CASE 1: Dizon-Rivera v.

Dizon

Facts:
Agripina Valdez died and has survived by seven compulsory heirs, comprising of 6
legitimate children and 1 legitimate grandchild. One of the children is Marina, the
executrix-appellee, and the others are the oppositor-appellants.

Agripina Valdez left a will, and within such, she distributed and disposed of her
properties. She also commanded that her property be divided in accordance with
her testamentary disposition. Based on the partition, Marina and Tomas (one of
the legitimate children/ compulsory heir) were to receive more than the other
heirs.

Subsequently, Marina file her project of partition adjudicating the estate as

follows:
A. The legitime computed for each compulsory heir was P129,254.96,
which was comprised of cash and/ or properties specifically given to them
based on the will
B. Marina and Tomas were adjudicated the properties they received in the
will less the cash properties to complete their respective legitime.

The other heirs opposed the partition and proposed a counter-partition. The lower
court approved the executrix-appellee’s project of partition.

Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the last will of Valdez shall have preeminence over this case

Ruling:
Yes.
The issues raised present a matter of determining the avowed intention of the
testatrix which is "the life and soul of a will." In consonance therewith, our Civil
Code included the new provisions found in Articles 788 and 791 thereof that "(I)f a
testamentary disposition admits of different interpretations, in case of doubt, that
interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be preferred" and
"(T)he words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every
expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions
inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which
will prevent intestacy."

In Villanueva vs. Juico for violation of these rules of interpretation as well as of

Rule 123, section 59 of the old Rules of Court, the Court, speaking through Mr.
Justice J.B.L. Reyes, overturned the lower court's decision and stressed that "the
intention and wishes of the testator, when clearly expressed in his will, constitute
the fixed law of interpretation, and all questions raised at the trial, relative to its
execution and fulfillment, must be settled in accordance therewith, following the
plain and literal meaning of the testator's words, unless it clearly appears that his
intention was otherwise."

The testator's wishes and intention constitute the first and principal law in the
matter of testaments, and to paraphrase an early decision of the Supreme Court
of Spain, when expressed clearly and precisely in his last will amount to the only
law whose mandate must imperatively be faithfully obeyed and complied with by
his executors, heirs and devisees and
legatees, and neither these interested parties nor the courts may substitute their
own criterion for the testator's will. Guided and restricted by these fundamental
premises, the Court finds for the appellee.
Case No. 5: Carlos v. Sandoval

Facts:
Spouses Felix B. Carlos & Felipa Elemia died intestate. They left six parcels of land
to their compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos & petitioner Juan de Dios Carlos. During
the lifetime of Felix Carlos, he agreed to transfer his estate to his son Teofilo. In
turn, Teofilo undertook to deliver & turn over the shares to his brother (the other
legal heir), Juan de Dios Carlos. Eventually, the first three (3) parcels of land were
transferred and registered in the name of Teofilo. Parcel No. 4 was registered in
the name of Juan Carlos.

Teofilo died intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad and their son,
Teofilo Carlos II (TeofiloII).

Upon Teofilo’s death, Parcel Nos. 5 & 6 were registered in the name of respondent
Felicidad and co-respondent, Teofilo II. Juan Carlos initially entered into
compromise agreements with respondent Felicidad regarding the partition of the
parcels of land but later on commenced another suit with following causes of
action: (a) declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) status of a child; (c) recovery of
property; (d) reconveyance; and (e) sum of money and damages.

RTC ruled in favor of Juan Carlos.

The CA reversed

Issue:
Whether or not Juan de Dios Carlos has successional rights over Teofilo’s estate

Ruling:
Clearly, a brother is not among those considered as compulsory heirs. But
although a collateral relative, such as a brother, does not fall within the ambit of a
compulsory heir, he still has a right to succeed to the estate. Articles 1001 and
1003 of the New Civil Code provide:

ART. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or
widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers
and sisters or their children to the other half.

ART. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a

surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
deceased in accordance with the following articles. (Underscoring supplied)

Indeed, only the presence of descendants, ascendants or illegitimate children

excludes collateral relatives from succeeding to the estate of the decedent. The
presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of the deceased
precludes succession by collateral relatives. Conversely, if there are no
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the decedent.

Case No. 9: Estate of Dela Rosa v. Heirs of Damian*

Facts:
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado died without a will. The claimants of their
estates may be divided into two groups: (1) the alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado,
consisting of her half- and full-blood siblings, nephews and nieces, and
grandnephews and grandnieces, and (2) the alleged heirs of Guillermo Rustia,
particularly, his sisters, his nephews and nieces, his illegitimate child, and the de
facto adopted child (ampun-ampunan) of the decedents.

The Alleged Heirs of Josefa Delgado

The deceased Josefa Delgado was the daughter of Felisa Delgado by one Lucio
Campo. Aside from Josefa, five other children were born to the couple, namely,
Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, and Gorgonio, all surnamed Delgado. Felisa
Delgado was never married to Lucio Campo, hence, Josefa and her full-blood
siblings were all natural children of Felisa Delgado. However, Lucio Campo was
not the first and only man in Felisa Delgado’s life. Before him was Ramon Osorio
with whom Felisa had a son, Luis Delgado.

The Marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado

Guillermo Rustia proposed marriage to Josefa Delgado but whether a marriage in

fact took place is disputed. Several circumstances give rise to the presumption
that a valid marriage existed between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. Their
cohabitation of more than 50 years cannot be doubted.

The Alleged Heirs of Guillermo Rustia

Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado never had any children but they took into
their home the youngsters Guillermina Rustia Rustia and Nanie Rustia. These
children, never legally adopted by the couple, were what was known in the local
dialect as ampun-ampunan. During his life with Josefa, however, Guillermo Rustia
did manage to father an illegitimate child, the intervenor-respondent Guillerma
Rustia, with one Amparo Sagarbarria.

Issue/s:
1. Who are the lawful heirs of Josefa Delgado?
2. Whether or not the grandnephews and grandnieces of Josefa Delgado can
inherit by right of representation?
3. Who are the lawful heirs of Guillermo Rustia?

Ruling:
1. The Lawful Heirs of Josefa Delgado

It was found out that Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio were never married.
Hence, all the children born to Felisa Delgado out of her relations with Ramon
Osorio and Lucio Campo, namely, Luis and his half-blood siblings Nazario,
Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, Gorgonio and the decedent Josefa, all surnamed Delgado,
were her natural children.

The above-named siblings of Josefa Delgado were related to her by full-blood,

except Luis Delgado, her half-brother. Nonetheless, since they were all
illegitimate, they may inherit from each other. Accordingly, all of them are
entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado.

However, the petitioners in this case are already the nephews, nieces,
grandnephews and grandnieces of Josefa Delgado. Under Article 972 of the new
Civil Code, the right of representation in the collateral line takes place only in
favor of the children of brothers and sisters (nephews and nieces). Consequently,
it cannot be exercised by grandnephews and grandnieces. Therefore, the only
collateral relatives of Josefa Delgado who are entitled to partake of her intestate
estate are her brothers and sisters, or their children who were still alive at the
time of her death on September 8, 1972. They have a vested right to participate
in the inheritance. The records not being clear on this matter, it is now for the trial
court to determine who were the surviving brothers and sisters (or their children)
of Josefa Delgado at the time of her death. Together with Guillermo Rustia, they
are entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado in accordance with Article 1001 of the
new Civil Code:

Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower,
the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and
sisters or their children to the other one-half.

1. The Lawful Heirs of Guillermo Rustia

Guillerma Rustia is an illegitimate child of Guillermo Rustia. As such, she may be

entitled to successional rights only upon proof of an admission or recognition of
paternity. She failed to present authentic proof of recognition. Together with
Guillermina Rustia Rustia, they were held legal strangers to the deceased spouses
and therefore not entitled to inherit from them ab intestato.

Under Article 1002 of the new Civil Code, if there are no descendants,
ascendants, illegitimate children, or surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall
succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. Therefore, the lawful heirs of
Guillermo Rustia are the remaining claimants, consisting of his sisters, nieces and
nephews.

Therefore, the intestate estate of Guillermo Rustia shall inherit half of the
intestate estate of Josefa Delgado. The remaining half shall pertain to (a) the full
and half-siblings of Josefa Delgado who survived her and (b) the children of any of
Josefa Delgado’s full- or half-siblings who may have predeceased her, also
surviving at the time of her death. Josefa Delgado’s grandnephews and
grandnieces are excluded from her estate. The trial court is hereby ordered to
determine the identities of the relatives of Josefa Delgado who are entitled to
share in her estate.

Guillermo Rustia’s estate (including its one-half share of Josefa Delgado’s estate)
shall be inherited by Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia Cruz
(whose respective shares shall be per capita) and the children of the late Roman
Rustia, Sr. (who survived Guillermo Rustia and whose respective shares shall be
per stirpes). Considering that Marciana Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia
Rustia Cruz are now deceased, their respective shares shall pertain to their
estates.

Case no. 13: Santos, Jr. V. Republic

Facts:
A petition was instituted by the spouses Luis R. Santos, Jr. and Edipola V. Santos
for the adoption of he minor Edwin Villa y Mendoza.

The trial court dismissed the petition reasoning that the minor is the petitioner-
wife’s legitimate brother, hence the adoption is incongruous because Edwin will
be the son and brother of Edipola at the same time.

The petitioners moved to reconsider the decision but was denied. Hence, this
appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not said adoption would be objectionable under the rules on

succession based on the sole ground of dual relationship

Ruling:

No. In relation to the rules on succession which are in pari materia, the adoption
under consideration would not be objectionable on the ground alone of the
resulting dual relationship between the adopter and the adopted. Similar dual
relationships also result under our law on marriage when persons who are already
related, by blood or by affinity, marry each other. But as long as the relationship
is not within the degrees prohibited by law, such marriages are allowed,
notwithstanding the resulting dual relationship. And as We do not find any
provision in the law that expressly prohibits adoption among relatives, they ought
not to be prevented.
Case No. 17: Banawa v. Mirano

Facts:
Spouses Doroteo Banawa and Juliana took care of Maria Mirano since she was
nine years old. The spouses bought two parcels of land, identified as Iba property
and Carsuche property, and registered such in the name of Maria because they
wanted something for Maria after their death.

