Reviewer Succession TLC

Succession- at the moment of death, there is already transmission of successional rights.

Reqs Under Art 777
1. There must be death whether actual or presumptive
a. Art 390- disappeared for 7 years for all intent and purposes deemed dead
i. Expn: Succession of a person, missing for 10 years
ii. If died from 75 years old, 5 years
iii. In danger of death- 4 years
2. All properties must be transmissible
a. Property that cannot be transmitted, those which are not under the commerce of
men
b. Rights that are personal- marital rights, acknowledgement of illegitimate child or
support illegitimate child
c. Other rights to be continued by the heir: right to enforce contract, right to
continue on a lease contract, right to continue on an ejectment case
d. For obligations, all are transmissible provided no hindrance based on law,
stipulation or nature
3. By will or by operation of Law

Ferrer vs SPS DIAZ

Facts: Reina Commandante executed a waiver in favor of Atty. Ferrer his hereditary rights. Title
was of Sps Alfredo. Carried over the TCT is the adverse claim of Atty Ferrer.
Issue: Is the waiver of hereditary rights in favor of another person executed by future heir wile
her parents are still alive valid?
Q2: Is an adverse claim annotated on the title of a lot based on such wiaver valid and effective
as to bind subsequent owns and hold them liable to claimant
A: No, for the inheritance must be considered as “future” succession must not have been
opened at time of contract. In this case, Reina’s waiver of hereditary rights, succession has not
yet been opened because parents are alive. Therefore, adverse claim is without any basis

Basilio Santiago case

Basilio had three valid marriages. His spouses are dying. Bibiana died with 2 daughter and
Martha is one of them has 6 children. Second wife Irene has 5 children including mari pilar.
Irene died, there was a new wife, Cecilia with 2 children Clemente was one of them. Basilio
made a will. The house and lot in Manila is to Pilar and Clemente so they can administer the
same. Said house has no owner and it can be forever be used for anyone in Manila. The rice
Mill given to new wife cecillia and children. Not partitioned for 2o years. All lands given to wife
Cecilia, not portioned for 20 yrs.
Issue: Are all the provisions of the will valid?
The house and lot in Manila is to Pilar and Clemente so they can administer the same.
No. The property transferred to children only for administration is not valid. Such shall only be
valid for 20 years. It will go based on intestate succession and shall go to legal heirs equally
Coja vs CA
Lorenza married to Feliciano- 2 children Feliciano Jr and Luz married to Quiancano. The sps
acquire a property of 120 sqm. Lorenza died first. They did not settle the debts. Fel Sr cohabited
with Lachica without a valid marriage. 2 days before he died, he married La Chica. Feliciano
died in 1965 July 9. Paz Lachica is already acquiring parcels of land. He executed 300 sq meter
lot to SPS Coja.
Issue: Can the 120 sqm lot sold by Sps Lachica be included in the property to Spouses
Coja?
On the first death, Feliciano Sr will get 20 sqm as 80 sqm belong to him. When he died, such 80
sqm shall be divided to Paz Lachica and the two children. Therefore the coverage of the 120sq
is only 26.67.
Opulencia vs CA
Demetrio died. Natalia Carpena Opulencia is administratix. She executed a contract to sell.
Later on she was contending she cannot sell. One of the properties sold should be void
because probate court did not approve it.
A: Valid. Hereditary right are vested upon the death of the decedent. Judicial approval is not
necessary.
Nixon Treyes vs Larlar
Dr Treyes and Rosie are married. No child. Rosie died and there were 14 conjugal properties.
Rosie had 7 siblings. Dr. Treyes executed affidavits of self-adjudication in his name 12 real
properties previously owned by spouses. Being siblings of Rosie, they state they can also inherit
some of the property.
A: The sister and brother can have ½ of the property as it was intestate. Successional rights is
vested from the very moment of death

WILLS
Art 783 SUSAC PERVID
Statutory, Unilateral, Solemn/ Formal, Animus testandi- at time of esecution, he has an
intention, Capacitated, Personal, Effective mortis causa, Revocable, Vitiated consent is absent,
Individual, Disposes of T’s estate
Reyes vs CA GR 124099
Unless legally flawed, a testator’s intention in his last will is valid. Defined here is that a will is
the testator speaking after death. Its provisions have the same force and effect in the probate
court as is testator stood before the court in full life making the declarations by word. If one
mentioned states that one is his wife, such shall be appreciated. The free portion be given to the
wife, the illegitimate shall still get some as they are compulsory heirs.
Nepomuceno vs CA
Martin Jugo was married to Rufina. They had 2 children, Oscar and Carmelita. Sofia Nepo was
also another woman of Hugo. She was named executrix. However in this case, the provision in
the will giving free portion to concubine is not valid. There was an admission that Sofia was
living together with hugo. Therefore, there was a prohibition under Donations provisions.
After Acquired Property
Art 793
Q: In 2018, T made a will stating “ I give ALL may cars to X”. In 2018, he had 5 cars. At time of
death he had 10 cars. How many shall be given?
A: 5 nly based on 793
Q: If the provisions state “I hereby give to X ALL my cars and ALL other cars I may acquire
before my death?
A: 10 cars

Extrinsic Validity of Wills

Art 795 (As to time)- observance of the law at the time it is made
Art 17 (1) (2) (as to Place)- lex loci celebrationis; joint wills are prohibited. However, if there are
two foreigners who made the will in a foreign country, such is valid
Art 815,816, 817 (As to place)- intrinsic validity (AOVC)
Art 2263 (As to time) (Intinsic validity)

Enriquez vs Abadia
The complainants are stating that during the time it was executed before holographic will is
allowed. SC said the will is void based under Art 795. It is not retroactive.
X, a Japanese citize, domiciled in China, on her way to Spain, made a 2-day stop-over in
Paris France. What laws may X followas to formalities?
A: 1. Japanese Laws as her national laws, 2. Also laws of China because she is domiciled. 3.
She can also follow Spain or France where it was executed or 4. Philippines
Llorente vs CA
Paula and Lorenzo, they were married. Lorenzo is a US serviceman and became a naturalized
US citizen in 1943. He applied to very short vacation in 1943. He wanted to surprise his own
wife. He was shocked she was living with his own brother Ceferino which gave birth to
Crisologo. Lorenzo did not want to go back to conjugal dwelling and separate regime. There
was a Divorce decree granted to Lorenzo by California on Dec 4, 1952. Lorenzo had a new
woman Alicia with children Luz, Raul, Beverly. He wants to probaete it in Philippines. It was
probated on Cam sur on 1984. Paula wanted to be entitle to inherit as she was the legal wife.
Issue: Shall Paula inherit?
A: Yes. The divorce decree was not proved as courts do not take judicial notice of foreign
decisions.
Dorotheo vs CA
Alejandro and Aniceta were married with three children Nilda, Vicente and Jose. Aniceta died at
1969, Alejandro cohabited with Lourdes Legaspi. Alejandro executed a will he gave all his
properties to Lourdes Legaspi. Alejandro died after 1969. There was no objection on the part of
the children as regards to the will for Lourdes Legaspi. Nilda however objected later.
Issue: May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsically void in an
order that has become final and executory still be given effect?
A: No. I will may be declared extrinsically valid is not equal to its intrinsic validity. The unlawful
dispositions may not be given effect. In case at bar, the children will be deprived of their legitime
thus invalid
Bulos vs Tecson
Pedro Tecson and Tomasa Bulos were married to each other. They had a son named Vicente
Tecson. He died in 1940. They extrajudicially partition the property. Jose Tantoco was a
spurious child by which he was born of parents who are not legally capacitated to marry each
other.
In this case, In Old Civil Code, a spurious child is not entitled to inherit but only for support
Baltaxar vs Laxa
Regala executed a will in pampangan dialect from 1981 and gave all property to Lorenzo.
Lorenzo has a wife Corazon. There were oppositors stating that Regala was not of Sound mind.
A: The state of being forgetfulness does not necessarily make a person mentally unsound as
long as she knows the nature of the estate to be dispose of, proper objects of her bounty and
the character of the testamentary act. Therefore she can validly disposed as long as she has no
legitime.
Dra Maria Limpin was one of the witnesses and appeared in the probate proceeding. Second
witness was Francisco Garcia so cannot testify anymore. Faustino Mercado has brain damage
cannot testify anymore. Retired Judge Limpin was the father of Maria Limpin. Acted as notary
public but he had a stroke and cannot testify. There is only one essential witness which is Dra.
Maria Limpin. Such is enough. Therefore court allowed the case to prosper.
Supervening capacity- Art 801
FORMALITIES OF A NOTARIAL WILL
Caneda vs Caneda: Attestation Clause
It did not contain the statement “ the 3 credible witnesses signed the will in the presence of T
and of one another” Such will is void.
