecia
the Philippine laws, opposed on the ground that he
Jimenez as not the daughter of Carlos Jimenez.
was divested of the legitime.
SC held that CA erred in its decision as Art. 2263
In this case, Adoracion is an American Citizen,
of the Civil Code provides that: "Rights to the
living in Pennsylvania and the law which governs
inheritance of a person who died with or without a
her will is the law of Pennsylvania, USA, which is
will, before the effectivity of this Code (Aug 30
the national law of the decedent. This was
1950), shall be governed by the Civil Code of
sufficiently established by the respondents. The
1889, by other previous laws, and by the Rules of
law of Pennsylvania does not provide a system of
Court . . ." Thus, since Carlos Jimenez, owner of
legitimes. The testator is allowed to give away the
one-half pro-indiviso portion of that parcel of land
legitime to any person the deceased desires
then covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
hence it can be given to strangers. On the intrinsic
50933, died on July 9, 1936 way before the
validity, the law of the nationality governs.
effectivity of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
successional rights pertaining to his estate must
be determined in accordance with the Civil Code TOPIC: Solemnities of a will; Notarial
of 1889. To be an heir under the rules of Civil Code wills; General Requirements
of 1889 (which was the law in force when Carlos
Jimenez died and which should be the governing Abangan v Abangan (1919) 40 Phil 476
law in so far as the right to inherit from his estate
was concerned), a child must be either a child
In 1917, Ana Abangan's will was probated. The
legitimate, legitimated, or adopted, or else an said decision of the probate proceedings was
acknowledged natural child — for illegitimate not
appealed from by the opponents on the ground of
natural are disqualified to inherit. Hence, Sulpicia,
defects as seen by the absence of signatures on
being illegitimate, cannot validly transfer the land
the left margin by the testatrix in the second sheet
to Edilberto and Teodora.
of the will among others.

3
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
lower court. SC held that the object of the
solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to
close the door against bad faith and fraud, to avoid
substitution of wills and testaments and to
guaranty their truth and authenticity. Therefore the
laws on this subject should be interpreted in such
a way as to attain these primordial ends. But, on
the other hand, also one must not lose sight of the
fact that it is not the object of the law to restrain
and curtail the exercise of the right to make a will.
So when an interpretation already given assures
such ends, any other interpretation whatsoever,
that adds nothing but demands more requisites
entirely unnecessary, useless and frustrative of
the testator's last will, must be disregarded.

Suroza v. Judge Honrado (1981) 110 SCRA 388

In this administrative case, petitioner Nenita

Suroza filed a case to annul the probate
proceedings of the will of Marcelina, her mother-
in-law's will contending that such will was void as
it was written in English, a language not known to
the illiterate testatrix and probably forged because
the testatrix and the attesting witnesses did not
appear before the notary as admitted by the notary
himself.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Suroza

declaring that it indeed was void will for being
contrary to Art. 804 of the Civil Code: "Every will
must be in writing and executed in a language or
dialect known to the testator." There was indeed
negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of
the respondent judge.