LEGAL or INTESTATE SUCCESSION

Right of Representation: Basic Principles of Representation

Isabel de la Puerta v. CA, Carmelita de la Puerta (GR 77867, Feb 6 1990)
FACTS:
 Petitioner Isabel is contesting the probate court decision allowing the payment of monthly support
to her alleged niece/respondent Carmelita
o Carmelita claims to be the acknowledged natural child of Vicente (one of Isabel’s 2
brothers) who legally adopted her as well
 The said probate court was concerned with the will of Isabel’s mother (Dominga) which named
her and her 2 other brothers (Vicente & Alfredo) as the legal heirs
o The brothers were opposing the will arguing that Isabel got a larger share than them
o Later, the brothers died, with only Vicente leaving some heirs (his legal wife Genoveva
and his adopted natural child Carmelita)
o As such, Carmelita intervened in the probate proceeding to demand monthly support
from the estate of her grandmother (Dominga)
 Isabel’s apprehension in recognizing Carmelita as the daughter of her brother is that Carmelita’s
mother (Gloria) is actually living with another man (Juanito)
ISSUES:
 Whether Carmelita is a natural child of Vicente
o YES, the adoption proceeding explicitly mentioned Vicente’s acknowledgement of
Carmelita’s paternity
o Although Carmelita’s mother was known to live with another man, it was shown that she
left the man to live with Vicente
 Can Carmelita (an adopted-acknowledged natural child of an heir) succeed by representation
from the estate of her grandmother (PERTINENT)
RULING:
 NO, for the reason that (1) Vicente did not predecease his mother, and that (2) Carmelita is a
spurious child
 (1st GROUND) The right of representation in intestacy can take place only in the following cases:
o when the person represented dies before the testator; (predecease)
o when the person represented is incapable of succeeding the testator; (incapacity)
o when the person represented is disinherited by the testator (disinheritance)
 (2nd GROUND) As a spurious child of Vicente, Carmelita is barred from inheriting from
Dominga because of Article 992 of the Civil Code, which lays down the barrier between the
legitimate and illegitimate families
 Even as an adopted child, Carmelita still cannot succeed from Dominga’s estate because there is
no kindred or legal ties to bind them
o Adoption is personal in nature such that the relationship is limited to the adopted and
adopter

Barrier/Iron Curtain Rule

Wencelsa Cacho v. John Udan, Rustico Udan (GR L-19996, April 30 1965)
FACTS:
 Appellants John and Rustico (legitimate brothers) are assailing the dismissal (CFI-Zambales) of
their opposition to the probate of the will of their sister Silvina
o In the said will, Silvina’s illegitimate child Francisco and herein-appellee Wencesla were
named as sole heirs
  It is appellants’ position that the alleged will of Silvina was extrinsically defective thus they are
entitled to be the intestate heirs
o Earlier, the illegitimate child Francisco died during the pendency of the probate
ISSUE:
 Whether appellants (brothers of deceased) are entitled to succeed despite the existence of an
illegitimate heir
RULING:
 NO, collateral relatives of one who died intestate inherit only in the absence of descendants,
ascendants, and illegitimate children (Art 988, 1003, NCC)
 The death of Francisco does not improve appellants’ position
o Francisco may only transit his rights to his own heirs, not to his uncles (who are
legitimate relatives)
o The legitimate relatives of the mother cannot succeed her illegitimate child (Art 992)