Gil vs Murciano Attestation clause did not contain the statement the 3 credible witnesses
signed the will in the presence of T and of one another”- Void
Azuela vs CA and Castillo
Second page of the will has 3 major defects. 1. The number of pages is not included in the
Attestation Clause. 2. The witnesses did not sign below the attestation clause. Even if there are
signatures in the margin, signature in the attestation clause is still needed. 3. The
acknowledgment is not valid as the form is different did not adhere to the legal forms. A jurat is
not enough, it should be an acknowledgment.
Attestation Clause not signed by T?
Will is valid as his signature is not needed in such Attestation clause
Attestation clause not signed by 1 witness?- will is vois
Attestation Clause is in language not known to testator? Will is still valid
Attestation clause is in a language not known to attesting witness- will is valid as long as
interpreted
Attestation clause did not include the number of pages of a will? Will is still valid as long as
the number of pages can be seen in such will.
In case of Singson vs Tolentino, the no of pages can be seen in the body of the will or in the
acknowledgment., such is valid
Decedent’s alleged will was written entirely in English but T knew only Iggorote- Will is
void as it should be known by the language of the testator
5-paged will, 1 page of which was not signed by 1 witness at L hand margin- will is valid,
based on 809 on substantial compliance.
6-paged will, first 5 pages were signed at the L-hand margin by T but not by the three
attesting witnesses- Will is void. Such was intentional by the three witnesses
1-paged will not signed by T and 3 attesting witnesses at L-hand margin- Valid, no need
for marginal signatures. Marginal signatures are required only to prevent intercalation and
substitution of pages. In this case there is only 1 page.
2-paged will, the first page of which was not signed by T at the L-hand margin- Fatal
defect as it can be replaced.
Marginal Signatures of T and 3 witnesses were placed on R margin- valid still. Substantial
compliance
Testator’s name was written for the testator, in his presence and at his express direction,
by one of the credible witness- void because there were was only two witness.
T’s signature is located below the signature of the Notary Public in acknowledgment. The
will is void as the signature should be at the logical end and not the physical end. The logical
end is at the end of disposition of the properties.
What is the true test of signing in the presence of the testator and the 3 witness
(Jaboneta case)?
Nakatalikod yun isa witness. Valid. The true test is not actual seeing of signing but the
opportunity of seeing the signing as there is no physical obstruction.
2 witnesses and T were in one room signing the will; 1 witness in another area separated
by a curtain - void as he has no opportunity to see the signing. However if see through, one
can see it, it is valid.
Yap Tua vs Ca Kuan- The testatrix signed first name only and not surname as it was made by
another person. SC said that if the testator cannot sign the will, one can use a mark. A cross,
asterisk is allowed provided the testator allowed it. Thus, the surname written by another is
valid.
Cruz Villasor; Notarial will executed by T. One of the 3 attesting witness was the Notary
Public. Will is void or valid? Void as there are only 2 attesting witnesses
Notarial will was executed by T with 3 credible witnesses; opposition as they did not
acknowledge it in Notary public in presence of each other. Will is still valid
Will was not read to the witnesses, hence they do not know the contents of the will. There
is no requirement for such. Therefore will is valid.
Notarial Will executed by the testator was not dated, hence contention it is void. The will
is valid. The requirement that it be dated, is only on holographic. Just go to acknowledgment
based on the notary public.

Echavez vs Dozen Construction

2 lots owned by Vicente Echavez made a donation mortis causa to manuel echavez on
Sept 7 1985. Vicente also gave a contract to sell to Dozen on Mar 1986 and DOS on Oct
86. The second page of donation mortis causa has an acknowledgment. Is the will valid?
No. the attestation clause and acknowledgment cannot be merged in one statement. The
attestation refers to the act of the witnesses. It must contain all details required by NCC. In the
absence of such, no attestation clause can be deemed embedded in Acknowledgment.
Margie vs Sablan
Opposition to the allowance of the will: 1. Last page of the will, which contained the
Acknowledgment, was not signed by Legaspi and her instrumental witness, the will be invalid; 2.
The attestation failed to indicate the no. of pages upon which the will was written; 3. Photocopy
of the will submitted did not contain signatures of instrumental witness on each and every page
Is the will valid?
Yes. The Acknowledgment specified the no of pages in the will. As regards to the signing at the
last page must be at the logical end which is not on the 5th page. Lastly, In the original there is
signature of three witness. Unintentional exclusion only as regards to the Photocopy.
Art 807- Deaf and Mute and Blind Testator
Alvarado vs Gaviola
79 Yr old T, sick of glaucoma executed an 8-paged notarial will and a 5 paged codicil. He is not
really blind as he can still see something SC: Art 808 was properly complied with based on spirit
of the law. In his case, only one reading was done loudly. There can be no fraud or trickery
done in this case as he was there present.
Garcia vs Hon Conrado Vasquez
Gliceria Del Rosario can only use vision on things and cannot read. 90 year old executed a 1
paged notarial will, written in Tagalog, on Dec 29, 1960, when her vision, notwithstanding her
cataract operation and use of aphakic lenses. SC: will was void as she signed readings without
the will being read.
HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS 810-814
Ajero vs CA: some provisions are invalidated but not the whole will if the alteration was not
authenticated
Kalaw vs Relova: If there is only one provision, the whole will is not valid.
SEANGIO V REYES
The document, although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument,
conforms to the formalities of a holographic will. The disinheritance will be given to other heirs.
Based on 919, the pirating of clients, such are grounds of disinheriting based on maltreatment
by word or by deed.
Art 820/821 Witnesses to a Wil
830 Revocation of Wills
A: implication of law
Ex: T gave a legacy of his 2017 Honda Car to X in a will executed in 2018. Such was sold by T
on 2019. Therefore will revoked.
EX: T executed a will in 2016 instituting his wife as sole heir, there being no other other
compulsory heir. They became separated. Therefore, succession is not allowed.
B. Revocation by an overt act- will, codicil, BUTCo
1. Will was thrown into the fire and was burned despite effort to retrieve it. No revocation,
no intention to revoke
2. Will was thrown into the fire in T’s garden with intention but such was retrieved by T’s
grandson. Will valid, did not escape subjective phase
3. T threw the will in the fire with intention. Everything can still be read only upper
portion was burned. The will revoked as the subjective phase is over.
4. With intention to revoke, T tore his signature leaving all other portions of the will intact
and readable. Will is revoked
Revocation by another will
Molo vs Molo: T made a will in 2017. After one year, he wanted to revoke will no 1 so
made will no 2 but tore no 1 on the basis that no. 2 is valid. Will no 2 is invalid. Can we
consider Wil no 1?
Yes. Doctrine of dependent relative revocation.
Art 831 Implied Revocation
Will no 1 and Will no 2 are incompatible, which will prevail? Will no 2. There is
inconsistencies. If will no 3 there is express revocation of will no 2, therefore will no 1 shall be
given effect.
Express Revocation
However, if will no 2 has express revocatory clause and will no 3 expressly revoke no 2, no 1
will not be revived.
EX: Same example for will no 1 and no 2. If testator died on 2020 and it was discovered
that will no 2 only had credible witness, will you allow will no 2. No. Can will no 1 be
proved? Yes. Doctrine of independent relative revocation
What if Will no 1 was a notarial will but such was expressly revoked by holographic will.
Is the will revoke? Yes. The latest will is the intent of the testator
What if Will no 1 was a notarial will but such was expressly revoked by holographic will.
The holographic will was burned by testator. There were 10 witnesses? The holographic
will cannot be admitted as there will be no comparison
Art 832 Express Revocation but New will was inoperative
1st will was revoke by 2nd will but the heir repudiated inheritance. No one can inherit from
testator
Art 834 Recognition of Illegitimate child
Republication of Wills 835
Will Void as to form- Express Republication- copying word for word provisions of the original will
Revoked Will- Re-execute the old will as a long way of doing it
The more expedient is to make a codicil. Implied Republication
Art 838 Probate of Wills
Probate proceeding is a necessity
In re Ruperta Palaganas
Ruperta died on Nov 8 2001 childless single and naturalized US citizen. Executed a will in
US. Appointed Segio brother has executor. Ernesto another brother filed as special
administrator. For Manuel and Benjamin, they stated that the will must be probated in US.
Q: may a will executed in abroad be probated in Phil where it is not yet probated in other
country?
Yes. Our laws do not prohibit such under 816.
Mercado vs Santos
Will of the wife was admitted to probate upon petition of her husband without any
opposition; three years later, decedent’s sister fied an opposition alleging forgery of the
will committed by the husband. Criminal cases were filed.
Q: Should criminal action prosper? No. probate of the will only pertains to due execution and
whether testator was of sound mind. The criminal case is not within its ambit.\
Ortega vs Valmonte
Niece tried to oppose because Placido was already of unsound mind and nanghihipo sa
bahay nila. There was fraud by Josefina to induce will in favor. Lastly, discrepancy of
execution and acknowledgment.
