Doctrines:

 The successional right in intestacy of a surviving spouse over the net estate of the deceased, concurring with legitimate brothers
and sisters or nephews and nieces (the latter by right of representation), is one-half of the inheritance, the brothers and sisters or
nephews and nieces, being entitled to the other half. Nephews and nieces, however, can only succeed by right of representation in
the presence of uncles and aunts; alone, upon the other hand, nephews and nieces can succeed in their own right which is to say
that brothers or sisters exclude nephews and nieces except only in representation by the latter of their parents who predecease or
are incapacitated to succeed.

Armas vs. Calisterio, G.R. No. 136467, April 6, 2000,

VITUG, J.:

FACTS:
The case is an appeal, filed by petitioner Antonia Armas to assail to Court of Appeals decision which declared
respondent Marietta Calisterio as the sole heir to the estate of Teodorico Calisterio. The facts of the case were
as follows:
 Marietta Calisterio and Teodeorico Calisterio were married in May 8, 1958. However Teodorico was the
second husband of Marietta because the latter was previously married to James Williams Bounds on January
13, 1946. But James disappeared on February 11, 1947, thus eleven years after, Marietta married Teoderico
albeit without having secured a court declaration that James was presumptively dead. When Teodorico died
on April 24, 1992, his surviving sister Antonia Armas filed with the RTC a petition for the intestate probate
of Teodorico’s estate. Antonio claimed that she was the sole surviving heir since the marriage between
Marietta and Teodorico was allegedly bigamous and therefore null and void. Consequently, Marietta opposed
the petition and contended that since her marriage with James was already dissolved due to the latter’s
absence, and with his whereabouts unknown, for more than eleven years before her second marriage to
Teodorico, then she argued that as the surviving spouse, she should be given priority in the administration
of the estate of the decedent.
 In January 1996, the Trial Court in its decision ruled in favor of Antonia and declared her as the sole heir of
the estate of Teodorico. The Court of Appeals on the other hand reversed the decision and held that since
Marietta’s marriage to Teodorico was valid, then as the compulsory heir, she was entitled to one half of her
husband’s estate and Teodorico’s sister, Antonia and her children, to the other half. Hence, the present
appeal by petitioner.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Marietta was entitled as a compulsory heir
to her husband’s estate, along with Antonio and her children on the basis of the validity of her
marriage with the decedent?

RULING:
Qualified Yes. The Court held that since the marriage of between the deceased Teodorico and respondent
Marietta was solemnized on 08 May 1958, then the law in force at that time was the Civil Code, not the Family
Code which took effect only on 03 August 1988. Accordingly, judicial declaration of absence of the absentee
spouse is not necessary in the new Civil Code as long as the prescribed period of absence is met. It is equally
noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are, by the explicit mandate of Article 83 of the Civil
Code, to be deemed valid “until declared null and void by a competent court.” It follows that the burden of proof
would be, in these cases, on the party assailing the second marriage.

In the case at bar, it remained undisputed that respondent Marietta’s first husband, James William Bounds, had
been absent or had disappeared for more than eleven years before she entered into a second marriage in 1958
with the deceased Teodorico Calisterio. This second marriage, having been contracted during the regime of the
Civil Code, should thus be deemed valid notwithstanding the absence of a judicial declaration of presumptive
death of James Bounds.

Therefore, the conjugal property of Teodorico and Marietta, no evidence having been adduced to indicate
another property regime between the spouses, pertained to them in common. Upon its dissolution with the
death of Teodorico, the property should rightly be divided in two equal portions— one portion going to the
surviving spouse and the other portion to the estate of the deceased spouse. The successional right in intestacy
of a surviving spouse over the net estate of the deceased, concurring with legitimate brothers and sisters or
nephews and nieces (the latter by right of representation), is one-half of the inheritance, the brothers and
sisters or nephews and nieces, being entitled to the other half. Nephews and nieces, however, can only succeed
by right of representation in the presence of uncles and aunts; alone, upon the other hand, nephews and nieces
can succeed in their own right which is to say that brothers or sisters exclude nephews and nieces except only
in representation by the latter of their parents who predecease or are incapacitated to succeed. The appellate
court has thus erred in granting, successional rights, to petitioner’s children, along with their own mother
Antonia who herself is invoking successional rights over the estate of her deceased brother.

Thus in view of the foregoing, the Court moved to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, but except insofar
only as it decreed that the children of Antonia are likewise entitled, along with her, to the other half of the
inheritance, in lieu of which, then that said one-half share of the decedent’s estate pertains solely to petitioner
to the exclusion of her own children.

Case Digest by: Alena Icao-Anotado pg. 1