Art. 967.

Full blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father and the
same mother.
Half blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father, but not the same
mother, or the same mother, but not the same father. (920a)
Art 967 distinguishes full blood and half blood relationship; but lets first go back to the basics
So relationship in general is defined as:
Definition of Relationship: It is a kinship or a legal tie uniting a person to other persons.
When this tie, vinculum or connection is established by community of origin among persons related by
blood, the relationship is called by consanguinity.
When this tie, vinculum or connection is established from persons related by marriage, the relationship is
called by affinity.
Natural relationship or consanguinity may then be legitimate or illegitimate depending on whether the
ancestor forming the common trunk may have been legitimately united by marriage or only naturally by
any illicit relationship.
The relationship may be with a double tie or a single tie relationship depending as to whether they
proceed from the same father and mother or from only the same father or only the same mother.
So going back to how this provision distinguishes full blood and half blood relationships:
(insert table)
We have learned about the
RULE OF EQUAL DIVISION
In the previous provision (Art 962) wherein the general rule in legal or intestate succession is that
relatives of the same degree shall inherit equal shares; however there are exceptions to this rule and one
of these is that of the relationship subject of Art 967, wherein in the collateral line, those of the full blood
is entitled to a share double of that of the half blood.
So for example, if the brother is of full blood and the sister is of half-blood, then the sharing will not be
the same although both are siblings, the brother will get twice as much as the sister.
Note: not the same rule in testamentary succession, equal share regardless of full or half blood
This is evident in:
Art. 1006. Should brothers and sisters of the full blood, survive together with brothers and sisters of the
half blood, the former shall be entitled to a share double that of the latter.

Art. 968. If there are several relatives of the same degree, and one or some of them are unwilling or
incapacitated to succeed, his portion shall accrue to the others of the same degree, save the right of
representation when it should take place. (922)
Art. 968 refers to a case where one or some of the surviving relatives of the decedent of the same class
and degree are incapacitated to inherit from him or have repudiated their inheritance

Basis of this article: The basic proposition advanced by this

provision is that the Right of Representation is superior to the Right of Accretion.

accrual shall only be applicable when the right of representation is not available. In this example, since
A predeceased and left no legitimate descendants, accrual is applicable for representation cannot be
used. If A left legitimate descendants, then accrual is inapplicable for representation is proper.

Under Art. 968, in case of incapacity, the share or shares which are rendered vacant shall pass to the co-
heirs of the incapacitated heir or heirs by right of accretion. This rule, however, is not absolute. If the
incapacitated heir happens to be a child or descendant of the decedent and he has children or descendants
of his own, then the share which is rendered vacant by reason of incapacity shall pass to such children or
descendants by right of representation. It is, therefore, evident that the right of representation is superior
to the right of accretion.

Note:
Right of Representation is always in the direct line in the descending line, never in the ascending. In right
of representation, the representative inherits from whom the person represented would have inherited

On the other hand, in case of repudiation by one or some of the relatives, the
share or shares which are rendered vacant shall pass to the co-heirs of the renouncer or renouncers by
right of accretion. This rule is absolute, even assuming that the renouncer is a child or descendant of the
decedent and he has children or descendants of his own. This is so because of the principle that an heir
who repudiates his inheritance may not be represented

When the fact which prevents a person from succeeding is repudiation, he cannot be represented because
the right of representation obtains only in cases of predecease, disinheritance, and incapacity. Therefore,
if the vacancy results from repudiation, the right of accretion shall always take place
EX.
(1) A decedent leaves three 1st cousins an estate of P300,000. If one of the cousins is incapacitated or
repudiates, the 100,000 share of that cousin will accrue to the other two cousins, in which both
will get 150,000 each:
100,000 – by virtue of right
50,000 – by virtue of accretion
(2) A, B, and C are legitimate children of D
X and Y are A’s legitimate children
D leaves 300,000 intestate

If A is incapacitated, X and Y will each get 50,000 by the right of representation

BUT if A repudiates, X and Y will each get nothing, therefore B and C will get 150,000 each

An heir repudiating cannot be represented

Art. 969. If the inheritance should be repudiated by the nearest relative, should there be one only,
or by all the nearest relatives called by law to succeed, should there be several, those of the
following degree shall inherit in their own right and cannot represent the person or persons
repudiating the inheritance.

Art. 969, on the other hand, refers to a case where all of such relatives have repudiated their inheritance

Difference with previous article:

This article simply provides that there can be no right of representation in cases of repudiation. Article
969 presupposes a case where the only nearest relative/relatives repudiate the inheritance, leaving none in
the same degree to succeed while Article 968 contemplates a case where there are several relatives of the
same degree and only one of them do not wish to succeed.
Reason for the article:
The relatives of the degree following that of the repudiating heirs inherit by their own right for the simple
reason that there is no representation in repudiation. This is in conformity with Article 977 which
provides that heirs who repudiate may not be represented. With the only heir or all of the heirs called by
law repudiating the inheritance so that accretion is not possible, and the right of representation not
obtaining, it is but natural that the relatives of the next degree should be called by law to inherit in their
own right.
Under Art. 969, all of the relatives of the decedent of the same class and degree called by the law to
succeed have repudiated their inheritance. What is the effect of this total vacancy?
According to the law, those of the following degree shall inherit in their own right. They cannot inherit by
right of representation because of the principle that an heir who repudiates his inheritance may not be
represented.9 Consequently, if the decedent is survived by, let us say, four legitimate children, and all of
them repudiate their inheritance, the effect of such repudiation is that those of the following degree shall
be called to the succession. But such relatives shall inherit in their own right and not by right of
representation, even if they are the grandchildren of the decedent. Hence, the inheritance shall be
distributed among them per capita. It would be different if instead of repudiation by all of the heirs, all of
them died before the decedent or all of them are incapacitated to inherit. In such case, the grand- children
shall inherit by right of representation and not in their own right.10
Hence, the inheritance shall be distributed among them per stirpes11 and not per capita.

Example.
(a) Intestate estate of 1.2 million
A, B, and C are legitimate children
X and Y are the legitimate children of A
W is the legitimate child of B
Z is the legitimate child of C

 If A, B, and C repudiates – the estate will be divided among the four grandchildren;
each gets 300,000 in his own right
o Not through representation, because an heir repudiating cannot be represented

 If only C repudiates – Z is excluded, because there is no right of

representation in case of repudiation

X and Y are excluded because it is A that will inherit (the nearer

excludes the farther)

W is excluded because it is B that will inherit

(the nearer excludes the farther)

 If A, B, and C are all incapacitated, or if they predeceased the testator– X and Y will each
get 200,000; W gets 400,000, and Z gets 400,000, by right of representation, not in
their own right