Is Placido of Unsound mind? No. It should be based on NTC.
Is Placido induced? No. Fraud and undue influence cannot exist at the same time. Also, even
if they exist such must be proved. In the case at bar it was not proven
Is there discrepancy? No. One week before June 15 they tried to go to notary pub;ic was not
there. Therefroe it was only on August 9 when they executed and notarized the will. Why not
change the date? NP said that he does not want document be dirty. The conlict of dates
appearing on the will does not invalidate the document as notarial will execution and
acknowledgement are required to be on same occasion.
Institution of Heirs
ART 845 T executed a will stating: “I institute one of my friends to my estate of 1M”. The
instituted heir is unknown therefore it would go to legal heirs
Fr. Pascual Rigir case: He bequeaths rice lands in favor of his nearest male relative who
would study for the priesthood.
There being no male relative, there are sisters who partitioned the land. After 13 years, there
was a nearest relative who studied for priesthood. In the case at bar, there are no male relative
who is capacitated. If one wait forever, such is not in the essence of the law on succession.
Thus, the partition or the sisters have a better right.
ART 846 Heirs Instituted w/o designation of shares inherit in equal parts
1. T instituted 3 brothers as heirs; estate is 3M- 1M each
2. EXPN: T Instituted his son A and bros X and Y as heirs; estate is 6M. Here, legitime
is 3M given to A plus 1M as free portion. X and Y will have 1M each
 3. T instituted his wife S, legitimate son A and F, friend as heirs. Estate is 12M. A
shall have 6M and S shall have 3M. Free portion is 3M. Therefore each be dived equally
to all. A shall have 7M, S shall have 4M and F shall have 1M.
ART 847: CLLECTIVELY INSTITUTED DEEMED INDIVIDUALLY INSTITUTED- Per capita
1. I institute as heirs my estate of 600k my friends X and Y and the sons of mt friend
Z. How much will each get. Thus,each shall be 150k as the 2 sons shall inherit
individually
2. T’s will reads “I institute my 3 sons and my friends X and Y as heirs to my estate
of 300k. How much will each receive? A, B C will have 25K plus 50K. X and Y shall
have 25K
ART 848 BROTHERS/SISTERS of FULL and HALF-BLOOD
T instituted as heirs his full blood brothers A and B and half-blood brothers C, D and E;
estate 10M; How much? Equal shares presumed. 2M each
ART 849 Simultaneously not successively
1, T instituted X and X’s children (A and B) as heeirs to his estate. How much will they
get? 1M each
What if X was son of T? Therefore, 1.5 legitime of T. the 1.5 be divided on the three. Each 500.
False Cause
I will institute X as sole heir niece of 10M if he became valedictorian of FEU?
If X did not graduate as valedictorian, such may be a false cause because a will is gratuity.
Therefore she may get all of it
What if the words state that “ I would like my niece to graduate cum laude for that reason I will
give 10 million? Answer is no, X cannot get it. It is not based on liberality but based on merit.
ART 851. Whole Estate not distributed to instituted heirs
1. T;s will “ I institute my bes friend X as heir to ½ of my properties” Estate= 10M. T
has 2 leg brothers A and B. Distribute estate. Brothers shall have 2.5 each; X shall
have 5M
2. T’s reads “I institute as heirs my top 3 students a, B and C to inherit ¼ of estate.
On T’s death, 2 sons of his predeceased brother X and Y survive him. Esatte is
160K. A, B and C- 40k each. X and Y 20K each
ART 854 Preterition- annul the institution of heir except legacies or devises not inofficious
1. Husband omitted in the will of the testatrix- No, they are not direct line
2. Father omitted while legitimate instituted- No, parents are not compulsory
3. Illegitimate daughter was given a legacy but no instituted heir- No preterition, If not
sufficient, preterition is not answer, completion of the legitime is the remedy
Nuguid vs Nuguid
Leg parents were completely omitted; T instituted as sole heir one of six brothers- There
was preterition as they were deprived.
Acain vs IAC- T instituted as sole and universal heir to all his properties. He stated in his
will that “in case my brother predeceased me, my brother’s children shall inherit from me
all my properties”. T’s wife legally adopted daughter was entirely omitted from their
inheritance. Was there preterition of the legal wife and the legally adopted daughter?
As to wife, she was not preterited as they do not belong to the direct line. For the legally
adopted daughter there is preterition
Neri vs Akutin
T instituted his children of the 2nd marriage as heirs without giving anything to his
children of the 1st marriage, although they were mentioned in his will. There was
preterition. All children of valid marriages as they were legitimate.