Intestate Share/ Legitime of Surviving Spouse concurring with 1 Legitimate Child

In the matter of the Intestate Estate of Pedro Santillon, Claro Santillon v. Perfecta Miranda, Benito
Miranda, Rosario Corrales (GR L-19281, June 30 1965)
FACTS:
 Earlier, appellant Claro filed a Petition for Letters of Administration over the intestate estate of
his father Pedro which was opposed by his mother (Perfecta) and spouses Benito & Rosario
o The opposition was grounded on the fact that the properties in the estate are conjugal and
¾ of the wife’s conjugal share was already conveyed to the spouses
o Only Claro (son) and Perfecta (wife) are the surviving heirs of Pedro
 Later, Claro recognized the conjugal nature of the properties but argue that his father’s conjugal
share ought to be divided ¾ for him and ½ for his mother (relying on Art 892, NCC on Testacy)
o On the other hand, Perfecta argues that aside from her ½ conjugal share, she is entitled to
another ½ of Pedro’s conjugal share (relying on Art 996, NCC on Intestacy)
ISSUE:
 How should the conjugal share of the deceased be divided between a surviving spouse and a
legitimate child (¾:½ as proposed by Claro, OR ½:½ as proposed by Perfecta)
RULING:
 PERFECTA’s division should be recognized (½ for both)
o  If there is only one legitimate child surviving with the spouse, since they share equally,
one-half of the estate goes to the child and the other half goes to the surviving spouse
 Claro’s reliance on Art 892 is misplaced because the said article governs testamentary succession
o Given that his father died intestate, the correct article to rely upon is Art 996 which
provides that a widow/widower shall have the same share as that of each children

Preservation of Legitime
Amelia Arellano represented by her duly appointed guardians Agnes Arellano & Nona Arellano v.
Francisco Pascual, Miguel Pascual (GR 189776, Dec 15 2010)
FACTS:
 Petitioner Amelia and respondents Francisco & Miguel are the siblings-legal heirs of the
deceased Angel Pascual Jr
o Amelia is represented by her daughters Agnes & Nona in this case
 In the Judicial Settlement of the intestate estate of Angel, respondents alleged that a parcel of land
in Teresa Village, Makati earlier donated by Angel to Amelia may be considered the latter’s
legitime
 o As such, they argue that the donated property be collated to the estate of Angel and be
treated as Amelia’s share in the estate
 The probate court (RTC Makati) granted the respondents’ argument hence this present petition
ISSUE:
 Whether the donated property should be treated as a legitime and should be collated to the estate
RULING:
 NO, the records do not show that the decedent left any primary, secondary, or concurring
compulsory heirs (he was only survived by his siblings, who are his collateral relatives)
o There being no compulsory heir, the donated property is not subject to collation
 Angel (not having left any compulsory heir entitled to any legitime) was at liberty to donate all
his properties, even if nothing was left for his siblings-collateral relatives to inherit
o As such, the donation made to Amelia may be treated as a donation to a “stranger”,
chargeable against the free portion of the estate
 Based on Arts 1003 &1004 (NCC), Amelia, Francisco, & Miguel ought to inherit in equal shares

On the matter of Collation:

 Collation takes place when there are compulsory heirs
o The purposes of collation are (1) to secure equality among the compulsory heirs in so far
as is possible, and (2) to determine the free portion, after finding the legitime, so that
inofficious donations may be reduced
On the kinds of Compulsory Heirs:
 Primary compulsory heirs are those who have precedence over and exclude other compulsory
heirs (legitimate children and descendants)
 Secondary compulsory heirs are those who succeed only in the absence of the primary heirs
(legitimate parents and ascendants)
 Concurring compulsory heirs are those who succeed together with the primary or the secondary
compulsory heirs (illegitimate children & surviving spouse)

Partition Inter Vivos

Raquel Chavez, Gerardo Gimenez, Manuela Buenavista vda de Chavez v. IAC, Antonio Chavez,
Rosario Chavez, Concepcion Chavez (GR L-68282, Nov 8 1990)
FACTS:
 A parcel of land owned by Manuela Buenavista was the subject of an earlier civil case when 3 of
her 6 children (Presentacion, Floserpina & Raquel) sold their shares to their sibling Concepcion
o The 3 sales were authorized by their mother which all contained the provision that she
distributed the land in equal pro-indiviso shares among her 6 children but reserving the
usufruct during her lifetime
 Later, Manuela sold the entire land (under a Bilihan ng Lupa) to her daughter Raquel and her
husband Gerardo
 A year after, Manuela sold the entire land to one Pepito Ferrer which brought the civil case
 On trial, the civil case was dismissed
 On appeal, the sales in favor of Raquel &Gerardo, and Ferrer were declared
o During the pendency of a MR, an alleged will of Manuela was found
ISSUE:

RULING: