Case No.

60

Tomilap, Bhenz Bryle Nino M.

ADOLFO C. AZNAR
vs.
MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DUNCAN & MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN

Doctrine: When a testator leaves to a forced heir a legacy worth less than the
legitime, but without referring to the legatee as an heir or even as a relative,
and willed the rest of the estate to other persons, the heir could not ask that
the institution of the heirs be annulled entirely, but only that the legitime be
completed.

Question:

Edward Christensen, a Californian citizen who is a resident of the Philippines,

died with a will. Christensen’s will was admitted to probate, and the court
declared Helen Garcia as Christensen’s natural child. The court then ordered
that the properties in Edward’s estate be divided equally among Lucy Duncan,
who is named as Edward’s child in his will, and Helen, whom was declared as
Edward’s natural child after his death. The court also ruled that it should be
treated as if Edward died intestate, since there was a preterition in the will
against Helen. Should the estate be equally divided or should the inheritance of
Lucy be merely reduced to ¼ of the entire estate?

Suggested Answer: 

Yes, the entire estate must be merely reduced to cover Helen’s legitime, since
the case herein is not one of preterition but of completion of legitime

Prevailing jurisprudence provides, as cited by Manresa, that if the testator left

to one who was a forced heir a legacy worth less than the legitime, but without
referring to the legatee as an heir or even as a relative, and willed the rest of
the estate to other person, Article 815 (of the Old Civil Code) applies and such
heir could not ask that the institution of heirs be annulled entirely, but only
the completion of the legitime.

In the case at hand, there was no acknowledgment on the part of Edward

Christensen that Helen Garcia was his natural daughter. Instead, he limited
her share to a legacy of P3,600.00. The fact that she was subsequently
declared judicially to possess the status as his natural child is no reason to
assume that had the judicial declaration occurred during Edward’s lifetime,
his subjective attitude towards her would have undergone any change and that
he would have distributed his estate equally to her and to Lucy Duncan.

Therefore, Helen’s share must be merely reduced, as there is no preterition in

this case.
 Case No. 57

Tomilap, Bhenz Bryle Nino M.

REGINA FRANCISCO AND ZENAIDA PASCUAL, vs. AIDA FRANCISCO-

ALFONSO
(G.R. No. 138774 dated March 8, 2001)

Doctrine: The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-

half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. The testator may
freely dispose of the remaining half of his estate, subject to the rights of
illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse.

Question:

Aida Francisco-Alfonso is the legitimate daughter of decedent Gregorio

Francisco, while Regina and Zenaida are two of the illegitimate children of
Gregorio with another woman. During the time when Gregorio was in the
hospital, he confided to Aida that the Certificate Title of his only property is in
the possession of Regina and Zenaida. When Aida confronted her sisters, they
told her that their father sold the land to them for P25, 000.00. Gregorio did
not have any other property other than the land. In view of this, Aida filed a
complaint for annulment of sale of the land. The court ruled that the sale was
valid. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals decided that it was null and
void. Can Aida be deprived of her share in the estate of her deceased father by
a simulated contract transferring the property of her father to his illegitimate
children?

Suggested Answer:

No, Aida cannot be deprived of her share in the estate.

Article 888 of the New Civil Code stipulates that the legitime of legitimate
children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the
father and of the mother. The testator may freely dispose of the remaining half
of his estate, subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving
spouse as hereinafter provided.

In the present case, the decedent Gregorio Francisco did not own any other
property besides the land sold to Regina and Zenaida. In effect, the sale of said
land would deprive Aida of her share in her father’s estate, as mandated by
law. Aida is entitled to half of the estate of her father, being his only legitimate
child. The simulated contract of sale of the subject land is null and void.
Therefore, Aida cannot be deprived of her share in the estate through the
simulated contract.