Morales vs Olondriz
Alfonso Juan was married to Ana Maria. A certain Iris Morales brought with her a will with
following provisions. She will be the executor and the estate shall be distributed equally among
Iris; my children Alfonso, Alejandro, Isabel, Angelo and their mother, Ana Maria Ortigas De
Olondriz. The illegitimate child was not included. Was there preterition?
Yes. The illegitimate son is also a compulsory heir. Therefore the will shall be abrogated
T has legitimate sons A and B. A was instituted as sole and universal heir to an estate of
1M and a legacy of 100K was given to T’s friend F
But there is preterition.Such is not inofficious. A shall have 250K and B also. F shall have 100K.
Free portion remaining 200k given to each of sons.
Suppose legacy was 700k to F, what is effect? the free portion shall be given to F
Art 856 Voluntary Heirs who die/ incapacitated/ renounce
No right of representation for voluntary heir
If compulsory voluntary heir, the remaining legitimate heirs can get the free portion. Ex. T has 3
sons A B C. A has two sons X and Y. A predecease T. The estate is 12M. Divide. A B C shall
have 6M so divide by 3 which is 2M. X and Y shall have 1M each. The free portion shall be
given to B and C amounting to 3M each.
SUBSTITUTION
FIDEICOMMISSARY Substitution
There must be a period when 1st heir will deliver to 2nd heir. If there is none, upon death of first
heir. 1st heir cannot alienate the property during such.
Reserva Troncal
Origin- person from whom the property came from
Prepositus- descendant who acquired the property gratuitously; die without issue and without a
will
Reservista- ascendant who acquired the property by operation of law; has obligation to annotate
or execute an affidavit how he or she obtain property from prepositus
Reservatarios- belonging to third degree from prepsitus.
Mendoza vs Delos Santos
Placido married Dominga. They died. They have 4 sons also all dead. Antonio’s heirs and
Valentin state they are reservatarios. Exequiel one of the son of Placido and Domingo
has a wife named Leonor. They both died property goes to Gregoria. Property went to
Leonor’s sister. Is their reserve truncal
No. The properties are not reservable. Julia who inherited the property was not the asccendat of
Gregoria. Had it been Leonor, then it is Reservable properties.
Are Maria Mendoza et al capable off inheriting?
No. The relalationship of Maria et al are of more than 3rd degrees as they are related to
prepositus by 4 degrees.
Nueva vs Alcala
Juliana was able to marry Francisco. Juliana died 1889, property came to Alfeo the son.
Alfeo died first so property go to Francisco. Francisco was later married to Manuela with
a son Jose. Segunda, an illegitimate child claims the property. Who has a better right,
Jose or Segunda?
Jose. Segunda is an illegitimate daughter of Juliane. Therefore she is not related 3rd degree with
the prepositus. In this case, there is irob barrier rule against Segunda.
Roberto and Princess were married with a son Onofre. Roberto died. Princess married
again with Mark and has a son Pepito. Onofre donated to Pepito a parcel of land.
Princess died intestate and Onofre too. Property went to Mark. The father of Roberto,
father of Princess and Father of Mark appeared. Who can claim the property?
Jojo is qualified to inherit. Jojo is related to Onofre and Pepito is 3 degrees from him.
ART 874 Condition not to marry
1. I institute my friend X as sole heir of 10M on the condition she shall not marry A.
Is it a void condition? It is a valid condition because one Is being prevented a specific
person and not an absolute prohibition.
2. I institute my husband as sole heir to my estate of 20M on the condition he shall
not remarry. Condition is valid. However, even if such is violated, the legitime shall still
be given to him
3. I leave to my wife 10M and she shall not remarry. Not a valid condition
Morente vs Dela Santa- In her will, wife stated “ I hereby order that all real estate which
belong to me shall pass to my husband. That my said husband shall not leave my
brothers after death and not remarry.” However, he remarried.
SC said there is no condition here but only a statement and order. Thus, one should word it as a
condition
ART 875 Disposition Captatoria
“I institute my friend F as a sole heir to my estate f 10M on the condition that he will also
institute me as a sole heir. Such is considered as null and void
COMPULSORY HEIRS and FREE PORTION
T has a leg child (1) and Spouse. Estate is 10M. Leg of child is 5M, Illeg 2.5 and wife- 2.5
Estate is 9M. T has spouse and three children 1 is an adopted child. He also has 2 illeg
child. Decide. Children plus adopted child shall get 1.5M. S has 1.5M. Illeg 750 each. FP 1.5M
shall be given by intestate proportion based on 1:2 proportion. 300k sa iba, 150 each sa
illegitimate
Art 890 legitimate ascendants
1. GF has a son F and wife of F is M. The two had a son T. F is dead and T died.
Estateis 100k. Leg is 50k shall be given to mother based on rule of proximity.The free
portion shall also be given to mother.