Maria died and she left only as her nearest relatives the plaintiffs-appellees.

Plaintiff-apellees filed a case against the Banawas regarding the possession of the
said Iba and Carsuche properties, as legal heirs of Maria. The lower court ruled in
favor of the Miranos. On appeal, CA affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the heirs of Maria are entitled to the properties

Held:
For the Iba property, the heirs of Maria are herein entitled. However, for the
Carsuche property, the spouses and their heirs shall claim ownership.

The money used by Maria Mirano in purchasing the properties were given to her
by the spouses Banawa. Maria Mirano purchased and paid for the said properties
with her money.

The petitioners' contention that "the contract of sale had been intended to be a
contract of sale between the vendors and the spouses Doroteo Banawa and
Juliana Mendoza" has no merit. The petitioners were present when the sales were
made to Maria Mirano. They were the ones who caused the titles to the properties
to be placed in the name of Maria Mirano because they wished "that after our
death Maria Mirano could have something for her
maintenance.

As regards the Iba property, petitioners have not presented any title, just or
otherwise, to support their claim of acquisitive presciption. And Article 1954 of the
Old Civil Code provides, further, that a "just title must be proven; it never can be
presumed."

As regards the Carsuche property, the claim of the petitioners that they have
acquired by acquisitve prescription such is meritorious. The possession of the
Banawas over the Carsuche property ripened into full ownership in 1950, ten
years after 1940, when the possession of the petitioner spouses which was actual,
open, public and continuous, under claims of title exclusive of any right and
adverse to all other claim commenced. (Sec. 41, Code of Civil Procedure)
Case No. 21: Pascual v. Pascual-Bautista

Facts:
Don Andres Pascual died intestate. The acknowledged natural children of Eligio
Pascual, brother of the deceased, namely Olivia and Hermes Pascual survived the
deceased, among other legal heirs.

The surviving spouse, Adela Soldevilla de Pascual filed with the RTC a Special
Proceeding for administration of the intestate estate of her late husband.

All the heirs entered into a compromise agreement over the vehement objections
of the herein petitioners. Said compromise agreement had been entered into
despite the Manifestation/ Motion of the petitioners manifesting their hereditary
rights in the intestate estate of the deceased.

Petitioners filed their Motion to Reiterate Hereditary Rights and the Memorandum
in Support of Motion to reiterate Hereditary Rights.

RTC denied the motion. A motion for reconsideration was filed but denied.
Petitioners then appealed to the CA. The same was dismissed. A motion for
reconsideration was filed, and the CA issued its resolution denying such motion.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted
to exclude recognized natural children from the inheritance of the deceased.

Ruling:
No. Pertinent thereto, Article 992 of the Civil Code, provides:j

"An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives
inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child."
virtua1aw library
The issue in the case at bar, had already been laid to rest in Diaz v. IAC.

Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are his illegitimate children.

Applying the above doctrine to the case at bar, respondent IAC did not err in
holding that petitioners herein cannot represent their father Eligio Pascual in the
succession of the latter to the intestate estate of the decedent Andres Pascual,
full blood brother of their father.
Case No. 25: Cacho v Udan

Facts:

Silvina Udan died leaving a purported will naming her son and one Wencesla
Cacho, as her sole heirs. Wencesla filed a petition to probate said will.

Rustico Udan, legitimate brother of the testatrix, filed an opposition to the

probate. Later on, he verbally moved to withdraw his opposition due to the
appearance of Francisco Udan.

Fransisco subsequently died after a witness had testified in court. John G. Udan
and Rustico Udan, both legitimate brothers of the testatrix, filed their respective
oppositions. Proponent-appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss Oppositions file by the
oppositors, and the Honorable Court of First Instance issued an order disallowing
these for lack of interest in the estate. Both oppositors filed their motion for
reconsideration but were both denied. Oppositors then filed their joint notice of
appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not the oppositor brothers may claim to be heirs intestate of the
deceased

Ruling:

No. We find that the court below correctly held that they were not, for at the time
of her death Silvina’s illegitimate son, Francisco Udan, was her heir intestate, to
the exclusion of her brothers. This is clear from Articles 988 and 1003 of the
governing Civil Code of the Philippines, in force at the time of the death of the
testatrix:

"ART. 988. In the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, the

illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate of the
deceased."
a1aw library
"ART. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children,
or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire
estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles."c
a1aw library
These legal provisions decree that collateral relatives of one who died
intestate inherit only in the absence of descendants, ascendants, and
illegitimate children. Albeit the brothers and sisters can concur with the
widow or widower under Article 1101, they do not concur, but are excluded
by the surviving children, legitimate or illegitimate (Art. 1003).