2. Father and Mother both dead of T. Legitime is given to 25K is with paternal and
maternal line. If GF died already, GGF cannot get property as he cannot represent the
GF
ART 908 FORMULA FOR NE HEREDITARY ESTATE
PROPERTY LEFT AT TIME OF DEATH- debts/charges plus collationable donations
The estate at time of death was 1M. T gave donation 200K to A and 100K to B his sons.
He also gave 100K to friend. He has debt of 200K.
1.2 is the NHE. A shall get 300k minus 200k as a donation while B shall get 300k minus 100k as
donation. Friend shall get 100k. Free portion shall be given to the sons intestate
Arrelano vs Pascual
Angel Pascual Jr. died intestate. He had 2 brothers and a sister. Before he died he gave
an inter vivos donation to Amelia. Amelia must bring such property to the estate of
Angel. Amelia became incompetent and was represented by 2 daughters. Contention of
the two is that their mother received it validly and there is no reason to collate.
In this case, collation is not required because there are no compulsory heirs as the brothers are
not. The decedent therefore is at liberty to donate the property.
ART 915 and 918; DISINHERITANCE AND INEFFECTIVE DISINHERITANCE
Ineffective, only legitime is given back
1. A. B, C are leg children. A was disinherited because he did not pass the bar exam.
Estate is 9M. Each of them receive 1.5M. The free portion divided to B and C.
 2. T’s estate is 1M. X was disinherited for having married against ‘s wishes; legacy
of 100K. Legacy valid, the fp shall be given to X by intestate. Suppose fp is 700K. 500
K is given to F
3. A, B and C and A was sole heir based on T’s will completely omitting B and C was
found guily of attempt of life of testator. Estate 900K
a. B shall have 450 so did A
4. Same facts as above but C was disinherited because he did not pass bar exam.
Each shall give them 150K but only B and A shall have the free portion.
Reconciliation
T’s will reads “I disinherit my son X for trying to kill me”. X wasconvicted and served
prison time. When released, X stayed with his father’s house until T’s death. T never
changed will. No document issued. Will X inherit?
Here, there was reconciliation as it is implied here. The legitime shall be given to him. The free
portion may also be given because there was reconciliation
Art 923
T’s estate is 1M; A and B are sons of T; C is a son of A; B was instituted as heir
and A was disinherited in the will for his unjust refusal to support T during T’s lifetime
250 each. However the legitime of a be given to son by representation. The free portion be
given to one legitimate son not disinherited.
Legacy and Devise
Art 930 T gave to X a will he executed in 20115 a Mitsubishi car green which he thought
belonged to him but realy belong to A. will X get the car?
No. There was an erroneous belief by the testator as he was not the owner of the property
T stated in his will “ I give to my friend X the 2016 Honda car owned by A” on T’s death in
2018, will X get the car? Yes. 2 circumstances when not given- owner does not want to sell or
price is unreasonable. In such case, the reasonable value of the car be given.
T executed a will on Dec 20 2019 “ I give to my friend X a Honda Civic car 2018 model” I f
on Dec 2019 X was already the owner, can will be effective? No, the person is already the
owner of the property.
Cross refer to 957 where legacy is without effect
1. Transform the property as to form
2. Alienate without right to repurchase
a. T gave X a legacy in 2019. The car was donated to mistress. Is X entitled to the
car? No, such is already an alienation even if not valid
b. If instead of donationg, he sold the car to A. The testator reacquired it. Legacy
still valid
3. Loss of the thing without fault of legatee devisee
Art 934
T’s will include diamond ring pledged 50k to X; To Y a land mortgage with PNB for 1M, To
W a devise of prop burdened by right of way; Z devised a property over which a usufruct
has been constituted
The diamond ring shall be given to the legatee. The payment for loan shall be given from estate.
Same with the mortgaged property
For easement and usufruct, such shall be both respected.
ART 935 NCC
X is the debtor of T in the amount of P100,000.00. T made a will on Jan 1, 2018 which
reads “I give this credit of 100K to my friend A”. On Dec. 25, 2019, X paid 25K to T. T died
on Feb 14,2020. How much can A collect from debtor X as his legacy?
It will only be to extent of 75K because such is based on his debt.
ART 936 NCC
X is the debtor of T in the amount of 1M. T’s will executed in 2018 reads: “I condone D’s
debt of 1M”. In 2019, T demanded this credit a suit filed in court. On T’s death in 2020, is
the legacy still effective?
No, the legacy is no longer effective because of the judicial demand
D is the debtor of T in the amount of P1M; 200K and 500K which he incurred from T in a
span of 10 years. In 2018, T made a will stating: “ I remit all the debts owed to me by D”.
In 2019, D again borrowed several times from T in amount of 300k, 1M and 250K. D claims
all his debts to have been remitted?
No. Only those debts existing at time of condonation are condoned.
Art 938 Legacy to Creditor
1. T owes C 1M. I will, I give C a legacy of 1M in cash. How much will T give C?
a. GN: 2M. 1M for debt and 1M for legacy
2. Expn: suppose T said “ I will give C legacy of 1M in cash to be applied to my
credit”. 1M only
Art 939 T executed a will on Dec 20, 2020 which reads “I believe I owe X P1M, hence, I
order my estate to pay him 1M in cash”
1. What is the effect if T did not owe X 1M? Return the property as there is unjust
enrichment
2. What is effect if 500k ang na owe? Unjust enrichment also only get 500k from
estate.
Legacy for education ART 944
Intestate succession- 1. No will or 2. Formalities not followed 3. Validly revoked will 4. No heir
instituted even if there is a will, other properties be given intestate 5. Suspensive Condition 6.
Predecease, Disinheritance, Incapacitated, Repudiated.
Rules:
 1. Rule on Proximity
2. Rule of Equal Division
a. Expn: Division of Representation
b. Division of Ascending line
c. Division between full blood and half blood
d. Division between Legitimate and illegitimate children
3. Rule of Preference between Lines
Accretion or Representation (Art 968 or Art 970
D’s estate is 900K; A, B and C are children of D who died with a revoked will; A
predecease father. A’s own children will inherit per stirpes on 300K. If a repudiated? The
300k cannot be given to own children therefore there is right of accretion. Give 150K each to B
and C.
X and Y are brothers of D. Estate is 10M. X and Y predecease D. X has a son A while Y
has a son B. B died earlier than X, Y and D. B has a son C. Who can inherit?
Only A who will get the whole 10M; Rule of Proximity
Estate 1.2 M. D had sons A B C. A had sons W and X. B has a son Y and C has a son Z.
1. A, B, C repudiated- W,X,Y,Z will inherit in their own right
2. If C repudiated, only A and B can inherit- A B inherit based on rule of proximity
3. If A B C predeceased D- inherit WXYZ in representation fathers
Art 976/977 NCC
D died on 2017 with sons A and B while A predecease D. A had 2 sons X and Y. Y had a
son Z. Y repudiated inheritance from A. Z cannot attain property because a renouncer cannot
be represented. What about the estate of D, can Y attain it? Yes.However, one who
repudiates can still represent but not represented.
Art 979/980 Children inherit in their own right
Estate 10 M. D had sons with S on first marriage with 2 sons A and B. S died. D had
another marriage with T. T had a son Y. T died. D subsequently died as T and D had a
sons C and X. Each will get 2M each
Art 983…
Art 992 Iron Curtain Rule
X has a legitimate child and a illegitimate child. A’s death means B cannot inherit from him
ab intestate.
Arado Heirs vs Alcoran July 2015
Joaquina was married to Raymundo. Nicholas was born with wife Florencia had 3
siblings. Nicolas has a concubine Francisca and bore child Anacleto. Anacleto had a
daughter Elenette. 4 siblings of Joaquina are stating that Anacleto cannot inherit from
Joaquina. Anacleto presented many evidence of being a son such as Register of Birth
and pic of Joaquina
2 lots will go to Florencia and 2 lots will go to Anacleto. The property came from Raymunndo-
Nicholas then went up to Joaquina. However, Anacleto cannot inherit because of iron barrier
rule
Art 903 Rights of Ilegitimate Children
A and B are sons of D who both predeceased D. A has son W and X as the latter is
illegitimate. B is illegitimae of D who had 2 sons Y and Z who is illegitimate. A and B
predecease D. Who can inherit?
X cannot inherit based on iron barrier rule. Y and Z can inherit based on 902, the illegitimate can
be represented by his own children